Interview with WFP Regional Director on the food crisis

Southern Africa's food crisis will, at its peak over the next six months, threaten a staggering 14.4 million people, an increase of 1.6 million on earlier estimates. Judith Lewis, the World Food Programme (WFP) Regional Director for East and Southern Africa, participated in a just-concluded two-week assessment mission to the six countries in crisis, headed by the UN Secretary-General's Special Envoy, James Morris. She spoke to IRIN about the crippling impact of HIV/AIDS and underdevelopment, and the urgent need for seeds and tools to reach people before the beginning of the planting season next month. Lewis also discussed the issue of genetically modified (GM) food, and the complication to the relief effort caused by the insistence of some countries that GM maize would need to be milled before distribution. Lewis said that, given the uncertainty over the avialabilty of adequate alternative supplies, acceptance of GM maize could be "the difference between life and death". QUESTION: Referring to the additional 1.6 million people found to be in need in the latest needs assessment, what does that mean in terms of WFP operations and donor support? How do you translate those numbers into the strategies needed to tackle the current humanitarian crisis? ANSWER: I think this is the biggest challenge for the World Food Programme as well as the other UN agencies as we look at this reassessment. This is the second of a series of rolling assessments to stay on top of the situation. At the peak period it looks like we'll be needing assistance for 14.4 million people. As you indicated, this is a major increase, about a 12 percent increase over what we were trying to resource. So during the next week to 10 days, the World Food Programme will be looking at our strategy. I think there are a number of considerations that we need to look at, in terms of not only this second assessment, but also in terms of the Special Envoy's visit. Clearly, the situation of HIV/AIDS is wracking the subregion, and we have got to be in a position to look at how we, cooperatively, will be able to address the HIV/AIDS situation from the food side. We heard so many requests from people who are living with AIDS, affected with AIDS, from the care providers, the governments. Their first request is for food. The people say that food is probably the first and best drug. They can't take the antiretroviral medications without food, it's very strong and their systems can't tolerate it. So we at the World Food Programme need to reassess that intervention, and how we can use our resource, which is food, in a very nutritionally sound way. So that's one of the things we are going to have to reassess in terms of how we want to try to deal with folks and familes affected by HIV/AIDS, the very sick. The other piece that's emerging from this crisis is the need for enhanced school feeding. We saw some communities with drop-out rates of 50 percent. Poor people are having to pull their children out of school to help forage for food, or to look for petty trade to try and help their families. So we've got to look at what would make sense, what capacitity do we have in order to look at a stepped-up or enhanced school feeding intervention in these countries. And then looking at the overall gap, there seems to be about a one million mt gap in terms of cereals that are going to be needed in this period. We [WFP] were looking at about 750,000 mt of cereal in our earlier appeal, complimented by the non-food cereals, the supplementary feed, the CSB [corn-soya blend], pulses and oil. So over the next couple of days, our challenge will be to reassess our strategy, see what's appropriate for the World Food Programme to think about trying to resource, and then we've got to be sure that we go to the donors and see if this is a sound strategy, and then we've just got to knock on doors to get the needed resources. Q: James Morris said the appeal was resourced up to around two-thirds, in terms of pledges and expected pledges. You've met the donors today [Tuesday, 17 September], what was their reaction? A: I think the meeting that we had today where we presented the findings of the VAC - the Vulnerability Assessment Committee - out of SADC [the Southern African Development Community], with the participation of Save the Children, FAO [Food and Agricultural Organisation], UNICEF [UN Children's Fund], UNDP [UN Development Programme], governments that were involved with this - the participation was excellent. I suspect that we had about 15 embassies that were represented. That tells me that they continue to stay very engaged in this issue, they are very well informed on the crisis here in Southern Africa, they follow the issues very carefully. So I think the dialogue today was very good, the discussions were very rich, and I foresee that we will continue to have support from our international donors. Q: Looking at the figures, Zambia and Zimbabwe show in terms of people in need, the highest increase in numbers - Lesotho statistically is even higher - but what is behind the numbers. Is it because of a better assessment, because it's later