Conaway, Peterson show little interest in more changes to food aid
June 25, 2015 |10:16 AM
Two Obama administration officials on Wednesday made the case to the House Agriculture Committee for further changes to food aid to allow more purchases in areas where the food aid is used.
But House Agriculture Committee Chairman Michael Conaway, R-Texas, and House Agriculture ranking member Collin Peterson, D-Minn., expressed skepticism that changes beyond those made in the 2014 farm bill are needed.
As part of a larger discussion of the current state of food aid, Agriculture Department Foreign Agricultural Service Administrator Phil Karsting noted that Congress made it a priority for the administration to award McGovern-Dole international school feeding grants to “programs that foster local self-sufficiency and ensure the longevity of programs in recipient countries.”
FAS, Karsting said, has had success in obtaining local support in Bangladesh, where by 2017 the government will manage school feeding in 50 percent of the schools currently receiving food under McGovern-Dole.
Based on that experience, Karsting said, the administration’s fiscal year 2016 budget proposes “to amend the definition of an eligible agricultural commodity so that meals can be enhanced with locally produced foods.”
“Through procuring local food such as fruits and vegetables, FAS will be able to offer nutritionally rich meals consistent with local diets, boost local farmer incomes, and build supply chains,” Karsting said.
FAS is also implementing the Local and Regional Purchase program and has found that in emergencies, the World Food Program and private voluntary organizations participating in a pilot project “were systematically able to purchase more food aid and avoid pipeline breaks, thereby reaching more of those with urgent needs in an expeditious manner.”
In a non-emergency situation, Land O’Lakes worked with local processors in Bangladesh who made cereal bars from chickpeas, peanuts, rice, and sesame seeds that supplemented a school feeding program, he added, noting that the company also found that school attendance went up 27 percent.
Meanwhile local processors have commercialized the cereal bar and are now sourcing from 15,000 farmers in Bangladesh, instead of importing ingredients. Reported production is up to 15 million cereal bars a month, he added.
USDA’s fiscal year 2016 budget proposes $20 million in funding for the new LRP program, but the House Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee “unfortunately” did not include the request for flexibility in operating the McGovern-Dole program and funding for LRP when it marked up the bill, Karsting said.
Thomas Staal, acting assistant administrator of the U.S. Agency for International Development Bureau for Democracy, Conflict and Humanitarian Assistance, noted that the president’s fiscal year 2015 and fiscal year 2016 Title II budget proposals seek an additional 25 percent of the $1.4 billion requested in Title II funding to be available for flexible food assistance programming.
“This will allow USAID to reach an additional 2 million emergency beneficiaries, due to an average cost-savings of 33 percent by buying food locally and regionally compared to shipping similar food items from the United States,” Staal said.
“Even as we seek additional flexibility, the majority of our Title II request continues to be for U.S. in-kind food, which is still necessary and appropriate for many of our responses,” he added.
But Conaway said in an opening statement that, “while agricultural commodities grown by our farmers here at home have been a core component of U.S. international food aid programs for over 60 years now,” he is “aware of the continued calls for additional reform to these programs — Title II of the Food for Peace Act in particular.”
“However, I think the balance struck in the most recent farm bill shows the agricultural community’s recognition of those concerns,” Conaway said.
“It is prudent that we monitor the outcome of this added flexibility over the life of the farm bill to get a better sense of what is working and what needs to be improved.”
Conaway said he fears “it is shortsighted to charge ahead with efforts to transition Title II into a program virtually indistinguishable from the cash assistance programs already provided for by the Foreign Assistance Act.”
He noted that the Government Accountability Office has concerns with the integrity of cash-based programs, including vulnerability to counterfeiting, diversion, fraud, and misuse.
“I also share similar concerns regarding negotiations that circumvent the traditional agricultural community — an instrumental part of the coalition responsible for the proud legacy of global food aid.”
“Any additional food aid reforms should be debated in an open and transparent manner and should be debated in the context of developing the next farm bill,” Conaway said.
“I hold the same view when it comes to discussions about whole-of-government approaches to global food security; agriculture must be an integral part of those discussions.”
Peterson noted that the 2014 farm bill increased flexibility, and that he has said repeatedly that reopening the farm bill is a bad idea and “I will oppose any efforts to change farm bill provisions outside of the reauthorization process.”
