Upload
others
View
1
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
P A C I F I C F O O D S Y S T E M O U T L O O K 2 0 0 1 – 2 0 0 2 a
P A C I F I C E C O N O M I C C O O P E R A T I O N C O U N C I L
P A C I F I C F O O D S Y S T E M O U T L O O K 2 0 0 3 - 2 0 0 4
WHEREDEMOGRAPHICSWILL TAKE THE FOOD SYSTEM
P A C I F I C E C O N O M I C C O O P E R A T I O N C O U N C I L
P A C I F I C F O O D S Y S T E M O U T L O O K 2 0 0 3 - 2 0 0 4
WHEREDEMOGRAPHICSWILL TAKE THE FOOD SYSTEM
ISBN: 0-9714610-0-7
Pacific Food System Outlook 2003-2004S P O N S O R S
The Pacific Food System Outlook extends thanks to its sponsors.For information about the activities of our sponsors see page 28.
P A C I F I C F O O D S Y S T E M O U T L O O K 2 0 0 3 – 2 0 0 4 1
Foreword 2
Coord inators and Forecast ing Pane l 4
Where Demograph ics Wi l l Take the Food System 6
Rapid Urban Population Growth 6
400 Million More People to Feed 10
A Graying Population: Declining Food Demand and a Tax on the Economy 14
Recommendations 18
References 24
Websites on Demographic Change 25
PECC Members 26
Sponsor Prof i l es 28
Pac i f i c Economic Cooperat ion Counc i l 30
CONTENTS
This report focuses on the role of demographic change in the region’s food system. The
population of the member-countries of the Pacific Economic Cooperation Council (PECC)
is becoming more urban, increasing in number and getting older. The region’s food system
must deliver food to an additional 400 million people by 2020. With the over-65 popula-
tion almost doubling to 370 million in 2020 from 200 million in 2000, food suppliers must adjust to
changing food demand patterns and food service requirements. For example, Japan is the number one net
importer of food and agricultural products in the world. Its rapidly aging population will begin to decline in
2007, resulting in lower total demand for food but increased demand for different kinds of food.
By 2005 more people in the region will live in urban areas than in rural areas, with growth in the urban
population more than double overall population growth. The region will face new challenges in supplying
food over greater distances to more densely populated urban areas, especially in the developing economies.
China is a case in point, with its urban population projected to grow by a staggering 300 million people
between now and 2020. Infrastructure improvements will be critical to providing the needed food.
Participants in the Pacific Food System Outlook Project also addressed the general food outlook for 2003-
04. The region’s food system is confronted by geopolitical uncertainties arising from the war in Iraq and the
Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS). While economic growth in the region is expected to be roughly
the same in 2003 as in 2002, expectations at the beginning of the year were more bullish than now. In con-
trast, the outlook for the U.S. economy is quite favorable. Low inflation and interest rates, significant tax
cuts, stepped-up government spending, and high productivity growth are fueling strong consumer confidence
and industry profits. The U.S. economy will act as the engine of growth for the region and its food system.
Agricultural commodity prices are showing some modest upward trend now, due both to greater
imports and weather-induced production shortfalls. In Australia, for example, last season’s grain yields
were off more than 50 percent. Detailed food system outlook profiles for each PECC economy will
2 P A C I F I C F O O D S Y S T E M O U T L O O K 2 0 0 3 – 2 0 0 4
FOREWORD
appear on the PECC website: http://www.pecc.org/food/.
Thanks are expressed to: Dr. Charles Morrison, President of the East-West Center; Dr. Robert
Retherford, Coordinator of the East-West Center’s Population and Health Studies Program; Penny Higa,
Program Officer at the East-West Center; Dr. Linda J. Cox, Community Economic Development
Specialist with the College of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources (CTAHR), University of Hawaii
at Manoa; and Dr. Catherine K. Chan-Halbrendt, Associate Dean and Associate Director for Research,
CTAHR, University of Hawaii at Manoa.
We are most grateful to the individual economists representing 13 economies in the region.
Recognition is given to the financial support of this project by Farm Foundation and USDA’s Economic
Research Service (ERS). We appreciate the work of William Coyle of ERS, who developed the meeting pro-
gram and this summary report, along with significant collaboration from Brad Gilmour of Agriculture and
Agrifood Canada. We acknowledge the contributions of Jim Blaylock, Praveen Dixit and Chris Dickens, all
of ERS; Mary Thompson of Farm Foundation; Elizabeth Mook; Joseph Yacinski and Carol Hardy of
Yacinski Design; and Liz Hughes of Beach Brothers Printing.
Thanks to the PECC member committees and the PECC International Secretariat for their continued
help in supporting and guiding this project.
Walter J. Armbruster
President, Farm Foundation
Chairman, Pacific Food System Outlook, PECC
October 2003
P A C I F I C F O O D S Y S T E M O U T L O O K 2 0 0 3 – 2 0 0 4 3
P A C I F I C F O O D S Y S T E M O U T L O O K 2 0 0 1 – 2 0 0 2
PECC COORDINATORS
Walter J. ArmbrusterChairman, Pacific Food System
Outlook and PresidentFarm Foundation [email protected]
William T. CoyleSenior Coordinator, Pacific Food
System OutlookSenior Economist, Market and
Trade Economics DivisionEconomic Research ServiceUS Department of [email protected]
AUSTRALIA
Terry ShealesChief Commodity Analyst Australian Bureau of Agricultural
and Resource Economics(ABARE)
CANADA
Brad Gilmour, Margaret Zafiriouand José Quiroga
Research and Analysis DirectorateAgriculture and Agrifood [email protected]
CHILE
Eugenia MuchnikProfessor, Catholic University
of ChileProgram Head, Agroindustrial
AreaFundación [email protected]
CHINA
Wen TiejunExecutive Secretary GeneralChina Society of Economic and
Structural Reform
HONG KONG, CHINA
Annie Wu Su QingManaging DirectorHong Kong Beijing Air Catering,
Ltd.Hong [email protected]
JAPAN
Keiji OhgaProfessorDepartment of Global
Agricultural SciencesGraduate School of Agricultural
and Life SciencesThe University of [email protected]@ybb.ne.jp
KOREA
Myong-Keun EorResearch FellowCenter for Agricultural PolicyKorea Rural Economic [email protected]
MALAYSIA
Mad Nasir ShamsudinProfessor/HeadDepartment of Agribusiness and
Information SystemsUniversiti Putra [email protected]
Jinap SelamatProfessor/Deputy DeanDepartment of Food ScienceUniversiti Putra [email protected]
4 P A C I F I C F O O D S Y S T E M O U T L O O K 2 0 0 3 – 2 0 0 4
COORDINATORS AND FORECASTING PANEL
MEXICO
Juan Manuel GalarzaDirector GeneralServicio de Informacion y
Estadistica Agroalimentaria yPesquera
Secretaria de Agricultura,Ganaderia, Desarrollo Rural,Pesca, y Alimentación(SAGARPA)
NEW ZEALAND
Mark WaltonSenior EconomistNew Zealand Institute of
Economic [email protected]
PERU
Luis JimenezProfessorUniversidad Nacional Agraria,
La MolinaLima [email protected]
THE PHILIPPINES
Salvador P. CateloDeanCollege of Economics and
ManagementUniversity of the Philippines
Los [email protected] or [email protected]
CHINESE TAIPEI
Ching-Cheng ChangResearch Fellow and Division
ChiefThe Institute of EconomicsAcademia [email protected]
THAILAND
Ruangrai TokrisnaAssociate ProfessorDepartment of Agricultural and
Resource EconomicsFaculty of Economics Kasetsart University, Bangkok [email protected]
UNITED STATES
Mark DenbalyChiefFood Markets BranchFood and Rural Economics
DivisionEconomic Research ServiceUS Department of [email protected]
P A C I F I C F O O D S Y S T E M O U T L O O K 2 0 0 3 – 2 0 0 4 5
he population inmember economiesof the Pacific Economic Coop-eration Council
(PECC) is projected to increase bymore than 400 million people inthe next two decades, a 16-percentincrease in the number of peopleto feed. This increase is equivalentto the combined populations ofboth Japan and the United States.While economic growth andprices are closely-monitored driv-ers of food demand, demographic
changes — urbanization, growthin populations and changes in theage structure of populations —are subject to less scrutiny, butmay have more profound long-term implications for the region’sfood system.
This report examines demo-graphic changes as projectedthrough 2020, assessing demandand supply implications for theregion’s food system. The infor-mation is based on individualeconomy reports from PECCmembers and discussions at athree-day conference inHonolulu, Hawaii, May 20-22,2003. Population data are drawnfrom the United Nations andfrom agencies responsible fortracking these data in membereconomies.
Demography is the study ofthe size, composition and spatial
distribution of human popula-tions; and the changes that occurin these phenomena through theprocess of fertility, mortality andmigration. Making connectionsbetween demographic change andfood demand and supply go back200 years to the days of Malthuswhen he asserted “the power ofpopulation is infinitely greaterthan the power in the earth toproduce subsistence for man.” Hispessimistic view about the earth’scapacity to produce food wastempered later in the second edi-
tion of “An Essay on the Principleof Populations,” when he recog-nized the important future role of“physical discovery” (Smil, pp.xxvii-xxviii), or technologicalchange in raising food supply.Indeed, human innovation hassteadily increased the “power inthe earth” to produce food. Thus,at least for the intermediate term,population growth and otherdemographic changes are morelikely to define food markets thansupply constraints.
This report addresses threemajor areas of concern for theagri-food system in the region:
■ Greater population concen-trations in urban areas;■ Variability in the size andgrowth of populations withinthe region; and■ Influences of aging popula-tions on food demand.
