WFP disagrees with aid claims

I refer to the article NGO blows whistle on food aid swindle. In this article The Jakarta Post (May 31, 1999) is printing an excerpt of a report published by the Southeast Asia Council for Food Security and Fair Trade (SACFSFT). The World Food Program (WFP) has yet to receive a copy of the study, but I believe it is opportune to mention that WFP cannot agree with the results of the study or certain quotations that are incomplete and out of their context.

WFP has conversed with SACFSFT on more than one occasion. The WFP representative briefed the fact-finding mission on the occasion of its visit to Jakarta during the second part of 1998, and reviewed the draft of its report in March 1999 and again in May 1999. While WFP could agree with some of the points raised, e.g., the solution to the food security problem of the people of Indonesia is a return to economic growth, it disagreed with many of the facts stated and the conclusions reached as they appeared in the draft.

As an illustration, a statement was made, repeated in your article, that Indonesia had become the largest recipient of food aid in the world in 1998. SACFSFT justified this by multiplying the amount of some assistance by 1,000, i.e., calculating that Malaysia provided assistance in the amount of 745,000 tons, when it really was only 745 tons (745,000 kilograms); it was also referring to a grant of 200,000 tons of rice provided by Taiwan and 260,000 tons of rice provided by China. Suffice to refer to earlier editions of the Post to confirm that these figures are fiction.

This is neither the time nor the place to review the report point-by-point. I would like to repeat that WFP disagrees with the conclusions of the study and would have appreciated the opportunity to comment on the report of your article before printing. This was not the case, and the way your article is published may lead your readers to believe that you condone the SACFSFT study, which I am sure a paper of the quality of the Post would not be pleased with.

As I have indicated to you on previous occasions, WFP is open about its activities in Indonesia and other countries in Asia and around the world. It stands behind the conclusions of its Management Review Mission and participation in three Food Availability and Crop Assessment Missions done in little more than one year, that led to the temporary reopening of a WFP office in Indonesia to supply victims of the drought, particularly in Eastern Indonesia.

As the effects of the drought were overcome but the effects of the economic crisis worsened, as the government introduced measures to alleviate the suffering of the poor population of Indonesia in close cooperation with the Bretton Woods institution, it would seem appropriate to redirect the WFP assistance to victims of the economic crisis and in particular to urban areas where the government of Indonesia has more difficulties giving an adequate response, and areas that have a high concentration of landless farmers, landless migrants and/or chronic food shortages.

In this respect I would like to highlight that during the election period, WFP food assistance is limited to (i) blended food -- distributed through the integrated health service post (posyandu) -- to pregnant and lactating mothers and children under five, and (ii) displaced people.

Furthermore, the proposed reorientation of WFP activities will start only during the second part of June, i.e., after the elections.

I repeat that I am available to comment on the WFP activities in Indonesia, as well as other Asian countries in the region to whom the international community and WFP are directing substantial amounts of food aid.

THOMAS J KEUSTERS

Deputy Country Director

World Food Program

Jakarta