The President’s proposal would eliminate funding for Food for Peace and Food for Progress programs. Further, it would transfer $1 billion of Title II funds to the International Disaster Assistance Account for local/regional procurement, US commodity procurement and cash transfers to local populations during emergencies and transfer about $200 million to the Development Assistance Account to support a “Community Reliance and Development Fund” that would provide assistance to chronically hungry and poor communities, but would not provide food aid. Lastly, it would create a $75 million contingency fund for emergencies and provide $25 million to a maritime-related program as a partial offset for decreased use of US-flag vessels to carry food aid cargoes.

These proposed changes amount to less funding and less flexibility than what is available in food aid today. The Alliance for Global Food Security, made up of partners from private voluntary organizations and cooperatives including Salesian Missions, believe the stakes in food aid reform are very high since the proposed reforms will affect the lives of millions of vulnerable people around the globe.

“Improvements and containing costs are necessary, but we must remember that the United States has the most comprehensive, transparent and responsive food aid system in the word,” says Ellen Levinson, executive director of the Alliance for Global Food Security.

“Once funds are shifted from Food for Peace to disaster assistance and development aid it is not possible to ensure that in the future they will continue to be used for food aid and technical assistance to help people overcome chronic hunger, the purposes stated in the President’s budget proposal,” explains Levinson. “Instead, it becomes a year-by-year process, eliminating the surety and oversight provided by the Food for Peace Act which has statutory objectives, publicly-vetted guidelines, procedures and regulations and a track record.”

The Alliance therefore recommends a three-pronged approach: maintain funding for Food for Peace and improve procurement and the approach to monetization under that program; use International Disaster Assistance funds for local and regional procurement, cash transfers and food vouchers; and fund a “Developmental Local-Regional Purchase Program” to build the capacity of small farmers and processors in food insecure areas of the developing world to improve the quality, safety and quantity of food aid for local programs. Further details are provided in a briefing paper that has been made available.

The Alliance points out that there is flexibility now to increase the amount of USAID disaster assistance funds used for local-regional procurement, cash transfers and food vouchers during food crises. Despite the difficult budget climate, the amount used for those purposes increased from $232 million in FY 2011 to $375 million in FY 2012. However, local procurement and cash distribution for food crises are not necessarily less costly than providing U.S. commodities. In FY 2012, the USAID programs cost an average of $2,836 per metric ton, compared to $1,188 per metric ton for emergency Food for Peace Title II food aid.

Moreover, the Alliance notes that the types and amounts of commodities available are typically limited in areas where food crises occur.

“Let’s not undermine a system that works and is the most visible sign of U.S. goodwill worldwide,” says Levinson. “Commodities from the United States are greatly needed since recipient countries do not produce enough food to meet their needs with an estimated 12 million metric ton shortfall across the 70 most food insecure countries.”

“Add to that poverty, poor infrastructure and recurring cycles of floods and droughts and it becomes sadly apparent why one out of every seven people has too little to eat,” concludes Levinson.

Alliance members are committed to addressing hunger, malnutrition and food insecurity. They operate in over 100 developing countries implementing emergency and development programs that build the capacity of local communities, enterprises and institutions. Salesian Missions, the U.S. development arm of the Salesians of Don Bosco, is one of 14 partners in the Alliance for Global Food Security.

For further information, please see FoodAid.org.

###

ABOUT SALESIAN MISSIONS AND THE ALLIANCE FOR GLOBAL FOOD SECURITY

The Alliance for Global Food Security is made up of private voluntary organizations and cooperatives–including Salesian Missions) which are committed to addressing hunger, malnutrition and food insecurity through the effective and accountable use of food aid and other resources in programs that are conducted in partnership with and improve the food security and nutrition of poor and vulnerable populations.  The Alliance seeks the adoption of responsible governmental policies and programs and the provision of adequate resources to achieve this goal.

The post UNITED STATES: Alliance for Global Food Security Suggests Changes in Opposition to President Obama’s Food Aid Reforms first appeared on MissionNewswire.

