World Food Aid Its the year 2002, Kalabo district, Zambia.

A famished child waits for food which it knows might not come. Two years of erratic rainfall have seen the Western provinces of Zambia in severe drought. The crops have failed. The people are dying. With over 2.9 million people needing food, the President of Zambia, Levy Mwanawasa declares food crisis in Western provinces. In response to the food crisis, the World Food Program (WFP) of the United Nations offered Zambia food aid in the form of corn. Most of the corn was supplied by the United States due to its surplus production; this corn was produced using Genetically Engineered seeds. The WFP only informed the Zambian government that some of the corn was genetically engineered (GE) after it was already in the country. Three institutions the National Science and Technology Council, the National Institute for Scientific and Industrial Research, and the Soils and Crop Research Branch of the Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives independently advised their respective Government Ministries against the acceptance of the GE food aid. The government advised the WFP not to distribute the GE food aid until further notice. Now, with a food crisis which had over 2.9 million people in need of food, why did the Zambian government reject food aid? The answer to that is simple. The Zambian provinces were in need of food, but with just one province severely suffering, the overwhelming help in the form of food by the United Nations was unnecessary; also with the European ban on GE foods, Zambia too felt the need to ban its spread. They felt that GE foods might have adverse effects on its people, people unused to consuming processed food.

The way the food aid program in various rich countries is structured may be of concern. With the surplus production of grain and a need to get rid of it, the philanthropic option of food aid naturally comes to mind. Countries like the United States send vast amounts of GE crops as food aid to countries they deem need help. This food is meant to help the country come out of its crisis, but does that really happen?

Food given as aid is more detrimental to the economy than it is a boon to it. With vast amounts of food, more than that is required, in the market the food available locally (for a price) loses its value. This affects the farmers by their being unable to earn any money. These result in the fall in quality and/or quantity of grain produced the following years. The country itself becomes dependent. It then requires aid to come out of a series of debts. Debts result in unrest and unhappiness, people revolting and a very unstable government. Such a country cannot progress. This is where aid in the form of money comes into the picture.

Money as aid, when used judiciously can do wonders to the economy of the country in crisis. It can buy whatever materials it needs locally thus reducing international transportation costs. The excess money can be used in restoring the countrys economy and aiding its development. Also, a food crisis doesnt necessarily mean a lack of food. As Amartya Sen puts it in his groundbreaking study of famine, Poverty and Famines: An Essay on Entitlement and Deprivation : Starvation is the characteristic of some people not having enough food to eat. It is not the characteristic of there being not enough food to eat.

While food aid is welcome, money is much more appreciated. It is, however, hard to see an end in the trend of sending food as aid in times of crisis because most of the time it is more beneficial to the country giving it (for example, American legislation requires that food aid be bought in the US, that 50 percent of commodities be processed and packed in the US before shipment, and that 75 percent of food aid managed by USAID and 50 percent of the food aid managed by the US Department of Agriculture be transported in flag-carrying US-registered vessels. The result is that only 40% of money spent on food aid by the US actually goes towards buying food; the rest goes to US transport companies.)

In conclusion, food aid, being a philanthropic act ought not to be used as a way of commercialism by the country giving the aid but should rather be solely for the benefit of the country in crisis. Money is a useful subsidiary for food aid and ought to be used when possible. Officiating the distribution of the money can ensure proper use of that resource and ensure the country getting out of its state of crisis and being able to support itself and develop, which is after all, the main aim of aid.

Bibliography

http://www.globalissues.org/article/748/food-aid

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/extra/features/july-dec02/zambia.html