That is the question one is bound to ask after reading a situation report by the United States embassy in Harare on the status of food relief in Zimbabwe.
According to a cable released by Wikileaks, the first sentence in the comment section reads: “The good news is that the barriers to GMO food donations are coming down……..”
Nowhere in the report does it talk about genetically modified food raising questions that the United States might have sneaked in GMO food as part of its food relief. At the time the US was supplying 40 percent of the relief food for the World Food Programme.
The Zimbabwean government has been opposed to the use of GMO products because if feels this might pose a threat to its own agricultural production.
Several organisations were distributing food. They included the government of Zimbabwe, the WFP, the United States, the United Kingdom, the European Union and other non-governmental organisations?
The distribution of food was so politicised that Didymus Mutasa, who was the Zimbabwe African National Union- Patriotic Front secretary for External Affairs said food should be distributed by the government because Western influence came along with donor food distribution.
Full cable:
Viewing cable 02HARARE1872, STATUS OF FOOD RELIEF IN ZIMBABWE
If you are new to these pages, please read an introduction on the structure of a cable as well as how to discuss them with others. See also the FAQs
|
Reference ID |
Created |
Released |
Classification |
Origin |
This record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available.
C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 03 HARARE 001872
SIPDIS
FOR SENIOR AFRICA DIRECTOR J. FRAZER
LONDON FOR C. GURNEY
PARIS FOR C. NEARY
NAIROBI FOR T. PFLAUMER
E.O. 12958: DECL: 08/16/2012
SUBJECT: STATUS OF FOOD RELIEF IN ZIMBABWE
REF: A. HARARE 1802
¶B. HARARE 1812
¶C. HARARE 1820
Classified By: Political Officer Audu Besmer for reasons 1.5 b/d
Summary
——-
¶1. (C) The Government of Zimbabwe (GOZ), WFP, U.S, UK, EU and
other NGOs are undertaking separate food relief efforts in
Zimbabwe. The targets of the WFP, U.S., UK, EU and NGO
programs are the most vulnerable Zimbabweans. We have heard
numerous reports that the GOZ distributes food to Zanu-PF
supporters, but there is no evidence that political
affiliation has influenced who gets U.S. food. A range of
impediments, however, have hindered distribution of U.S. food
through the WFP program, including false press reports,
politicians’ media statements implying they are involved in
the NGO distribution process, and limited NGO capacity. An
independent monitoring system is required to investigate and
prevent abuse, and we are working actively with other donors
in Harare to develop such a mechanism. USAID/DCHA/OFDA
coordination with OCHA and provision of funds for monitoring
are also critical. Observers agree that even with planned
increases in the coming months, demand for food will outstrip
supply of food assistance. End Summary.
Who’s Distributing Food Here?
—————————–
¶2. (U) The GOZ, WFP, U.S, UK, EU and other NGOs are
undertaking separate food relief efforts in various areas of
the country. Though we are unclear on all of the precise
sites, the GOZ is selling, exchanging for work, and handing
out maize meal through the Grain Marketing Board (GMB)
selectively in areas where it appears that Zanu-PF has done
well in recent elections. The U.S. is currently contributing
about 40 percent of the WFP program which contracts four NGOs
for distribution: Care International (southeastern
provinces), Christian Care (north and eastern provinces),
World Vision (southwest, southeast, and northeast provinces)
and the Zimbabwean NGO ORAP (southern and western provinces).
The U.S. also has a bilateral program with World Vision (see
areas above). The UK and EU have their own bilateral
programs. In addition, there are other NGOs operating
independently of these efforts: Save the Children Fund UK
(western provinces), Oxfam (central provinces), Plan (eastern
provinces), and HelpAge (central provinces).
Distribution Process and Criteria
———————————
¶3. (U) The fundamental criterion of all non-GOZ efforts is
targeting the most vulnerable Zimbabweans. NGOs work with
local government officials (councilors etc.) traditional
leaders, church groups, and local NGOs to identify recipients
and reach a consensus list of beneficiaries. Some basic
criteria are: lack of livestock, lack of income, single
mothers, non-working parents, orphans, HIV affected, elderly,
chronically ill, and disabled. Once a list is developed, it
is discussed at a town meeting where any local resident can
comment, or appeal his case for inclusion. Stocks may run
out before all eligible people are served, and the
identification process is subject to error or abuse, but it
is community based, and incorporates checks and balances that
allow for reconsideration and appeal.
U.S. Food
———
¶4. (C) There have been numerous reports in the local press,
and some Embassy election observers witnessed first hand the
Grain Marketing Board (GMB) distributing food primarily or
entirely to ruling party supporters. However, there is no
evidence that political affiliation has influenced who gets
U.S.-donated food. There is, furthermore, no indication that
so-called war vets have taken over feeding sites, or
padlocked any warehouses with U.S. food, or hijacked trucks
carrying U.S. food. However, food assistance is becoming a
significant element in a rhetorical tug-of-war between
Zanu-PF and the MDC, which hampers the ability of contracting
NGOs to distribute U.S. food, and occasionally has delayed
distribution.
Political Rhetoric and the Impact on Food Distribution
——————————————— ———
¶5. (U) On August 6, Poloff met with Reverend Matonga,
Director of Christian Care in Zimbabwe, to discuss a recent
press report that war vets had skewed the list of Christian
Care food recipients in Muzarabani (Mashonaland Central
province) in favor of Zanu-PF supporters. Christian Care
distributed 48 metric tons of WFP food in Muzarabani in July.
