I. Topic: "Food Aid to Promote Food Security"
Food aid is a resource that contributes to the food security of millions of people worldwide. Reliable availability of and access to food, combined with proper utilization, are necessary conditions to assure that people have adequate amounts of food to lead healthy and productive lives. Where these conditions are not met, people do not have "food security," and varying degrees of undernutrition and malnutrition are the result. In general, food aid can be provided either directly to targeted groups or through carefully planned sales in the marketplace ("monetization"). To promote long-term food security, to mitigate the effect of emergency food shortages and to assist during the recovery and rehabilitation phase following an emergency, food aid and the proceeds from commodity sales can be used in programs that improve peoples' health, living conditions and livelihoods -- including improvements in sanitation, water and land resource management, enterprise development, agricultural productivity, food processing and marketing systems. In addition, food aid is a critical component of emergency response programs. In both developmental or emergency programs, the ultimate goal is to help people obtain food security, so food aid will no longer be needed.
II. Background
One of the National Consultation sites on follow up to the World Food Summit concluded that in order to "ensure that international food assistance is effective, [the] U.S. should be a leader." Since the end of World War II, the United States has indeed been a leader in providing food aid. This commitment continues today with four general thrusts:
1) The integration of food aid donated by the United States into programs conducted by non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that help to address the underlying causes of chronic hunger or to assist during the transitional phase after an emergency (P.L. 480 Title II and occasionally Food for Progress).
2) Providing food aid to less developed, food insecure countries to be used to improve food security through recipient government programs, sometimes in coordination with NGO activities (P.L. 480 Title III).
3) Responding to the immediate need for food during emergencies (P.L. 480 Title II and the Food Security Commodity Reserve).
4) Providing commodities to developing countries or emerging democracies that have the potential to become commercial markets for U.S. commodities (Food for Progress and P.L. 480 Title I).
The amount of food aid provided by the United States in recent years has declined sharply (by 60 percent since fiscal year 1993) due to constrained budgets and a lack of U.S. Government-held surpluses. Therefore, a concerted effort is needed to make the most effective use of these resources to promote food security and to identify additional resources for the future. To use food aid effectively to promote food security, the following issues must be addressed by the U. S. government, in consultation with civil society:
(1) identification of need and targeting food resources to meet those needs;
(2) effective partnerships to use food aid to address chronic hunger and food insecurity, and to assure accountability;
(3) maintaining a contingency fund or reserve for emergency food needs; and
(4) increased international commitment and coordination.
IV. Actions
1) Identification of Need and Targeting Food Resources
to Meet Those Needs.
For the responsible, successful and timely allocation of commodities
and funds, it is necessary to identify appropriate indicators
of food security, to measure food security at the national and
local levels and to monitor the food security of vulnerable populations.
In the past, food aid was often targeted for political purposes
by the United States. This approach was shown to be short-sighted,
often upsetting commercial sales practices and local production
and distribution, without evidence of long-term food security
gains. Therefore, in 1990, the statute governing the U.S. Food
for Peace Program (P.L. 480) was amended so it no longer focuses
on general foreign policy goals. Instead, it focuses on improving
the food security of the developing world. Although a laudable
mandate, it has not been fully implemented.
To identify food security needs and to improve the targeting resources
to meet those needs, the following actions are recommended:
1.a Create a transparent ranking system for food security
needs in developing countries, incorporating objective measures
at the regional, national and local levels, using available tools
(such as early warning systems, the USDA/ERS annual report on
Food Aid Needs and Availabilities and individual country hunger
maps), as well as more precise tools to gather information at
the local or community level. To improve the data available
on food aid needs within specific countries, the U.S. government
should commit technical and financial assistance to developing
countries for hunger mapping, as agreed to in the World Food Summit
Plan of Action, and continue to participate in international organizations
that assess food security needs and promote the alleviation of
hunger and poverty. NGOs should collaborate with the U.S. government
in the development of a food aid needs ranking system for developing
countries, which can be used to target food aid resources. NGOs
that are Cooperating Sponsors of P.L. 480 Title II food aid programs
will continue to assess the needs of and target resources transparently
to vulnerable population groups.
Benefit: Improved, objective and need-based information for targeting resources.
Drawbacks: Information on local needs is not as readily available, will require additional funding to collect and is difficult to incorporate into country rankings. The process for handling exceptions could be difficult.
When: The preliminary Ranking System could be established by October 1, 1998, with improvements and updates before the beginning of each following fiscal year.
Collaboration: Joint effort of State Department, USDA and USAID in collaboration with NGOs and international institutions, such as IFPRI, FAO.
Costs: Because much of the data collection is already
taking place, costs should be mainly administrative, except for
efforts to conduct additional, intensive local assessments, such
as in sub-Saharan African countries and to develop the conceptual
framework for the Ranking System.
1.b Commitment by the U.S. government to use food aid as part
of disaster prevention and mitigation plans and to respond to
early warnings of natural disasters (such as the El Niño
effect) or armed conflict, through joint monitoring and collaboration
with NGOs, international organizations and affected countries.