Rapid Urban Population GrowthThe most significant demographicchange in the PECC region in thenext two decades will be the rapidgrowth of urban populations.Some urban areas are already dis-tressingly large and confronted byproblems of poverty, pollution,and congestion. Urban growthwill test the efficiency and capacityof the region’s food system todeliver a continuous flow of safe,reasonably priced, fresh andprocessed foods.
PECC’s urban population isprojected to grow by more than590 million people between 2000and 2020, an increase of about 45percent, compared to the expectedoverall population growth of only16 percent. After 2005, theregion’s urban population will sur-pass the rural population for thefirst time (Figure 1). This rapidgrowth is explained by higherbirth rates, the migration of peo-ple from rural to urban areas, andimmigration.
Urban growth will be uneventhroughout the region (Figure 2).Definitions of “urban” vary acrossthe region; some urbanizationmay result solely from changesover time in the definition ofwhat constitutes an urban area.Urban growth is expected to bethe most rapid in China andSoutheast Asia; at intermediate
6 P A C I F I C F O O D S Y S T E M O U T L O O K 2 0 0 3 – 2 0 0 4
WHERE DEMOGRAPHICS WILL TAKE THE FOOD SYSTEM
Urban growth will test the efficiency and capacity of the region’s food
system to deliver a continuous flow of safe, reasonably priced, fresh and
processed foods.
T
P A C I F I C F O O D S Y S T E M O U T L O O K 2 0 0 3 – 2 0 0 4 7
F i g u r e 1 PECC’s Urban Population Will Soon Surpass its Rural Population
1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030
2
1.5
1
.5
0
BIL
LIO
N P
EO
PL
E
Source: UN
RURAL URBAN
F i g u r e 2 Distribution of Population Growth Uneven in PECC Region
-20 0 20 40 60 80
PERCENT CHANGE, 2020/2000
EAST ASIA
CHINA
LATIN AMERICA
S.E. ASIA
N. AMERICA/OCEANIA
PECC REGION
Source: FAOSTAT
TOTAL RURAL URBAN
rates in Latin America, NorthAmerica, and Oceania; and slow-est in East Asia. The urban popu-lations of Vietnam, Indonesia,Singapore, and the Philippines areprojected to grow more than 70percent. The expected 67%growth of China’s urban popula-tion is slower, but will add 300million people in the next 20years, a staggering number (Box1). The most subdued urbangrowth (less than 30 percent) willbe in the region’s developedeconomies, plus Russia and Chile.
While urban populations areincreasing, rural populations areexpected to shrink in practically allthe region’s economies. The excep-tions are Vietnam, Malaysia,Ecuador, Brunei, Thailand andMexico. South Korea will experi-ence a sizable decline of around 35percent; Japan and Chile will reg-ister declines of more than 15 per-cent. The largest absolute declinein rural population will occur inChina, where about 145 millionpeople are expected to migratefrom rural areas to urban centersbetween 2000 and 2020.
The region’s rapid rate ofurbanization is driven by techno-logical, social, cultural and eco-nomic changes. Improved efficien-cies in rural and farm enterprisesand greater opportunities for gain-ful employment in cities providethe underpinning of this shift.Urban development is aninevitable consequence of agricul-tural surpluses, economic special-ization, more efficient allocationof resources, and higher incomes.
Diets in urban areas are dis-tinct from those in rural areas.Much of this has to do with high-er incomes and the predictablesubstitution of animal products,fruits, and vegetables for more tra-ditional foods, including staple
8 P A C I F I C F O O D S Y S T E M O U T L O O K 2 0 0 3 – 2 0 0 4
BOX 1 : RURAL TO URBAN MIGRATIONAND URBANIZATION IN CHINA
China’s urban population is projected to increase from about450 million in 2000 to 750 million in 2020, an increase of300 million people. By 2015, China’s urban population will
surpass its rural population for the first time (Figure 5). Half of thisincrease will be “natural.” The other half will be through rural-to-urban migration. While the challenges posed by this demographicshift are staggering, this movement of people has already partiallybeen accomplished as China’s “floating” migrant population—esti-mated between 60 and 120 million—has one foot in the furrow andone foot in the city.1
China’s urbanization will have profound impacts on the econo-my. Overall agri-food productivity in China will rise as labor exitsagriculture. Furthermore, migrants help to ease credit constraintsin rural areas through remittances and by facilitating the flow ofinformation, technological change, and investment back to com-mercial undertakings in rural areas. A key question is whether suchproductivity gains in China’s agriculture can keep pace with theincreases in food demand associated with greater urbanization. It isclear that migration will lead to greater specialization in theChinese economy, more efficient allocation of resources, andincreased rural-urban trade.
In the past two decades, China has relaxed restrictions designedto control or limit rural-urban migration. The household registration(or hukou) system and the collective approach to rural land tenurehistorically hampered rural to urban migration. These systemsunderwent reform after the Household Responsibility System (HRS)was introduced between 1978 and 1984. China’s government hasbecome progressively more open in allowing individuals with ruralregistrations to reside in urban areas. Some speculate that thehukou system may be abolished within the next decade.
The HRS, along with the introduction of market-type incentives,spurred productivity gains in the agri-food sector in the early tomid-1980s. Initial productivity gains freed rural labor and resourcesfor other economic activities, giving rise to a boom in local townshipand village enterprises (TVEs) in the late 1980s and 1990s. China’sofficial statistics indicate that the number of rural workers with non-farm employment in local rural enterprises doubled from 67 millionin 1985 to 127 million in 1999.
The rural-urban shift has had a dramatic impact on food con-sumption patterns. On a per capita basis, China’s rural citizens con-sume almost three times as much grain per capita as urban resi-dents. However, urban residents consume more of almost everythingelse. This includes livestock, poultry, and fishery products, whichcontribute to an overall increase in grain demand. Greater access torefrigeration also affects consumption choices, allowing for the pur-chase of greater volumes of convenience foods, frozen foods, andperishable goods (Gale).
1 Official statistics still classify 60 to 70 percent of China’s population as “rural” and 30 to40 percent as “urban.” However, this may reflect official definitions rather than accuratelyrepresent China’s current circumstances. Once China’s migrant population and its relativedependency on both urban and rural income sources is considered, the rural-urban popula-tion split is likely to be closer to 50:50.
WHERE DEMOGRAPHICS WILL TAKE THE FOOD SYSTEM
cereals and roots and tubers(Figure 3). Urban residents in thePhilippines, for example, eat twiceas much “prestige foods” — meat,poultry, eggs, and dairy products— as do their rural counterpartswho eat more rice, corn, rootsand tubers, and vegetables. Dietsin urban areas are more diverse,both in terms of the kinds offoods consumed and their origins.Urban dwellers tend to eat awayfrom home more frequently, andhave a greater preference for con-venience foods. In developing andmiddle-income economies, accessto superior infrastructure and reli-able electricity facilitates the con-sumption of perishable commodi-ties that have sometimes traveledgreat distances.
Work and lifestyles in urbanareas tend to be more sedentarythan those in rural areas, leadingto lower per capita energy expen-diture and lower per capita
caloric requirements. Higherincomes, lower food prices, andthe urban consumer’s propensityto consume more food than justi-fied by one’s energy expendituretend to offset this.
People concentrated in urbanareas are dependent on a vast andcomplex food system, with supplychains spanning great distances,including overseas. This complexsystem provides greater opportu-nities for mishandling andspoilage. In addition to raisingfarm-level productivity, improvingfood system efficiency beyond thefarm gate is necessary to increaseavailable food supplies.
The competing urban claimon water and other resourcesimportant to food production rais-es farm sector costs, encouragingproducers to lower costs andincrease efficiency. Urbanencroachment on prime agricul-tural land may affect an economy’s
agricultural productivity by forc-ing producers onto more marginallands. As in the case of ChineseTaipei, a government may pro-mote greater efficiency by encour-aging farmers to enlarge opera-tions, providing assistance forolder farmers to retire with digni-ty, and providing training for ruralyouth contemplating farming asan occupation.
Marketing food products inthe Asia-Pacific region willincreasingly focus on densely pop-ulated urban centers, such as theHong Kong-Shenzen-Pearl RiverDelta area, Shanghai, Jakarta,Bangkok, Manila, Santiago-Valparaiso, and Lima-Callao.Many of these urban areas arecoastal and have modern portfacilities, making them moreaccessible to foreign suppliers(Figure 4). In some instances, for-eign suppliers are more competi-tive in these coastal urban markets
P A C I F I C F O O D S Y S T E M O U T L O O K 2 0 0 3 – 2 0 0 4 9
F i g u r e 3 Higher Per Capita Consumption of Animal Products Associated With Urbanization
Source: UN, FAO food balance sheets economy profiles; data are for 2000
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
URBAN SHARE OF POPULATION (%)
Thailand Vietnam
China
Indonesia
Malaysia
Philippines Ecuador
Brunei
Peru
Russia
MexicoColombia
United States
Canada
Japan
Korea
New Zealand
Chile
Australia
SH
AR
E O
F C
AL
OR
IES
FR
OM
AN
IMA
L P
RO
DU
CT
S (
%)
Chinese Taipei
than inland producers who con-front inadequate supply-chaininfrastructure and cost-raisingpolicies. Here are two examples:
■ High-quality grapes are pro-duced in Xinjiang (China’snorthwest), but shipping themthe 2000 miles to Guangzhou,China’s biggest fruit market, isa difficult challenge. It cantake longer to get Xinjiang’sgrapes to Guangzhou than thetwo weeks it takes forCalifornia grapes to arrivefrom more than three timesthe distance. China suffers adisadvantage because of inade-quate refrigeration and trans-portation services, road tollscharged by local governments
that inflate trucking costs, andthe lack of advanced technolo-gy to grade, clean and wax thefruit (John Pomfret and PhilipP. Pan, The Washington Post,Nov. 11, 2001). ■ In the Philippines, the costof moving corn from thegrowing areas of Mindanao tothe poultry growers locatednear metropolitan Manila isestimated at times to be higherthan the cost of importingcorn from Bangkok, Thailand.
