Everything is green. The crops are standing tall, but the people are hungry. Harvest is still a month or two away- although there is some green maize being harvested and sold now. How do we respond?
The bad news is that in rural Malawi the 'hungry season' is an annual event- as regular as Christmas. The good news is that this year it has only hit proper in late January and will probably run through to mid March- as opposed to previous years where several bad seasons in a row have meant the 'hungry' started in August and continued through to April the following year. 9 months is a long time to ration maize porridge and scavenge for every meal. Can you imagine?
The worst hit are those who can't farm and are dependant on their relatives for thier survival. No welfare system here. A person's social network is their insurance, welfare and superannuation all entrusted to family ties and reciprocal giving relationsips carefully built over a lifetime.
So how do we 'outsiders'respond? How are decisions of how much to whom made?
A proposal was put forward at our team meeting yesterday- developed based on reports from the 120 villages we work in, in consultation with the major chiefs.
The development arguments against providing aid in the form of food handouts include:
-it sets a precedent and expectation for the future;
-its a bandaid not a long term solution; and
-a well developed system has to be in place to ensure it actually gets to those most in need- the elderly, the sick, the orphaned and child headed households.
Arguments in favour of providing the aid include:
-it is plain wrong to sit and watch people suffering and not respond with compassion when we have access to (comparatively) such enormous resources;
-the team is responding to requests based on years of relationship with these villages rather than applying a prepacked 'solution';
-as our work now forms a regular part of the village life we have been factored in to the kinship obligations. there is an element of expectation that if we can help, we will. even a small effort is appreciated and reinforces our solidarity in their hardship;
-the food will be distributed to where it is most needed through these relationship'; and
-the amount- based on our available resources and an understanding of the extent of the acute problem (reported by chiefs) is small. enough to tide people over, not enough to create dependance.
I had never actually though through HOW you would decide how much to give and where. relationship, budget, extent of problem, our capability. Our efforts will target the 120 villages that we work in and supply enough maize to supplement the rations of those most vulnerable for a week or two closer to harvest. We will source and purchase the maize, deliver it to the villages and the chiefs will record its distribution and ensure it is getting to where it is most needed.
As a new comer, I would like to give more- I guess partly to salve my conscience and make me feel good that Im 'helping'. But i can also see that short term solutions are exactly that- and the long term work of TLC in providing farming training and low cost inputs - although harder to measure the outcomes, is contributing to a long term, grass roots solution. I think the decreasing length of the 'hungry' is proof that real progress is being made.
When we got to the village we heard that her cousin was sick, so we walked through the village to where the patient was being cared for at her fathers house. We paused to greet every person we passed, and for each an explanation of relation was given; 'this is my sisters daughters husband', 'this is my fathers brothers wife', 'this my fathers other wife's sister', 'this is my other sisters daughter', 'this is my husbands relative' (too hard basket :).
