Food aid debate continues
February 27, 2013 | 10:46 PM
Defenders of current food aid programs have written the Office of Management and Budget this week urging no changes to the program or its budget, while advocates for change have urged the Obama administration to hold an open debate on changing the programs, although some also have reservations about cuts to funding levels.
The groups are reacting to rumors that the Obama administration’s draft budget proposal will call for an elimination of funding for the Food for Peace Title II development programs and Food for Progress programs that use and ship U.S.-produced commodities and food, and replace them with a program to buy food on the international markets at lower costs.
A coalition of 70 farm, shipping and labor groups with an interest in the program and a bipartisan coalition of senators have already written President Barack Obama urging him not to change the programs.
Critics have charged that buying U.S. commodities and shipping them is costly and inefficient and that cash assistance would be cheaper and provide more help to low income countries, particularly if the needed food was bought in nearby countries.
On Monday, the Alliance for Global Food Security, which represents private voluntary organizations and co-operatives that distribute U.S. food aid and use money from its sale for development purposes, wrote Acting OMB Director Jeffrey Zients urging him to maintain the current programs and funding levels.
“We are well aware of the debates about the efficacy and efficiency of U.S.-sourced food assistance compared to other forms of aid, such as cash-funded development programs and buying commodities on the world market or closer to where they will be used as food aid,” the alliance wrote.
“Such comparisons obfuscate the careful planning that goes into food aid programs and proven track records of Food for Peace and Food for Progress,” the group wrote.
“Private voluntary organizations (PVOs) and cooperatives establish Title II development programs in cooperation with local organizations, businesses and institutions in poor communities where hunger is a persistent problem. Results include improved nutrition of infants and young children; formation of viable farmer cooperatives and businesses, increased incomes and agriculture productivity; natural resource management that preserves soil and water, and diversification of agriculture production for better nutrition and expanded markets.
“Linking food aid to improved resource management and disaster response helps communities cope with periods of drought, floods and economic distress, which is also a goal of the new USAID ‘Building Resilience to Recurrent Crises’ policy,” the group wrote.
The alliance also wrote Zients that it is important to maintain one of the most controversial elements of the current food aid program — monetization or the sale of some food aid commodities and the use of the proceeds for development programs.
“The reason to monetize is not merely to produce funds for implementing activities; it should be used when the monetized commodity is not sufficiently available through domestic production and commercial imports and where providing the commodity through the marketing system of the recipient country has value,” the alliance wrote.
The alliance also noted that a report it commissioned from Informa Economics, a consulting firm, “showed that the monetization process can address market constraints, food shortfalls or growing demand; improve marketing systems and food quality; and stimulate economic activity.”
“Cost recovery alone, e.g. the amount of funds generated from the sale of the commodity in the recipient country compared to the costs to buy and ship it there, does not measure the value of food aid monetization,” the alliance wrote.
Purchasing food aid locally or regionally in the needy countries is important, the alliance said, but the arguments in favor of it often “overlook the complexities, cost and volume limitations of buying locally and the importance of maintaining a reliable system for providing U.S. commodities to meet chronic and emergency needs. It is important to note that U.S. food aid delivery systems have improved with pre-positioning of U.S. commodities overseas and the availability of a wider variety of commodities to meet particular nutritional needs.”
The alliance, whose members include World Vision and Land O’Lakes, said it finds the criticism that American-sourced food aid has a strong U.S. constituency in the agricultural, transportation and labor sectors, as well as many of the PVOs and cooperatives that implement these programs overseas to be “ironic.”
The alliance noted that Secretary of State John Kerry said in a speech last week at the University of Virginia that foreign aid “suffers from a lack of domestic constituency.”
“First, it’s about telling the story of how we stand up for American jobs and businesses — pretty practical, pretty straightforward, and pretty real on a day-to-day basis,” Kerry said. “And second, it’s about how we stand up for our American values, something that has always distinguished America.”
On Tuesday, a coalition of other food aid advocates including Bread for the World, Oxfam and CARE urged the Obama administration to “include a bold reform proposal that builds upon the United States’ historic leadership as the world’s most generous donor of food aid.”
