Dear All,
The following info was recently posted to the Ausfem Polnet list regarding
the hunger site.
Cheers
Janet Rice
-----Original Message-----
From: Alice Campbell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thursday, 21 October 1999 23:14
Subject: AFPN: Corporate Hunger: Long
Dear all,
The World Food Program (WFP) "Hunger Site" has reappeared in numerous
forums over the past few months and - particularly given current
discussions around WTO - it is probably not untimely to present a different
opinion about who this sort of initiative really serves. Below is a
summation of discussions I have had with numerous people over the past 9
months or so since the hunger site appeared. Please forgive such a long
posting - and I certainly do not mean to imply that those who distribute
the notice about the hunger site have anything less than good intentions -
my "excuse" is I have spent the past nine months travelling back & forth
from Bangladesh, Indonesia & Timor where these sorts of programs are having
devastating effects of women's livelihoods and, as currently implemented at
least, really only serve to perpetuate the corporate agenda. I hope this
offers a different perspective. Please also forgive any typos...:0) and do
contact me privately if you would like any specific references.
Alice.
*****
The most recent comprehensive, independent study on Food Aid Policy (Clay,
Pillai & Benson 1998, Overseas Development Institute) highlighted in some
very limited cases (<5%) staple food donations (such as that being promoted
by WFP on the Hunger Site) do save lives. But even then, the distribution
and monitoring mechanisms have to be gender-specific and socioeconomically
targeted, and only one part of an overall strategy if it is to have any
more than a negligible impact.
If food donations are given outside situations of complete market collapse,
the donations are likely to actively and dramatically undermine food
security unless also coupled with basic public health measures - and in
these situations Clay et. al. found the usefulness of food aid to be
negligible. Two notable case examples of this include Kinfu (1999) who
found food donations had no impact whatsoever on diminishing hunger in
women and children in war-torn Ethiopia, and major influences on nutrition
instead included public health conditions (water, sanitation etc), number
of children under 5 years old (i.e. fertility/ breastfeeding) and the
availability of local foods.
The second is a recent study by Dr. Peter Aaby whose analysis (BMJ, 319,
1999) of food aid efficacy in a recent disaster in Guinea-Bissau. This is a
particularly interesting study as it *does* qualify as one of the <5%
situations where some food aid was probably warranted. Interestingly,
however, Aaby also found factors such as public health conditions,
overcrowding and mass population shifting had a much greater impact on
alleviating hunger.
Bravely, Aaby also highlights that WFP had no idea where most of the
refugees were in Guinea-Bissau and distributed food where it was most
convenient for them - as opposed to where the real need might have been.
Most of the people who suffer as a direct result of food aid are women. The
majority of food donations are either worthless (as in the case of wheat
dumping) or sent with a clear intention of "creating new markets" - and
often a combination of both. Local food production (small & collective
farms, market gardens, household gardens, etc) are often the only safeguard
against malnutrition in times of crises and situations of poverty.
Obviously these foods directly feed families and communities, but as
highlighted by a colleague, having even only a few yams to sell can also be
an essential measure in situations of extreme poverty. When food aid floods
the market it often undermines the production and movement of local foods.
It can alter the entire food patterns in communities and cultures - i.e. it
creates dependencies on imported products (e.g. the case of tinned tuna in
PNG fishing villages, and wheat in Bangladesh).
Even in the recent Balkans crisis, there was a considerable quantity of
local foods available. WHO data suggests some food aid was probably needed
for some specific groups of refugees at a specific point in time. However,
food and medicine donations flooded the camps. WHO had to put up a website
asking companies to *stop* sending aid products. In particular as much as
50% of the medicines sent were out of date, much food was downright
dangerous, or the products were un-needed (as in the several tonnes of
Chapstick which were sent - but according to the company rep: "If there's
one thing a refugee needs, its chapstick"). The most shameful were those
companies who refused to send needed products unless aid agencies also
accepted the un-needed products (esp. tonnes of expired medicines). Some
(but not many) aid agencies overcame these problems by purchasing the
products they needed at cost and wholesale prices.
There is I think a common perception that hunger is determined by a "lack
of food" which can be alleviated by giving it. Before "clicking" on the
Hunger Site we might do well to remember that in most (95%+) cases, hunger
along with access to basic public health & education resources - is much
more significantly related to the inequitable distribution of these &
economic resources at household, community, national & international levels
rather than any lack of quantity per se. Therefore, to alleviate hunger the
challenge lies a radical redistribution of resources & their consumption.
To evaluate how effective the "hunger site" might be in achieving this, ask
this: where will most of the money donated by the corporate sponsors go?
Answer: to other multinational (food) companies and the (usually) highly
paid, imported consultants employed by the multilateral agencies who earn
more in one day than most Third World women earn in a year.
And of course I have no need to say on this list, the presence of a
multilateral agency - such as the WFP, UNDP, World Bank, UNICEF etc. does
not automatically imply that the program is appropriate.
A brief herstory revision:
Larry Summers, Deputy Secretary of the US Treasury and the former Chief
Economist of the World Bank currently represents the US at most sustainable
development forums (incl. WFP and FAO). This is the same man famous for
advocating "the shipping of more toxic wastes to low income countries
because people there die early anyway and they have less income earning
potential so their lives are less valuable" (Korten 1997). UNDP now of
course accepts corporate $$$ from Rio Tinto, a range of nuclear power
companies, and other industry profit machines. And UNICEF has just entered
into a "Humanitarian Forum" with Nestle, and co-chaired by a gas company
whose human rights record in Burma and other places is undoubtedly amongst
the worst in the world (forced labour, massive land displacement of
Indigenous peoples and farmers, etc).
In the early 80's WFP was found to be dispensing powdered milk products
(food aid) to Indonesian women for their babies packed in plastic bands,
sealed with a rubber band and with no labelling or instructions provided.
This was seen as a cheap and effective way of getting women into the health
clinics (even though the side effects of formula feeding on child health,
women's health and fertility were well known by this stage, and breached
the already-established WHO regulations). In 1999, WFP seems to have
progressed no further. In conjunction with UNICEF they are currently
running food aid programs in Indonesia using exactly the same distribution
mechamism (health clinics) in which women must *pay* cash for food *aid*
(mostly wheat and other non-local foods). UNICEF is working to make these
food aid products commercially available in the "hope they will remain
affordable". Of course, if they do remain affordable a willing market has
already been created through the food aid program (only those with a high
status can afford the food as "aid" and so it becomes "desirable"). If the
foods don't remain affordable a continuing market is ensured through the
ongoing "need" for food aid. The former might not be such an issue if it
did not result in population shifts of land-holders as they are displaced
from their lands, or diminished the income-earning capacity of women.
WFP and UNICEF also endorse the former Premier Kennett's Indonesian food
aid program - even despite UNICEF claiming that consumption of the food is
"dangerous" (their words). Indeed, a recent Independent delegation to
Indonesia (1998 Food Security & Fair Trade Council) found that much of what
had been called food "aid" was in fact food dumping of inferior and
un-needed products explicitly intended to create new market dependencies
and often with full cooperation and encouragement from Governments and
Multilateral agencies. And to top it off, WFP's own evaluation of their own
programs (1993) found that they were largely ineffective, cumbersome and
inherently fraught with community-level problems...which the EU later
(1996) described as including discrimination against the poor (read:
women), and distribution more likely to favour military and public service
officers.
--
Leftlink - Australia's Broad Left Mailing List
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.alexia.net.au/~www/mhutton/index.html
Sponsored by Melbourne's New International Bookshop
Subscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Body=subscribe%20leftlink
Unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Body=unsubscribe%20leftlink
