Lots Of Food, Not Enough Aid

Anuradha Mittal and Karen Hansen-Kuhn

June 26, 2007

Anuradha Mittal is the Executive Director of the Oakland Institute . Karen Hansen-Kuhn is the Food and Hunger Policy Analyst at ActionAid U.S.A .

U.N. Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, Jean Zeigler, reported to the Human Rights Council this June that nearly 854 million people in the world—one in every six human beings—are gravely undernourished. This represents an increase of 12 million, from 842 million people last year.

The causes of hunger are many. These include war and conflict situations; recurring droughts caused by changing climatic patterns; declining public support for agricultural production, particularly for small-scale agriculture; trade liberalization that compels developing country farmers to compete with low-cost imported goods, undermining local production; and other economic and political factors.

The solutions to these problems are complex too, but really not out of the realm of possibility. We need better policies to address climate change. We need to support developing countries’ rights to protect their own markets to advance rural livelihoods and food security. We need a commitment to more, and more flexible resources for those programs and for the emergencies that arise from natural or man-made disasters. And, when all else fails, we need better food aid policies as a last resort to keep food crises from becoming human disasters.

Reforming that last resort should be a priority. The United States is the single largest provider of food aid. Our food aid programs, designed more than 50 years ago, when the U.S. had abundant food surpluses to dispose of, still requires most food aid to be purchased and bagged by U.S. agribusiness. The volumes of those purchases are really too small to change crop prices or help U.S. farmers in any concrete way.

The law also requires that 75 percent of U.S. food aid be shipped on U.S. vessels, even though this drives costs up and slows delivery times down. A recent report from the U.S. Government Accountability Office found that rising shipping and logistical costs have halved the amount of American food delivered to the hungry in Africa, Asia and Latin America over the past five years! What's more, this requirement delays delivery of emergency food aid by nearly five months. This system, when not properly managed, can also disrupt local markets.

Common sense would tell us that it would be better to purchase the food locally or regionally, near the source of food crises. This would be cheaper, faster, and could support longer-term efforts to address food crises and reduce poverty. Common sense, however, is not the same thing as the “political reality” asserted in various public and not-so public forums in Congress, insisting that if the current balance of interests supporting food aid isn’t maintained, funding for food crises will dry up.

A proposal to allow up to 25 percent of emergency food aid to be provided for local and regional purchase of food is being considered in Congress. This would enable food aid providers to purchase food in the same or neighboring countries and to deliver it quickly. Local or regional procurement would have the added benefits of encouraging local farmers to build up production levels and support regional economic development as well. While this would constitute a substantial change from current U.S. policy, these policies are not untested. The European Union procures a major share of its food aid—90 percent in 2004—in developing countries themselves. Canada increased local and regional purchases from 10 percent to 50 percent in 2005. The World Food Program also has extensive experience providing food aid this way with positive results.

This kind of innovation should not be held hostage by short-term politics. It’s hard to believe that most Americans will not support feeding hungry people if it doesn’t help special interests. This year, as the 2007 Farm Bill moves through the Congress, the U.S. might want to shake off the mantle of being the only nation not moving towards prioritizing local and regional purchases of food aid whenever possible.

What's more, rather than simply dumping food aid on crisis situations, the United States should work with local farmers in developing countries so they can provide for their own populations. More, not less, aid for rural development is necessary. Subsistence farmers—who make up 75 percent of the world’s poor—should be at the center of development policies. Policies that help affected countries develop their own agricultural sectors actually feed more people and decrease developing countries' dependence on aid programs in the long run. The 2007 Farm Bill cannot eliminate global hunger, but it could be a first step to reform our nation's policies to ensure the right of all human beings to live in dignity and free from hunger.