A Tremor for Haiti's Aid Industry

The earthquake was only the latest disaster to capsize the country's already fragile local aid economy. Now outside organizations are threatening to overwhelm it entirely.

BY POOJA BHATIA | JUNE 30, 2010

On the second floor of a modest white house on a rutted road in Cap Haitien, 20 or so workers are busy at their workstations, churning out upwards of 3 tons of peanut butter (mamba in Creole) per month. But this is no ordinary peanut butter. It's Medika Mamba, a thick paste used to combat childhood malnutrition. It requires no cooking, refrigeration, or rehydration, and it can be administered at home. It is homemade Haitian in a way that most products are not these days: It uses local workers and peanuts from local farmers, and it rehabilitates Haitian children. In other words, it was the ideal thing to have around in the aftermath of the Jan. 12 earthquake.

But aid agencies didn't buy it. They had failed for 2½ years to audit the plant, a requisite for procurement, and so instead, they imported their own stuff: a similar supplement called Plumpy'nut. The result? Even before the earthquake, the market for so-called ready-to-use therapeutic foods (RUTFs) was flooded -- and Medika Mamba wasn't able to compete. And while the needy children were still getting fed, it was a major blow to the mamba-producing Meds & Foods for Kids (MFK) factory and its local employees.

Unfortunately, the Medika Mamba tale has been far too common in Haiti for years, emblematic of what has been wrong with foreign aid. Local producers can rarely compete with the influx of food, medicine, and other supplies that aid agencies bring. This is part of the reason why today -- after decades of aid dependence -- Haiti has almost no local economy for these goods.

When RUTFs were first created in 1999, they were seen as a major step up from old malnutrition remedies. In 2007, a consortium of major aid agencies, including the World Health Organization, UNICEF, and the World Food Program, declared it the gold-standard treatment for severe acute malnutrition.

Gold standards can, however, lead to gold rushes. Nutriset, the private French corporation that makes Plumpy'nut, the world's most popular RUTF, saw its shipments rise almost threefold from 2007 to 2008; last year, it sold $72.3 million worth, mostly to UNICEF.

The efficiency with which Nutriset was able to turn out Plumpy'nut, scaling up production to meet demand, would have been unimaginable in Haiti. Most Westerners can't imagine the tangles, snarls, and vexations that characterize any type of production there. Farming practices are ancient, roads are awful, people lack education, and electricity and water are not free. The majority of peanut farmers are smallholders; even if they had tractors, they wouldn't have plots large enough to use them on. Farmers prepare the soil with pickaxes and hoes. So by the time MFK buys peanuts locally from farmers near Cap Haitien, they cost between $1 and $1.50 per kilogram -- five times the U.S. price. And because farmers lack disease-resistant seeds and fungicides, such as those used in the United States, MFK has to throw out about 30 percent of the local peanuts it buys.

Given all this, it was no surprise that MFK struggled to compete when Nutriset established a Plumpy'nut franchise in the Dominican Republic, right next door to Haiti. But the next-door plant was not the real reason why MFK was shut out of the market. The trouble was the audit.

ROBERTO SCHMIDT/AFP/Getty Images

 

Pooja Bhatia is a journalist based in Port-au-Prince, Haiti.

KB

11:40 AM ET

July 1, 2010

While I think Bhatia makes

While I think Bhatia makes great points, there are some problems I see in this article:

1. She finds that among other problems, small landowners, lack of tractors and use of pickaxes and hoes are responsible for the fact that Haitian peanuts cost five times as much as American peanuts. This omits the elephant in the room (probably *the* main factor for the price discrepancy): gigantic government subsidies to US agribusiness that artificially decrease the price of US peanuts. This is an essential point that goes unmentioned. Also, as a general trend, productivity has been shown to *decrease* with an increased size of farms in many countries, under a host of diverse conditions. Keep in mind that ancient farming techniques, bad roads, lack of education, electricity and potable water afflict many rural zones of neighboring Dominican Republic (admittedly to a lesser level of severity or prevalence), but thanks to state agricultural policies (like price guarantees and tariffs), Dominican staples like beans and rice are found all over the country and these Dominican peasants eke out a better livelihood than their Haitian counterparts.

2. Bhatia notes that "[e]ighty percent of rice consumed in Haiti is imported, whether as aid or trade" but again attributes this to inefficiency: "Haiti's inefficiencies are never far from view: Haitian rice costs more than Pakistani rice." This is another superficial comparison, as Pakistan also provides strong state support for rice production. It would have been helpful to note that up until the mid-1980s, almost all rice consumed within Haiti was Haitian. This enormous transformation was not due to inefficiency, but because of very explicit political choices made by the World Bank, IMF and USAID (see Clinton's public apology at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee). The article could have mentioned CEPR's terrific policy proposal of buying up Haiti's next rice crops to stimulate domestic production as a possible solution.

3. I was confused by her point that Preval's "reluctance to subsidize the price of imported rice contributed to his government's downfall." What downfall does she mean? Would the reluctance have led to his downfall if Fanmi Lavalas hadn't been banned under dubious, technical grounds from participating in the election? Hasn't he been in office this whole time?

 

RSAFSOZ

4:53 PM ET

July 2, 2010

bad chances

haiti lives bad chances.

porno sex porno film

 

BEAUTYGIRL

10:34 PM ET

July 7, 2010

What's surprising here is

What's surprising here is that it's not just the local farmers, but local industry that the aid agencies are sidelining. It is funny that UNICEF and DWB of all organizations, would sideline local industry, even if by the means of a bureaucratic messup.
prom dresses
hair extensions

 

GREGCART08

7:33 PM ET

July 20, 2010

If they continue to get

If they continue to get something out of help, it is really impossible for them to have a stable economy. Who amongst them will support their local product? Imagine how many taxes from these commodities are eliminated because of these help.Greg Cart

 

PETEFROST5

2:55 AM ET

July 27, 2010

It is a good deed to help

It is a good deed to help other people. However, you need to make sure that this won't affect them and their attitude in a long run. How could it be possible for them to have a great life on their own if they become more independent to those people who help them.Pete Frost