Did the US supply GMO food to Zimbabwe in 2002?

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

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

TAGS: PGOV PHUM EAID ASEC ZI

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

(48 VIEWS)