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

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 03 HARARE 000349 
 
SIPDIS 
 
AID FOR DCHA/FFP LANDIS, CRUMBLY, MUTAMBA, PETERSEN 
DCHA/OFDA FOR PRATT, BARTON, KHANDAGLE, 
MENGHETTI, BORNS, MARX, HALMRAST-SANCHEZ 
AFR/SA FOR FLEURET, LOKEN, COPSON, BAKER, MACNAIRN 
EGAT FOR HOBGOOD, THOMPSON 
STATE/AF FOR RAYNOR, DELISI 
PRETORIA FOR DIJKERMAN, DISKIN, HALE, SINK, 
REYNOLDS 
NAIROBI FOR SMITH, RILEY, BROWN 
LILONGWE FOR RUBEY, SINK, RUBEY 
LUSAKA FOR GUNTHER, NIELSON 
MAPUTO FOR POLAND, BLISS, THOMPSON 
MASERU FOR AMB LOFTIS 
MBABANE FOR KENNA 
GABORONE FOR THOMAS, BROWN 
ROME FOR FODAG FOR LAVELLE, DAVIS 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: EAID PREL US ZI
SUBJECT: CHANGING HUMANITARIAN PRIORITIES IN ZIMBABWE 
 
REF: HARARE 256 
 
-------- 
SUMMARY 
-------- 
¶1. As Zimbabwe enters its third year of international 
humanitarian relief, there has been a shift in the 
thinking of the major donors and international 
development agencies with regard to how best to address 
the crisis.  Most donors and NGOs have been responding to 
the immediate humanitarian needs -- to identify and feed 
highly vulnerable people and to ensure food security 
through the provision of limited amounts of emergency 
agricultural inputs -- since February 2002. But donors 
are increasingly convinced that we cannot continue with 
the same approach to humanitarian assistance for several 
reasons, including concern over the growing dependency, 
limited evidence of serious malnutrition, and ongoing 
transparency and coordination problems with the GOZ. 
Donors are moving towards a consensus that general food 
distributions should be phased out in favor of highly 
targeted feeding programs. Surprisingly, the GOZ has come 
to the same conclusion -- but for different reasons.----- 
--------BACKGROUND------------- 
¶2. The United States Government (USG) has contributed 
substantial food assistance to Zimbabwe over the past two 
years, through the Office of Food for Peace and the 
Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance Development 
partners and implementing agencies include: the World 
Food Program (WFP), World Vision (WV), Catholic Relief 
Services (CRS), and an NGO consortium of WV, CARE 
International (CARE), and CRS, known as C-SAFE (the 
Consortium for the Southern Africa Food Security 
Emergency). 
¶3. "Non-food" assistance through USAID/OFDA has been 
focused on agricultural inputs, water/sanitation, 
assistance to internally displaced persons (IDPs), 
humanitarian coordination and information systems. 
-----------------------------SHIFTING DONOR PERSPECTIVES- 
----------------------------4. Donors, NGOs and 
international development agencies have been busy 
responding to the immediate complex humanitarian crisis 
in Zimbabwe.  Their priority has been to target highly 
vulnerable people and to ensure food security through the 
provision of food aid and emergency agricultural inputs. 
 
¶5. Lately, however, there is growing concern among the 
donor community over whether the on-going humanitarian 
assistance programs are the most appropriate 
interventions.  This concern is the result of a number of 
factors, including: (1) fears over the contribution of 
general food distributions to increased dependency in the 
country; 2) there are public reports in the state- 
controlled media that the GOZ's Grain Marketing Board 
(GMB) is stockpiling grain, reportedly totalling 240,000 
metric tons at present, and still refusing to be 
transparent about distribution plans or coordinate with 
international relief efforts, while donors have scurried 
to import grain to feed Zimbabwe's people; and (3) 
malnutrition rates in the country are low and do not 
appear to be increasing (many of the acutely malnourished 
are likely HIV/AIDs affected). 
 
¶6. As Zimbabwe enters its third year of international 
humanitarian relief, there is a definite shift in the 
thinking of many donors and international development 
agencies with regard to how best to assist the country. 
Development partners are considering ways to inject 
activities into their emergency aid programs that will 
better promote sustainable livelihoods (see: SEPTEL on 
DFID Recovery Workshop) and are designing activities that 
steer towards recovery, at least in communal farming 
areas (those not subject to fast-track land reform). 
They are also discussing phasing out general 
distribution, which although already targeted at the most 
vulnerable groups, might yet be more narrowly targeted. 
 
---------------------- 
NEW GOZ PERSPECTIVES 
---------------------- 
 
¶7. Surprisingly, the GOZ is also coming to the same 
conclusion -- that general feeding programs should be 
discontinued. A new Consolidated Appeal has been prepared 
by the UN to address the emergency situation in Zimbabwe. 
But the government has requested that all reference to 
general feeding be omitted from the appeal. Apparently, 
the GOZ has not yet decided whether it will request 
emergency food aid in the coming year or even renew the 
Memorandum of Understanding with World Food Program when 
the current one expires in June. 
 
