This record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available.

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 04 HARARE 002453 
 
SIPDIS 
 
AID FOR DCHA/FFP LANDIS, CRUMBLY, MUTAMBA, PETERSEN 
DCHA/OFDA FOR PRATT, BARTON, KHANDAGLE, MENGHETTI 
BORNS, MARX, HALMRAST-SANCHEZ, MCCONNELL 
AFR/SA FOR FLEURET, COPSON, LOKEN, MACNAIRN 
STATE/AF FOR RAYNOR, DELISI 
PRETORIA FOR DIJKERMAN, HELM, DISKIN, HALE 
NAIROBI FOR SMITH, RILEY 
LILONGWE FOR RUBEY, SINK 
LUSAKA FOR GUNTHER, NIELSON 
MAPUTO FOR POLAND, BLISS 
MASERU FOR AMB LOFTIS 
MBABANE FOR KENNA 
GABORONE FOR THOMAS, MULLINS AND DORMAN 
ROME FOR FODAG FOR LAVELLE, DAVIS 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: EAID PREL US ZI
SUBJECT:  Pilot WFP Feeding Program in Former Commercial 
Farming Areas 
 
REF: Harare 02241 
 
Summary: 
 
¶1.  On December 18 in a meeting for donor 
representatives, the World Food Programme (WFP) 
presented details of its proposed pilot program for 
extending general food distribution into newly resettled 
(i.e., former commercial farming) areas.  This meeting 
followed the delivery of letters from the European Union 
and United Kingdom confirming their support of the WFP 
pilot.  The procedures that WFP presented in the meeting 
outlined processes for beneficiary selection, food 
distribution and monitoring that are similar to those 
currently followed in the communal areas, but involve 
additional monitoring mechanisms to address issues of 
potential politicization and transparency.  WFP's 
presentation credibly addressed donor concerns about the 
feasibility of following these processes and 
demonstrated significant forethought regarding how the 
plan could be implemented in the special context of the 
newly resettled areas.  On the basis of this 
presentation, post concludes that the pilot program 
appears viable and will inform WFP that we do not object 
to moving forward on a pilot basis, as was already 
agreed by the EU.  Post will explicitly remind WFP that 
it is not authorized to expand the pilot feeding program 
beyond the initial two districts without a full 
evaluation and concurrence from major donors.  End 
Summary. 
 
Donor approval of the pilot: 
 
¶2.  In a letter to the WFP on December 15, the European 
Union confirmed its support for WFP's proposed pilot 
program in two districts in the former commercial 
farming areas.  Post has forwarded this letter to 
Washington.  In a related letter from the United Kingdom 
to the EU, the British High Commissioner emphasized that 
the approval of the pilot "does not imply agreement to 
subsequently roll out the programme more widely without 
a detailed review; nor does it imply availability of 
additional funding." 
 
¶3.  As described in reftel, the United States had a 
number of concerns about the feasibility of successfully 
implementing free food distribution in the contentious 
environment of these resettled areas. Based on WFP's 
efforts to address these concerns, as discussed below, 
post intends to convey its approval of the program in 
two initial districts on a pilot basis only. 
 
Details of the pilot and US concerns: 
 
¶4.  Following the approval of the pilot by the European 
Union, WFP invited donor representatives to a 
presentation to discuss the details of the pilot.  The 
USAID/Zimbabwe Mission Director and the Zimbabwe Food 
For Peace Officer attended. 
 
¶5.  In the presentation, WFP staff and partners who will 
implement the pilot (Save the Children/UK and CARE, 
International) described details regarding: access to 
the former commercial farming areas;  beneficiary 
selection and registration; verification of the 
vulnerability of registered beneficiaries and lack of 
vulnerability of non-beneficiaries; food distribution 
management; and monitoring.  The program's design is 
substantially similar to the procedures used by NGOs in 
the communal areas, with special care to sensitize and 
inform all concerned government officials of the 
procedures, and intensified public information, 
verification of registrations, and monitoring. 
 
¶6.  The presentation and ensuing discussion addressed 
the major practical and policy issues that have been of 
concern to the US: 1) the potential for success using 
current community-based methods for beneficiary 
selection and food distribution in the commercial 
farming areas, where there are no traditional 
communities and where ZANU-PF party structures are the 
primary representatives of local authority, and 2) the 
limited access granted to the international community 
when unimpeded access is needed to assess the extent and 
degree of vulnerability and to monitor food aid 
operations. 
 
Compensating for lack of communities: 
 
¶7.  To compensate for the lack of community networks, 
WFP and the NGO Implementing Partner (IP) staff will 
announce public meetings and display posters in numerous 
public arenas (e.g., schools, markets, shops, and 
drinking establishments), in all population clusters 
(i.e., both farmers' villages and farm workers' 
compounds) to be covered from a distribution point.  The 
announcements will emphasize the importance of 
attendance by a representative from every household. 
 