“The Committee bill takes some good steps to improve emergency food aid, such as expanding pre-positioning of commodities in areas of potential need, but it diminishes support for nonemergency food aid programs that improve the ability of poor communities to meet their own needs. Restoring funding for those developmental programs and tweaking some of the new provisions to emphasize local capacity building is critical,” said Dave Evans, President of Food for the Hungry and Chair of the Alliance.

Mr. Evans continued, “It’s troubling that the Committee bill would authorize $10 million a year for a new program to review and coordinate ‘resiliency’ programs in the Horn of Africa; yet the bill severely limits and cuts the very programs that are actually building resiliency – particularly the Food for Peace Title II nonemergency programs.”

Food for Peace (PL 480) Title II Development Programs

Food for Peace emphasizes the importance of using food aid to promote food security in areas where people regularly suffer from hunger and children are highly malnourished. Under current law, 75 percent of Title II funds should be used for developmental programs and, at a minimum, $450 million per fiscal year must be allocated for those purposes. The Committee bill reverses the developmental focus of PL 480 Title II. Claiming that more “flexibility” is needed to use funds for emergencies, the bill cuts the minimum funding level for developmental programs by 39 percent, allowing them to fall to the historically low level of $275 million, and caps the amount of funds that can be used for nonemergency programs at 30 percent.

The Alliance urges elimination of the cap and continuation of the current minimum funding level for developmental Title II programs. Mr. Evans commented, “Developmental food aid programs are not decreasing the availability of emergency food aid; they are reducing reliance on it.”

Moreover, in addition to Title II, other funds are available to meet emergency food needs, such as the Bill Emerson Humanitarian Trust and $300 million a year in disaster assistance funds.

According to Ellen Levinson, executive director of the Alliance for Global Food Security, “More than half of Title II emergency funding is spent on programs that continue for two or more years and are located in areas that suffer from recurring crises, such as production shortfalls, droughts and economic downturns. Well-planned, developmental food aid programs are much more effective than emergency distribution those types of poor communities, which are plagued with chronic shortfalls and needs. By preserving land and water and improving agriculture, incomes, and child nutrition, millions become less vulnerable to food shortages and escape the hunger cycle.”

Using Monetization to Promote Development

As part of a nonemergency food aid program, the U.S. government may allow the sale of a commodity that is in short supply in the recipient country because of insufficient production and inadequate commercial imports. The proceeds must be used for specific developmental activities within that country. This is called “monetization.” Informally, monetization may also take place when recipients of emergency food aid sell some of the commodities they receive in nearby markets.

The Senate bill does not allow monetization for nonemergency programs if the sales price is less than 70 percent of the amount spent to buy and ship the commodity to the recipient country. That formula undervalues the commodity to a food deficit, developing country and is unworkable because it is not possible to know the procurement cost or sales price until the program is underway. The Alliance recommends changing the provision to require that the sale takes place at the fair market price for the commodity in the recipient country in order to avoid interfering with local production and marketing. In addition, there should be better coordination between the two government agencies that have monetization programs, the U.S. Department of Agriculture and U.S. Agency for International Development.

Procuring Food Aid Commodities Overseas

As a follow on to a pilot program in the last Farm Bill, the Senate bill would establish a new “local-regional purchase” program at USDA for procuring food aid commodities in developing countries for emergency or nonemergency programs. USAID uses disaster assistance funds for buying commodities overseas for emergencies and this new USDA program should avoid duplicating the USAID program. Thus, the Alliance recommends modifying the bill’s local-regional purchase program to focus on developing the capacity of low-income agricultural producers, cooperatives, and processors to supply safe, wholesome foods to their local markets and food assistance programs.

Alliance members are private voluntary organizations and cooperatives that are committed to addressing hunger, malnutrition and food insecurity. They operate in over 100 developing countries, implementing emergency and development programs that build the capacity of local communities, enterprises and institutions. For further information on food assistance programs, please see www.foodaid.org.

