Interview with WFP country director

Amid warnings that Zimbabwe's already dire food crisis is set to worsen next year, IRIN spoke to World Food Programme (WFP) Country Director Kevin Farrell on the implications for humanitarian aid. In the interview, Farrell said millions of Zimbabweans were at risk due to critical problems of both supply and access to food. He called for greater levels of donor funding, otherwise WFP could be forced to cut back on distributions. QUESTION: How would you characterise the current food crisis? ANSWER: In simple terms, the food crisis is due to a shortage of basic commodities on local markets, particularly cereals. Last year, Zimbabwe only produced 40 percent of the maize the country needs for consumption, and an even smaller percentage of wheat. What that means is that a very large number of people cannot access cereals at all – either because they are not available in local markets, or because the price has risen beyond their means. However, the causes of this crisis are anything but simple. Millions of people are in need of assistance because of a complex web of factors – inadequate food production due to low plantings, insufficient access to agricultural inputs, erratic weather (an early season drought followed by heavy, late rains), households having already sold off assets, economic decline, soaring prices, extreme poverty and catastrophic rates of HIV/AIDS. It is an extremely complex crisis – and it would seem that only with a combination of food aid and essential non-food assistance would millions of Zimbabweans be able to survive the current crisis and begin a process of recovery. Q: Given the current state of the food pipeline, what are your concerns for the beginning of 2004? A: As I said, millions of people in Zimbabwe are already facing massive food shortages and very high prices in the their local markets. And, as we get closer to next year's harvest – and particularly during the three 'hunger months' from January to March – we are concerned that even more people will be unable to find food, or will be unable to buy whatever is available with prices continuing to rise. So, again, it's a problem both of supply and of access. In terms of WFP’s food aid pipeline – the situation has improved slightly over the past few weeks following a number of additional donations. However, WFP still faces severe pipeline problems in the early months of 2004. At the moment, we have only sufficient maize until January, and there are also shortages of other key commodities, such as vegetable oil, pulses and corn-soya blend (CSB). Without new contributions, WFP will be forced to cut back on its distributions next year - leaving millions of people with reduced rations, or no rations at all. But when you speak of 'pipeline', it is important to keep in mind that international food aid should only complement the efforts of government to feed its population - that's where the prime responsibility lies. We should only be here to help fill a short-term gap. Unfortunately, it would seem that the government's efforts to import the maize it needs are being hampered by a shortage of foreign currency. So, yes, we are concerned that there might be a break in WFP's pipeline in early 2004, but we are even more concerned about whether there will be sufficient food on the market, that people with money can buy. The more food these people can buy, the fewer we will be called on to assist. Q: WFP's US $197 million appeal for Zimbabwe is currently only 40 percent funded. The EC recently announced that €25 million, apparently earmarked for Zimbabwe, would no longer be available. Why do the donors appear so hesitant? A: I suppose you should really ask donors that question! However, what I can see is a combination of things: Firstly, up until the end of last month, most donors had expressed concern about the government's intentions in relation to the work of NGOs. However, on September 25th, WFP and the government signed a new Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that helped to clarify the situation. It means that WFP can continue distributing food aid as we did before – in other words, through NGO implementing partners, and to beneficiaries selected by their own communities - solely on the basis of need. Secondly, I believe some donors are also unhappy with what they see as the inadequate information provided by the government on what it has managed to do so far this year in commercially importing and distributing food in the country – and, of course, what imports can be expected in the next few months. And, finally, there are far greater demands for humanitarian assistance this year from other countries in Africa and elsewhere – including Iraq – which means that there is much less donor money to go around. But, let me add that, despite the somewhat hesitant response to the current crisis, donors appear – in our regular briefings – to be just as engaged in the process today as they were last year, and just as committed. And, remember that, although there is a large shortfall, donors have already contributed over US $85 million to WFP's Zimbabwean appeal. It is a lot of money - it just isn't as much as last year. And it certainly isn't enough. Q: Some NGOs have suggested that WFP's appeal shot too low, and was predicated on an unrealistic assessment of how much food the government could import and distribute through the Grain Marketing Board (GMB). Are you concerned that, given the dire foreign exchange situation and the lack of consistent and regular supplies of GMB maize, the numbers in need are going to climb well beyond the forecast 5.5 million mark? A: Certainly we are concerned. But, as I say, it's difficult to know just how concerned we should be, since we really don't know how bad the forex crisis is and, in particular, what commercial food imports we might expect. There's a certain