on in the year, or are there some underlying problems that need to be addressed? A: Well, I think we did see an increase in all of the countries, some as you rightly pointed out are more dramatic than others. I think there are such a combination of problems in this region that have made our job very very difficult. Because not only are these six of the poorest countries in the world, with the exception previously of Zimbabwe, they also have the highest prevalence rates of HIV/AIDS in the world, they have the highest chronic malnutrition rates in the world. Then you have the economic system in the region under duress, the fact that in South Africa the Rand is devalued, the remittances from South Africa are not what they've been in the past, people's coping mechanisms are actually being stretched to no-end. Then you have the impact of previous disasters in Mozambique and Malawi. In Mozambique in particular, this is the third year of bad weather that's prevented poor people from being able to get their feet back on the ground, and to start being able to produce food. Malawi is the same thing. The land reform policy in Zimbabwe has had a dramatic impact on commercial surpluses that they normally have produced in the past - the overall assessment is of a 60 percent drop in surpluses. So all of these factors have come together with this overlay of AIDS, and the impact that's having at the household level. I mean whole productive generations are being wiped out between the ages of 15 to 45, we're seeing whole families that have died. So the future impact of all of this has to be taken into consideration, as well as how are we going to help these people grow food. Children can't farm, sick people cannot farm, grandparents who were taking care of these children who've been left by parents who have died, can't do the work that needs to be done. These are tough, tough issues that we're trying to address. Q: That segues into another issue, and that's the issue of non-food items. This is not just a food crisis but an across the board humanitarian crisis, and the donors at the moment haven't been so forthcoming with non-food items. James Morris said this crisis shades into a whole developmental agenda. So basically it's not just about providing food, but a whole range of issues that need to be tackled as well ... A: Absolutely, and this is one of the things that were highlighted in the assessment reports this morning, and they clearly are in the Special Envoy's mission. The health side, the agricultural side, the nutrition side, the water and sanitation, there are so many issues that are impacted as a result of the food crisis, and then as a result of where people find themselves ... the vicious cycle of poverty in these countries certainly underlays many of these issues that have to be considered. Now, are they developmental issues or are they emergency issues? I would argue that when people's lives are at risk, when people are on the verge of starving to death, we have an emergency. Clearly, all of these other issues have exacerbated any food crisis that was already on the table. So we have to look at this as an emergency crisis, a humanitarian crisis of huge proportions. Q: Is it significant that countries that have shown large increases in needs are countries that have resisted the importation of GM food? A: Certainly it complicates the food relief side. We know we can count on the US government to resource about 50 percent of the overall needs, that's about 500,000 mt of food that will be coming from the US government, a large proportion of that is genetically modified. So that's the first consideration we have to think about, when you have 50 percent of your resources that could be in jeopardy. We have had ongoing discussions with the governments to look at some type of compromise, some type of alternatives, looking at every possible avenue so that we can get food to these people who need it. Several of the countries have agreed to mill food, the genetically modified food, so that is an option. The issue there is who will pay for the milling, the capacity in the region, how long will it take to mill the quantities of food that we need? So that's another issue that we're trying to grapple with. We're also looking at other types of commodities that might be available that might not be GM, we're also looking at [vitamin] fortification, so not only could we address some of these other issues, but we could get a nutritional impact from fortification from some of the maize. So we're really trying to grapple with this, because timing is critical - time's running out in terms of us meeting the deadline in terms of the raining season, because that's going to be starting in a month in some of the countries. So it really is complicating the relief efforts. Q: Can you overview where the six countries stand in terms of GM food? A: So far Swaziland doesn't have an objection to genetically modified food. Lesotho, Malawi, Mozambique and Zimbabwe are looking at the milling options. Zambia has not taken a decision. So far, they have rejected GM, but they do have a team of scientists that are on the road now, visiting Oslo, Brussels, New