A victory for African farmers
Humanitarian aid group CARE has opted not to accept $45 million in government aid. Repeating that, a non-profit group has turned down $45,000,000 from the U.S. government to supply food from Africa. The reason? The "heavily subsidized American farm products" drive down the cost of African-produced crops, which negatively affects African farmers.
Under the current system, the money raised through selling the American crops is redistributed in Africa into anti-poverty programs. The Government Accountability Office has already declared that this program is inherently inefficient, but little has been done to stop the program because of all the special interests involved - farmers, shipping companies who move the food to Africa, and particularly the non-profits whose existence is financed by the plan (yes, that's right, a "special interest group" is more than just Big Oil and lobbyists).
Other groups who work in tandem with CARE are not pleased with CARE's decision, but Progressively Right applauds the effort. Even Jimmy Carter, who I rarely find myself on common ground with, agrees:
Former President Jimmy Carter, whose Atlanta-based Carter Center uses private money to help African farmers be more productive, said in an interview that it was a flawed system that had survived partly because the charities that received money from it defended it.
But doesn't the competition of the American food with the African food promote innovation? Isn't that what a market economy wants? Normally, yes. However, this program sells subsidized food at below market value. African farmers can't make an honest living because they are forced into dishonest competition.
This case proves once again that just because government has the best of intentions does not mean it will get the best of results. Congratulations to CARE for standing up to this program and, really, to its own mission. I hope this will force a more robust of both foreign aid and of our own domestic farm subsidies.
2 comments:
This is fascinating to me and I want to know more. I'm curious about where the opinions line on both sides of this. Keep us posted!
You know, I tend to agree with you and Jimmy on this one. Perhaps for some similar reason, perhaps for some different ones. Several thoughts here, though please understand that I am not extraordinarily well-versed in trade justice matters.
1) This program is inefficient. Shipping actually food overseas is not considered the best way of doing business in the sustainable development world.
2) It is my understanding that those receiving the greatest amounts of the subsidies to produce these (often poor quality) commodities that then undercut markets are agrobusinesses. Do they really need government funds for this?
3) Here's where I agree with our friend Trevor's comment. We see in cases around the world that local markets are essentially destroyed by low-cost (often lower quality) goods flooding the market. It prohibits local farmers/etc. from being able to make an honest living doing what they've been trained to do for generations. They can still produce, but when income is low, would you buy the corn that costs more? So, then what? If you can't make an honest living farming corn, or coffee, but all you have is land and all you know is farming, then what? Your kids still need to eat. Maybe you start earning a not so honest/savory living... say... farming coca? Sad to say, but it happens. Anyhow, these are obviously very nuanced issues and I'm not saying I blame the government for all the world's wrongs, but what we need is more development and less relief - except, of course, in crisis situations, when relief has its place. Good sustainable development will breed ingenuity - especially when it is guided by the voice of the people it aims to serve. It breeds diversified sources of income within communities, too, if the NGO/CBO is worth its salt. We need to strike the right balance to build really resilient communities. But now I'm getting on my soapbox and digressing.
4) The pressure is there in NGO work to accept funds wherever you can get them. But it's a dubious predicament. Sometimes accepting funds compromises your integrity in the communities you serve. Perhaps this is part of what CARE is looking at. Do they want their reputation to be inextricably bound to a program that is hurting local markets in the eyes of local growers? LWR, for example, won't accept USG funds for its work in Colombia so that they can remain a neutral party in the eyes of those with whom we work.
These issues all have complicating elements, of course. But, in short, I applaud CARE for analyzing the source of funding and making a determination about whether it was in line with their mission, vision and values. It's rare to see an organization really value its commitment to mission over a payday.
I'd love to hear more on this from folks. Just my initial thoughts.
Post a Comment