400 Million More People to Feed
While the population in thePECC region will grow from 2.6billion in 2000 to 3.0 billion in2020, about 400 million addition-al people (Table 1), this growthwill be slower than the rest of the
world. The share of global popula-tion in PECC member economieswill decline from 43 percent in2000 to 40 percent in 2020, asregions outside the Pacific, prima-rily Africa and the Middle East,grow faster. Since the 1960s, pop-ulation growth in the world,including the PECC region, hasslowed. This is a shift from thegeometric growth of previousdecades. Now, net additions ofpeople to the global and theregion’s populations are decliningeach year; the global population isprojected to level off at about 9-10billion after 2050, with the PECCregion leveling off at about 3 bil-lion before it starts to decline inthe 2040’s (Figures 6 and 7).
Population growth in theregion will not be evenly distrib-uted (Figure 8). At around 160million people, the largest absoluteincrease in population by 2020will occur in China, followed byIndonesia and the United States atabout 60 million and 50 million,respectively. Starting in 2007,Japan’s population will actuallybegin to decline. The RussianFederation’s population is alreadyin decline.
Despite a declining rate ofgrowth in China, the absoluteincrease in its population relativeto other economies in the regionwill remain large for severaldecades. Around 2030, China’spopulation will begin to shrink aswill its East Asian neighbors —Korea in 2027, Chinese Taipei in2029, and Hong Kong, China, in2025. Surprisingly, the United
States will grow at a similar rate assome developing economiesbecause of immigration and thehigh fertility rate of recent immi-grants. In percentage terms, thelargest population increases willoccur in Singapore, Brunei,Malaysia, the Philippines,Ecuador, Peru, and Colombia,with each of these economies’populations expected to increaseby more than 30 percent between2000 and 2020.
While population growth inthe PECC region is slower thanthe rest of the world, immigrationis relatively more important. In2000, some 760,000 more peopleentered the region than left; anumber that is still small relative
to the annual 24.5 million naturalincrease in the region’s population.Within the region, however, thereis significant transmigration. Themost important destinations formigrants are the economies withhigher per capita income:Singapore, Hong Kong (China),Canada, New Zealand, Australia,Brunei, the United States, andRussia. Net migration to theUnited States alone exceeds onemillion people annually. Japandoesn’t fit into this categorybecause of strict immigration poli-cies that explain its homogeneouspopulation. The middle-incomeEast Asian economies of Koreaand Chinese Taipei follow a simi-lar pattern. As one would expect,emigration is most common inthe lower-income economies ofthe Philippines, Peru, Ecuador,Vietnam, Colombia, China,
10 P A C I F I C F O O D S Y S T E M O U T L O O K 2 0 0 3 – 2 0 0 4
WHERE DEMOGRAPHICS WILL TAKE THE FOOD SYSTEM
The region’s population is projected to increase by more than 400 million
people in the next two decades. This increase is equivalent to the current
population of Japan and the United States.
P A C I F I C F O O D S Y S T E M O U T L O O K 2 0 0 3 – 2 0 0 4 1 1
F i g u r e 4 Largest Urban Agglomerations in PECC
MIL
LIO
N P
EO
PL
E
Toky
oN
ew Y
ork
Se
ou
lM
exic
o C
ity
Osa
kaL
os
An
ge
les
Jak
arta
Man
ilaM
osc
owS
han
gh
aiC
hic
ago
Be
ijin
gL
ima
Was
h.-
Bal
t.B
og
ota
Ban
gko
kC
ho
ng
qin
gS
an F
ran
cisc
oH
on
g K
on
gTa
ipe
iP
hila
de
lph
iaB
ost
on
Det
roit
Tia
njin
Dal
las
St.
Pet
ers
bu
rgN
agoy
aS
anti
ago
Ho
ust
on
Toro
nto
Gu
ang
zho
uW
uh
anA
tlan
taH
arb
inS
he
ng
yan
gH
o C
hi
Min
h C
ity
Gu
adal
ajar
aS
ydn
eyM
iam
iF i g u r e 5 China’s Urban Population Will Surpass its
Rural Population by 2015
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
1,500
1,200
900
600
300
0
MIL
LIO
N P
EO
PL
E
Source: FAOSTAT
Source: Th. Brinkhoff: The Principal Agglomerations of the World. http://www.citypopulation.de, 12.11.2002
URBAN RURAL
1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020
Agglomerations include a central city and neighboring communities connected by continuous built-up areas and many commuters. Some agglomerations have more thanone central city. Agglomerations here are those with more than 4 million population.
Mexico and Indonesia, with netemigration from the latter threeequaling 200,000 to 300,000annually in recent years.
The Philippines also has sig-nificant emigration, with a totalof 7.4 million overseas workers.Although they are generally bettereducated and trained peoplewhose emigration represents adrain on the economy, theirremittances back to the economyare significant.
Ethnic changes in SoutheastAsia and Latin America result lessfrom migration and more fromthe intermarrying of native groupswithin an economy or region. Forexample, 60 percent of Mexico’spopulation is Mestizo, the result ofa mixing of white and nativeindigenous populations (Table 2).Another important ethnic phe-nomenon in the region is the roleof the Chinese Diaspora: about 30to 40 million Chinese who liveoutside of China, the majority inthe PECC region. The Diaspora’scontribution to population growthin the region is minor, but itsinfluence on business in a numberof economies and its investmentrole in China is disproportionateto its numbers.
Population growth will obvi-ously place demands on thePacific agri-food system; morepeople means increased food con-sumption. But the changing ratesand distribution of growth alsohave implications. Japan’s declin-ing population implies lower lev-els of food demand in this afflu-ent nation, which is a leading netimporter of food and agriculturalproducts. Russia’s declining popu-lation, when combined with itssocial and economic restructuring,could result in major changes inits role in international agri-foodmarkets. More rapid population
12 P A C I F I C F O O D S Y S T E M O U T L O O K 2 0 0 3 – 2 0 0 4
WHERE DEMOGRAPHICS WILL TAKE THE FOOD SYSTEM
T a b l e 1 Demograph ic Ind icators fo r the
NA – not available
* Ratio of young (0-14 years) and elderly (65 or over) to working population (15-64 years)
Source: UN (medium fertility scenario), FAOSTAT, Pacific Food System Outlook economy profiles
Economy 2000 2020 2000 2020Increase/decrease
Total population Urban population
(MILLIONS) (MILLIONS)
AUSTRALIA 19.2 22.4 3.2 17.4 21.4
BRUNEI 0.3 0.5 0.1 0.2 0.4
CANADA 30.8 35.4 4.6 24.2 29.4
CHILE 15.2 18.0 2.9 13.0 16.2
CHINA 1262.5 1424.1 161.6 456.4 764.2
COLOMBIA 39.7 52.2 12.5 29.8 43.2
ECUADOR 12.9 18.0 5.1 8.1 12.8
HONG KONG, CHINA 7.1 8.7 1.5 7.1 8.7
INDONESIA 224.1 287.9 63.8 91.9 168.2
JAPAN 126.9 124.1 -2.8 99.9 102.5
KOREA 47.3 51.5 4.3 38.7 46.0
MALAYSIA 23.3 34.4 11.1 13.4 23.6
MEXICO 99.9 124.7 24.7 74.3 98.8
NEW ZEALAND 3.9 4.5 0.6 3.3 4.0
PERU 27.0 35.6 8.6 19.7 28.2
PHILIPPINES 79.7 111.3 31.6 46.7 79.5
RUSSIA 146.0 139.0 -7.0 106.4 104.3
SINGAPORE 4.2 7.5 3.4 4.2 7.5
CHINESE TAIPEI 22.3 24.3 2.0 18.3 20.8
THAILAND 62.4 71.9 9.5 12.4 19.2
UNITED STATES 282.3 336.0 53.7 218.0 276.3
VIETNAM 78.5 99.9 21.4 18.9 34.7
PECC REGION 2615.5 3031.8 416.2 1322.3 1909.8
WORLD 6078.7 7516.5 1437.8 2872.2 4201.7
P A C I F I C F O O D S Y S T E M O U T L O O K 2 0 0 3 – 2 0 0 4 13
PECC Reg ion
Increase/decrease 2000 2020
Urban share2000 2020
Share of pop. 65 or older (%)
(PER 1,000 POP.) (NUMBER)
Net migration, 20002000 2020
Dependency ratio*2000 2020
Median age
(PERCENT) (YEAR) (RATIO) (PERCENT)
4.0 91 95 35 40 0.50 0.54 12.4 17.6 4.3 81,830.3
0.1 72 80 25 32 0.51 0.43 2.6 6.8 4.3 1,429.7
5.1 79 83 37 42 0.47 0.52 12.7 18.2 6.2 190,960.0
3.2 86 90 29 35 0.53 0.47 7.2 12.2 -0.7 -10,000.0
307.7 36 54 30 38 0.47 0.45 6.9 11.9 -0.2 -302,993.8
13.4 75 83 25 30 0.58 0.49 4.7 7.8 -0.3 -13,096.4
4.7 63 71 22 28 0.68 0.51 4.4 6.5 -0.6 -7,235.2
1.5 100 100 36 44 0.40 0.45 10.6 16.1 8.1 57,781.9
76.3 41 58 25 31 0.54 0.46 4.5 7.6 -0.2 -49,310.4
2.6 79 83 41 48 0.47 0.67 17.1 27.3 0.0 0.0
7.3 82 89 32 41 0.39 0.42 7.0 13.8 -0.4 -20,000
10.2 57 69 23 28 0.64 0.55 4.1 6.9 0.0 NA
24.4 74 79 23 30 0.63 0.50 5.0 8.3 -4.2 -423,690.5
0.7 86 88 34 40 0.53 0.53 11.8 17.2 -2.5 -9,760.0
8.6 73 79 23 29 0.65 0.49 4.7 7.3 -1.1 -29,714.3
32.8 59 71 21 26 0.69 0.54 3.7 5.7 -1.4 -108,446.4
-2.2 73 75 37 41 0.44 0.49 12.6 15.8 1.0 148,921.0
3.4 100 100 34 39 0.33 0.36 6.8 10.3 26.8 111,273.6
2.5 82 86 32 41 0.42 0.45 8.7 14.5 0.4 10,000
6.9 20 27 29 37 0.45 0.45 6.4 11.7 2.0 124,000
58.3 77 82 36 38 0.51 0.57 12.4 16.3 3.7 1,047,477.7
15.8 24 35 23 31 0.61 0.45 5.5 6.9 -0.5 -40,044.2
587.5 51 63 30 36 0.50 0.48 7.9 12.2 0.3 759,383
1329.5 47 56 27 31 0.58 0.52 6.9 9.5
and economic growth in develop-ing and middle-incomeeconomies will increase theirinfluence in the Pacific food sys-tem, altering production, con-sumption and trade patterns.
