Government Relief for Development or Government Development for Relief? Critical Lessons From the Famine Relief Programme (FRP) as an Input-Subsidy Policy in Lesotho, 2002-2003

Abstract

This study, within the context of funding disaster recovery, purports to examine some socio-economic impacts of Famine Relief Programme (FRP) as a country-wide input policy of the agricultural year, 2002/2003, by the Lesotho Government (LG). Obtainable critical lessons in the implementation of this programme range from issues of management, efficiency, effectiveness and equity. A representative area of Roma valley has been used as the main primary information provider through observation and formal interviews for 'generalization' and conclusive evidence to country entirety. The assessment includes whether food security or yield increment was attained through FRP as an input-subsidy policy. FRP has been a food security strategy implemented in vain without considering some lessons of success from other former food security strategies like 'The Mantsa-Tlala (famine-eradicating) Scheme as other small-scale farmers put it. They deem failure to copy such lessons of success to emanate from political antipathy of just not preferring to follow one's preceding political rival's line of success. Food security as thus stands out to be an issue of 'political will' not applied rather than stifling lending conditionalities of IMF and World Bank, as well, fostering 'liberalization' on agricultural sector, even where the private sector is not fully developed and the government being the only one with enough capital to sharecrop with the faminestricken asset-poor or has adequate potential to create/strengthen one if not attract foreign one. Only that there is almost no developed food self-sufficient country in the world, always providing food aid, that does not practise input subsidy to any degree if not throughout all cropping and marketing levels. Progressive taxes and other redistributive welfare measures are adopted by developed food self-sufficient countries to tackle among others subsidy cost-recoupment in agriculture, including practising unfair terms of global agricultural trade.