“When 870 million people around the world go hungry every day, making every food aid dollar count is not only a responsible use of taxpayer money, it is a moral imperative,” the coalition said.
Citing an evaluation of the Agriculture Department’s Local and Regional Purchase pilot project, the groups said that local and regional purchase “is a triple win: providing considerable cost savings, faster humanitarian response, and support for the local farmers and agricultural markets that are the key to providing long-term global food security.”
The coalition also said that funding development activities directly is more efficient than through monetization, and cited a report from the Government Accountability Office that said the use of monetization resulted in at least a 30 percent loss of resources to non-emergency food aid projects conducted from 2008 to 2010.
The joint statement followed blog posts last week by Oxfam, Bread for the World, the Modernizing Foreign Aid Network and the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, which has sponsored several research projects that have called for changes to U.S. food aid and the farm program.
“Real reforms would give aid humanitarian agencies greater flexibility, including the ability to purchase food from the cheapest, most efficient source,” wrote Eric Munoz of Oxfam.
“This would in turn reduce costs and speed delivery,” he wrote. “It would bring our programs into the 21st century, in line with most other countries.”
Munoz also said that the proposed change would “clean up the jurisdictional mess created by the current configuration of food aid programs, which are funded through the Agriculture appropriations bill, but implemented by USAID.”
Drag Edit
Delete Image & Text
Catherine Bertini
Catherine Bertini, a former executive director of the World Food Program who co-led two Chicago Council bipartisan task forces that have called for changes to food aid, said in an email, “I have no problem with associating myself with reform of food aid, which is long overdue.”
“No one is endorsing the administration proposal sight unseen, but I am one who welcomes a 21st century proposal that is more responsive to the needs of the hungry and a more efficient use of taxpayer dollars,” Bertini wrote. “It is regrettable that some want to close down that debate even before there is a real proposal on the table.”
Drag Edit
Delete Text & Image
Dan Glickman
Former Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman, who led one of the task forces with Bertini, said he favors the Chicago Council recommendation that the U.S. government should have the flexibility to buy commodities in other countries, but is more cautious.
“We should we moving in this direction as we have said in our previous reports, realizing that it cannot happen overnight,” Glickman said in an email.
“However, I have cautioned that given the great humanitarian challenges and human suffering we have to be alert to ensure that adequate funds are in place to deal with the challenges, and this not be a budgetary based decision to merely lower spending levels, as that would be a big problem,” Glickman said.
“Rather, it is a way to provide more flexibility at the local level to disburse food assistance more sensibly and humanely, and more efficiently. And we should always reserve the right to provide commodities when humanitarian crises require them.”
Drag Edit
Delete Image & Text
Gus Schumacher
Gus Schumacher, who served under Glickman as the Agriculture undersecretary for farm and foreign agricultural services and was involved in the other Chicago Council research project with Bertini, said in an email that maintaining funding for vital food aid programs is critical.
“Critical for America’s foreign policy, because hunger produces instability and in some cases terrorism, critical as global warming increasingly impacts food production and the poor in developing countries and critical for direct distribution to refugees and families hard hit by natural disasters,” Schumacher wrote.
“While Congress needs to stabilize food aid funding, much work remains to assess the right balance; allocating funds for monetized U.S. grains shipped overseas versus providing direct cash aid to small farmers in developing countries,” he said.
Local and regional purchase programs have encountered problems, Schumacher noted.
“These early pilot cash payment food aid programs need further testing and evaluation, to ensure more timely payments to small farmers facing long ‘cash payment’ delays — as much as 90 days — together with evaluating in-country programs to ramp up efforts to minimize post-harvest waste and losses suffered by small farmers during in-country storage and distribution.”
