Food aid groups split on proposal
April 10, 2013 | 12:54 PM
The Obama administration proposal is the result of a longstanding debate in agricultural and development circles over how to handle food aid. The debate has split U.S. supporters of food aid and those views were reflected in statements today in reaction to the proposal.
When the United States first started providing food aid after World War II, one of the principle goals was to reduce U.S. surpluses and to encourage eventual commercial sales. The current program has achieved those goals, but development economists have said that it benefits U.S. interests too much and that USAID should do more to encourage agricultural development in poor countries rather than shipping U.S. commodities overseas.
Catherine Bertini
Catherine Bertini, a former executive director of the World Food Program who was appointed at the recommendation of President George H.W. Bush and stayed in office at the recommendation of President Bill Clinton, responded in an email that “This is long overdue reform, and it is a bipartisan proposal.”
“President Bush consistently proposed food aid reform during his time in office,” said Bertini, a Republican who now teaches at Syracuse University and is associated with the Chicago Council on Global Affairs. “Who could argue against measures that provide both budget savings and that reach more hungry people, all in the same package?”
Bread for the World, the American Jewish Service, CARE and Oxfam America scheduled a press conference this afternoon, and issued a joint statement.
“As special interests rally to preserve the status quo, this niche policy issue has generated headlines in recent days,” the statement said.
“The release of the president’s FY2014 budget will put an end to speculation and provide answers on how the administration plans to better administer the approximately $1.6 billion in taxpayer money dedicating to feeding hungry people around the world. Reform has the potential to feed millions more people per year at no additional cost to taxpayers.”
Paul O'Brien
Paul O’Brien, vice president of policy and campaigns at Oxfam America, also emailed a response.
“The Obama administration has taken an important step towards long overdue reforms to bring food aid into the 21st century,” O’Brien said.
“Congress should take up these commonsense reforms first to assist hungry people, second to honor taxpayers,” he said. “Anyone who cares about spending taxpayer money responsibly will support the administration’s leadership to modernize our food aid programs and cut through the red tape that reduces the effectiveness of the program.”
“U.S. food aid programs are currently handcuffed by regulations written during the Eisenhower administration,” O’Brien said. “This president’s proposal will get food to more hungry people faster, cheaper and more efficiently. Congress should pass them expeditiously.”
But the Alliance for Global Food Security, which represents American nongovernmental organizations and private voluntary organizations that engage in monetizing food aid for development, was critical of the program.
“The Alliance supports greater flexibility and efficiency, but does not believe that effective food aid programs need to be dismantled and bypassed to achieve that goal," the group said in an email.
“Improvements are needed and program options are necessary, but we must remember that the United States has the most comprehensive, transparent and responsive food aid system in the world.”
The alliance is composed of Adventist Development & Relief Agency International, ACDI/VOCA, the Congressional Hunger Center, Counterpart International, Food for the Hungry, Joint Aid Management, International Relief & Development, Food for the Hungry, Land O'Lakes, OIC International, Planet Aid, PCI, Salesian Missions, United Methodist Committee on Relief and World Vision.
Ellen Levinson
“We are glad they listened to concerns of PVO partners about eliminating developmental food aid that reached the very poor,” Ellen Levinson, the alliance's executive director, said in an email.
“This is why they increased the development assistance funds for those populations from $200 million to $330 million,” Levinson said. “However, now they are providing more than $400 million and of that, they claim $50 million is not recouped through monetization, so it is still smaller than the current program.”
Levinson said she was pleased that the administration had pulled back from a plan to eliminate Food for Progress at USDA. She added that a USAID official had told her that USAID will no longer fill food gaps in less developed countries and that that would be done through Food for Progress.
While others are critical of monetization, Levinson defended it.
“Monetization is not just about generating money for programs; it is about providing a commodity in the market that is in short supply in a country with food deficits, currency constraints, limited access to international credit to import, smaller millers/buyers that cannot access international markets,” she said.
Levinson also said that figuring out how many people will be helped is complicated.
“The number of beneficiaries is affected not only by the cost of commodities, but also by how long they people will receive food aid," Levinson said.
“Under developmental food aid, our programs include technical assistance and target a population group for several years to make lasting changes,” she said.
“Food is provided during the ‘hungry months’ through food-for-work on public works in the community and for maternal-child nutrition. Emergency food distribution focuses only on getting food to the people in need and is not supposed to provide them food aid for an extended period, other than in the case of refugees or internally displaced people. Instead, they help with the emergency, stop, and if there is an emergency the next year, bring in food again.”