¶8.  The entire process of beneficiary selection, 
registration and distribution will be conducted in these 
public arenas and will be closely observed by staff of 
the IPs and WFP.  All selection criteria will be based 
on economic or inherent vulnerabilities.  Only 
households identified as objectively lacking means for 
self-support (low/no income; low/no crop harvest; few/no 
livestock) will be eligible.  Among this broad group of 
eligible households, those with inherent vulnerabilities 
(e.g., the lack of able-bodied family members; support 
of a large number of dependents, particularly the 
chronically ill, disabled, or orphans; or the lack of 
land or income) will be prioritized.  WFP and the IPs 
explained that they will not explicitly query potential 
beneficiaries regarding occupational status (i.e., 
resettled farmer versus farm work), to avoid any 
appearance of politicization.  They will, however, 
exclude from eligibility those conducting business or 
earning regular salaries, e.g., business employees, 
teachers and other public servants.  The implementing 
NGOs estimate that a substantial majority of qualifying 
beneficiaries (approximately 80%) will be former 
commercial farm workers. 
 
¶9.  In order to ensure that intimidation and 
politicization do not result in the exclusion of those 
who are vulnerable, WFP will double its efforts at 
household verification.  Under the food distribution 
program in communal areas, the IPs conduct verification 
on 10% of the registered households.  For this pilot 
exercise, the IPs will examine a minimum of 20% of the 
registered households to confirm eligibility and 
vulnerability prior to any distribution of food. 
Verification of additional households will continue each 
month after the first distribution, such that 100% of 
registered households should be verified within a 5- 
month period. 
 
¶10.  Before each food distribution, the list of 
beneficiaries will be read publicly, and those attending 
the reading will have the opportunity to affirm their 
agreement or to raise any objections to the list or to 
any name included or excluded from the list. 
 
¶11.  The food distribution process will be managed and 
monitored by teams selected by the communities in a 
public forum overseen by the IP.  These teams will be 
assembled to fairly represent the various vulnerable 
segments of the community (with significant 
representation of former farm workers), and to not 
include individuals in any position of influence who 
could be in conflict with the program's impartiality. 
 
¶12.  Throughout every food distribution, IP and WFP 
staff will be present to verify that the process is 
correctly managed and will make themselves available to 
receive feedback from any member of the community.  WFP 
emphasized that it has arranged for multiple channels of 
communication (e.g., through its own monitors, IP 
monitors and help desks consisting of beneficiaries) for 
any potentially aggrieved individuals to raise questions 
in confidence about the registration, verification 
and/or distribution processes.  If any problems or 
concerns arise with beneficiary selection or 
registration, WFP assured the donors that it would stop 
any distributions and recreate the lists from scratch. 
 
¶13.  After each food distribution, a random sample of 
both registered and unregistered households will be 
canvassed during Post Distribution Monitoring.  This 
exercise will verify that food actually remains with the 
intended beneficiaries, that recipients meet the 
eligibility criteria and that recipients are indeed more 
vulnerable than the non-recipients canvassed. 
 
¶14.  Additions and removals of names from beneficiary 
lists will be made only by the IPs after careful 
investigation of the circumstances of the households. 
However, any resident of the distribution area may at 
any time question the inclusion or omission of a 
household from the list through numerous formal and 
informal channels.   Save the Children/UK will organize 
a Children's Feedback Committee in its pilot area to 
increase opportunities for children's voices to be 
heard. 
 
Access by the international community: 
 
¶15. WFP stated explicitly that unimpeded access to the 
pilot areas to disseminate information, verify 
beneficiary eligibility, monitor distributions, and 
conduct post-distribution monitoring is a necessary 
condition to a successful pilot program.  WFP explained 
that before entering a community, it will ensure that it 
has assurances of unimpeded access from national, 
provincial and district government structures.  WFP 
insisted, however, that if any of these activities were 
to be impeded, it would immediately suspend food 
distribution until the issues were satisfactorily 
resolved. 
 
¶16.  As a next step to discuss issues of access, the IPs 
and WFP will present their plan at the Provincial, 
District and Ward levels.  Using the GOZ/WFP Memorandum 
of Understanding (which includes a flowchart of the 
registration, distribution and monitoring processes and 
places the IPs in charge of the process), WFP will 
explain the use of village assemblies to select 
beneficiaries solely on the basis of vulnerability.  WFP 
will seek written acknowledgement of agreement to the 
process at the Provincial level. 
 
¶17.  WFP stated that the local political structures of 
the Zanu-PF party established at the time of the farm 
invasions (the "Committees of 7"), will have no role in 
the pilot activities. 
 
¶18.  WFP invited donors to send 1-2 national staff as 
observers to the pilot activities.  USAID/Zimbabwe is 
arranging to send its FSN food monitor to observe the 
pilot at all stages. 
 
Conclusion 
 
¶19.  WFP's plans for the pilot feeding program in former 
commercial farming areas demonstrates careful 
consideration of the difficult circumstances in these 
areas and puts in place a number of additional 
mechanisms to monitor the program carefully.  Consistent 
with the approvals WFP has already received from the EU 
and UK, post will inform WFP that the USG does not 
object to moving forward with the feeding program on a 
pilot basis.  Post will explicitly remind WFP that it is 
not authorized to expand the pilot program beyond the 
initial two districts without a full evaluation and 
concurrence from the major donors.  USAID/Zimbabwe will 
arrange for its Food for Peace Field Monitor to observe 
the pilot program and will keep Washington informed of 
developments. 
SULLIVAN