I'm not a civil engineer, I deal with the Milstar satellite network not the effective production of food. There are plenty of people with the necessary education and experience who agree with me and are equally frustrated at current ineffective methods of most aid programs. Hell, even the people involved distributing the aid to the hungry are also frustrated at having to fight both the greed and the indifference from the government of the people they're trying to help.
I can hold an opinion as to the solution to the problem without actually taking the next flight out to Africa (Where 4 out of 5 of the worlds poorest nations are). The fact that I'm not talking directly to these people doesn?t invalidate my opinion. Akin to saying that non-proliferation of nuclear arms is a good idea and then having someone quip that I should be quiet unless I'm out there dismantling the suckers.
Now I'm not saying we should stop feeding these people until we get farms and irrigation established. And even if we did given our currently limited effect on the problem wouldn't more people live in the long run if we helped them build the means to feed themselves rather than only making a dent in the hunger problem? What I'm really getting at is a shift in funding --- increasing emphasis on infrastructure rather than spending most of the money on foodstuffs. Finding and exploiting water supplies and using established methods in getting water to where its needed. Modernizing farming technology in combination with genetics to reduce the crops need for water. Building reservoirs to collect and then store rain water during the monsoon season, as much of the rain water is wasted as run off. Establishing grey water (IE toilet/shower/tap) recycling methods to increase the available water supply and reduce waste. Establishing semi-permanent security to protect ongoing projects in areas that are somewhat unstable and to prevent theft. Constructing desalinization plants where applicable to produce more freshwater. Additionally in order to help pay for these projects we could work out favorable trading policies with the nations we're trying to aid.
Of course to really affect the problem 9 out of 10 governments in nations where there are starving people need to be replaced. But I won't get too deep into that
Infrastructure, infrastructure, infrastructure. That is more important than anything else. It out weighs short term "band aid" fixes. We have to ask ourselves a question: Do we want to fix the problem or just make ourselves feel better about ourselves? If the vast majority of our aid is being used to enrich the dictators of these nations (Which increases their stranglehold on the people) then we have to ask to what end are we throwing money at the problem? Without infrastructure development how can they ever improve their situation--- how can they join the even 20th century in terms of an average individuals access to water, electricity, medical care, education, and food?
The cost associated with all this infrastructure is staggering in the short term, but we have to weigh that against the ongoing and infinite cost of handing them finished foodstuffs rather then giving them the means to feed themselves. In the end it may sound harsh to equate the problem to numbers on a balance sheet, but it's what we have to do in order to find effective means to solve the problem, or in the very least make a much bigger dent in it. Some might say I don't have a heart when taking this approach, to that I would respond that you usually have to use both a heart and a brain to solve serious problems.