Immigration affects fooddemand in two ways. First, itimmediately raises aggregatedemand in the receiving economy.Since immigrants often have ahigher fertility rate than native res-idents, they can boost populationgrowth in subsequent years. In theUnited States, for example, immi-gration plus the higher fertility ofrecent immigrants accounted forabout 60 percent of the popula-tion growth in the 1990s. Second,the rise in the immigrant share ofa population can affect an econo-my’s food preferences. This isobserved in Australia (with a risingAsian share of its population),Canada (Asian), and the United
States (Hispanic and Asian). Thesechanges may be short-term innature, with ethnic dietary differ-ences becoming less pronouncedover time, as immigrant progenyadopt the food preferences of theirnew country, and as the newcountry’s cuisine is, in turn, affect-ed by the influence of successivewaves of new immigrants.
A Graying Population:Declining Food Demand anda Tax on the Economy
Between 2000 and 2020, averagelife expectancy in the PECC regionis expected to rise from 72 to 77years and the median age from 30to 36 years. The over-65 popula-tion will increase from 200 millionin 2000 to 370 million in 2020.Virtually all the economies in theregion have made the transitionfrom high to low birth and death
rates, leading to a projected 8 per-cent decline in the number ofyoung people between 2000 and2020, a modest 17 percent rise inthe share of the working popula-tion, and a very rapid rise ofalmost 80 percent in the numberof elderly. Japan is the most rapidlyaging economy in the region (Box2). This aging phenomenon is notunique to the PECC region, but ishappening more rapidly here andin Western Europe than in the restof the world.
The oldest PECC populationsare in East Asia and in the devel-oped economies of Australia,Canada, New Zealand and theUnited States. In these economiesthe demographic transition — thedecline in the fertility and mortali-ty rates — occurred several decadesago, driven by income growth,medical breakthroughs, healthcareinvestments, and public policy
14 P A C I F I C F O O D S Y S T E M O U T L O O K 2 0 0 3 – 2 0 0 4
F i g u r e 6 World and PECC Populations Leveling Off
1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
BIL
LIO
N P
EO
PL
E
Source: UN
WORLD PECC
10
8
6
4
2
0
WHERE DEMOGRAPHICS WILL TAKE THE FOOD SYSTEM
P A C I F I C F O O D S Y S T E M O U T L O O K 2 0 0 3 – 2 0 0 4 15
F i g u r e 7 Annual Additions to the PECC Population Declining
40
30
20
10
0
1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
MIL
LIO
N P
EO
PL
E
Source: UN
Sin
gap
ore
Bru
ne
i
Mal
aysi
a
Ph
ilip
pin
es
Ecu
ado
r
Pe
ru
Co
lom
bia
Ind
on
esia
Vie
tnam
Mex
ico
Ho
ng
Ko
ng
, Ch
ina
Un
ite
d S
tate
s
Ch
ile
New
Zea
lan
d
Can
ada
Au
stra
lia
Th
aila
nd
Ch
ina
Ch
ines
e T
aip
ei
Ko
rea
Jap
an
Ru
ssia
PE
CC
INC
RE
AS
E/D
EC
RE
AS
E (
MIL
LIO
NS
)
PE
RC
EN
T I
NC
RE
AS
E
F i g u r e 8 Population Growth Uneven, 2020 Compared With 2000
500
400
300
200
100
0
-100
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
-10
The most rapidly growing populations are pro-jected for low and middle-income economies.High growth rates in high-income Singapore andBrunei are explained by small populations andhigh rates of immigration.
Source: http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/ipc/idbsprd
16 P A C I F I C F O O D S Y S T E M O U T L O O K 2 0 0 3 – 2 0 0 4
T a b l e 2 Ethnic and Rel ig ious Composit ion of PECC Populat ions
AUSTRALIAEthnic GroupsEuropean (92%)Asian (7%)Aboriginal and other (1%)
ReligionsAnglican (26.1%)Roman Catholic (26%)Other Christian (24.3%)Non-Christian (11%)Other (12.6%)
BRUNEIEthnic GroupsMalay (67%)Chinese (15%)Indigenous (6%)Other (12%)
ReligionsMuslim (67%)Buddhism (13%)Christian (10%)Indigenous beliefs and
other (10%)
CANADAEthnic GroupsEuropean (66%)Amerindian (2%)Mixed (26%)Other (mainly Asian, African, and Arab) (6%)
ReligionsRoman Catholic (46%)Protestant (36%)Other (18%)
CHILEEthnic GroupsEuropean (69%)Mapuche (27%)Other (4%)
ReligionsRoman Catholic (89%)Other (11%)
CHINAEthnic GroupsHan (91%)Zhuang (8.1%)Other, including Tibetan
and Mongol (.9%)
ReligionsBuddhistConfucianistTaoistChristianMuslim
MALAYSIAEthnic GroupsMalay (58%)Chinese (24%)Indian (8%)Others (10%)
ReligionsMuslimBuddhistHinduChristian
MEXICOEthnic GroupsMestizo (60%)Amerindian (30%)White (9%)Other (1%)
ReligionsRoman Catholic (89%)Protestant (6%)Other (5%)
NEW ZEALANDEthnic GroupsEuropean and other (72.0%)Maori (15.0%)Asian (6.6%)Pacific Islander (6.4%)
ReligionsChristian (67%)Other or none (33%)
PERUEthnic GroupsAmerindian (45%)Mestizo (37%)White (15%)Other (3%)
ReligionsRoman Catholic (90%)Other (10%)
PHILIPPINESEthnic GroupsChristian Malay (91.5%)Muslim Malay (4%)Chinese (1.5%)Other (3%)
ReligionsRoman Catholic (83%)Protestant (9%)Muslim (5%)Other (3%)
RUSSIAEthnic GroupsRussian (81.5%)Tatar (3.8%)Ukranian (3.0%)Other (12.7%)
ReligionsRussian OrthodoxMuslim
COLOMBIAEthnic GroupsMestizo (58%)White (20%)Mulatto (14%)Black (4%)Black-Amerindian (3%)Amerindian (1%)
ReligionsRoman Catholic (90%)Other (10%)
ECUADOREthnic GroupsMestizo (65%)Amerindian (25%)Spanish and other (7%)Black (3%)
ReligionsRoman Catholic (95%)
HONG KONG, CHINAEthnic GroupsChinese (95%)Other (5%)
ReligionsEclectic mix of local
religions (90%)Christian (10%)
INDONESIAEthnic GroupsJavanese (45%)Sundanese (14%)Madurese (7.5%)Coastal Malays (7.5%)Other (26%)
ReligionsMuslim (88%)Christian (8%)Hindu (2%)Other (2%)
JAPANEthnic GroupsJapanese (99%)Other (1%)
ReligionsObservers of both
Shintoism and Buddhism(84%)
Other (16%)Christian (.7%)
KOREAEthnic GroupsKorean (almost 100%)Chinese (20,000)
ReligionsChristian (49%)Buddhist (47%)Other (4%)
CHINESE TAIPEIEthnic GroupsTaiwanese (84%)Mainland Chinese (14%)Aboriginal (2%)
ReligionsMix of Buddhist,
Confucianist, and Taoist(93%)
Christian (4.5%)Other (2.5%)
SINGAPOREEthnic GroupsChinese (76.7%)Malay (14.0%)Indian (7.9%)Others (1.4%)
ReligionsBuddhistMuslimChristianHindu
THAILANDEthnic GroupsThai (75%)Chinese (14%)Other (11%)
ReligionsBuddhist (95%)Muslim (3.8%)Christian (.5%)Hindu (.1%)Other (.6%)
USEthnic GroupsEuropean (71%)Hispanic (12%)African-American (12%)Asian-Pacific Islander (4%)American Indian (1%)
ReligionsProtestant (56%)Roman Catholic (28%)Jewish (2%)Other (4%)None (10%)
VIETNAMEthnic GroupsVietnamese (90%)Chinese (3%)Other (7%)
ReligionsBuddhistHoa HaoCao DaiChristianIndigenous beliefsMuslim
Sources: Nationmaster: http://www.nationmaster.com/country. Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporate Ltd: http://www.hsbc.com.hkPacfic Food System Outlook profiles
WHERE DEMOGRAPHICS WILL TAKE THE FOOD SYSTEM
P A C I F I C F O O D S Y S T E M O U T L O O K 2 0 0 3 – 2 0 0 4 17
(e.g., in the 1970s, China’s familyplanning policies, including latermarriage, greater spacing betweenchildren and fewer children[Goldstein, p. 7]). Increased femalelabor market participation in theseeconomies has also contributed tolower birthrates. On the otherhand, PECC member economieswith lower per capita income havemore youthful populations; theirtransition took place more recentlyand in some cases is not complete.The advantage of slower popula-tion growth is fewer dependentyoung people and a relatively largerproductive segment of the popula-tion. The declining dependency ofyoung people, however, will even-tually shift to greater dependency
of older people, as the workingsegment ages, becomes less pro-ductive and retires.