“I do think it is important for the committee to continue oversight of farm bill implementation, learn more about how these programs are working and what changes, if any, may be needed in the next farm bill.”
But House Agriculture Committee Chairman Michael Conaway, R-Texas, and House Agriculture ranking member Collin Peterson, D-Minn., expressed skepticism that changes beyond those made in the 2014 farm bill are needed.
As part of a larger discussion of the current state of food aid, Agriculture Department Foreign Agricultural Service Administrator Phil Karsting noted that Congress made it a priority for the administration to award McGovern-Dole international school feeding grants to “programs that foster local self-sufficiency and ensure the longevity of programs in recipient countries.”
FAS, Karsting said, has had success in obtaining local support in Bangladesh, where by 2017 the government will manage school feeding in 50 percent of the schools currently receiving food under McGovern-Dole.
Based on that experience, Karsting said, the administration’s fiscal year 2016 budget proposes “to amend the definition of an eligible agricultural commodity so that meals can be enhanced with locally produced foods.”
“Through procuring local food such as fruits and vegetables, FAS will be able to offer nutritionally rich meals consistent with local diets, boost local farmer incomes, and build supply chains,” Karsting said.
FAS is also implementing the Local and Regional Purchase program and has found that in emergencies, the World Food Program and private voluntary organizations participating in a pilot project “were systematically able to purchase more food aid and avoid pipeline breaks, thereby reaching more of those with urgent needs in an expeditious manner.”
In a non-emergency situation, Land O’Lakes worked with local processors in Bangladesh who made cereal bars from chickpeas, peanuts, rice, and sesame seeds that supplemented a school feeding program, he added, noting that the company also found that school attendance went up 27 percent.
Meanwhile local processors have commercialized the cereal bar and are now sourcing from 15,000 farmers in Bangladesh, instead of importing ingredients. Reported production is up to 15 million cereal bars a month, he added.
USDA’s fiscal year 2016 budget proposes $20 million in funding for the new LRP program, but the House Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee “unfortunately” did not include the request for flexibility in operating the McGovern-Dole program and funding for LRP when it marked up the bill, Karsting said.
Thomas Staal, acting assistant administrator of the U.S. Agency for International Development Bureau for Democracy, Conflict and Humanitarian Assistance, noted that the president’s fiscal year 2015 and fiscal year 2016 Title II budget proposals seek an additional 25 percent of the $1.4 billion requested in Title II funding to be available for flexible food assistance programming.
“This will allow USAID to reach an additional 2 million emergency beneficiaries, due to an average cost-savings of 33 percent by buying food locally and regionally compared to shipping similar food items from the United States,” Staal said.
“Even as we seek additional flexibility, the majority of our Title II request continues to be for U.S. in-kind food, which is still necessary and appropriate for many of our responses,” he added.
But Conaway said in an opening statement that, “while agricultural commodities grown by our farmers here at home have been a core component of U.S. international food aid programs for over 60 years now,” he is “aware of the continued calls for additional reform to these programs — Title II of the Food for Peace Act in particular.”
“However, I think the balance struck in the most recent farm bill shows the agricultural community’s recognition of those concerns,” Conaway said.
“It is prudent that we monitor the outcome of this added flexibility over the life of the farm bill to get a better sense of what is working and what needs to be improved.”
Conaway said he fears “it is shortsighted to charge ahead with efforts to transition Title II into a program virtually indistinguishable from the cash assistance programs already provided for by the Foreign Assistance Act.”
He noted that the Government Accountability Office has concerns with the integrity of cash-based programs, including vulnerability to counterfeiting, diversion, fraud, and misuse.
“I also share similar concerns regarding negotiations that circumvent the traditional agricultural community — an instrumental part of the coalition responsible for the proud legacy of global food aid.”
“Any additional food aid reforms should be debated in an open and transparent manner and should be debated in the context of developing the next farm bill,” Conaway said.
“I hold the same view when it comes to discussions about whole-of-government approaches to global food security; agriculture must be an integral part of those discussions.”
Peterson noted that the 2014 farm bill increased flexibility, and that he has said repeatedly that reopening the farm bill is a bad idea and “I will oppose any efforts to change farm bill provisions outside of the reauthorization process.”
“I do think it is important for the committee to continue oversight of farm bill implementation, learn more about how these programs are working and what changes, if any, may be needed in the next farm bill.”
