In 2007, despite growing hunger, food aid fell globally by 15%, the lowest level since 1961. This reflects the tendency of food aid to respond to international grain prices—and not to the food needs of the poor. When the price of cereals is low, Northern countries and transnational grain companies sell their commodities through food aid programs. When prices are high, they sell their grains on the global market. So, when people are less able to buy food, less food aid arrives. It provides US-based companies with dependable markets for the dumping of surplus food commodities when global grain prices are low.
In 2007, 99.3% of US food aid was in-kind (direct gifts of food.) Oxfam has been calling for an emphasis on the need for local commodity procurement. CARE, one of the three major NGO distributors of US food aid across the world, followed suit. Canada and Europe have shifted nearly all food aid resources away from in-kind distribution in favor of local procurement.
By law, 75% of food aid from the US must be purchased, processed, transported, and distributed by US companies. In 2002, just two US companies—ADM and Cargill—controlled 75% of the global grain trade, with US government contracts to manage and distribute 30% of food aid grains. Only four companies control 84% of the transport and delivery of food aid worldwide. Food aid functions as just another US agricultural subsidy. Hunger is big business. Food for Peace ends up looking a lot more like Food for Profit.
An anti-hunger coalition issued a joint statement saying: “Current regulations on the food aid program in the Farm Bill protect special interests at the expense of the hungry, and that more than a quarter of every dollar the U.S. spends on food aid goes to waste.”
For recipient countries food aid has a long history of displacing local production and the explicit expansion of markets abroad for US products. The effects of food aid are not limited only to local food production, processing, and distribution. It has also outcompeted national exporters, as in the case of Guyana and Jamaica. When US food aid rice poured in to Jamaica, Guyanese producers were unable to maintain a hold in the Jamaican rice market. This process shifts poverty from one country to another, effectively defeating the public premise of food aid. Food aid is perhaps most infamous for the practice of dumping, or disposing of surplus food commodities in vulnerable national markets. Food aid programs are some of the most effective, lowest-cost national security tools. By handicapping local food markets across the world, food aid keeps poor countries poor and compliant. Rice and wheat cost a lot less than bombs.
Taken from here
The alternative to food-in-kind, local and regional procurement of food aid, along with cash vouchers, could decrease US food aid costs by 50%, bolster the development of local food markets and long-term economies, and allow US food aid recipient countries to build their own assistance programs. Timi Gerson of the American Jewish World Service (AJWS) told IPS that a switch to local procurement “would be able to reach 17 million more people – so we’re only getting to about two-thirds of the people we could be.” When sourced locally versus when sourced in the US and shipped across oceans, cereals cost on average 54% less and pulses 24% less. Average delivery time was also reduced by 62% or about 14 weeks. For victims of natural disasters, this time window could be the difference between life and death.
In 2007, 99.3% of US food aid was in-kind (direct gifts of food.) Oxfam has been calling for an emphasis on the need for local commodity procurement. CARE, one of the three major NGO distributors of US food aid across the world, followed suit. Canada and Europe have shifted nearly all food aid resources away from in-kind distribution in favor of local procurement.
By law, 75% of food aid from the US must be purchased, processed, transported, and distributed by US companies. In 2002, just two US companies—ADM and Cargill—controlled 75% of the global grain trade, with US government contracts to manage and distribute 30% of food aid grains. Only four companies control 84% of the transport and delivery of food aid worldwide. Food aid functions as just another US agricultural subsidy. Hunger is big business. Food for Peace ends up looking a lot more like Food for Profit.
An anti-hunger coalition issued a joint statement saying: “Current regulations on the food aid program in the Farm Bill protect special interests at the expense of the hungry, and that more than a quarter of every dollar the U.S. spends on food aid goes to waste.”
For recipient countries food aid has a long history of displacing local production and the explicit expansion of markets abroad for US products. The effects of food aid are not limited only to local food production, processing, and distribution. It has also outcompeted national exporters, as in the case of Guyana and Jamaica. When US food aid rice poured in to Jamaica, Guyanese producers were unable to maintain a hold in the Jamaican rice market. This process shifts poverty from one country to another, effectively defeating the public premise of food aid. Food aid is perhaps most infamous for the practice of dumping, or disposing of surplus food commodities in vulnerable national markets. Food aid programs are some of the most effective, lowest-cost national security tools. By handicapping local food markets across the world, food aid keeps poor countries poor and compliant. Rice and wheat cost a lot less than bombs.
Taken from here
The alternative to food-in-kind, local and regional procurement of food aid, along with cash vouchers, could decrease US food aid costs by 50%, bolster the development of local food markets and long-term economies, and allow US food aid recipient countries to build their own assistance programs. Timi Gerson of the American Jewish World Service (AJWS) told IPS that a switch to local procurement “would be able to reach 17 million more people – so we’re only getting to about two-thirds of the people we could be.” When sourced locally versus when sourced in the US and shipped across oceans, cereals cost on average 54% less and pulses 24% less. Average delivery time was also reduced by 62% or about 14 weeks. For victims of natural disasters, this time window could be the difference between life and death.
No comments:
Post a Comment