There is a push going on among some aid agencies and in Congress this year to change U.S. aid policies. Until now, U.S. food aid to developing countries has usually involved sending U.S.-grown agricultural products to the affected countries. The problem is that such aid can put local farmers out of business. So many aid agencies, and some members of Congress, have proposed a solution that involves buying local food and helping distribute it rather than relying entirely on U.S.-produced food.
President Bush discussed the proposed U.S. change at the UN General Assembly this week.
This change makes a huge amount of sense to me. I’m wondering if the Church should follow suit and buy more locally produced goods, thereby developing local industry and helping local farmers, rather than sending most of its aid from the United States.
UPDATE: We got a response for Church humanitarian services. Read on.
One of the basic principles of aid is that you want to promote independence while at the same time helping people with their immediate needs. This is exactly how the Church welfare system works, and this is how all good aid programs should work.
But imagine you are a wheat farmer in, say, Africa. A neighboring region is suffering from famine, but you have been spared the effects of the famine. You have a good wheat crop, and you’re about to harvest. Suddenly, ships filled with U.S.-grown surplus wheat show up at a nearby harbor and flood the market with free wheat donated from the United States. What happens to the price of the wheat you have produced? Well, if they can get wheat for free, nobody is going to pay for the wheat you have grown. The result is that farmers suffer inadvertently from U.S. aid policies. Farmers may be forced to lose entire crops and even abandon farming entirely by U.S. policies.
What if, instead, U.S. aid groups bought at least a portion of their aid locally? These policies would have the opposite effect: you would promote local agriculture and build up local farmers. This could have the effect of fostering long-term independence in Africa and other developing areas, which is exactly what we should be doing.
As far as I can determine from the Church web site, most Church aid is produced centrally in Salt Lake. Take a look at this program, for example. The Church makes Atmit, an Ethiopian porridge, in Salt Lake City at Welfare Square and then ships it to famine-stricken regions.
For the record, the Church’s aid programs are incredibly successful and well-received worldwide. But I’m wondering if they would be even better received if they involved building up more local industry in developing countries. Would it be possible to change Church aid policy slightly to buy more products locally? What about, instead of sending aid packages from the U.S., we donated money to pay for local industry to produce aid packages in Africa and other stricken areas? Wouldn’t that be a better long-term solution?
I’ll be the first to admit that such a scheme has hazards, especially in areas where corruption is rampant. But if administered correctly, it just might work and be more effective.