Development organizations like MercyCorps have lately been switching gears toward relief operations because of the recent spike in food and commodities prices worldwide. MercyCorps reports:

In Niger, prices of bread, powdered milk and wheat flour have spiked, exacerbating the West African nation's precarious food situation. Currently about two-thirds of the population is at serious risk, with shortages pushing the country closer to famine.

In Syria, spiraling food prices have forced Mercy Corps to cut back on the amount of food we can buy and distribute to hundreds of Iraqi refugee families.

In Tajikistan, where we recently distributed blankets and generators to help residents keep warm during an unusually harsh winter, about 40 percent of households are down to no more than one warm meal a day. Neighboring Kazakhstan has suspended wheat exports -- shutting off Tajikistan's primary supply of the grain.

This is a shame; the spike in food prices will probably spur demand for relief deliveries from abroad to afflicted areas. That will depress local production and put rural producers in many poor countries further behind as they try to compete in local agricultural markets. The Economist expounds:

In the short run, humanitarian aid, social-protection programmes and trade policies will determine how well the world copes with these problems. But in the medium term the question is different: where does the world get more food from? If the extra supplies come mainly from large farmers in America, Europe and other big producers, then the new equilibrium may end up looking much like the old one, with world food depending on a small number of suppliers and--possibly--trade distortions and food dumping. So far, farmers in rich countries have indeed responded. America's winter wheat plantings are up 4% and the spring-sown area is likely to rise more. The Food and Agriculture Organisation forecasts that the wheat harvest in the European Union will rise 13%.

Ideally, a big part of the supply response would come from the world's 450m smallholders in developing countries, people who farm just a few acres. There are three reasons why this would be desirable. First, it would reduce poverty: three-quarters of those making do on $1 a day live in the countryside and depend on the health of smallholder farming. Next, it might help the environment: those smallholders manage a disproportionate share of the world's water and vegetation cover, so raising their productivity on existing land would be environmentally friendlier than cutting down the rainforest. And it should be efficient: in terms of returns on investment, it would be easier to boost grain yields in Africa from two tonnes per hectare to four than it would be to raise yields in Europe from eight tonnes to ten. The opportunities are greater and the law of diminishing returns has not set in.

Relief and development organizations, coops and ministers in affected countries should pay close attention to this advice. This is a chance to wean many countries from dependence on subsidized imports and make way toward local small-scale production that empowers communities and creates jobs.