Download Current Issue - SAIS

percentage of hungry and malnourished
people has declined from 59 percent
in 1992—among the highest in the
world—to about 38 percent in 2007.
One of the conflict drivers concerned
access to agricultural land. Even the
peace settlement brought further conflict
as displaced peoples returned to
their homes and farmlands to find them
occupied by others, while private entrepreneurs
sought to buy up arable land.
The resulting clashes delayed an early
rebirth of agricultural productivity.
However, an interministerial land
commission was set up with FAO assistance
to facilitate a democratic process
to resolve land disputes, and a new land
law was enacted in 1997 after consultation
with official and citizens’ organizations.
This law has been credited with
providing the foundation for sustainable
development and food security in postconflict
Mozambique.
In short, just as violent conflict can
aggravate food insecurity, effective
processes of conflict resolution and
post-conflict institution-building can
help create greater security in matters of
nutrition in the aftermath of long-term
violent conflict, thereby replacing a
vicious cycle with a virtuous one.
Policy Implications
This article focuses on the relationship
between PSCs accompanied by
frequent violence and chronic food
insecurity. Media and the policy community,
however, largely focus their
attention on disasters such as drought,
floods, hurricanes and earthquakes,
and the rapid responses undertaken by
international organizations, national
governments and nongovernmental
organizations, including Oxfam International,
Médecins sans Frontières,
International Rescue Committee,
CARE and UNICEF. But, at best, these
responders provide a bandage to deal
with the immediate effects of the
disaster without taking adequate longrange
actions to alleviate chronic food
insecurity or ongoing violent conflict.
The result is that countries such as
Somalia, which according to the WFP/
FAO report has suffered 15 combined
natural and human-induced disasters
between 1996 and 2010, go through
36 SAISPHERE
the same cycle of disaster on an almost
annual basis without any lasting
improvements.
At worst, humanitarian aid programs,
however well-intended, destroy
local markets and undercut indigenous
agriculture in ways that actually aggravate
long-term food shortages by driving
farmers out of business or into producing
exportable commodities rather
than food for local consumption. Aid
that is unequally distributed in favor of
one group relative to another, captured
by particular groups or warlords or
diverted by political elites for their personal
profit may similarly contribute to
conflict rather than alleviating it.
Policy should therefore be directed
explicitly at promoting long-range local
food production and, at the same time,
assisting in the management and resolution
of local conflicts. Even short-term
aid may be more effective without market
distortion if aid agencies buy local
produce when available.
In addition, the goal of international
assistance must move beyond disaster
relief to offer assistance in food production,
conservation, storage and delivery
to all segments of the population. Reliance
on disaster relief may more easily
attract political backing in developed
countries where the “CNN effect” provides
support for relief in the presence
of widespread, visible famine.
Leaders in developed countries need
to do a better job of educating the public,
media and politicians that the only
way to avoid repeated cycles of food
crises and violent conflict is to engage
in sustained efforts to build institutions
and infrastructure required to break the
cycle. The 2010 WFP/FAO report concludes
with the following valuable recommendation:
“Modalities of assistance
should move beyond the traditional categories
of ‘relief’ and ‘development’ to a
more diversified approach that includes
social protection mechanisms, food
security early-warning systems, disaster
preparedness, environmental protection
and rehabilitation, and building livelihood
resilience.” n
P. Terrence Hopmann is professor of
International Relations and director of
the Conflict Management Program.
China