Details of Obama’s food aid proposal
April 10, 2013 | 12:54 PM
Instead of requesting money for P.L. 480 Title II to buy American commodities and ship them, President Barack Obama’s fiscal year 2014 budget requests that Congress provide money for three other assistance accounts:
Although the new system would allow for commodities to be purchased from other countries, it also would guarantee that 55 percent continue to be purchased in the United States.
This appears to be a concession from the administration’s initial proposal, but a food aid lobbyist said that the guarantee of continued U.S. purchases is a reflection of the reality that there is not that much food available in countries near those that are experiencing emergencies.
The administration official noted that U.S. supplies have developed “therapeutic foods” that are particularly useful in emergencies, and that during the Horn of Africa emergency there was not enough food nearby “so American commodities were essential.”
The Hagstrom Report obtained USAID’s internal documents on the food aid proposal. They did not say how long the 55 percent U.S. food guarantee would last, but a knowledgeable source told The Hagstrom Report that the guarantee would be phased out over three years.
“The first-year ‘guarantee’ is much less than the amounts used today, only $600 million compared to nearly $1.7 billion for both emergency and nonemergency Title II (based on fiscal year 2013 appropriations, maritime reimbursement, and carry-over from the previous fiscal year),” the source said.
The USAID documents do not say whether the agency would buy foods in countries that compete with the United States, but a source said that agency officials have said they will not.
The administration also says that the new system would save $50 million per year in reduced shipping costs, for a total of $500 million in savings over 10 years. Because the change would reduce the amount of government food aid carried on U.S.-flag vessels, many of which are used by the Defense Department to sustain overseas operations, the budget also calls for the transfer of $25 million in the savings to the Transportation Department’s Maritime Administration to support “sustainment of militarily-useful vessels and a qualified pool of citizen merchant mariners.”
The administration fact sheet did not say if that program would be continued indefinitely, and a lobbyist said there had been discussions that it would be for only one year.
In the briefing, the administration official praised the U.S. nongovernmental organizations that have used food aid for development purposes, and said that they would be eligible for the cash assistance grants under the Community Development and Resilience Fund to continue those programs.
But U.S. groups have said they are worried about whether they would receive enough money to continue their longstanding programs.
The official said that the U.N. World Food Program, which has increasingly used the term “resilience” in its programming, would also be eligible for money from the CDRF, and the American groups have expressed concern about competition from WFP. The CFRF would not be a food aid program, and development advocates have said they are worried that Congress might use the money in this budget for other purposes.
- International Disaster Assistance (IDA) for emergency food response ($1.1 billion);
- Development Assistance (DA) for the Community Development and Resilience Fund (CDRF) to address chronic food insecurity in areas of recurrent crises ($250 million, in addition to $80 million in DA currently for this use);
- A new Emergency Food Assistance Contingency Fund ($75 million), which would enable the president to provide emergency food assistance for unexpected and urgent food needs worldwide.
Although the new system would allow for commodities to be purchased from other countries, it also would guarantee that 55 percent continue to be purchased in the United States.
This appears to be a concession from the administration’s initial proposal, but a food aid lobbyist said that the guarantee of continued U.S. purchases is a reflection of the reality that there is not that much food available in countries near those that are experiencing emergencies.
The administration official noted that U.S. supplies have developed “therapeutic foods” that are particularly useful in emergencies, and that during the Horn of Africa emergency there was not enough food nearby “so American commodities were essential.”
The Hagstrom Report obtained USAID’s internal documents on the food aid proposal. They did not say how long the 55 percent U.S. food guarantee would last, but a knowledgeable source told The Hagstrom Report that the guarantee would be phased out over three years.
“The first-year ‘guarantee’ is much less than the amounts used today, only $600 million compared to nearly $1.7 billion for both emergency and nonemergency Title II (based on fiscal year 2013 appropriations, maritime reimbursement, and carry-over from the previous fiscal year),” the source said.
The USAID documents do not say whether the agency would buy foods in countries that compete with the United States, but a source said that agency officials have said they will not.
The administration also says that the new system would save $50 million per year in reduced shipping costs, for a total of $500 million in savings over 10 years. Because the change would reduce the amount of government food aid carried on U.S.-flag vessels, many of which are used by the Defense Department to sustain overseas operations, the budget also calls for the transfer of $25 million in the savings to the Transportation Department’s Maritime Administration to support “sustainment of militarily-useful vessels and a qualified pool of citizen merchant mariners.”
The administration fact sheet did not say if that program would be continued indefinitely, and a lobbyist said there had been discussions that it would be for only one year.
In the briefing, the administration official praised the U.S. nongovernmental organizations that have used food aid for development purposes, and said that they would be eligible for the cash assistance grants under the Community Development and Resilience Fund to continue those programs.
But U.S. groups have said they are worried about whether they would receive enough money to continue their longstanding programs.
The official said that the U.N. World Food Program, which has increasingly used the term “resilience” in its programming, would also be eligible for money from the CDRF, and the American groups have expressed concern about competition from WFP. The CFRF would not be a food aid program, and development advocates have said they are worried that Congress might use the money in this budget for other purposes.
