THE "TIED" FOOD AID-THE HIDDEN AGENDA MUST BE SCRAPPED

It is aptly said that there is no free meal any where in the world and some one has to pay the prices for those meals considered free superficially. For example Americans are considered most charitable people in the world and almost 50% of global "food aid" comes from this country. World must salute the US for its "charitable" disposition. But a little bit surface scratching reveals a different story. Charity means helping others selflessly without expecting any thing in return and if American charity is measured on this scale it may not pass muster. According to organizations partnering the US government in food aid to third world countries there is a hidden agenda in spending more than $ 20 billion by this country as food aid. It appears that, due to "tying" up this aid with self-aggrandizing conditions, Americans them selves are short changing this program through waste and avoidable food losses. Here is a take on this interesting face of food aid.  

"The US provides roughly 50% of food aid globally at an estimated annual cost of $2bn. But unlike many other major donors, virtually all American food aid is "tied" and must be bought from US suppliers and transported on US ships – even if there are cheaper alternatives. The report urges Congress to relax these restrictions and curtail "monetisation" schemes, where aid agencies are given US food to sell off in developing countries to finance their projects. Such reforms to the farm bill, which covers the bulk of US food aid programmes and is up for reauthorisation this year, could pay "enormous anti-hunger dividends" for those most in need, says the report, while saving millions in taxpayers' money. "Food aid is a vital part of US foreign policy, but we are shortchanging millions of hungry people with unnecessary red tape," said the AJWS director of advocacy, Timi Gerson, in a statement. "US policies are ripe for reforms that will save lives now and reduce the need for aid later by enabling local farmers to thrive." A January 2012 study by agricultural economists at Cornell University found that buying food products locally leads to average cost-savings of more than 50% for cereals like wheat, and almost 25% for pulses like peas and lentils. However, it found that some processed foods like vegetable oil are potentially cheaper to buy and ship from the US. The study also estimated that procuring food locally, or distributing cash or vouchers, results in an average time-saving of nearly 14 weeks. It suggested a more flexible approach to food aid programmes, with aid agencies allowed to choose between food aid shipped from the US, locally or regionally purchased supplies, vouchers and cash transfers, depending on the situation and specific objectives".

It was not long ago that critics were pointing fingers at the US government for its subtle attempts to tie the economic aid in Africa to buying GMO seeds from American companies without realizing the long term effect of promoting such activities on the economic conditions of poor farmers in this continent. Ideally any aid given should be without strings and as far as possible the real value of the aid must be maximized by buying materials wherever they are cheaper. Of course the foreign aid to a poor country has many ramifications and making such aids most beneficial to the recipient country must be the priority.

V.H.POTTY
http://vhpotty.blogspot.com/
http://foodtechupdates.blogspot.com