| |
POLICY BRIEFING
On Tuesday, March 21, 2006, staff from the U.S. House of Representatives, the U.S. Senate and Congressional Committees, and representatives from private voluntary organizations and the private sector attended a policy briefing covering international U.S. food aid programs. The briefing was co-sponsored by Representative Jo Ann Emerson (R-MO) and James P. McGovern (D-MA), the co-chairs of the board of directors of the Congressional Hunger Center (CHC).
The United States is the largest provider of food aid to poor nations, via the Public Law 480 programs administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the U.S. Agency for International Development. U.S. food aid programs have a long history of providing multiple benefits for vulnerable and hungry people worldwide. But recent debates triggered by negotiations in the WTO have raised questions about the structure and funding for these vital programs. And an increasing number of food emergencies around the world coupled with a tight budget has resulted in reduced funding for developmental food aid programs. Examples of these programs include maternal and child health projects, HIV/AIDS education and support programs, agricultural development, and food for education activities—all of which are critical to bolster community resilience to natural disaster and famine. Fragile communities that are vulnerable to crises and people who do not have the means to meet their food needs on a regular basis are the recipients.
The panelists explored the following questions:
What is the landscape of food aid needs in 2006/7?
Sean Callahan, Vice-President of International Operations for Catholic Relief Services, opened the panel presentations with an overview of global food aid needs facing the international community in 2006 and 2007. While the number of hungry people has increased to 852 million, the United States donations of food aid have shrunk from a high of almost $9 billion dollars per year in the 1960’s to just over $1.2 billion dollars per year in 2002. Within the Title II food aid program of Public Law 480 the current budget request from the administration does not provide adequate resources to fund both the emergency needs and the ongoing program needs for food for development programs—the very programs that help protect vulnerable communities from eventual famine or malnutrition when natural disaster or civil conflict strike. It is expected that this lack of adequate funding for the Title II program will result in the phase out of 17 countries from the 32 countries now participating in various food for development programs. It will also be very difficult to add new participants, even in areas of high malnutrition and vulnerability, because the budget for development programs is frozen at $335 million, compared to an approved level of $500 million in 2002. Sean provided examples of these programs—community agriculture programs, maternal and child health and nutrition programs, and natural resource conservation and school feeding programs.
(left to right) Margaret Zeigler, CHC, Sean Callahan, CRS, Ina Schonberg, Save the Children, Marc Cohen, IFPRI, and Mark Viso, World Vision answer questions from Congressional staff on U.S. food aid programs. Photo: David Snyder
How do U.S. food aid programs operate on the ground?
Ina Schonberg, Director of the Hunger and Malnutrition Unit of Save the Children, gave examples from several field programs (Tajikistan, Bolivia, Bangladesh and Mozambique) which enabled communities to produce better crops, improve school feeding programs and school infrastructure, develop new agricultural products for market, and to reduce malnutrition, particularly for mothers and children. Significant needs assessments and planning and constant interaction with local communities are hallmarks of these programs. Many of the program examples she shared at the policy briefing are scheduled for closure by 2009 due to the lack of adequate funding expected in fiscal years 2007 onward. These are programs that serve hungry and malnourished people, respond to emergencies, and provide a bulwark of community stability in hard to reach areas of the developing world. Prematurely ending these programs will have a long-term negative impact on the quality of life in these communities, while continuing these programs enables local and national governments to learn valuable lessons and incorporate them into their country social safety net programming.
What are the critical “value-added” benefits provided by developmental food aid programs?
Marc Cohen, Research Fellow at the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), shared results of the Institute’s empirical research on selected food aid programs. IFPRI has evaluated both emergency and food for development programs implemented by CARE, World Vision and the UN World Food Program. This research has found that food aid can play a role in efforts to empower communities. For example, food aid in Ethiopia helps communities to plan, manage, and carry out soil and water conservation activities in highly degraded areas by providing incentives for the necessary labor. In Bangladesh, food rations have helped encourage poor families to enroll both boys and girls in school. Female education, in turn, contributes to improvements in children’s education, health, and nutrition, and reduces fertility rates. In Haiti, the use of micronutrient (vitamin and mineral) fortified food aid commodities as weaning foods, along with traditional local foods, has helped improve the nutrition of low-income young children, although enhancing poor households’ access to meat and other animal products is essential if these children are to meet their full nutritional needs on a sustainable basis. Finally, food aid can help break the vicious cycle of HIV/AIDS and food insecurity in Africa, by helping people avoid risky food access strategies and improving the dietary intake of people living with the disease. In order to make food aid effective in reducing risk and mitigating the impacts of HIV/AIDS, it is essential to look at food aid programs through an “HIV/AIDS lens.”