-##-

ABOUT THE ALLIANCE FOR GLOBAL FOOD SECURITY:

The members of the Alliance for Global Food Security are private voluntary organizations and cooperatives that are committed to addressing hunger, malnutrition and food insecurity. They operate in over 100 developing countries, implementing emergency and development programs that directly engage, support and build the capacity of local communities, enterprises and institutions. Members include ACDI/VOCA, Adventist Development & Relief Agency International, Congressional Hunger Center, Counterpart International, Food for the Hungry, International Relief & Development, United Methodist Committee on Relief, Land O’Lakes, OIC International, Planet Aid, PCI, Salesian Missions and World Vision.

PHOTO: USAID

The post GLOBAL: Alliance for Global Food Security Urges Senate to Fix Food Aid Provisions in Farm Bill first appeared on MissionNewswire.

“International food assistance is a small but critical component of the U.S. Farm Bill, providing assistance to 50 million people a year and reducing the burden of destabilizing food shortages on poor and vulnerable populations,” explained Ellen Levinson, executive director of the Alliance for Global Food Security.

According to the Economic Research Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), 925 million people have too little to eat and 12,000,000 metric tons of food would be required to close the food gap in the 70 most food insecure countries around the globe. U.S. food assistance can be effectively used to address those food gaps, to build capacity and self-reliance of poor populations, and to reduce recurring hunger in areas that are vulnerable to droughts and other crises.

Food programs improve agricultural productivity, incomes, living conditions and nutrition of the very poor as well as reduce the need for emergency aid.  Programs offered under the U.S. Farm Bill offer flexibility because there is no one solution for tackling global hunger and different situations require different approaches. A variety of commodity choices and options for distribution and/or monetization allow programs to be adapted to local contexts.

Levinson praised the progress of the bill stating, “Great strides have been made in the past five years allowing U.S. food aid programs to better adapt to the situation at hand and have more substantial results.”

For example, during emergencies the pre-positioning of food in warehouses overseas has reduced delivery times for U.S. commodities, which can be as short as two weeks. When necessary, food products can also be purchased closer to the region in crisis.

In addition, a wider variety of food aid products are now available, including fortified cereals and nut butters that are more appropriate for malnourished, young children. More support has been given to developmental food aid programs that boost impacts by improving the health of mothers and children and increasing agricultural productivity and incomes. Most important, by building the capacity and self-reliance of very poor communities, developmental food aid programs reduce the need for emergency aid and help people escape the hunger cycle.

But emerging economies and growing populations are placing greater demand on food supplies. By 2050, world population is expected to reach 9 billion and food production will have to increase by 50 to 70 percent to keep pace. Decreasing the amount of funding available for developmental food aid would greatly impede efforts to improve childhood nutrition, improve agriculture and incomes, and decrease reliance on emergency assistance.  It would jeopardize gains made in improving food security and stabilizing communities and, in the end, would be more costly for the American taxpayer.

SALESIAN MISSIONS ON THE ISSUE OF INTERNATIONAL FOOD AID:

For each county that receives assistance, such as Ethiopia and the Democratic Republic of Congo, there is a story to be told and millions of people are being lifted from the grips of poverty and hunger.  Decreased childhood hunger, improved household incomes, increased agricultural productivity, and overall improved community resilience are testaments to the success of these programs under the U.S. Farm Bill and why Salesian Missions joins the other members of the Alliance for Global Food Security in urging congress to continue funding for international food aid. Salesian Missions, headquartered in New Rochelle, N.Y., is the U.S. development arm of the Salesians of Don Bosco. For more information, go to SalesianMissions.org.

ABOUT THE ALLIANCE FOR GLOBAL FOOD SECURITY:

The members of the Alliance for Global Food Security are private voluntary organizations and cooperatives that are committed to addressing hunger, malnutrition and food insecurity. They operate in over 100 developing countries, implementing emergency and development programs that directly engage, support and build the capacity of local communities, enterprises and institutions. Members include ACDI/VOCA, Adventist Development & Relief Agency International, Congressional Hunger Center, Counterpart International, Food for the Hungry, International Relief & Development, United Methodist Committee on Relief, Land O’Lakes, OIC International, Planet Aid, PCI, Salesian Missions and World Vision.

To learn more about U.S. food aid programs, please see FoodAid.org.

The post GLOBAL: International Food Aid Necessary in New Farm Bill, Says Alliance for Global Food Security first appeared on MissionNewswire.