Agricultural Food Aid Coalition
Food Aid Principles for the 2007 Farm Bill
Submitted May 10, 2007
- Support Current Programs/Structure
We support current structures of US food aid allowing the bounty of US Agriculture to be the fundamental resource for food security, development and humanitarian relief in developing countries. On that basis, we support the reauthorization of Public Law 480 Titles I and II, the McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program, and Food For Progress.
- Continue In-Kind Food Aid & Oppose LRP (Local/Regional Purchase)
US Food Aid programs are a source of pride to American taxpayers, farmers, food processors and agribusinesses. We support continuation of US in-kind food aid and oppose the diversion of funds from US food aid program(s) for the purchase of products from other countries. Without the win-win nature of using US food products as the base for the programs, the constituency will be lost and both appropriations in the US agriculture budget and authorizations will be jeopardized.
World Food Program (WFP) already uses significant amounts of LRP when they consider it justified and (based on their analysis) would not cause price inflation in local economies. Cash contributions from countries less able to share their in-kind bounty should be and are, used in emergencies or development situations when delays in arrival of in-kind food would result in humanitarian crises.
The European Union, during their Common Agricultural Policy reform process converted their ‘in-kind’ food aid to cash contributions with two distinctly negative consequences. Their overall contributions to food aid went down (lack of constituency) and the timeliness of their cash contributions suffered. One WFP source was quoted as saying “it takes longer to get cash from some of the donors than it takes to get in-kind products in place.”
US food products, identified as “GIFT OF THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES” are one of the most visible manifestations of the good will of the US to developing countries. It is not possible for such an identification to be made with hurriedly purchased local food.
The procurement process for LRP, including insufficient methods to assure food quality and safety, will potentially give local and regional producers an opportunity to supply products under less rigorous standards than currently required by US suppliers to food aid programs.
We support increased efficiencies to cut down on time and costs of responding to emergencies, including the pre-positioning or advance purchase of US commodities and processed products.
- Reauthorize Title I
We support reauthorizing Title I of PL 480 both in its original concessional sales role and as an additional funding tool for Food For Progress (FFP). Demand for Title I concessional sales and FFP assistance continues through annual requests from eligible foreign countries and other applicants. Title I concessional sales should be reauthorized and offered to countries that can afford its terms. Without reauthorization, annual proposals from participating and interested countries could not be submitted, considered, or funded under Title I’s concessional sales or its FFP authority, as they are allowed to do under current law. In addition, without Title I, the total amount of funding available for FFP would be diminished, leaving the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) as the program’s only funding source. More details about Food for Progress are discussed below.
- Development Programs in Title II
We support a prioritization for multi-year development programs that contribute to long-term food security in developing countries and protection against disruptions of those programs due to diversion of development funds to emergencies.
The original Congressional intent was that Title II be primarily used for efforts to combat chronic hunger and its effects. This was indicated in the requirement that 75% of the budget be used for such purposes denominated in minimum tonnages. This requirement is now “waived” annually, as 75% of the budget is now used for emergencies. We suggest that language be added so that USAID’s authority to waive the statutory mandate be limited to no more than 675,000 MT of the non-emergency minimum tonnage yearly.
Using development program funds as the ‘first resort’ for response to emergencies causes disruptions to planned or existing projects that have already been approved and deemed necessary to combat chronic needs in priority countries.
Many of the criticisms of in-kind food aid: arrival timing, market disruptions, inefficiencies, and product bunching can be traced to the effects of diverting funds from development to emergency and/or the delay in decision-making on funding for development programs in anticipation of possible emergency needs.
- McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program
We support universal school lunch and child nutrition as a fundamental goal. We support the expansion of the successful McGovern-Dole Program based on the very beneficial impact it has had and can continue to have on school attendance, competition with schools that oppose US interests and the positive impacts on learning when children are provided adequate food and nutrition. The program was able to fund just 11 out of 90 proposals that were received. This program enjoys widespread and deep congressional support and with US leadership, it can be expanded dramatically.
USDA has demonstrated an ability to administer this program admirably and its authority should be made permanent.
We support full funding for the McGovern-Dole program.
- Food For Progress
If funding were available, we would support an increase in the minimum level of FFP to 500,000 metric tons (up from the current 400,000) and a freight expense cap (currently $40 million) that is high enough to allow the minimum to be met. The demand for programs to support economic and agriculture reform far exceeds our current capacity to fund good projects; 114 proposals for FFP were submitted for FY 2007, but only 12 were approved. The freight cap should not arbitrarily prevent approval of projects that can have dramatic positive impact.
- Bill Emerson Humanitarian Trust
We support the more predictable use and full replenishment of the BEHT to make its use a timely, viable response to emergencies. Because the small amount of partial replenishment that is currently allowed comes from the succeeding year’s budget, the Administration is reluctant to use this tool as a first response to emergencies.
An automatic reimbursement/replenishment up to the amount used in emergency situations should be in place, without diminishing subsequent year’s budgets for other needed food aid programming.
- Monetization
We recognize the need for cooperating sponsors who administer and distribute food aid programs to have both food and cash to implement their programs. We support appropriate monetization where it is shown to not cause disruption to local and international markets.
- Reauthorize the Food Aid Consultative Group (FACG)
We support continuing the FACG. We are concerned, however, that the FACG today serves more as a resource for reporting food aid information than for providing interactive input between food aid system stakeholders and the implementing agencies of the US government. We support clarifying language to restore and strengthen its role in providing interactive input among stakeholders and to clarify its membership to include all food aid system stakeholders.
- HIV/AIDS and Nutrition
We encourage the appropriate integration of US food aid programs with PEPFAR initiatives.
- Increased Efficiency and Effectiveness in Food Aid Programs
As noted in the recent Government Accountability Office report on food aid, we encourage initiatives to reduce the lag time between needs assessments and product delivery in US food aid emergency procurements. We also recommend the lifting of arbitrary limits on storage expenses for the prepositioning of products for emergency response. The agriculture community has been and remains committed to actively addressing issues to increase US food aid effectiveness.
American Soybean Association
Global Food and Nutrition, Inc.
International Food Additives Council
National Association of Wheat Growers
National Barley Growers Association
National Corn Growers Association
National Farmers Union
National Oilseed Processors Association
National Potato Council
North American Millers’ Association
USA Dry Pea and Lentil Council
USA Rice Federation
US Dry Bean Council
US Wheat Associates
Back to Top