This study seeks to understand the impact of protracted food aid on household livelihood
strategies. It assesses the negative impact of food aid on recipients which could also be
called the disincentive effects or unintended effects. There has been a notion in the
development discourse especially by donor organisations, governments and development
agencies that donor aid can lead to negative dependency. Such arguments have been used
to withdraw, or reduce aid. On the other hand the study assesses whether the design of
food aid promoted livelihood strategies as a way of building resilience to further shocks.
A qualitative research design which used a number of methods was utilised. It made use
of focus group discussions with local authorities of Chipinge district, local traditional
leaders, government field workers and villagers as well as questionnaire interviews with
individuals while observations became an integral part. A two stage sampling design was
chosen in order to systematically sample the wards and then randomly sample individuals
from those wards. A lot of secondary information was also obtained mostly from the
World Food Programme and Christian Care.
The study found out that negative dependency on food aid does not occur because aid is
given over a long period of time to the same communities. Rather it may occur if; (i)
rigorous assessments are not done prior to implementation; (ii) it does not target the most
vulnerable thereby including undeserving cases and excluding deserving cases; (iii) it is
implemented at the wrong time and (iv) if the quantities given are more than the
requirements.
It is concluded that the food aid which was implemented by Christian Care and World
Food Programme from 2002 to 2009 was designed properly such that it did not encourage
negative dependency. However, it fell short of attaining the objective of promoting or
strengthening livelihoods.