York, Washington, South Africa, to come back in the next week with some scientific review so they can take an informed decision on this. So we're very hopeful that within the next week or so, Zambia will have a revised position on GM food. Q: Say they follow the regional consensus and go for milling, looking at the issue of capacity, which countries in all honesty do have the capacity to mill the amount of food that needs to come in, because we know some of them don't ... A: No, that's right. And for instance some of the in-country capacity is already compromised because they have standing contracts to do certain milling. The other point that exacerbates the milling is that to mill GM you have to have a separate facility. So a mill really has to have two parts to it: one that continues with its non-GM, and then one part of the mill that can deal with the GM, because you have to keep it segregated because the whole purpose of milling it is that you don't want to have the grains mixed. So that's one of the issues we're looking at now, trying to figure out what milling capacity is in the region which also has the capacity to do two types of milling ... So we're trying to look at all of this. Most of the countries do not have adequate milling capacity in-country to do the type of milling we're talking about, so that's the first thing. South Africa does have a fairly vigorous milling capacity so we're looking at excess capacity there. We do understand there's excess capacity in Zimbabwe, but it would take some infusion of cash and capital to get them up to speed, and here again we're talking about time. So this is a major, major issue and were just consumed with this everyday and all day long in trying to figure out how to do this. Q: Apart from capacity, what else would it mean logistically? Say you land the maize at Durban harbour, bag it and transport it to country X, un-bag it in a segregated facility, re-bag it .. A: Yes, once you get it milled you need to re-bag it. Maize meal does not do well in moisture, so you have to have very specific types of bagging which is another issue. We may not have the appropriate available bagging material in the region, so that could be an added expense. Then you have to move it, and with the rainy season coming, we have to be very careful. It has to be transported in sealed types of containers so the moisture can't get in and spoil it. Then you've got storage at the other end, it has to distributed almost immediately because the shelf life is not very long, and if it's exposed to moisture the shelf life becomes even more precarious, so these are all the issue we're trying to cope with. Q: In terms of alternatives, if the region holds to its position, are there any reasonable and sustainable alternatives? A: I think for this particular crisis, I really believe that it's going to be the difference between life and death. I just don't think we'll be able to resource enough non-GM maize which is the food of preference for the region. I just don't think we'll be able to do it, to find a million mt of non-GM food that's going to be available. Q: How does the region's position play overseas in the Western capitals? A: Well it's clearly a dilemma. I think there's a lot of discussion on this, I think most of the donors have been incredibly supportive of what we're trying to do, and have been working with us on the acceptability issues. Food that's given by WFP is certified by the donors that the food is suitable for consumption in their own country. So we're fairly confident that the food is safe, so if we would have to change our position, this would be a whole major policy shift in terms of the way that the World Food Programme has done its work. Q: The next stage, next year's harvest, let's assume the rains are good and the weather normal, what are the problems that you foresee? A: The constraints that we saw on the mission would be, number one, the agricultural inputs, the seeds, the fertiliser, the tools that poor people need. In many of the countries, they are just not ready, and we're looking at a planting season starting at the end of October and carrying through to December. So if we don't get the seeds and the fertiliser and the inputs to these people, we're going to continue to see deficits at the household level, let alone at the commercial level, in terms of producing food in these countries. Q: This may be more of a question for FAO, but we have structural problems for agriculture in this region. Are you concerned that whatever has happened, be it inappropriate government policy or structural adjustment, that somekind of welfare safety net is needed for poor farmers in the region? A: Sure, and I think that's one of the things that FAO is working with governments on in looking at these issues. It's going to have to be addressed with a view to the longer term. Poor people just cannot continue to live like this, hand to mouth, and we're still 90 percent dependent on rain-fed agriculture. We've got to get serious about crop diversification, we've got to get serious about alternatives to agriculture, so these are the types of longer-term issues that have got to be addressed.