Drag Edit
Delete Text
U.S. Agriculture and Nutrition Policy Statement: Transforming American Food and Agriculture Policy
U.S. Monetization Policy: Recommendations for Improvement
Renewing American Leadership in the Fight Against Hunger and Poverty
USDA Local and Regional Food Aid Procurement Pilot Project
Alliance for Global Food Security Letter to Office of Management and Budget
The groups are reacting to rumors that the Obama administration’s draft budget proposal will call for an elimination of funding for the Food for Peace Title II development programs and Food for Progress programs that use and ship U.S.-produced commodities and food, and replace them with a program to buy food on the international markets at lower costs.
A coalition of 70 farm, shipping and labor groups with an interest in the program and a bipartisan coalition of senators have already written President Barack Obama urging him not to change the programs.
Critics have charged that buying U.S. commodities and shipping them is costly and inefficient and that cash assistance would be cheaper and provide more help to low income countries, particularly if the needed food was bought in nearby countries.
On Monday, the Alliance for Global Food Security, which represents private voluntary organizations and co-operatives that distribute U.S. food aid and use money from its sale for development purposes, wrote Acting OMB Director Jeffrey Zients urging him to maintain the current programs and funding levels.
“We are well aware of the debates about the efficacy and efficiency of U.S.-sourced food assistance compared to other forms of aid, such as cash-funded development programs and buying commodities on the world market or closer to where they will be used as food aid,” the alliance wrote.
“Such comparisons obfuscate the careful planning that goes into food aid programs and proven track records of Food for Peace and Food for Progress,” the group wrote.
“Private voluntary organizations (PVOs) and cooperatives establish Title II development programs in cooperation with local organizations, businesses and institutions in poor communities where hunger is a persistent problem. Results include improved nutrition of infants and young children; formation of viable farmer cooperatives and businesses, increased incomes and agriculture productivity; natural resource management that preserves soil and water, and diversification of agriculture production for better nutrition and expanded markets.
“Linking food aid to improved resource management and disaster response helps communities cope with periods of drought, floods and economic distress, which is also a goal of the new USAID ‘Building Resilience to Recurrent Crises’ policy,” the group wrote.
The alliance also wrote Zients that it is important to maintain one of the most controversial elements of the current food aid program — monetization or the sale of some food aid commodities and the use of the proceeds for development programs.
“The reason to monetize is not merely to produce funds for implementing activities; it should be used when the monetized commodity is not sufficiently available through domestic production and commercial imports and where providing the commodity through the marketing system of the recipient country has value,” the alliance wrote.
The alliance also noted that a report it commissioned from Informa Economics, a consulting firm, “showed that the monetization process can address market constraints, food shortfalls or growing demand; improve marketing systems and food quality; and stimulate economic activity.”
“Cost recovery alone, e.g. the amount of funds generated from the sale of the commodity in the recipient country compared to the costs to buy and ship it there, does not measure the value of food aid monetization,” the alliance wrote.
Purchasing food aid locally or regionally in the needy countries is important, the alliance said, but the arguments in favor of it often “overlook the complexities, cost and volume limitations of buying locally and the importance of maintaining a reliable system for providing U.S. commodities to meet chronic and emergency needs. It is important to note that U.S. food aid delivery systems have improved with pre-positioning of U.S. commodities overseas and the availability of a wider variety of commodities to meet particular nutritional needs.”
The alliance, whose members include World Vision and Land O’Lakes, said it finds the criticism that American-sourced food aid has a strong U.S. constituency in the agricultural, transportation and labor sectors, as well as many of the PVOs and cooperatives that implement these programs overseas to be “ironic.”
The alliance noted that Secretary of State John Kerry said in a speech last week at the University of Virginia that foreign aid “suffers from a lack of domestic constituency.”
“First, it’s about telling the story of how we stand up for American jobs and businesses — pretty practical, pretty straightforward, and pretty real on a day-to-day basis,” Kerry said. “And second, it’s about how we stand up for our American values, something that has always distinguished America.”
On Tuesday, a coalition of other food aid advocates including Bread for the World, Oxfam and CARE urged the Obama administration to “include a bold reform proposal that builds upon the United States’ historic leadership as the world’s most generous donor of food aid.”
