|
|
Do we really care?Beginning in the 1960s, we figured out a way to get rid of our surplus grain. We simply shipped it to countries experiencing famine resulting from drought or war. The problem to be solved was not feeding the needy, but disposing of surplus grain, resulting from modern technology coupled with farm programs that were causing such abundance that U.S. prices were depressed. American farm groups and politicians schemed at ways to keep the production programs in place, yet get rid of the surplus. We hit upon a food aid program that authorized shipment of America's bounty to starving people around the world. Today, that type of charity is being questioned, as the food delivery agencies say it hurts more than it helps. CARE has turned down $45 million a year in federal financing, citing inefficiencies and actual damage to the poor people it aims to help. (New York Times, August 16) The major problem, cited by CARE officials, is that our grain competes with their local farmers. Put yourself in their place: a drought or conflict has occurred and you have survived it with your land intact. You are hoping to plant a crop and sell it at a profit. Suddenly, thousands of tons of American grain is given to your government, who undercuts your price and supplies it to your customers. You are forced to quit farming, get in line and eat the donated food. Under that scenario, the harm is obvious and long lasting. The stated goal of CARE, and other agencies, is to buy grain locally or regionally to bolster the local economy and encourage farmers, who respond by producing more the next year. It is always possible to have unintended consequences with our benevolence, but I dare say that American, Canadian, European and Australian farmers never thought of that outcome when we started to ship our products. We only needed a simple excuse to bless the departure of the grain that was driving our price down. Exploring what happened to it was only done a few times in my career and mostly by U.S. Trade Missions that were in the countries to sell additional grain. In the mid 1980s, Rich Hull, farm broadcaster with the Kansas Agriculture Network, brought back photos of a ship that unloaded 20,000 bushels of wheat onto bare dirt in Egypt. The grain was then attacked by men with shovels and huge sacks. Within two days, it was all bagged and trucked away to the needy in the countryside. What we didn't see was the amount of grain that was eaten by rodents or rotted. Nor did we see the grain being commandeered by local militia who diverted it to their friends or sold it. Depending on the country and level of political corruption, these outcomes remain a common occurrence. Another inefficiency of U.S. food donation is shipping. The Maritime Industry managed to place a requirement in farm legislation that all donated grain shipments be transported in U.S. Flag vessels. That sounds good in theory, but Congress and aid agencies say it increases the cost by 20 percent over other carriers. I can't see a strategic advantage for the U.S. having a fleet of grain handling vessels that are guaranteed a premium to haul on international waters. Although the common "Liberian Flag" vessels are the floating equivalent of Mexican trucks, they only get paid for what they deliver; so I say let 'em have at it. Sarcastic comment: "If what we are sending has as much value to us if it sinks, who cares how it is shipped." Fundamentally, we have to rethink our strategy in helping starving people. Our grain shipments, in the minds of many, were solving our problem of overproduction. I can't think of a single country that now loves us for the food we've sent them. If CARE is right, we've caused more problems than we have solved. Our goal should be to bring war and famine to an end, in a way that rejuvenates the local economy and rewards the formation of democratic governments. Food is a powerful incentive and its impact should not be taken lightly. How it is secured may need to be re-examined. Americans can do something far more helpful than ship food. We can take our expertise with us and show farmers how to grow a crop. Nobel Prize winner Dr. Norman Borlaug says that farmers around the world will plant a better seed if it is offered to them. It is their governments who stand in the way of changing the agricultural landscape. We have thousands of production specialists, from local agronomists to university specialists, who could impart valuable knowledge to African and Asian farmers in a single season that would make a difference for a lifetime. We don't have to take genetically modified crops or high technology equipment, just basic varieties that fit their region and tools that make their labor force more efficient. Agencies, like ACDI-VOCA, are working to put volunteers into safe and productive situations that accomplish these humanitarian goals. Now that CARE has refused U.S. financing and discussion of food aid is moving to the forefront, Congress will check the wind and take some action. The maritime industry may still hold shipping rights and farm groups may keep food donations flowing, but the outcome may be a bit more focused, with more helped and fewer hurt by our charity. (If you'd like to volunteer, ACDI-VOCA may be contacted at www.acdivoca.org Editor's note: Ken Root is now celebrating his 34th year as an agricultural professional. His career began as a vocational agriculture teacher then turned to agricultural broadcasting and writing as well as environmental consulting and association management. He was the original host of AgriTalk (1994-2001) and now is lead farm broadcaster for WHO Radio in Des Moines, Iowa. Date: 8/23/07
Copyright/Privacy
Copyright 1995-2012. High Plains Publishers, Inc. All rights reserved. Any republishing of these pages, including electronic reproduction of the editorial archives or classified advertising, is strictly prohibited. If you have questions or comments you can reach us at High Plains Journal 1500 E. Wyatt Earp Blvd., P.O. Box 760, Dodge City, KS 67801 or call 1-800-452-7171. Email: webmaster@hpj.com |
|
