Before 2008, declining food prices encourages MENA countries to increasingly rely on food imports. When food prices spiked in 2007-2008, many MENA countries tried to increase their self-sufficiency from local food production to reduce their volatility to global shocks [Christoforidou et al. 2022]. However, while all countries in the region are net importers but at different level, the MENA region remains globally one of the most food-import dependent regions in the world [Keulertz and Byiringiro 2022]. Politically unstable countries like Yemen and Palestine depend heavily on food imports, which represent more than one third of their total merchandise imports. This share is lower in other countries in the region, ranging from 23.9 per cent in Jordan to as low as 10.5 per cent in Tunisia. The MENA average share of food imports in total merchandise imports (13 per cent) is higher than the same share in low-and middle-income countries (9.4 per cent). At the same time, MENA’s share of food exports in total merchandise exports (3.8 per cent) is significantly lower than the same share for low-and middle-income countries (10.4 per cent). The comparison of both shares gives a preliminary idea of the MENA economies relatively modest food exports performance compared to their growing needs to import food.

Figure 4 depicts the correlation between tariffs on agriculture and food security in MENA countries. Using data from FAO and the World Development Indicators, our findings suggest a positive association between tariffs and the prevalence of moderate and/or severe food insecurity. Indeed, tariffs are harmful to food security as they raise the price of imported food, making it less affordable. The consequences of restrictive trade policies on national welfare extend beyond typical price and quantity effects. Trade restrictions, such as tariffs, provide artificial protection to domestic food suppliers, and result into a domestic food price-quantity (and quality) combination that is worse than that under free trade. On the one hand, domestic resources are allocated inefficiently towards the production of specific food varieties that ¶{p. 153}enjoy protection, while in the case of trade liberalization, these resources could be more efficiently used in other sub-sectors. On the other hand, consumers see their welfare reduced as they must spend a larger sum on food that could have been imported at cheaper prices. Hence, the real income of consumers declines.

Second, tariffs reduce the quantity of food imports, hence affect the availability and the variety of food in the domestic market, which has potentially negative implications on the quantity and nutritional content and can have severe health implications. Moreover, restrictions on the imports of food increases domestic food price volatility, should any local shocks take place.

Third, tariffs can have an adverse impact on the imports of seeds, inputs, and equipment used in agriculture. This undermines productive capacities and potential for innovation in crops and farming techniques and reduces the available quantities and varieties, with potentially dangerous implications for food security.

Tariffs are not the only trade policy tools that could be used to restrict imports. Globally, tariffs were substantially reduced over the past three decades. However, non-tariff measures (NTMs) are an alternative tool often excessively used by authorities to protect the domestic market from foreign competition. NTMs have more adverse effects on food security, given that these are substantially costly, compared to tariffs. NTMs include all policy measures (excluding tariffs and tariff-rate quotas) that can have an impact on international trade, such as sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) measures, technical barriers to trade (TBT), quotas, and import licensing. SPS measures are designed to protect human, plant, and animal health against potential risks contained in imported food (such as bacterial contamination or excessive pesticides). TBT are measures that relate to mandatory and voluntary technical regulations and standards that imports should comply with (such as size, shape, labeling, packaging, etc.).

Figure 5 illustrates the ad-valorem equivalents of TBT and SPS measures imposed on imports by some countries in the MENA region. The ad-valorem equivalent of NTMs is the estimated impact on the price of imports that is equivalent to ¶{p. 155}a tariff. For TBT, the highest ad-valorem equivalent is found in Lebanon (equivalent to a tariff rate of 85 per cent). Such a figure is chiefly due to certification and testing requirements that are imposed on vegetable, animal and food products. This is higher than the world average, which is currently at 66.7 per cent. Other countries such as Jordan, Oman, and Morocco also impose relatively costly NTMs that are equivalent to over 50 per cent tariff rate. Interestingly, the ad-valorem equivalent of TBT in Qatar is negative (–42.1 per cent), meaning that the country subsidizes imports by nearly 42 per cent of their price.

As for SPS measures, the world average of the ad-valorem equivalent stands currently at 45.9 per cent. Out of 12 MENA countries, 7 countries have a higher-than-average ad-valorem equivalent. These include some of the most food insecure countries in the region, such as Lebanon, Jordan, and Morocco.