Food aid what kind of food

Food assistance: cash and in-kind. Show more. Food assistance: a step to peace and stability Exploring the link between conflict and hunger, and between food assistance and peace. In focus. Cash and Vouchers Manual. Making cash nutritious in Kenya. Furthermore, Ten years after the official dissociation between food aid and surpluses, the EU food aid remains under the influence of trade interests. Given such constraints, Mousseau concludes, developing countries currently do not have equal access to trade opportunities and this limits their ability to benefit from food aid purchases.

The promotion of local and triangular purchases is certainly desirable and must be encouraged. However, it is unlikely to benefit the poorest countries and their small-scale farmers if it is not part of a broader policy aimed at supporting small-scale agriculture in these countries. The other major reason Mousseau is cautious about the benefits of local purchases is the dominance of large multinational agribusinesses:.

Such large companies often go directly to farmers, so those with sufficient capabilities and resources win out. Larger enterprises benefit in both respects , Mousseau quotes the FAO as saying. Structural adjustments have been implemented in most developing countries over the past two decades. They have generally led to the elimination of public intervention in the agricultural sector, including state-led institutions such as marketing boards, which in the past supported small-scale farmers through credit, inputs and facilitation of market access.

Structural adjustments have also encouraged the concentration of agricultural trade and production, which excludes small-scale farmers from business and growth. Mousseau makes an interesting observation about US food aid policies still being used as a political tool, but unlike during the Cold War when it was used to support friendly regimes, it is now used against rogue states in the War on Terror.

For example, shipments of food aid to Afghanistan and Iraq before the invasions skyrocketed and was part of a media propaganda effort both domestically to US audiences as well as to foster support within those countries. Shortly after the invasions were over and such media attention diverted, such aid fell again:. In both Afghanistan and Iraq, the delivery of humanitarian assistance, and primarily food aid, has been used by the invasion forces as a public relations measure to win domestic and international public opinion and the hearts of the people living in the war zones.

A few tons of food were dropped, which was insignificant compared to the monthly national requirement of more than 50, tons needed by the Afghan population at that time. In March , Coalition Forces extensively used the argument that Iraq required humanitarian aid to seize and secure ports. And the first food distributions were army rations handed out by coalition soldiers in front of the international media.

Yet, in Iraq, the Oil for Food Program had been in place until the invasion, and the government had distributed a food ration that would provide food for several months.

There was therefore no need to rush into immediate emergency food distributions. Mousseau notes the shift in food aid in recent years from program food aid to relief food aid has come about because of a few factors:. For a few years now, Europe, developing countries, and some development NGOs have been criticizing US food aid for being dumping, distorting free trade and serving its own commercial interests.

The shift to relief aid is therefore more welcome by Europe and some relief organizations, but Mousseau asks if this seemingly welcome shift is actually benefiting the hungry.

Emergency, or relief aid, has become increasingly streamlined amongst relief organizations. They are better at responding to emergency situations quickly and manage to reach and save countless lives. Relief aid results in more aid going directly to the relief organizations, rather than via governments who could divert its use. This direct delivery can help with rapid responses. While relief aid goals seems worthy and has certainly saved many lives, some general problems have been identified.

For example,. Mousseau details some examples in Niger, Ethiopia and Malawi where such delays have caused more deaths or greatly increased the cost of providing the aid. The shorter time frame in which the aid is needed also means that many responses often go unfulfilled.

Some countries, such as Ethiopia, receive emergency food assistance every year, but … external assistance to meet the deficits is difficult to attract and slow to come. In most cases, unless international media and NGOs showcase starvation and trigger international attention, food deficits remain unfulfilled, causing massive losses of life. The Niger example that Mousseau detailed highlighted another issue I wrote about the G8 Summit in July when there were world wide anti-poverty concerts: that only when celebrities and first world leaders do something does the mainstream media respond.

If poor people are dying from, or suffering, the daily grind of life it often does not make the news. When first world leaders do offer some aid or assistance, they seem to be the focus of media attention, not the people in the poor countries. In worst cases, repeated failures, or simply repeated appeals risks donor fatigue. The issue of whether GM food is safe or not is a separate discussion.