¶8. At a meeting between the UN and senior GOZ officials, 
held in Victoria Falls on the weekend of February 14th, 
the GOZ presented several reasons to the UN why they are 
dissatisfied with the current status of international 
humanitarian assistance in Zimbabwe. According to UN 
Resident Representative Victor Angelo, who briefed donors 
on Monday, February 23rd, GOZ officials complained that 
NGOs implementing humanitarian assistance programs are 
creating parallel structures that duplicate government 
systems rather than trying to work through the existing 
government structures.  The GOZ further complained that 
NGOs often carry out activities on the ground without 
first consulting with government authorities or local 
officials.  The GOZ stated that general food 
distributions are creating dependency among local 
populations, and they asserted that future assistance 
should be better targeted, most likely focusing on 
orphans, the chronically ill, and other highly vulnerable 
groups.  Finally, they alleged that donors are 
exaggerating the humanitarian crisis in Zimbabwe for 
their own political purposes. 
 
¶9. At his briefing with international donors, the UN 
Resident Representative also revealed that the 
President's office has instructed relevant ministries to 
arrange for the purchase and importation of 800,000 
metric tons of grain this year.  The President's office 
has instructed the Reserve Bank to come up with the 
necessary funds, estimated at approximately USD$240 
million, to carry out the purchase.  Apparently, the GOZ 
feels that the combined effect of good rains, economic 
gains from its new monetary policy, its existing 
grainstocks and the 800,000 MT it plans to import will 
obviate the need for continued general food aid 
assistance. 
 
¶10. Comment. Estimates for the 2004 harvest of maize in 
Zimbabwe have ranged between 600,000 MT and 1.2 million 
MT. With the good rains over the past month, most 
observers now believe that the figure will be closer to 1 
to 1.2 million MT.  If this projected harvest is added to 
reported GMB stock of 240,000 MT and planned GOZ 
purchases of 800,000 MT, the GOZ would be able to meet 
its total maize needs of approximately 1.8 million MT. 
If the GOZ is able to reach only half of its optimistic 
import plans, then it would still be not that far off 
from meeting the country's cereal needs.  If these 
assumptions bear out, the GOZ would be in a position to 
control substantial amounts of food stocks as we approach 
the March 2005 election.  At the same time, it's 
important to recognize that it's still several months 
before the harvest and these figures are only 
preliminary.  Additionally, more important than looking 
at the cereal balance sheet (total harvest plus imported 
food plus carryover stocks, minus projected consumption 
needs and exports) is to look at household access to 
food.  In the coming months, WFP will be conducting a 
vulnerability assessment and FAO will be leading an 
annual crop and food supply assessment mission, which 
will provide better data on household vulnerability. 
Post will keep Washington informed as these assessments 
progress.  End Comment. 
 
¶11. Consistent with GOZ statements that it would like to 
end large-scale general food aid distribution, the UN 
Resident Representative reported that the GOZ intends to 
expand its Cash-for-Work programs, which have been 
largely under-funded and the subject of numerous credible 
allegations of political abuse.  The GOZ has asked the UN 
to re-focus the CAP towards concentrating on improving 
social sector services, focusing on recovery and on food 
security for highly vulnerable groups such as those 
affected by HIV/AIDS. 
 
--------------------------------------- 
THE OUTLOOK FOR ZIMBABWE'S VULNERABLE 
--------------------------------------- 
 
¶12. Even with good rains, Post and other major donors are 
convinced that food security will remain a problem in 
Zimbabwe for some time to come, absent a radical shift in 
the GOZ's policy approach. At present, many of Zimbabwe's 
most vulnerable are relying on food aid to meet their 
basic needs.  While this forms an important safety net 
for the most vulnerable, it has often substituted as 
livelihood support, which does little to break the cycle 
of poverty. 
 
¶13. Zimbabwe has recently made modest improvements in 
economic policy with the Reserve Bank's new monetary 
policy, in particular realizing an exchange rate closer 
to market levels.  Should economic policies continue to 
improve beyond the realm of monetary policy, such that 
hyper-inflation begins to recede, the suffering of the 
most vulnerable would begin to ease.  Unfortunately, 
however, there are not signs of the GOZ's willingness to 
institute broader economic reforms or, more importantly, 
address the underlying political crisis that precipitated 
the country's economic downspiral. 
 
¶14. For these reasons, we expect that under any scenario 
certain groups will remain highly vulnerable and will 
likely need ongoing humanitarian assistance.  These 
include chronically ill persons, those infected or 
affected by HIV/AIDS or other diseases (in particular 
orphans, vulnerable children and the elderly) and 
transient people who have been removed from their land 
and have no legitimate place to settle. 
 
------------- 
CONCLUSION 
------------- 
 
¶15. There is a growing consensus towards eliminating 
general food distribution programs in Zimbabwe, in favor 
of programs more targeted to reach specific groups of 
highly vulnerable. International development partners are 
concerned about creating dependency and the continued 
lack of cooperation from the GOZ.  Donors also recognize 
the need for a different approach given that Zimbabwe 
will likely be experiencing food insecurity for some time 
to come.  Coming from a different angle, the GOZ has also 
called for an end to general feeding and has requested 
changes in the CAP to eliminate any reference to such 
feeding programs.  This uneasy convergence is an evolving 
process.  Undoubtedly the GOZ's new stance will present 
added challenges for NGOs working in the field, and their 
job will only be made more difficult by heightened pre- 
election tensions and sensitivities. 
SULLIVAN