Critics ask for changes to food aid programs
October 17, 2013 | 11:04 AM
A coalition of 18 humanitarian and foreign policy groups that are critical of current U.S. food aid policy have written House Agriculture Committee Chairman Frank Lucas, R-Okla., and ranking member Collin Peterson, D-Minn., encouraging them to support changes to the food aid programs during the farm bill conference.
The groups, including World Food Program USA, a private sector U.S. group that supports the U.N. World Food Program, said they believe that the U.S. Agency for International Development should have increased flexibility in funding emergency food assistance programs, should have permanent authority to buy food for food aid in countries near the need and that monetization — the sale of food aid to raise money for development — should be reduced.
The coalition acknowledges that its members could not reach a consensus position on funding levels for Title II non-emergency programs, but “we do support protecting the core focus and effective elements of both development programs that address underlying sources of chronic hunger and emergency programs that bring life-saving food to people caught in the midst of droughts, floods, and conflict.”
In the letter sent October 4, the coalition noted that House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Ed Royce, R-Calif., and ranking member Elliot Engel, D-N.Y., have raised those issues.
An amendment including many of the changes failed narrowly on the House floor. Both Royce and Engel will be conferees on the food aid section of the farm bill.
Some of the changes have been included in the Senate version of the farm bill, and the letter sets up a competition between two food aid coalitions since a coalition of other humanitarian, commodity and maritime groups have opposed some of the changes in the Senate bill. Under current law most U.S. food aid must be purchased in the United States and shipped on U.S. ships.
The groups, including World Food Program USA, a private sector U.S. group that supports the U.N. World Food Program, said they believe that the U.S. Agency for International Development should have increased flexibility in funding emergency food assistance programs, should have permanent authority to buy food for food aid in countries near the need and that monetization — the sale of food aid to raise money for development — should be reduced.
The coalition acknowledges that its members could not reach a consensus position on funding levels for Title II non-emergency programs, but “we do support protecting the core focus and effective elements of both development programs that address underlying sources of chronic hunger and emergency programs that bring life-saving food to people caught in the midst of droughts, floods, and conflict.”
In the letter sent October 4, the coalition noted that House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Ed Royce, R-Calif., and ranking member Elliot Engel, D-N.Y., have raised those issues.
An amendment including many of the changes failed narrowly on the House floor. Both Royce and Engel will be conferees on the food aid section of the farm bill.
Some of the changes have been included in the Senate version of the farm bill, and the letter sets up a competition between two food aid coalitions since a coalition of other humanitarian, commodity and maritime groups have opposed some of the changes in the Senate bill. Under current law most U.S. food aid must be purchased in the United States and shipped on U.S. ships.