The concern here is that it is driven by donor policies, not recipient needs or concerns. US government officials and institutions also tried to use international and domestic political pressure to force Zambia to accept GM food. At the same time A. Natsios, USAID Director, accused environmental groups of endangering the lives of millions of people in southern Africa by encouraging local governments to reject GM food aid.

All malnutrition surveys conducted in the country in indicated very low malnutrition levels, below the 5 percent threshold which indicates a normal, non life-threatening situation. S is genetically modified. US insistence that African countries accept GM food aid originated from the pressure of US agribusiness interests rather than humanitarian concern.

Relief aid, by its definition reacts to emergencies, rather than prevent. It is a shorter term aid, whereas going to the roots of hunger e. Emergency food relief therefore goes to fixing disasters that could have been addressed much earlier with better policies. So both natural disasters where emergency food aid is undoubtedly an appropriate and needed response and human-made, preventable disasters compete for relief aid.

Where relief aid has been used at the expense of longer term food security policies, a few additional effects result:. While it is common to hear cynical views of food aid as being ineffective almost solely because of corrupt governments despite good intentions of the West, not all poor country governments are corrupt or to an equal level , and some policies recommended by the West may well have increased corruption.

Furthermore, this shift may undermine democracy and accountability as Mousseau is once again worth quoting at length:. As mentioned throughout this site, and highlighted by many other organizations, farm subsidies by the US and Europe as well as others dwarfs international aid and undermines development in developing countries.

Sustained yields are most commonly applied to forestry and fishing activities and limit short-term harvests to allow for longer-term regeneration of resources from the remaining parent View Full Term. By clicking sign up, you agree to receive emails from Safeopedia and agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Food aid refers to the provision of food or cash to purchase food in times of emergency or to provide longer-term solutions in areas where food shortages exist.

Food aid can also be targeted at creating food security — a situation in which people need not be vulnerable to hunger and starvation. The Food Aid Convention strives to address some of the controversial problems related to food aid including the negative effects of food aid on commercial imports and its effect on local food producers in recipient countries.

Subscribe to the Safeopedia newsletter to stay on top of current industry trends and up-to-date know-how from subject matter authorities. Our comprehensive online resources are dedicated to safety professionals and decision makers like you. Various regions of India experience food shortages, and the government has tried to alleviate these shortages with agricultural subsidy schemes designed to improve the wages of farmers and the food available for poor populations.

However, as in the case of food aid to Haiti, the national subsidy scheme has weakened many local food economies across India. But in practice, it is a maximum support price system. A small proportion of wealthy farmers in well-irrigated states of Punjab and Haryana collect almost all of the subsidy, because they produce much higher surpluses of grain than those in other states and because they operate a ruthlessly effective lobbying system in New Delhi.

Most importantly, the poor are most detrimentally affected by this condition since a significant portion of their income is spent on food. Again, agricultural aid is not reaching those in the most need. Overall, a quarter to a half of the subsidized food is stolen and sold across India by the Fair Price shop owners. This system may in fact widen the disparities in India rather than providing the basic necessity of food to its poorest.

Here, food aid may be causing more harm than good. Not only does donated and subsidized food often not reach those most in need, but it also often does not provide adequate nutrition. It is a pathology caused principally by a lack of essential nutrients which not only causes growth falter but also increases susceptibility to common diseases. Experts in the field of emergency humanitarian aid, MSF acknowledges that food aid, as it is currently given, is not even sufficient enough in theory to nourish those in areas of famine.

The One Acre Fund is a nonprofit that aims to end chronic hunger in Africa. This program effectively doubles the income generated by farmers by providing seeds and fertilizer, weekly classes on agriculture, and access to food markets.

A transparent and accountable organization, One Acre Fund conducts performance reports every six months. As of , the program expanded to serve one million farmers and their families in six African countries. In this model, the One Acre Fund brings together local groups of farmers, provides education on new innovative farming practices, provides commercial seeds and fertilizers for soil that has been stripped of its nutrients, connects farmers with harvest markets, and provides crop insurance.

With this insurance, farmers do not lose all of their capital in times of drought.