The U.S. would take a pro-active approach to provide food
aid in a timely manner to mitigate against food shortages due
to potential crises, such as the impact of the El Niño
effect on food insecure countries. In order to do so, effective
monitoring and early warning systems must be in place. Systems
are already in place for price forecasting and monitoring weather
patterns, local market conditions, agricultural diseases and pests,
etc. in many vulnerable areas. Greater attention should be paid
to societal indicators of growing food insecurity, such as changes
in household purchases and sales of livestock or assets. Where
additional early warning systems are needed, they should be established
through collaborative donor country, recipient country, international
organization and NGO efforts. The information collected from
these systems should be used for implementing development and
disaster preparation programs in vulnerable areas, including the
use of P.L. 480 and Food for Progress commodities, and to provide
emergency food aid as needed.
Benefit: Provides information and mechanisms to permit early intervention with less loss of life and at lower cost. There would be greater sharing of information and coordination that can lead to more effective and timely response to potential crises.
Drawback: Additional early warning information may have to be collected on a regular basis and even with lead time, adequate resources may not be available to respond in a timely manner.
When: Establish a plan for regular sharing of information on potential problem areas between NGOs and U.S. government officials by January 1, 1998 and implement by October 1, 1998.
Collaboration: Joint effort of USDA and USAID through the Food Aid Consultative Group in collaboration with NGOs and international organizations, with input from institutions that are tracking such changes.
Costs: Costs should be administrative.
1.c Assessments of local food production and distribution
patterns must be conducted before commodities are programmed for
food aid; the use of food aid resources should be monitored to
assure they are used as intended; and evaluations should be conducted
to determine program impact. Access to food involves both
the ability to produce and to procure (or otherwise obtain) adequate
amounts of foodstuffs. Food aid should be used in a way that
fosters long-term, reliable access to food, which is referred
to as "self-reliance." This requires assessments of
local production, marketing and distribution patterns before determining
which types and the amount of commodities to make available, and
through which mechanisms, as well as appropriate monitoring and
evaluation systems to asses the impact on markets and on the food
security of recipients. Current requirements to assess the local
impact of food aid are not rigorous enough and need to be improved.
Benefit: Results in using U.S. commodities to get a double impact -- first, to provide commodities that are truly needed and appropriate and, second, to foster improved health, incomes, living conditions, and agricultural productivity and marketing in food insecure areas.
Drawback: In some cases, due to delays in commodity ordering or shipping, food aid may arrive at the wrong time during the year.
Establishment: Determination of local food production and distribution patterns, ongoing monitoring of food aid use and evaluating program impact are already required for P.L. 480 Title II non-emergency programs, but this could be improved. Similar requirements should apply to Titles I and III and Food for Progress. By August 1, 1998, a review of these requirements for all food aid programs should be completed; improvements should be recommended by December 1, 1998 in order to be coordinated with the program development process for the next fiscal year; and improvements should be piloted in the fiscal year beginning October 1, 1999.
Collaboration: Joint effort of USDA and USAID, in consultation with NGOs, including operational PVOs and commodity groups.
Costs: Administrative costs.
2) Effective Partnerships to Use Food Aid to Promote Food
Security.
Food aid is not just a short-term solution, it can be and is effectively
integrated into programs that address the underlying causes of
hunger, through partnerships with private voluntary organizations,
cooperatives, international organizations (such as the World Food
Program), agricultural groups and local NGOs. These partnerships
are vital to the long-term success of food security programs.
The following actions are recommended:
2.a Make P.L. 480 Title II programs that address problems
related to chronic food insecurity, such as poverty, poor infrastructure,
and lack of equate health and sanitation facilities, a U.S. government
priority and commitment more of the Title II resources to this
purpose. Under P.L. 480 Title II, multi-year programs are
conducted by private voluntary organizations and cooperatives
to promote food security at the household level. USAID administers
this program. When private voluntary organizations or cooperatives
use Title II resources, the objectives, methods and performance
indicators focus on building local capacities and partnerships
with participants in program development and implementation.
These types of requirements should apply not only to programs
conducted by private voluntary organizations and cooperatives,
but also to those conducted by the World Food Program. According
to the statute, about three-fourths of the Title II food aid tonnage
is supposed to be dedicated to these types of programs. To move
toward this goal USAID should make this program a priority as
the fiscal year 1998 programs are being planned
Benefit: More effective programming of Title II resources to promote food security at the household level, with local partnerships, in accordance with statutory requirements and to build local capacities. Provides greater accountability for the use of resources and can help vulnerable population groups to develop the wherewithal to provide for their own needs and to have mechanisms in place to cope with crises.
Drawback: There are administrative barriers to the development of Title II food security programs which would have to be changed. For example, the mission statement of USAID does not include food security as one of its primary goals, very few USAID country strategies include food security as an objective, and many food insecure countries do not have USAID offices. Under Title II, flexibility is provided in the statute so private voluntary organizations and cooperatives can submit unsolicited proposals to USAID to use food aid resources to promote food security, and these programs do not have to fit into a USAID country strategy or be located in a country with a USAID mission. However, USAID has not yet fully accepted these administrative caveats.