The changing age structure ofthe region’s population has directand indirect effects on fooddemand. One direct effect is lowerfood demand. All across theregion populations are gettingolder, with women outliving men.With an aging population, fooddemand declines as activity levelsand caloric needs decline.Women’s caloric needs are lowerthan men’s because of higher bodyfat levels (Figure 9).
A second direct effect ischange in dietary composition andthe nature of food service. Theeffects of population aging onconsumption data are already evi-dent. Consumption of livestockproducts is declining in the devel-oped PECC economies, whileconsumption of fruit and vegeta-
bles is increasing. An aging popu-lation generally prefers “quality” to“quantity” and a more healthydiet. Older people prefer conven-ience, smaller servings, and full-service restaurants.
According to a USDA study,older people consume food pre-pared at home more often than doyounger people, and eat more freshfruit, fish, eggs, lettuce, and non-fried potatoes (Lin et al., p. 23). AJapanese study concludes that thereare three influences on food con-sumption: the period effect inwhich income and price changesaffect all consumers at the sametime; the age effect where changesoccur as a person grows older; andthe cohort effect, reflecting eating
habits common to a particular agegroup. The analysis, limited bydata covering only at-home con-sumption, suggests that per capitameat consumption may decline asthe population ages because of thenegative cohort effect — the ten-dency for older Japanese to eat lessmeat because “eating habits maybe formed generally at a veryyoung age” (Mori, 317). Theopposite may be the case for freshfruit, rice and fish. Older Japaneseare clearly more likely to eat theirmid-day meal at home, which hasimplications for lunchtime foodservice. In Malaysia, consumptionof rice and wheat tends to increaseuntil the mid-40s, and declinesthereafter. The consumption ofmeat, fish and fruits, however,tends to increase until the mid-60s, and declines afterwards. Theaging of Chile’s population is lead-ing to smaller family sizes and
increased demand for ready-to-cook foods, frozen foods andmicrowave cooking.
The indirect effects of demo-graphic change are felt in the gen-eral economy. Changes in the rel-ative proportion of “economicallyactive” and “economicallydependent” components of a pop-ulation influence economicgrowth, which in turn, has directeffects on an economy’s fooddemand and supply.
A number of studies demon-strate the strong role demographyplayed in the economic miracles ofEast Asia and Southeast Asia(Krugman, pp. 62-78). Similaranalysis explains the recent strongeconomic performance of coun-
tries like Chile and Ireland. An indicator of change in the
relative proportions of “economi-cally active” and “economicallydependent” shares of a populationis the “dependency ratio.” This isthe ratio of the young (0 to 14)and elderly (65 and over) to theworking population (15 to 64). Inthe PECC region, the dependencyratios for less than half theeconomies — most high-incomeeconomies — are projected to riseover the next two decades (Figure10). On the other hand, thedependency ratios for the lowerincome economies are projected todecline, providing an opportunityto save and invest resources forother purposes than supportingdependents. This may give theseeconomies a “demographicbonus,” a short-term economicboost. Demographers are quick topoint out, however, that this
The oldest PECC populations are in East Asia and in the developed
economies of Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States.
18 P A C I F I C F O O D S Y S T E M O U T L O O K 2 0 0 3 – 2 0 0 4
“boost to development is notautomatic…because there is noguarantee that governments, insti-tutions, or individuals will spendthe savings wisely.” (East WestCenter, p. 7) On the other hand,in the richer economies when thedependent component of the pop-ulation is rising, labor shortagesand higher wages may eventuallygive impetus to capital-labor sub-stitution, and more highly produc-
tive workers who are better able tosupport the relatively largerdependent segment of the popula-tion. It may also lead to lessrestrictive immigration policies.
Age and family structure alsoaffects peoples’ propensity to saveand invest, which affects an econ-omy’s productive capacity. Recentacademic work suggests that pop-ulation aging in Australia, Canada,New Zealand and the United
States will reduce savings andinvestment rates over the next 20years, with spillover effects ongrowth and productivity.
Recent research also suggeststhat entrepreneurial and innova-tive behavior is highest before anindividual turns 40 years of age.Lipset and Meltz (1997) observethat the probability an individualwill favor performance over sen-iority declines progressively withage, dropping slowly but steadilybetween 18 and 34 years of age,leveling off between 35 and 54,and declining rapidly after age 55.
Recommendations
Powerful economic forces generat-ed by demographic changesrequire the close attention of foodsystem policymakers. Some demo-graphic changes — such as declin-ing fertility and mortality ratesand the aging of a population —take years to become clearly visi-ble. Others, like urbanization, mayhave more immediate impacts.Given these trends:
Policymakers and the food marketing system must adjust togreater concentrations of people in urban areas.Food system efficiency as well asfarm-level productivity, must be afundamental public policy goal.This is consistent with the AsiaPacific Economic CooperationForum’s (APEC) Open FoodSystem Initiative (Box 3). Publicand private investment in domesticfood system infrastructure andmore liberal food trade policies willbe essential to ensure cost- andoperation-efficient food systems.
Less centralized distributionsystems will play a more signifi-cant role in overcoming the highcost of traffic congestion and other
BOX 2: JAPAN’S POPULATION IS AGINGRAPIDLY AND WILL SOON BEGIN TO SHRINK
Japan’s population will begin to shrink in 2007, when itsdeath rate surpasses its birthrate (Figure 11). As the largestnet importer of food in the world, Japan will serve as a lab-
oratory for understanding the impact of declining population andother demographic changes on the food system. It is expected thatJapan’s aggregate food demand will gradually decline with fewerpeople to feed; per capita food demand will also decline with therapid aging of the population and a growing share of more seden-tary, less active people (Figure 12). Japan’s economic growth will beaffected by a declining savings rate, on the one hand, and risingdemand for capital to offset growing labor shortages, on the other.As a consequence, this historically capital-surplus economy couldsee that surplus diminish.
Demographic pressure affects the future of Japan’s agricultureand its approach to trade policy. Japan’s farm population is agingmore rapidly than the rest of its population and, as in many Westerneconomies, the distribution of farming enterprises is becomingmore polarized. There are fewer farms overall and the numbers ofboth very large farms and very small farms are increasing. This isexplained in part by the rapid aging of the farming population; peo-ple aged 65 or older account for more than 25 percent of the totalfarm household population and almost half of those “primarilyengaged in agricultural production.” As the farm population ages,the number of households raising livestock, growing fruit andengaging in greenhouse farming—all very labor intensive enterpris-es—will decline at a faster rate than other enterprises. For example,some vegetable farmers have stopped growing crops like watermel-ons and pumpkins because of the physical strength required to han-dle these commodities (Campbell).
In time, Japan’s agri-food system will face the options of (a) rely-ing more heavily on migrant and tenant workers from overseas; (b)increasing the rate of consolidation in land holdings and the substitu-tion of capital for labor; (c) altering the mix of production agricultureto reflect the capabilities of its farming workforce, thus remainingself reliant but with fewer food choices and nutritional options; and(d) becoming more open to trade liberalization.
WHERE DEMOGRAPHICS WILL TAKE THE FOOD SYSTEM
P A C I F I C F O O D S Y S T E M O U T L O O K 2 0 0 3 – 2 0 0 4 19
F i g u r e 9 Caloric Requirements* Decline With Age and Are Lower for Women
RA
TIO
OF
YO
UN
G A
ND
EL
DE
RLY
TO
WO
RK
ING
20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Ph
ilip
pin
es
Ecu
ado
r
Pe
ru
Mal
aysi
a
Mex
ico
Vie
tnam
Co
lom
bia
Ind
on
esia
Ch
ile
Bru
ne
i
New
Zea
lan
d
Ch
ina
Th
aila
nd
Un
ite
d S
tate
s
Au
stra
lia
Can
ada
Jap
an
Ru
ssia
Ch
ines
e T
aip
ei
Ho
ng
Ko
ng
Ko
rea
Sin
gap
ore
PE
CC
Re
gio
n
F i g u r e 1 0 PECC Dependency Ratios, 2000 and 2020
3,000
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
0
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
CA
LO
RIE
S P
ER
DA
Y
Source: Table 1
Source: http://www.hononline.com/howtocalyour.html. #TOTALCALORICREQUIREMENTS
2000 2020
(FOR PERSON 5’ 10,” 190 LBS; OR 1.77 M, 86.2 KGS)
A dependency ratio tells us the number of dependent members ofthe population per working member. The ratio .5 indicates thatthere is .5 dependent per worker or 1 dependent per 2 workers.