amount of guessing going on – both government and the international community trying to figure out what the other might be planning. It is not easy to plan a humanitarian response in that situation. But certainly, if the estimates we made earlier in the year about what food the GMB might import prove to be too high, then the numbers in need could well go beyond 5.5 million. Q: Zimbabwe's vulnerability assessment report clearly spells out the crisis facing former commercial farm workers and newly resettled farmers. If vulnerability is the principle governing who gets fed, shouldn't the humanitarian community have targeted these communities for intervention? Why has there been such a delay? A: Up until now, WFP has concentrated its aid and resources primarily on the people who were most affected by the food crisis - and these have been mainly people in communal areas as well as some especially vulnerable groups, such as malnourished children under five in urban areas, and households affected by HIV/AIDS. All along, it has been clear that needs have exceeded the resources, both in the communal areas and elsewhere. Indeed, WFP has been aware of – and concerned about – the fact that the needs of two main groups have not been adequately addressed because of limited resources. These are vulnerable people living in urban areas, and people living in the former commercial farm areas. So, while these groups were not targeted during the first year of the crisis, it was not for any 'non-humanitarian' reason, but because the most vulnerable groups were in the communal farm areas. Furthermore, it is certainly not true to say that the international community has not assisted people living on the former commercial farm areas. WFP and some of the international NGOs have indeed been providing food assistance, though on a limited scale. And, at the moment, we are in discussions about the next step - to see how we might expand our response, because the need is certainly there. And I'd also like to add that, just as we are seeking ways of expanding assistance in the former commercial farm areas, WFP is also expanding operations in the urban areas. Indeed, we are already reaching 50,000 vulnerable children in Harare and Bulawayo – children we were unable to help before. Q: One area of policy reform that donors have urged the government to introduce is the end of the GMB monopoly and price controls. Is that the entire solution? Given levels of poverty, would you envisage the need for some kind of subsidy or safety net in place to protect the most vulnerable? A: Yes. Throughout this crisis, WFP has advocated for policy change in food marketing, since we believe that letting private traders import and sell food on the market would help to meet a good part of the food gap. Incidentally, this is not a position taken only for Zimbabwe. In fact, WFP encourages donors to give us cash so we can buy food in the region - which we see as a way of encouraging agricultural production as well as local traders and markets - and so help to foster economic growth and development. But no, we have never suggested that ending the current food marketing policy represents the entire solution – and certainly not in the short term. If, tomorrow, private traders were allowed to import and sell maize, we believe it would certainly help get more food supplies into the market – and that would take some of the pressure off both the government's capacity and the humanitarian response. But there would still be a need for a safety net, since prices may rise for a time and there would still be some people who could not afford to buy the food - but the numbers who could not buy food would be much more manageable. In the longer term, of course, there is a need for a number of other economic measures to be taken to help increase food production, so that Zimbabwe can once again feed its population. Q: Given the critical lack of inputs for this planting season, are you concerned that next year's harvest will also be poor? A: Very concerned – although, again, it's a bit difficult to read how acute the shortage of inputs is. However, according to both the agricultural sector and the government itself, there is a serious shortage of seed and, perhaps more especially, fertilizer and draught power, and also fuel to move these inputs to the farmers in time for planting. So, certainly, there is still serious concern about the prospects of short-term recovery in the food sector. Q: Have we reached the point with Zimbabwe where there can be no quick-fix solution and the humanitarian community must think of a long-term commitment? If so, what do you make of the lack of donor interest in funding the non-food items in the current Zimbabwe appeal? A: I don't think anyone ever thought there could be a quick-fix solution to this crisis. It is far too complex for that. In simple food terms, we are certainly hoping that there will be a better harvest in 2004, leaving far fewer people in need of assistance. However, good rains and adequate access to agricultural inputs will not solve this crisis, since the underlying causes of vulnerability will remain – HIV/AIDS and poverty. And that is why it is crucial for donors to fund both food and non-food aid. The UN Special Envoy for the Southern Africa crisis – who is also WFP's Executive Director – has repeatedly stressed the importance of funding the non-food needs, so as to put households back on the road to recovery. While emergency relief measures, in particular food and medicines, are needed to save lives, support for longer-term recovery is just as crucial. The need is to protect the livelihoods of less vulnerable households and communities, and prevent them from slipping back into crisis. But, as for donor perceptions and interest in funding these vital non-food items - again, you will have to ask others closer to that situation!