According to Matonga, the story was a complete fabrication
by the MDC, and he has been trying unsuccessfully to get a
meeting with MDC officials to set the record straight.
Christian Care has not had any difficulties with Zanu-PF
supporters since February 2000 when two of its employees were
beaten by war vets. The organization subsequently received
an apology from the provincial governor.
¶6. (U) Political statements from officials of both political
parties–although ZANU-PF is the worst culprit–illustrate
the charged environment in which food distribution is taking
place, and how politicians from both sides have fueled
allegations of politicization. In May, for instance, the
Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs, and MP Abednico Ncube
reportedly told villagers in Gwanda that “everyone will
receive food”. World Vision halted their Gwanda program, and
was forced to re-explain the beneficiary criteria to excluded
angry villagers who thought they would receive food. Ncube
subsequently corrected that statement publicly, but told
villagers in Matabeleland in July that maize “will be
available only to those who dump the opposition and work with
ZANU-PF”, and the party would “start feeding its children
before turning to those of the MDC”. On July 20, ZANU-PF MP
for Beitbridge, Kembo Mohadi, warned NGOs distributing food
in Gwanda that they would have to follow government
directives, and their equipment would soon be taken over by
local GOZ officials. In an August 2 BBC article, Didymus
Mutasa, ZANU-PF Secretary for External Relations, complained
that Western influence comes along with donor food
distribution, and suggested that any food aid should be
distributed through government mechanisms. See Ref. B for
further official objections to NGO food distribution.
¶7. (U) On August 6, under the headline, “Food Aid Prolongs
Nation’s Suffering”, the independent “Financial Gazette”
commented that food aid is perpetuating and prolonging deeper
suffering by giving Zimbabweans a false sense of food
security when instead they should be confronting the
political causes of their starvation.
Straining NGO Resources
———————–
¶8. (C) Rudo Kwaramba, World Vision Country Director, has been
occupied with responding to questions from the international
community, setting the record straight in the local media
with interviews and press briefings, and persuading offending
politicians to correct their statements, all of which takes
time away from actually feeding the hungry. WFP Director
Kevin Farrell also complained that checking every instance of
abuse is consuming a significant percentage of their time.
Monitoring Mechanism
——————–
¶9. (C) USAID, the UK’s DFID, EU and WFP agree that an
independent monitoring mechanism is required to investigate
and prevent abuse. We understand that USAID/DCHA/OFDA in
Washington is pursuing, with the UN, the establishment of a
permanent OCHA presence here to handle this task. The USAID
Mission here is working with other donors to develop a
strategy and mechanism for establishing such an independent
monitoring mechanism, in conjunction with local NGOs.
FOSENET, a consortium of local NGOs, has already initiated a
preliminary aid monitoring network with funding from several
donors.
Ramp-Up – Bottlenecks?
———————-
¶10. (U) In conjunction with the new expanded consolidated
appeals, the WFP is in the process of expanding its program
coverage and partner NGOs. WFP’s plan is to increase its
food distribution from its current level of about 10,000
metric tons per month, to 50,000 metric tons per month by
December 2002. The national consumption is 135,000 to
150,000 metric tons per month. According to Kevin Farrell,
WFP is working to designate more NGOs and registering them
with the GOZ, and ramping-up the capacities of the NGOs
currently registered. Farrell believes currently registered
NGOs are reluctant to increase their staffs and logistics in
advance of the food actually arriving in country.
¶11. (U) Under the enhanced WFP program, World Vision is
supposed to increase distribution to 12,186 metric tons a
month by December 2002. However, World Vision finds the
terms of the WFP program difficult. According to Kwaramba,
they receive a fixed fee of US$24,000 per month, and a
variable fee US$39.00 per ton distributed. Submitting
invoices to get reimbursed for the variable fee takes time,
thus they are cash strapped at the same moment when they are
trying to scale-up their operations. Also, their agreement
with WFP was to distribute 2,600 metric tons of food for the
month of July. But WFP only delivered 2,100 metric tons.
Thus World Vision laid out the logistical costs to distribute
2,600 metric tons–but will only be paid for their actual
distribution of 2,100. Additionally, WFP is proposing terms
for the enhanced program that would be even worse from the
World Vision perspective: an advance with most of the payment
by variable fee, and no fixed fee. World Vision finds the
terms of the USAID bilateral program much easier–USAID hands
over the food and the money to distribute it at the outset.
Severity of the Crisis
———————-
¶12. (C) Jean-Claude Mukadi, World Vision Relief Manager,
thinks that even the planned increase in supply of relief
food will not meet demand. That is, if WFP were able to
ramp-up to 50,000 metric tons a month by the end of the year,
and the GMB distributes what they have in stock and in the
pipeline, and the smaller NGO and other programs continue or
are increased as planned–still there will not be enough.
The already high numbers of people suffering from
malnutrition are increasing daily, in one month, people will
be much worse Mukadi cautioned. (Note: We do not yet have
concrete malnutrition rates. End Note.) Ref. A also
predicts a shortfall.
Comment
——-
¶13. (C) The good news is that the barriers to GMO food
donations are coming down, (Ref. C), and the beneficiary
identification process and criteria are mostly transparent.
In addition, outright handing over of food along political
lines seems confined to the GOZ’s own distribution programs.
An independent monitoring agency would undoubtedly contribute
to more equitable distribution, and we will continue to press
this issue actively. However, the crisis is worsening,
putting strain on NGOs to increase capacity. At the same
time responding to increased political rhetoric is also
straining limited NGO resources, necessarily taking time away
from actual food distribution. End Comment.
SULLIVAN
(40 VIEWS)
0 Comments