MALE
FEMALE
AGE
*Basal energy requirements — calories needed to maintain basic bodily functions but not daily physical activity
costs of doing business in denselypopulated cities.
The higher incomes andgreater food demand from urban-ization must be balanced againstmore sedentary lifestyles and lowerper capita caloric needs. Moreaffluent and health-conscious con-sumers will demand greater quali-ty, variety and convenience fromthe food system. Policymakersneed to anticipate the needs fortrained professionals to implementand monitor quality control sys-tems, like agri-food HACCP tech-nicians, crop and animal healthscientists, and other professionals.
The variability in the growth andcharacteristics of populations over thenext two decades has importantimplications for public policy, as wellas the food marketing and invest-ment strategies of the private sector.The most rapid growth—occur-ring in the developing markets ofSoutheast Asia and LatinAmerica—requires policies thatsupport domestic food productionor importation. The biggestabsolute growth—occurring in thethree most populous economies ofChina, Indonesia and the UnitedStates—requires policies to miti-gate rural-urban conflicts; to sup-port production, marketing andtrade; and to assure sustainabilityof the food system. Decliningpopulations—such as in Japan andRussia—will require changes inthe foods supplied, supported bychanges in domestic agriculturalpolicies and more flexibility intrade policies.
For the private sector, foodmarketing and investment strate-gies will, more than ever, requirecustomization for each country.Japan is currently the largest netimporter of food in the world, butits population is aging rapidly and
20 P A C I F I C F O O D S Y S T E M O U T L O O K 2 0 0 3 – 2 0 0 4
BOX 3 : APEC’S OPEN FOOD SYSTEM
APEC’s Open Food System (OFS) focuses on the impor-tance of both trade liberalization and rural developmentto agricultural economies throughout the region.
Endorsed by APEC in 1999, OFS was initially proposed in 1998 byAPEC’s business advisory council to tailor the economic preceptsof open regionalism to the specific dynamics of agriculture andthe food supply.
Central to OFS is the view that trade liberalization will provideconsumers with a lower cost, more secure food supply. OFS aspiresto optimize the gains from trade liberalization by developing ruralsectors throughout the region with government/private sector coop-eration. Key OFS objectives are:
TRADE LIBERALIZATION. OFS accepts APEC’s Bogor schedule forliberalization of tariffs and non-tariff measures — 2010 for devel-oped and 2020 for developing economies. It assumes that tradeimpediments in food products distort the allocation of land, water,labor, and capital resources in an era when efficient resource alloca-tion is urgently needed. For example, it makes little sense for aneconomy with scarce land and water resources to export land- andwater-intensive food products.
FOOD SECURITY. OFS requires assurances that restrictions onfood exports are not imposed except in dire circumstances. Ifmarkets are to be open, exporters must expect greater access toimport markets and, equally, importers must expect free accessto export supplies.
RURAL DEVELOPMENT. While trade liberalization tends to increaseagricultural productivity, thus stimulating output growth, it alsoreduces labor input required per unit of production. Economicopportunities must be created in rural areas to stem outmigrationto already densely populated cities in the region. More than halfof the world’s cities with populations greater than 10 million arelocated in APEC economies.
Creating economic opportunities in rural areas requires:
■ investment in infrastructure;
■ rural education and health care comparable to urban areas;
■ partnerships between government and private-sector agentsto attract investments into rural areas and thus create greateroff-farm employment opportunities;
■ realistic rural development plans that can be funded and exe-cuted by the private sector in conjunction with the WorldBank, Asian Development Bank and Inter-AmericanDevelopment Bank.
TECHNOLOGY DIFFUSION: OFS aims to cultivate a “food technologyculture,” facilitating the diffusion of useful recent developments infood production, storage, shipping, packaging and processing.Improved access to technology is expected to accelerate gains inproductivity through information technology and biotechnology,spurring growth in economies that are less developed and thus con-tributing to faster and more balanced economic growth across all ofthe region’s economies.
WHERE DEMOGRAPHICS WILL TAKE THE FOOD SYSTEM
P A C I F I C F O O D S Y S T E M O U T L O O K 2 0 0 3 – 2 0 0 4 21
F i g u r e 1 1 Japan’s Population Begins to Decline in 2007
1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
-5
-10
Source: UN
BIRTHS DEATHS ANNUAL CHANGE
F i g u r e 1 2 U.S. and Japan: Comparing Population Age Structures
20000000
40000000
1950 1975 2000 2025 2050 1950 1975 2000 2025 2050
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
100
80
60
40
20
0
MIL
LIO
N P
EO
PL
EN
UM
BE
R P
ER
10
00
PO
PU
LA
TIO
N
Source: UN
YOUNG WORKING AGE ELDERLY
UNITED STATES JAPAN
will soon decline. Investment andmarketing strategies must addressan overall reduction in food con-sumption and changes in the typesof foods consumers demand. TheUnited States, where immigrationis expected to result in rapid pop-ulation growth, strategies musttarget many more consumers, aswell as changes in the population’sethnic mix. The largest absolutegrowth in population across theregion will be in China. This,combined with rapid urbaniza-tion, requires a focus on marketlogistics in a densely-populatedarea and the changing preferencesof higher income consumers.
Aging populations will generatechanges in food demand that have significant implications for the food system.The aging of the region’s popula-tion will slowly lead to lower percapita food consumption and ashift in the composition of fooddemand. Changes in the composi-tion of food demand are likely toinclude more fresh fruits and veg-etables, less meat and less eatingout. This has important implica-tions for producers, processors,retailers and food service estab-lishments. Policy adjustmentsmust encourage and facilitateneeded changes.
Policymakers must work to mitigatethe adverse impacts that aging populations will have on economicgrowth, a leading driver of food demand.Responses may include: extendingthe working lives of people; raisingworker productivity so fewer peo-ple can support more retirees;reducing public obligations forpensions and health care services;relaxing controls on immigration;and adopting policies to encouragehigher fertility rates.
22 P A C I F I C F O O D S Y S T E M O U T L O O K 2 0 0 3 – 2 0 0 4
WHERE DEMOGRAPHICS WILL TAKE THE FOOD SYSTEM
Region’s Largest Cities
P A C I F I C F O O D S Y S T E M O U T L O O K 2 0 0 3 – 2 0 0 4 23
GLOSSARY OF TERMS
BASAL METABOLIC RATE (or BMR) is the number of calories a human being needs to maintain basic bodilyfunctions, such as heart beat, respiration and normal body temperature. The BMR does not account for the caloricrequirements for daily physical activity. (http://www.hononline.com/howtocalyour.html#TOTALCALORICREQUIRE-MENTS)
DEMOGRAPHIC BONUS is the potential economic boost from relatively faster growth in the productive/workingsegment of the population relative to the dependent segments.
DEMOGRAPHIC TRANSITION is a decline in the fertility and mortality rates of a population that occurs as aneconomy gets richer.
DEMOGRAPHY is the scientific study of the size, composition and spatial distribution of human populations; andthe changes that occur in these phenomena through the processes of fertility, mortality, and migration.
DEPENDENCY RATIO is the number of young and elderly relative to the number of working people in the population.
EMIGRATION is the process of leaving one country to take up permanent or semipermanent residence in another.
ETHNIC refers to a religious, racial, national, or cultural group.
FERTILITY RATE is calculated as the number of births per 1,000 people in a population.
IMMIGRATION is the process of entering one country from another to take up permanent or semipermanent residence
MORTALITY RATE is calculated as the number of deaths per 1,000 people in a population.
NET MIGRATION is the net effect of immigration and emigration on an area’s population in a given time period,expressed as an increase or decrease.
POPULATION MOMENTUM is the tendency of a population to continue to grow despite reaching a replacementfertility rate because of the growing number of child-bearing females.
RACE refers to a local geographic or global human population distinguished as a more or less distinct group bygenetically transmitted physical characteristics.
RATE OF NATURAL INCREASE is the rate at which a population is increasing (or decreasing) in a given year dueto a surplus (or deficit) of births over deaths, expressed as a percentage of the population.
URBANIZATION is the increase in the density of settlement and/or business and other activities of an area overtime. The process occurs as an expansion of the existing population, incoming migration, or a mixture of both.
A city population is dependent upon its “hinterlands” or foreign sources to supply it with food. Not until agri-culture developed could hinterlands provide food for their own populations and enough surplus to feed a city pop-ulation. And in agricultural societies the surplus was so small that only a tiny proportion of an entire populationcould live in cities. Up until very recently — about 200 years ago — that proportion was limited to about 5 percentof an entire population. (www.faculty.fairfield.edu/faculty/hodgson/Courses/so11/population/urbanization.htm)
ZERO POPULATION GROWTH is when a population is in equilibrium, with a growth rate of zero, achieved whenbirths plus immigration equal deaths plus emigration.
Sources: Most definitions are taken from Population Reference Bureau (www.prb.org)
APEC—Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation Forum
BMR—Basal Metabolic Rate
FAO—Food and Agricultural Organization
HAACP—Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points
HRS—Household Responsibility System
OFS—Open Food System
PECC—Pacific Economic Cooperation Council
TVE—Township and Village Enterprises
UN—United Nations
USDA—United States Department of Agriculture
ABBREVIATIONS USED IN THE PACIF IC FOOD SYSTEM OUTLOOK
24 P A C I F I C F O O D S Y S T E M O U T L O O K 2 0 0 3 – 2 0 0 4
Krugman, Paul (1994) “The Mythof Asia’s Miracle.” Foreign Affairs.Nov/Dec.
