The bounty that heads off famine

East African countries battling hunger, the focus of a Monitor series this week, are learning that resilience lies in treating the poor as leaders, not victims, in defining their own solutions.

AP Photo
Basherow Hassen, a mother of four, waits for food aid with her twin children in the Warder district in the Somali region of Ethiopia, Jan. 28 2017.

With more than 20 million people at risk of famine, or what is called the worst humanitarian crisis since World War II, a Monitor series this week looks at some of the successes in avoiding famine. The focus is on the peasant farmers of Eastern Africa, the epicenter of a drought-fueled hunger crisis. More deeply, the articles probe what it means to build “resilience” among people in dealing with a disaster.

Resilience implies a sustainable capacity of strength and intelligence to face a hazard and to recover. One country in the region, Ethiopia, has shown remarkable progress in resilience ever since the 1980s when a famine killed hundreds of thousands. Last year, for example, its government was able to provide close to half of the relief money for the country’s drought.

One reason for Ethiopia’s progress is that many small-scale farmers have developed the skills and assets to endure dry periods. Instead of passively accepting a scarcity of rain, they have created an abundance of new irrigation, improved farming techniques, upgraded roads and schools, and instituted better land rights for women. To achieve these, however, villages also needed to develop a shared vision to devise local solutions and not rely on cookie-cutter ideas imposed from outside.

Other countries have also relied on community-driven goals to lift up the poor. In the 1970s, South Korea set up its New Village program, or Saemaul Undong. After a genocidal rampage in the mid-1990s, Rwanda decentralized many of its economic programs. More recently, Brazil’s Zero Hunger program (Fome Zero) relied on local action groups.

The idea of community-led development has now blossomed worldwide. The change can be seen in the sustainable development goals (SDGs) adopted by the United Nations in 2015. Not only has the UN set a goal to end persistent hunger by 2030, it also calls for participatory decisionmaking “at all levels.” That is a big shift from the UN’s 2000-15 millennium development goals, which relied on a top-down approach driven by national governments and the international aid community.

Many aid groups are calling to “localize the SDGs.” The World Bank insists that the poor “effectively organize to identify community priorities.” The United States Agency for International Development has set up self-reliance programs in Africa that use a bottom-up approach; villages drive the agenda and must hold local officials accountable.

The conceptual shift lies in seeing the poor less as victims or beneficiaries and more as leaders with all the qualities, such as integrity, to deal with a disaster. They may need immediate food aid or tips on how a community can define a new future. But the talents and resources to end their own hunger lie largely within.

The poor’s dignity is not so much restored as it is expressed.

If given the capacity to set their own goals, the hungry should be seen as partners in solving their problems, not clients or dependents. They may need a fish to eat right away and later be taught how to fish. But most of all, they must be seen as able to discover their own fishing poles.

In that idea lies resilience.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to

QR Code to The bounty that heads off famine
Read this article in
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today