From Food Aid to Food Sovereignty

Chris Foster is a student at the University of Waterloo focusing on microbiology and international development. Chris has just completed a social media internship at World Accord , and contributes this piece as a guest blogger.

Food Aid or Food Sovereignty?

I was pleased to read about Joint USDA-CRS food assistance program in Guatemala. It is a partnership, with an on-the-ground agency that knows the challenges of food security in Guatemala. So far, so good. The project will purchase surplus food in Guatemala to provide food rations to families struggling with drought and food shortages. That is also good. However, it’s a stretch for the USDA to say it’s developing agricultural infrastructure, and promoting international food security.” It’s a food aid project providing beans, corn and flour to families in exchange for labour for road and school repairs, and for reforestation and construction initiatives. This would be fine if the goal were to convert farmers to into construction workers. How does help these families ensure future access to and control over their food supply?

In the past, many donor countries dumped their own excess grain as food aid. This type of help often flooded the local market in the receiving country, bankrupting local farmers and making everyone more dependent on food imports and food aid. It’s worth noting that the excess grain in rich countries is often subsidized, that for years this practice artificially held international food prices low, and that this hurt farmers in poor countries.

The USDA’s pilot project is a step forward, as long as the surplus food is bought from small farmers or cooperatives in Guatemala. From a development standpoint, to do otherwise is to miss an opportunity to help local farmers and stimulate the local economy.

To better understand what is going on in Guatemala right now, you must understand what these farmers are faced with year after year: inadequate access to land and agricultural inputs, and a market that historically undervalues their products. Together these factors contribute to an extremely low margin for error for families to whom agriculture is both a source of food and a source of income.

Another obstacle that Guatemala’s rural communities face: staple crops have shot up in price due to droughts and floods. Locally, this increase results from the drought afflicting that region, but international trends like higher fuel prices, climate change and market speculation are also responsible for putting adequate food out of reach of poor Guatemalans – not just the ones participating in this project.

Measuring Impact

If you did the math on the number of families USDA is reaching with the US $1.75 million they have allocated, it would look like this:

(Assuming, the 1.75 million is all used solely for the purchase of food – no admin costs, USDA staff oversight, Logistics, Evaluation of the program from outside source etc.)

Amt. Allocated for Aid
1,750,000

Amt. of Recipient Families
3000

Total Reach (people)
12,000

Amt. Allocated per Person – for 1 year
$145.83

International Poverty Line (per day)
$1.25

Allocation (per day)
$0.39

*Information/stats provided by Unicef.org

*All funds using US currency

US $1.75 million initially seems like a lot of money. It is not when measured from this standpoint. It is even less so given the scope of the crisis.

A Sustainable Approach

These funds could be used more effectively by allocating a portion to long-term activities directed at helping rural families begin to farm again. Specifically, consultations, access to inputs and technical accompaniment. That’s all great, but you’re probably asking yourself, what about the immediate need for food NOW? I agree, short-term access to food is very important, but it must be done in a manner that ensures the dignity of the communities and ensures that “beneficiaries” can achieve sustainable livelihoods in the long-term. Some of the features we have learned are important include:

1. Local consultations: What kind of intervention do the people receiving food aid want? Experience has taught us that unless local communities get to decide what type of assistance they need, and how to best deliver it, good intentions are ineffective or even harmful. In fact, the only way to ensure sustainability is to involve local people from the start, and to foster local ownership over the project. Sadly, this critical factor is too easily overlooked by agencies providing short-term aid.

2. Credit and inputs: These make it possible for farmers to access to land, seeds, fertilizers, irrigation systems, transportation and the other components critical to growing food and getting it to market.

3. Technical support & knowledge exchanges: Continuous training, ongoing advice and accompaniment from an expert or a seasoned farmer are critical to ensuring farmers recover successfully from a crisis, and that they become resilient in the face of future ones. Small-scale, inexpensive, and appropriate techniques to help poor farmers become less vulnerable to natural disasters abound. But expert support and monitoring is necessary. In places with low literacy rates, spaces where farmers can share learnings and validate best practices are also important to help farmers adopt sustainable farming techniques successfully.

I do feel that the work done by the USDA is a step in the right direction. But I can’t bring myself to give them a pat on the back. The political and military interference of past US governments is responsible for a good part of the strife and inequality in Guatemala. Is it too much to ask that they now provide the right kind of aid?

So for now, I guess small NGO’s like World Accord, will continue to work with local partners, repairing the harm that foreign Band-Aids do, and working with communities. They will do that at a fraction of the cost it takes wealthy agencies and governments. They will, because truthfully, they want to see communities in Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador and other countries, flourish with prosperity and independence for the long-term. They will do it because that is what they have learned through local communities themselves.