When the United States first started providing food aid after World War II, one of the principle goals was to reduce U.S. surpluses and to encourage eventual commercial sales. The current program has achieved those goals, but development economists have said that it benefits U.S. interests too much and that USAID should do more to encourage agricultural development in poor countries rather than shipping U.S. commodities overseas.
Catherine Bertini, a former executive director of the World Food Program who was appointed at the recommendation of President George H.W. Bush and stayed in office at the recommendation of President Bill Clinton, responded in an email that “This is long overdue reform, and it is a bipartisan proposal.”
“President Bush consistently proposed food aid reform during his time in office,” said Bertini, a Republican who now teaches at Syracuse University and is associated with the Chicago Council on Global Affairs. “Who could argue against measures that provide both budget savings and that reach more hungry people, all in the same package?”
Bread for the World, the American Jewish Service, CARE and Oxfam America scheduled a press conference this afternoon, and issued a joint statement.
“As special interests rally to preserve the status quo, this niche policy issue has generated headlines in recent days,” the statement said.
“The release of the president’s FY2014 budget will put an end to speculation and provide answers on how the administration plans to better administer the approximately $1.6 billion in taxpayer money dedicating to feeding hungry people around the world. Reform has the potential to feed millions more people per year at no additional cost to taxpayers.”
Paul O’Brien, vice president of policy and campaigns at Oxfam America, also emailed a response.
“The Obama administration has taken an important step towards long overdue reforms to bring food aid into the 21st century,” O’Brien said.
“Congress should take up these commonsense reforms first to assist hungry people, second to honor taxpayers,” he said. “Anyone who cares about spending taxpayer money responsibly will support the administration’s leadership to modernize our food aid programs and cut through the red tape that reduces the effectiveness of the program.”
“U.S. food aid programs are currently handcuffed by regulations written during the Eisenhower administration,” O’Brien said. “This president’s proposal will get food to more hungry people faster, cheaper and more efficiently. Congress should pass them expeditiously.”
But the Alliance for Global Food Security, which represents American nongovernmental organizations and private voluntary organizations that engage in monetizing food aid for development, was critical of the program.
“The Alliance supports greater flexibility and efficiency, but does not believe that effective food aid programs need to be dismantled and bypassed to achieve that goal," the group said in an email.
“Improvements are needed and program options are necessary, but we must remember that the United States has the most comprehensive, transparent and responsive food aid system in the world.”
The alliance is composed of Adventist Development & Relief Agency International, ACDI/VOCA, the Congressional Hunger Center, Counterpart International, Food for the Hungry, Joint Aid Management, International Relief & Development, Food for the Hungry, Land O'Lakes, OIC International, Planet Aid, PCI, Salesian Missions, United Methodist Committee on Relief and World Vision.
“We are glad they listened to concerns of PVO partners about eliminating developmental food aid that reached the very poor,” Ellen Levinson, the alliance's executive director, said in an email.
“This is why they increased the development assistance funds for those populations from $200 million to $330 million,” Levinson said. “However, now they are providing more than $400 million and of that, they claim $50 million is not recouped through monetization, so it is still smaller than the current program.”
Levinson said she was pleased that the administration had pulled back from a plan to eliminate Food for Progress at USDA. She added that a USAID official had told her that USAID will no longer fill food gaps in less developed countries and that that would be done through Food for Progress.
While others are critical of monetization, Levinson defended it.
“Monetization is not just about generating money for programs; it is about providing a commodity in the market that is in short supply in a country with food deficits, currency constraints, limited access to international credit to import, smaller millers/buyers that cannot access international markets,” she said.
Levinson also said that figuring out how many people will be helped is complicated.
“The number of beneficiaries is affected not only by the cost of commodities, but also by how long they people will receive food aid," Levinson said.
“Under developmental food aid, our programs include technical assistance and target a population group for several years to make lasting changes,” she said.
“Food is provided during the ‘hungry months’ through food-for-work on public works in the community and for maternal-child nutrition. Emergency food distribution focuses only on getting food to the people in need and is not supposed to provide them food aid for an extended period, other than in the case of refugees or internally displaced people. Instead, they help with the emergency, stop, and if there is an emergency the next year, bring in food again.”