Lin, Biing-Hwann, JayachandranN. Variyam, Jane Allshouse, andJohn Cromartie (2003) Food andAgricultural CommodityConsumption in the United States:Looking Ahead to 2020.Agricultural Economic ReportNumber 820. Washington, DC:Economic Research Service,USDA, February.
Lipset, S.M. and N.M. Meltz(1997) “Canadian and AmericanAttitudes Toward Work andInstitutions.” Perspectives on Work- The IRRA’s 50th AniversaryMagazine. 1(3), pp. 14-19.
Little, Jane Sneddon and RobertK. Triest (2002) “The Impact ofDemographic Change on U.S.Labor Markets.” New EnglandEconomic Review. Federal ReserveBank of Boston, First Quarter.
Lohmar, B. (2001) “Changes inLabor, Land and Credit MarketsLead China’s Farmers on the Pathto Modernization.” China:Agriculture in Transition.Washington, DC: EconomicResearch Service, USDA. pp. 9-12.
Mason, A. (2001) “PopulationChange and EconomicDevelopment: What Have WeLearned from South-East Asia?”Working Paper 01-3. University ofHawaii, April.
Asia Pacific Migration ResearchNetwork (2002) Migration Issuesin the Asia Pacific, UNESCO.http://www.unesco.org/most/apmrn.htm.
Asia Pacific Migration ResearchNetwork (1997) Migration Issuesin the Asia Pacific, CountryChapters. UNESCO.http://www.unesco.org/most/apmrnwp1.htm.
Cai, Fang, et al. (1996) Study ofRural Labor Migration in theTransition Era. Chinese Academyof Social Sciences, ResearchReport. Beijing.
Cambell, Mike (1995) JapaneseAgriculture and CaliforniaOpportunities. College ofAgricultural and EnvironmentalSciences, University of Californiaat Davis.
The East-West Center (2002) The Future of Population in Asia.Population and Health StudiesProgram. Honolulu.
Foot, D. and D. Stoffman (2000)Boom Bust & Echo: Profiting fromthe Demographic Shift in the 21stCentury. Toronto: StoddartPublishing.
Forbes, K. J. (2000) “AReassessment of the RelationshipBetween Inequality and Growth.”American Economic Review. 90(4),k pp. 869-87.
Gale, F. (2003) “China’s GrowingAffluence: How Food Markets AreResponding.” Amber Waves.Washington, DC: EconomicResearch Service, USDA. 1(3), pp. 14-21.
Goldstein, Alice, ed. (1996)China: The Many Facets ofDemographic Change. Boulder,Colorado: Westview Press.
Gomez, R. and D. Foot (2003)“Age Structure, IncomeDistribution, and EconomicGrowth.” Canadian Public Policy.29, pp. s143-s143.
Hewitt, Paul S. (2002)“Depopulation and Aging inEurope and Japan: The HazardousTransition to a Labor ShortageEconomy.” Internationale Politikund Gesellschaft Online.International Politics and Society.1/2002.
Higgins, M (2002) “Demography,National Savings and InternationalCapital Flows.” Federal ReserveBank of New York.
Jackson, H. and C. Matier (2003)“Public Finance Implications ofPopulation Aging.” Department ofFinance Working Paper. 2003-03.Ottawa, Canada.
Kousnetzoff, N. (2002) “TheOutlook for World DemographicChange and Growth to the Year2030.” La Lettre Du CEPII.Centre d’Etudes Prospectives etd’Informations Internationales.No 208, January.
REFERENCES
P A C I F I C F O O D S Y S T E M O U T L O O K 2 0 0 3 – 2 0 0 4 25
Miles, D. (1996) “Demographicsand Saving: Can We Reconcile theEvidence?” Working Paper No.W97/6. Institute for FiscalStudies. London, UK.
Mori, Hiroshi, ed. (2001) Cohort Analysis of Japanese FoodConsumption—New and OldGenerations. Senshu UniversityPress.
Population Reference Bureau(2001) “Human Population:Fundamentals of Growth,Population Growth, andDistribution.” [http://prb.org]
WEBSITES ON DEMOGRAPHIC CHANGE
■ Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), Global Aging Initiative:http://www.csis.org/gai/pubs.htm
■ Country data; source of information on ethnic and religious composition of populations:http://www.nationmaster.com/countries.php
■ Global Aging Initiative Program, Center for Strategic and International Studies:http://www.csis.org/gai/pubs.htm
■ Japanese National Institute of Population and Social Security Research: http://www.ipss.go.jp/index-e.html
■ The Nutrition Transition Program, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill; analysis of changes in dietaryand physical activity patterns and nutritional status, and exploring their relationships with economic, social,demographic, and health factors. http://www.nutrans.org/index.html
■ Population Reference Bureau (www.prb.org)
■ Rand Corp.; Population and Aging Research Area: http://www.rand.org/pop_area/
■ U.S. Census: http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/world.html World population information
■ The World Gazetteer: provides information about current population of countries, their administrative divi-sions, cities and towns as well as images of the current national flags: http://www.world-gazetteer.com/home.htm
Sachs, Jeffrey (1997) “Nature,Nurture, and Growth,” TheEconomist. June 12.
Smil, Vaclav (2001) Feeding theWorld: A Challenge for the Twenty-First Century. Cambridge,Massachussetts: The MIT Press.
United Nations (2001) WorldPopulation Prospects. CD-ROM.
United States Bureau of theCensus (2003) International Data Base.
Williamson, J. and M. Higgins(1996) “Asian Savings, Investmentand Foreign Capital Dependence:The Role of Demography.”National Bureau of EconomicResearch (NBER) Working PaperNo. 5560. Harvard University.August.
Zhao, Yaohui (1998) “Leaving theCountryside: Rural to UrbanMigration Decisions.” WorkingPaper. China Center for EconomicResearch. Beijing University.December.
26 P A C I F I C F O O D S Y S T E M O U T L O O K 2 0 0 3 – 2 0 0 4
PACIFIC ECONOMIC COOPERATION COUNCILPacific Economic Cooperation
Council InternationalSecretariat
4 Nassim RoadSingapore 258372Tel: 65-6737 9822Fax: 65-6737 9824http://www.pecc.net
AUSTRALIAAustralian Pacific Economic
Cooperation Committee(AUSPECC)JG Crawford BuildingAustralian National UniversityCanberra ACT 0200AustraliaTel: 61-2-6125 0567Fax: 61-2-6125 0169http://sunsite.anu.edu.au/
auspecc/aust.html
BRUNEI DARUSSALAMBrunei Darussalam National
Committee for PacificEconomic Cooperation(BDCPEC)
Department of MultilateralEconomics
Ministry of Foreign AffairsBandar Seri Begawan BD 2710Brunei DarussalamTel: 673-2-261 177Fax: 673-2-261 620
CANADACanadian National Committee for
Pacific Economic Cooperation(CANCPEC)
Asia Pacific Foundation of Canada666-999 Canada PlaceVancouver, BC, V6C 3E1CanadaTel: 1-604-684-5986Fax: 1-604-681-1370http://www.asiapacific.ca/
CHILEChilean National Committee for
Pacific Economic Cooperation(CHILPEC)
Chile Pacific FoundationAv. Los Leones 382, Of. 701ProvidenciaSantiago, ChileTel: 56-2-334 3200Fax: 56-2-334 3201http://www.funpacifico.cl/ingles/
index.html
CHINAChina National Committee for
Pacific Economic Cooperation(CNCPEC)
China Institute of InternationalStudies
3 Toutiao TaijichangBeijingChina 100005Tel: 86-10- 8511 9648Fax: 86-10- 8511 9647http://www.pecc.net.cn/
COLOMBIAColombia National Committee
for Pacific EconomicCooperation (COLPECC)
Ministry of Foreign AffairsCalle 10 No. 5-51Santafe de BogotaColombiaTel: 57-1- 5667 140Fax: 57-1- 5667 145
ECUADOREcuadorian Committee for the
Pacific Economic CooperationCouncil (ECPECC)
Avenida 10 de Agosto y Carrion, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, QuitoEcuadorTel: 593-2-2501-197/2561-215
(ext. 253) Fax: 593-2-2566-176/2563-201
HONG KONG, CHINAHonk Kong Committee for
Pacific Economic Cooperation(HKCPEC)
Trade & Industry Department 17/F, Trade & Industry
Department Tower700 Nathan RoadKowloonHong Kong, ChinaTel: 852-2398-5305Fax: 852-2787-7799http://www.hkcpec.org/
INDONESIAIndonesia National Committee for
Pacific Economic Cooperation(INCPEC)
Centre for Strategic andInternational Studies (CSIS)
Jalan Tanah Abang III/23-27 Jakarta 10160IndonesiaFax: 62-21-386 5532Tel: 62-21-384 7517
JAPANJapan National Committee for
Pacific Economic Cooperation(JANCPEC)
The Japan Institute ofInternational Affairs (JIIA)
11F Kasumigaseki Building3-2-5 Kasumigaseki, ChiyodakuTokyo 100JapanTel: 81-3-3503 7744Fax: 81-3-3503 6707 http://www.jiia.or.jp/
KOREAKorea National Committee for
Pacific Economic Cooperation(KOPEC)
Korea Institute for InternationalEconomic Policy (KIEP)
300-4, Yeorngok-Dong, Seocho-Gu
Seoul 137-747KoreaTel: 82-2-3460 1242Fax: 82-3-3460 1244
PECC MEMBERS
MALAYSIAMalaysia National Committee for
PacificEconomic Cooperation
(MANCPEC)Institute of Strategic and
InternationalStudies (ISIS)No. 1 Pesiaran Sultan SalahuddinP.O. Box 12424 50778 Kuala
LumpurMalaysia Tel: 60-3-2693 9366Fax: 60-3-2693 9430
MEXICOMexico National Committee for
Pacific Economic Cooperation(MXCPEC)
Paseo de la Reforma No. 175 Piso 10, Col. Cuauhtemoc06500 Mexico, DFTel: 52-55- 5327 3001Fax: 52-55- 5327 3134
NEW ZEALANDNew Zealand National
Committee for PacificEconomic Cooperation(NZPECC)
c/o Statistics New ZealandPrivate Bag 92003AucklandNew ZealandTel: 64-9- 9209 132Fax: 64-9- 9209 055
PERUPeruvian National Committee for
Pacific Economic Cooperation(PERUPEC)
Ministry of Foreign AffairsJr. Lampa 545, 4th FloorLimaPeru Tel: 51-1-311 2570Fax: 51-1-311 2564
THE PHILIPPINESPhilippine Pacific Economic