“When 870 million people around the world go hungry every day, making every food aid dollar count is not only a responsible use of taxpayer money, it is a moral imperative,” the coalition said.
Citing an evaluation of the Agriculture Department’s Local and Regional Purchase pilot project, the groups said that local and regional purchase “is a triple win: providing considerable cost savings, faster humanitarian response, and support for the local farmers and agricultural markets that are the key to providing long-term global food security.”
The coalition also said that funding development activities directly is more efficient than through monetization, and cited a report from the Government Accountability Office that said the use of monetization resulted in at least a 30 percent loss of resources to non-emergency food aid projects conducted from 2008 to 2010.
The joint statement followed blog posts last week by Oxfam, Bread for the World, the Modernizing Foreign Aid Network and the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, which has sponsored several research projects that have called for changes to U.S. food aid and the farm program.
“Real reforms would give aid humanitarian agencies greater flexibility, including the ability to purchase food from the cheapest, most efficient source,” wrote Eric Munoz of Oxfam.
“This would in turn reduce costs and speed delivery,” he wrote. “It would bring our programs into the 21st century, in line with most other countries.”
Munoz also said that the proposed change would “clean up the jurisdictional mess created by the current configuration of food aid programs, which are funded through the Agriculture appropriations bill, but implemented by USAID.”
Drag Edit
Delete Image & Text
Catherine Bertini
Catherine Bertini, a former executive director of the World Food Program who co-led two Chicago Council bipartisan task forces that have called for changes to food aid, said in an email, “I have no problem with associating myself with reform of food aid, which is long overdue.”
“No one is endorsing the administration proposal sight unseen, but I am one who welcomes a 21st century proposal that is more responsive to the needs of the hungry and a more efficient use of taxpayer dollars,” Bertini wrote. “It is regrettable that some want to close down that debate even before there is a real proposal on the table.”
Drag Edit
Delete Text & Image
Dan Glickman
Former Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman, who led one of the task forces with Bertini, said he favors the Chicago Council recommendation that the U.S. government should have the flexibility to buy commodities in other countries, but is more cautious.
“We should we moving in this direction as we have said in our previous reports, realizing that it cannot happen overnight,” Glickman said in an email.
“However, I have cautioned that given the great humanitarian challenges and human suffering we have to be alert to ensure that adequate funds are in place to deal with the challenges, and this not be a budgetary based decision to merely lower spending levels, as that would be a big problem,” Glickman said.
“Rather, it is a way to provide more flexibility at the local level to disburse food assistance more sensibly and humanely, and more efficiently. And we should always reserve the right to provide commodities when humanitarian crises require them.”
Drag Edit
Delete Image & Text
Gus Schumacher
Gus Schumacher, who served under Glickman as the Agriculture undersecretary for farm and foreign agricultural services and was involved in the other Chicago Council research project with Bertini, said in an email that maintaining funding for vital food aid programs is critical.
“Critical for America’s foreign policy, because hunger produces instability and in some cases terrorism, critical as global warming increasingly impacts food production and the poor in developing countries and critical for direct distribution to refugees and families hard hit by natural disasters,” Schumacher wrote.
“While Congress needs to stabilize food aid funding, much work remains to assess the right balance; allocating funds for monetized U.S. grains shipped overseas versus providing direct cash aid to small farmers in developing countries,” he said.
Local and regional purchase programs have encountered problems, Schumacher noted.
“These early pilot cash payment food aid programs need further testing and evaluation, to ensure more timely payments to small farmers facing long ‘cash payment’ delays — as much as 90 days — together with evaluating in-country programs to ramp up efforts to minimize post-harvest waste and losses suffered by small farmers during in-country storage and distribution.”
Drag Edit
Delete Text
U.S. Agriculture and Nutrition Policy Statement: Transforming American Food and Agriculture Policy
U.S. Monetization Policy: Recommendations for Improvement
Renewing American Leadership in the Fight Against Hunger and Poverty
USDA Local and Regional Food Aid Procurement Pilot Project
Alliance for Global Food Security Letter to Office of Management and Budget
