Solving hunger poses dilemma

Kharisma Priyo Nugroho, Bina Putra Sejahtera Foundation, Jakarta

Some 300 million children are chronically hungry in the world and 130 million of these do not go to school.

This year's report of the World Food Program adds, "Without an adequate education, most of these children will never be able to break out the cycle of hunger and poverty".

"Food aid interventions" are one way out -- but WFP says such aid interventions "often have greater development impact when and where they are linked to other development assistance. Thus, food aid program targeting criteria are sometimes greatly influenced by other development program activities."

The continuing poor health and low nutritional status of so many of the world's school-age children, including hunger, can severely limit children's opportunity to participate in school, and diminish their ability to progress and achieve once enrolled. Programs to achieve good health, hygiene and nutrition at school age are therefore essential to the promotion of basic education for all children.

The contribution of School Feeding Programs (SFPs) to the improvement of nutritional status of children and other educational outcomes has been explored extensively by nutritionists and social scientists.

What remains to be explored, however, are the kinds of plausible changes SFPs might bring about -- either intentionally or unintentionally -- in a society's basic structures. Research into the socioeconomic impact of SFPs in developing countries is essential since there are some fundamental features associated with the programs.

First, the programs are mostly funded by foreign aid. The social planner has a responsibility to see that the essential dilemma of foreign aid -- the tension between what donor nations are willing to give, with their suspected "hidden agendas", and what recipient nations actually want -- is resolved in a way that results in a positive-sum game, where all parties gain.

This condition is nearly impossible, as that aid does not necessarily go to the poorest countries in the world. Susan George, writing in 1976, went so far as to suggest that the majority of aid is directed "to those countries with the greatest chance of survival, while abandoning others to famine". Aid is mostly directed to countries that seem to have better prospects of economic survival, thereby to pay back the loan, and in the long-term to become a steady market for donor country commodities.

Aid for humanitarian reasons must indeed be welcomed. Yet while the desire to help those that are less fortunate may guide some aid agencies, not all donors are guided by such moral principles, and indeed are quite prepared to admit as much. Bilateral assistance programs, in particular, are as much products of domestic as international economic and political realities.

Second, an important form of foreign food aid to developing countries is the supply of agricultural commodities. Foreign food aid in SFPs in many countries comes from the surplus of agricultural commodities that exists in donor countries.

Given the social status and political strength of their farming communities, these communities have been successful in demanding that stocks should not be released on either the domestic or international market, since that would have put pressure on the sale price of grain and the exchange value of the dollar.

Instead, grain was made available to developing countries in many forms -- commercial and social -- to avoid affecting the market value of the dollar. Shouldn't aid by definition benefit those to whom it is offered? Food aid can only be understood by examining its place within a global system of social, political and economic relationships.

Third, SFP beneficiaries tend to be urban-centered. The poorest in the rural sector, those that one might think are supposed to benefit the most from aid, particularly food aid, usually end up seeing very little of it. The system of aid transfers is still very much dominated by the commercial interests of the following "urban stakeholders" -- the bureaucrats, entrepreneurs, politicians, and industrial workers; thus the aid transfers are unlikely to benefit the poorest, the real, but "poor" stakeholders.

Finally, one must note the different contexts and types of food served to children. There are two types of food served in SFPs: Donated products and locally purchased commodities. Food for all does not mean that we should all eat the same food: The substitution of local crops in the South by Northern exports undermines culture and livelihoods.

Food must be produced in a manner that is socially, culturally and environmentally sensitive. The food served should not be "alien".

Given the above considerations, two issues must be addressed by any organization willing to be involved in SFPs: First, the people's own conception of their lifestyle, opportunities and motivations. If people themselves do not think that an opportunity exists through such a program they are unlikely to want to make a move.

The School Milk Program is a good illustration. If the program's objective is to improve the nutrition status of poor school age children, why must milk be used? How about local food? Any institution which wants to apply SPF must examine and respect the beneficiary's own perception of healthy food and the exact needs must be addressed.

A three-year free consumption of milk among poor elementary school children will affect their food habits; what will happen when the program ends? They will likely be "addicted" to milk and keep demanding it. But because milk supply by the domestic dairy industry is insufficient, the producer will resort to import milk from the donor's country which provides the network with farmer in their own country and domestic milk processors during the program.

So there is free milk for three years, but there is also the opportunity to open a new market for an unlimited period.

Second, we need to know about the social and economic implications associated with, say, the growth of consumer markets and the introduction of new eating patterns. Do such things always undermine existing cultures and traditional ways of life?

Even when people participate in new feeding program activities they may act in ways that improve their life chances and their standard of living without undermining their traditional culture.

But it may also be the case that, ultimately, without a thorough change in cultural values and norms, only a restricted improvement in material prosperity is possible.

In Papua starvation within tribes was contributed by their mobile agricultural habits. Food aid should empower them to produce their own food, not just alleviate short-term hunger -- but then one must consider the possible change in values and norms in agriculture.