CooperationCommittee (PPECC)c/o Philippine Foundation for
GlobalConcerns43/F, Philamlife Tower 8767 Paseo de RoxasMakati City, PhilippinesTel: 632-885 0924Fax: 632-845 4832
RUSSIARussia National Committee for
Pacific Economic Cooperation(RNCPEC)
19 Novy Arbat St., Office 2035103025 MoscowRussiaTel: 7-095- 244 9033Fax: 7-095- 244 3917
SINGAPORESingapore National Committee
for Pacific EconomicCooperation (SINCPEC)
School of Accountancy #07-12469 Bukit Timah Road
Singapore 259756Tel: 65-6822-0160Fax: 65-6822-0400
CHINESE TAIPEIChinese Taipei Pacific Economic
Cooperation Committee(CTPECC)
Taiwan Institute of EconomicResearch (TIER)
5F, 16-8, Tehwei Street TaipeiChinese TaipeiTel: 886-2-2586 5000Fax: 886-2-2594 6528 http://www.tier.org.tw/pecc/
ctpecc/index.htm
THAILANDThailand National Committee for
Pacific Economic Cooperation(TNCPEC)
Department of Economic AffairsMinistry of Foreign AffairsSri Ayudhya RoadBangkok 10400ThailandTel: 662-643-5248 Fax: 662-643-5247
UNITED STATESUnited States National
Committee forPacific Economic Cooperation
(USNCPEC)1819 L Street, Second FloorWashington, DC 20036USATel: 1-202-293-3995Fax: 1-202-293-1402http://www.pecc.org
P A C I F I C F O O D S Y S T E M O U T L O O K 2 0 0 3 – 2 0 0 4 27
28 P A C I F I C F O O D S Y S T E M O U T L O O K 2 0 0 3 – 2 0 0 4
Economic Research Servicehttp://www.ers.usda.govThe Economic Research Service(ERS) is the main source of eco-nomic information and research inthe US Department ofAgriculture. ERS economists andsocial scientists develop and dis-tribute a broad range of economicand other social science informa-tion and analysis to inform publicand private decision making onagriculture, food, environmental,and rural issues.
The ERS’s timely reports aredistributed to public and privatedecision makers to assist them inconducting business, formulatingpolicy, and learning about thefarm, rural, and food sectors. ERSpublications are available to thepublic and the news media inboth print and electronic form.
The agency ’s three divi-sions—Food and RuralEconomics, Market and Trade
Economics, and ResourceEconomics—conduct research,perform commodity market andpolicy analysis, and develop eco-nomic and statistical indicators.The executive and legislativebranches of the US federal govern-ment use ERS information to helpdevelop, administer, and evaluatefarm, food, rural, and resourcepolicies and programs.
In addition to research reportsand commodity analyses, ERSpublishes Amber Waves, a newmagazine covering the full rangeof the agency’s research and analy-sis, including the economics ofagriculture, food, rural America,trade and the environment.
Farm Foundationhttp://www.farmfoundation.orgFarm Foundation is a publiclysupported nonprofit organizationworking to improve the economicand social well-being of U.S. agri-culture, the food system and ruralpeople by helping private andpublic sector decision makersidentify and understand forcesthat will shape the future. Servingas a catalyst, Farm Foundation
partners with private and publicsector stakeholders, sponsoringconferences and workshops toexplore factors shaping the com-petitiveness of agriculture and thefood system; encouraging applica-tion of research results to increasehuman capital; promotinginformed dialogue on public issuesand policies; and building knowl-edge-based networks for U.S. agri-culture and rural people. FarmFoundation does not lobby, noradvocate positions. Its 70-year rep-utation for objectivity allows it tobring together diverse stakeholdersfor quality discussions on issuesand policies, providing a solidbasis for informed private andpublic-sector decisions.
SPONSOR PROFILES
The East-West Center http://www.EastWestCenter.org/The East-West Center is an inter-nationally recognized educationand research organization estab-lished by the U.S. Congress in1960 to strengthen understandingand relations between the UnitedStates and the countries of the AsiaPacific region. The Center carriesout its mission through programsof cooperative study, training andresearch. As a national and region-al resource, the Center offers aninterdisciplinary research program,dialogue and professional enrich-ment programs, and educationalprograms. Funding for the East-West Center comes from the U.S.government, international organi-zations, corporations, foundationsand Asia Pacific governments.
The College of TropicalAgriculture and HumanResources (CTAHR),University of Hawaiiwww.ctahr.hawaii.edu/ctahr2001The College of TropicalAgriculture and Human Resources(CTAHR) was established in1907, as the College of Agricultureand Mechanical Arts and became
the first college of the newlyfounded University of Hawaii in1920. As a land-grant college,CTAHR is charged with threebroad responsibilities: extensionprograms that provide outreachand non-formal education toHawaii’s industries and communi-ties; formal instruction of studentsthrough degree programs; andresearch that generates new knowl-edge about tropical crops, prod-ucts, environments and communi-ties. The vision of CTAHR is toactively help Hawaii diversify itseconomy, ensure a sustainableenvironment and strengthen itscommunities, with the aim ofbeing the premier resource fortropical agricultural systems andresource management in the Asia-Pacific region.
P A C I F I C F O O D S Y S T E M O U T L O O K 2 0 0 3 – 2 0 0 4 29
30 P A C I F I C F O O D S Y S T E M O U T L O O K 2 0 0 3 – 2 0 0 4
The Pacific Economic Cooperation Council (PECC) is an independent, policy-oriented organizationdevoted to promoting economic cooperation in the Pacific Rim. PECC brings together senior gov-ernment, academic, and business representatives from 22 economies to share perspectives and expert-ise in search of broad-based answers to economic problems in the Asia Pacific region.
Founded in 1980, PECC now comprises member committees from the economies of Australia; Brunei;Canada; Chile; China; Colombia; Ecuador; Hong Kong, China; Indonesia; Japan; Korea; Malaysia; Mexico;New Zealand; Peru; the Philippines; Russia; Singapore; Chinese Taipei; Thailand; the United States; andVietnam as well as the Pacific Island Nations. France (Pacific Territories) and Mongolia were admitted as asso-ciate members in April 1997 and April 2000, respectively. The Pacific Basin Economic Council (PBEC) andPacific Trade and Development Conference (PAFTAD) are institutional members of PECC.
PECC’s governing body is the Standing Committee, which meets twice a year and consists of the chairs ofPECC committees in each member economy. The day-to-day administrative and coordinating functions are car-ried out by an International Secretariat based in Singapore. Each member committee sends a high-level tripartitedelegation from government, business, and academia to the PECC General Meeting held every two years.
In addition, PECC establishes forums, task forces, projects and networks to concentrate on particular poli-cy areas. These groups meet periodically, organize seminars and workshops, conduct studies, and publish theirconclusions and recommendations for the benefit of the Pacific community. In 2001, PECC initiated forumson trade, finance, and community building. Task force topics include capital and financial markets, humanresource development, Pacific Island Nations IT, and sustainable cities. PECC also supports projects on food,minerals, energy, telecommunications, air transport and transportation and publishes annual editions of PacificEconomic Outlook and Pacific Food System Outlook.
At the regional level, PECC’s most important link with government is through APEC. PECC is the onlynongovernmental organization among the three official APEC observers. PECC representatives attend APECministerial meetings, senior officials meetings, and working group meetings. PECC also works with otherinternational organizations such as the World Trade Organization, the Organization for Economic Cooperationand Development, the Asian Development Bank, the World Bank, and United Nations’ agencies.
For more information, contact the PECC International Secretariat, 4 Nassim Road, Singapore 258372, Tel:65-6737 9823, Fax: 65-6737 9824, email: [email protected]
PACIFIC ECONOMIC COOPERATION COUNCIL
COVER PHOTO OF STREET TRAFFIC, YOGYAKARTA, JAVA, INDONESIA, COURTESY OF PHOTODISCINSIDE FRONT COVER PHOTO, COURTESY OF PHOTODISCINSIDE BACK PHOTO, COURTESY OF ROGER FOLEY ©2003
P A C I F I C F O O D S Y S T E M O U T L O O K 2 0 0 3 – 2 0 0 4 31
The Pacific Food System Outlook represents the first regionwide coordinated effort toprovide the outlook for the Pacific food system. The food system includes not just pro-duction agriculture, but also the whole complex of economic relationships and link-ages that tie the region’s food consumers to producers. The goal of the Pacific FoodSystem Outlook is to help increase knowledge about the diverse components of thisvital segment of the global economy.