In 2006 I was working on developing a new product line in a flour mill
owned by the largest American food company. Testing the system would produce at
least 200 metric tons of flour that would technically meet government
specifications for edibility, but would be unmarketable because of
contamination and variable quality. When presented with this information the
project manager just laughed, “We don’t throw anything away; Animals or
Africans.” My puzzled look elicited an explanation, “If it’s too bad it’ll go
to cattle feed; if it still tests as flour, it’s bagged for aid. We even get
paid for our trash!”
The
problems with traditional food aid start at the source and continue through to
the recipient. It provides a convenient dumping ground for surplus and
substandard food stocks, leads to long delays in aid arrival (up to 90 days for
U.S. sourced aid to reach the African interior), and distorts local economies
with a sudden influx of cheap or free staples driving local producers out of
the market. This last effect can make a region permanently dependent on foreign
assistance as the initial aid puts local farmers out of work, and first world
subsidies allow foods to be sold below market cost ensuring continued dependence
on the foreign product.
There is a
certain absurdity to buying a product on the US
The EU has
begun to respond by shifting aid towards cash grants, and the USDA has put $60
million towards the Local and Regional Procurement Project, a pilot program aimed
at exploring the process of local sourcing. The money spent on US
If these
USDA programs are serious about delivering aid, rather than providing another
subsidy to agribusiness, reforms must be made to shift priorities to a grant
system. This, along with the elimination of tariffs and other subsidies, could enhance
food security throughout the developing world, as well as providing
considerable development to the regions served in an efficient, market friendly
way.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/global-development/2012/jul/19/us-food-aid-special-interests-reform
http://www.fas.usda.gov/excredits/FoodAid/LRP/LRP.asp
http://www.oxfam.org/sites/www.oxfam.org/files/bp71_food_aid.pdf
you are invited to follow my blog
ReplyDeleteThis seems like a logical and feasible solution for toning down some of the hidden issues that are associated with aid. Many foreign governments including the US give a substantial amount of aid every year presumably at the expense of domestic issues and thus it would prudent to ensure that it’s benefiting its recipients as best and as efficiently as possible and that the (humanitarian) return on investment is as high as possible.
ReplyDeleteThe opening story appalled me very much, I cannot somebody would talk like that and do business like that. Its unbelievable that he would allow contaminated flour to be bagged for aid, not only is that unethical and immoral, but your are worsening the problem for Africans when they get sick and die from bad food products. This is why aid is ruining Africa and being counterproductive, I have known for so long that they give Africa the worst food and supplies we have left over which is so wrong. And because all of this is free or cheap, it hurts jobs in those countries along with bad food and products hurting the people. We might as well not even give aid even though that sounds bad to say our aid along with Chinese aid is selfish and destructive. I agree completely with ending message of your post, if the United States and the EU want to effectively and correctly give aid to African countries, let us just give them the money directly so they can purchase food in their own countries and not get half the money swindled away by hidden and unnecessary costs. Since a dollar is worth much more over in Africa than it is here in the US, we should be sending them the money because anything else we send them is not helpful and destructive.
ReplyDeleteFood aid is so sad to me because I think it's one of the few cases in Western aid where the intentions were just, for lack of a better term, good. There were posters of hungry people and the so the West wanted to feed them. But it's like we talked about how aid is so much more than it seems, food aid is harmful as it assumes we can solve the problem as the White Saviors, while failing to invest in solutions and removing African's agency. It's interesting though because we do this to Native Americans too, the food aid we give is absolutely disgusting.
ReplyDeleteFood aid is so sad to me because I think it's one of the few cases in Western aid where the intentions were just, for lack of a better term, good. There were posters of hungry people and the so the West wanted to feed them. But it's like we talked about how aid is so much more than it seems, food aid is harmful as it assumes we can solve the problem as the White Saviors, while failing to invest in solutions and removing African's agency. It's interesting though because we do this to Native Americans too, the food aid we give is absolutely disgusting.
ReplyDeleteThis post does a good job highlighting how aid has become a self-interest thing for corporations. As we discussed in class, aid takes away from the local economies of African countries. So why is it that we keep funneling money into buying western food and clothing aid and shipping it over? The main beneficiaries from this type of aid are the western corporations that get paid. There should be more of an emphasis on building local markets, like through the cash grants mentioned in this post.
ReplyDelete