How can Congress enhance the effectiveness of our international food aid programs?
The final presenter, Mark Viso, Vice President of International Operations, World Vision USA, outlined four steps that must be taken to improve the effectiveness of international food aid programs. First, the funding for P.L. 480 Title II must be increased to the actual amount needed each year for emergencies and development programs. The budget request for fiscal year 2007 only allots $1.2 billion while actual expenditures, including supplementals, are closer to $2 billion. Having the actual amount needed up front will improve program reliability and future planning, which can also achieve cost savings in the long run. Second, Congress must ensure that a larger amount of Title II funds ($500 million per year) is reserved for the multi-year development programs, rather than diverting these funds for emergencies on an ad hoc basis. The FY 2007 budget request of only $1.2 billion will keep development programs at the low level of $335 million, compared to the $500 million approved level in 2002. As a result, USAID will focus these remaining funds in 15 countries, phasing out programs in 17 other countries. This ends assistance prematurely for millions and limits the ability of the United States to start new programs in areas of great need. Third, Congress must assure flexibility in program options, including allowing monetization in appropriate situations, as well as some appropriate local purchase of commodities for emergency needs under a pilot program. Finally, he urged better linkages between the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) with Title II food aid programs. The four recommendations are found in detail as an appendix to this report.
World Vision Food Aid Policy Brief
U.S. Food Aid: Saving Lives and Fostering Development
Over 850 million people are hungry each day and many others face starvation due to emergencies. There are complex reasons for the hunger crisis and the etiology differs from place-to-place, situation-to-situation. It is therefore necessary (1) to assure adequate amounts of food aid are available each year for both chronic (non-emergency) and emergency needs and (2) to maintain a variety of programming options so food aid can be tailored to meet local needs.
For decades, US private voluntary organizations and cooperatives (jointly called “PVOs”) have used food aid effectively to improve food security in developing countries in both emergency and non-emergency contexts. Annually, over 1,500,000 metric tons of food aid is provided by the United States through agreements with PVOs under PL 480 Title II, Food for Progress and McGovern-Dole Food for Education programs.
As Congress considers FY 2007 appropriations and the planned reauthorization of food aid programs as part of the upcoming Farm Bill, we ask Members to:
- Support $2 billion for PL 480 Title II. Under the Title II program, PVOs and the UN World Food Program provide food aid for emergencies and to assist other vulnerable populations. Regular appropriations is around $1.2 billion each year, while needs have consistently been closer to $2 billion. This results in breaks in food aid flows to participants and premature closure of programs, leaving recipients in the lurch. We are grateful that Congress often provides supplemental appropriations when crises peak, but predictable, adequate funding is needed early in the year to assure steady supplies and effective programs.
- Provide $500 million of Title II funds for multi-year development programs: The U.S. share of food aid for emergency operations is about $1.5 billion/year. Title II plays an equally important role in assisting vulnerable populations through development programs, such as mother-child health care, agricultural development, food for work, food for education, and programs targeting HIV/AIDS-affected communities. Since 2002, these non-emergency programs decreased from an approved level of $500 million to an expected $330 million in FY 2006, and USAID plans to eliminate 17 of the 32 countries that receive assistance. This drastic action is being taken because of insufficient resources.
- Assure flexibility in program options. Flexibility is needed so programs can be tailored to meet local needs. Monetization is an important option to maintain. It is the sale of commodities in recipient countries and, in the case of PVO programs, the use of proceeds to improve food security. The sales process itself can be used to improve agricultural markets and processing. For emergencies, flexibility to procure commodities closer to the area of need in a manner that enhances agricultural marketing systems and with controls to avoid price spikes and market distortions is recommended.
- Create a funding mechanism that links PEPFAR (President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief) and Title II food aid programs. There are great opportunities to enhance the impact of HIV/AIDS programs funded through “PEPFAR” grants by combining them with food aid programs. The links between anti-retroviral treatment, proper nutrition, and food consumption are integral to a successful fight against HIV/AIDS. However, under current administrative procedures, it is extremely difficult to integrate food aid and PEPFAR funds into a comprehensive program in the field.
|
