Friday, February 22, 2013

Reforming American Food Aid

Below are two key policy recommendation that Agdes has been advocating for a while. Thanks to The Chicago Council on Global Affairs for preparing the summary below and providing the leadership to support these important reforms. 
 

Increase funding for local purchase of food aid
US food aid would be more efficient and cost effective if the US transitioned to a more cash-based food aid system except in certain emergency situations in which a food donation is required.  A cash-based food aid system is a speedier and more cost-efficient way to reach beneficiaries in developing countries than shipping U.S.-grown food to low-income countries. Cash can also be distributed rapidly even to remote locations.  Local and regional purchases of food aid reduce delivery time by an average of 13.8 weeks, or by more than half the current delivery method, while stimulating agricultural development.  The transaction costs of a cash-based system are also lower than shipping food aid.  According to the FAO, approximately one-third of the total funds allocated for emergency food aid is spent on transportation costs.  Moreover, a cash-based system will allow local and regional purchases of food and stimulate local markets without artificially lowering prices. 

The United States is the only aid donor that still gives food in-kind rather than cash. Donation of U.S.-purchased food aid should continue only when local supplies are inadequate or nutritionally dense foods are not readily available.  These instances could include donations to refugee camps in famine areas or aid following natural disasters.

Scale down the monetization of food aid
Both task forces also recommended that the United States should scale down the practice of monetization.  The loss to taxpayers is huge considering the overhead costs, and the practice contradicts efforts to eliminate wasteful government spending.  The 2011 GAO report on reducing duplication in government programs and saving tax dollars found that the process of using cash to procure, ship, and sell commodities costs $219 million out of total budget of $722 million over a three-year period.  Almost 30 percent of the funds appropriated for development projects did not reach intended recipients due to the monetization process.   The GAO report concludes that monetization “cannot be as efficient as a standard development program which provides cash grants directly to implementing partners.”  Additionally, the sale of U.S. goods can drive down local market prices and discourage local food production.  Groups recommended that the US government transfer funds directly to nongovernmental organizations to conduct their development programs overseas.

About the task forces
The 2012 US Agriculture and Food Policy Panel was a bi-partisan task force led by Catherine Bertini, former executive director, UN World Food Program; August Schumacher Jr., former undersecretary of Agriculture for Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services, US Department of Agriculture; and Robert L. Thompson, professor emeritus of Agricultural Policy, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.   The panel’s final statement, released in June 2012, included recommendations for how to modernize US food and farm policy to meet the production, nutrition, and environmental challenges of the future.
The 2009 Global Agricultural Development Leaders Group was a bi-partisan task force led by Catherine Bertini and Dan Glickman, former secretary, US Department of Agriculture.  The group released recommendations in February 2009 laying out the opportunities and benefits of greater US investment in agricultural development in Africa and South Asia as a means to alleviate global poverty and hunger and increase global food production.
More information:

Monday, February 04, 2013

Egypt and its Forgotten Farmers

In an excellent mini-documentary, PBS explores Egyp's agriculture sector and its impact of  the revolution. The film explores how disfranchised farmers had to migrate to the urban centers after export-oriented policies left little of their livelihoods after access to capital and water was redirected to the well-connected. Poor farmers, and urban consumers tired of increasing food prices, provided the fuel that toppled Mubarak.


In a short report, BBC gives us an update on how those poor farmers' have been doing since the revolution. Unfortunately, despite promises from the new government, little has changed.

Get Adobe Flash player