When: Establish immediately, as part of FY 1999 Title II Guidance (which is being drafted now), as the new USAID mission statement is developed and as a USAID policy directive for FY 1998.
Collaboration: Joint effort of USAID, USDA and Cooperating Sponsors through the Food Aid Consultative Group.
Costs: No additional costs.
2.b Improve coordination among all potential U.S. food aid
partners through a Joint Food Security Collaboration Committee.
In addition to the USG agencies that administer food aid
programs and the NGOs that develop and implement such programs,
U.S. commodity, farmer, transportation and agribusiness groups
could contribute to food aid programs that target chronic food
insecurity by helping to identify appropriate types, qualities
and quantities of commodities for the targeted countries and providing
technical expertise and assistance.
Benefit: Help to identify the appropriate commodity for the intended country and population and make use of U.S. know-how and private sector contacts overseas for more efficient food aid distribution or sales.
Drawback: Food aid should target population groups or countries with bona fide needs and should not be considered as "back door" funding for export enhancement. It is important to provide careful balance between U.S. market promotion efforts and using food aid to improve the food security of the recipients.
When: Establish the Committee by January 1, 1998.
Collaboration: Joint effort of NGOs and U.S. private sector to develop the Committee, and U.S. government officials would be invited to meetings.
Costs: No governmental costs.
3. Contingency Fund or Reserve for Emergency Needs.
3.a Maintain the U.S. Food Security Commodity Reserve and/or a revolving fund that can assure that up to 1,000,000 metric tons of commodities are available each year for emergency needs, so the United States can play a role in providing food during time of failed agricultural production, civil unrest and or severe economic disruptions. As part of the 1996 Federal Agricultural Improvement and Reform Act, amendments were enacted to convert the 4.0 mmt Food Security Wheat Reserve into the Food Security Commodity Reserve, to increase the amount of commodities available from the Reserve for emergencies, and to permit the food to be released at the early sign of an emergency, before diverting resources away from previously-planned and developmental P.L. 480 programs.
There are problems with the Reserve that have to be addressed before it can be relied upon as a contingency reserve for emergencies, including a means for replenishment and whether funds that would be used to reimburse the Reserve could instead be used by USDA's Commodity Credit Corporation to buy commodities on the U.S. market when prices for commodities are relatively low. In addition, the need to use the Reserve for "short supply" should be more carefully analyzed since using the Reserve for this purpose may no longer be necessary and it diminishes the amount of commodities available for true emergencies.
Benefit: Responding to crises is an important and publicly-supported element of U.S. humanitarian policies and creating a mechanism for timely provision of food aid is critical to saving lives.
Drawback: It will take a commitment of funds to replenish the Reserve or to have a contingency fund for emergencies.
When:: Begin planning now for completion of legislative/administrative recommendations to be incorporated into the President's FY 1999 budget request.
Collaboration: Joint action by State, USAID, USDA and NSC in consultation with NGOs and commodity groups.
Costs: Depends on how the mechanism is developed, but
will be a minuscule amount compared to GNP and should be no more
than 0.5 % of the total international operations budget.
4. Increased International Commitment.
The World Trade Organization agreed to an implementation plan
for the Marrakesh Declaration on least developed, net food-importing
countries, which is also referenced in Commitment Four of the
World Food Summit Plan of Action. As part of the WTO plan, the
Food Aid Convention members are currently considering increases
in food aid commitments, legitimate needs of developing countries,
more effective use of food aid and how to expand the international
donor base. By the summer of 1999, a new FAC will be completed.
4.a During the development of the new Food Aid Convention,
the United States should encourage increased annual commitments
of food aid by other donors, including new donor countries. Three
hears ago, during the development of the current FAC, the United
States decreased its minimum annual food aid commitment from 4.47
mmt to 2.5 mmt, leading a downward slide in international food
aid. For this round, the United States would retain its current
minimum annual commitment of 2.5 mmt of grain equivalents per
year. In addition, the U.S. would commit to provide 500,000 mt
more in any year, if needed for emergencies, which could be drawn
from the U.S. Food Security Commodity Reserve. By this sign of
renewed commitment, the United States would be in a strong position
to encourage new countries to make commitments under the FAC,
and to urge the seven other FAC donors to at least maintain their
current food aid levels.
Benefit: The United States would provide leadership to strengthen the FAC and to encourage additional countries to join. By leveraging additional commitments of food aid by other countries, the pressure on the United States to provide one-fourth to one-third of the food aid needed for an emergency could be alleviated. The U.S. would follow through on its commitment to implement the Marrakesh Declaration, which was an considered a quid pro quo by developing countries as the WTO was being negotiated.
Drawback: The United States is in an awkward negotiating position, since it has reduced its food aid commitments by 60% over the past 4 years and it will have to convince other countries that this downward trend will end.
When:: Begin now and continue throughout the FAC negotiations, which should be concluded by the end of 1998.
Collaboration: Joint effort of State, USDA and USAID and the FAC members, potential donor countries and developing. NGOs should be invited to participate in these discussions.
Costs: For United States' programs, appropriate levels
of funds to assure that at least 500,000 mt of commodities are
available each year for emergencies through the Food Security
Commodity Reserve or a revolving fund.