120 likes | 232 Views
Food aid provisions of the 2008 Farm Bill. Stephanie Mercier Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry. Backward look at 2002 farm bill. Established McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program Started as pilot program by President Clinton in 2000
E N D
Food aid provisions of the 2008 Farm Bill Stephanie Mercier Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry
Backward look at 2002 farm bill • Established McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program • Started as pilot program by President Clinton in 2000 • $100 million mandatory funds for FY2003-subject to annual appropriations thereafter • Streamlined approval process for Title II program • Increased transportation cap for Food for Progress program • Congress given $73.5 billion in new money (above baseline) over ten years for 2002 farm bill • Trade title got $1.14 billion of that amount (1.5 percent of total) • Food aid got $408 million (0.5 percent of total)
Food aid goals going into 2008 farm bill • Didn’t have much hope for significant injection of mandatory money into food aid programs • Improve targeting and efficiency of U.S. food aid programs • Relied heavily on recommendations of 2007 GAO food aid report • Establish safe box for non-emergency funding for Title II • Update statutory language for Title II to reflect how program operates now as opposed to during the 1950’s • Establish pilot program to evaluate effectiveness of local and regional procurement activities
Why a pilot program for local and regional procurement (LRP)? • Despite the conviction of many that LRP is indisputably a superior way to deliver food aid, no such comprehensive study exists • Pilot is effort to determine under what circumstances LRP is effective and where and when it is not • Given the strong support in Congress for in-kind commodity donations as food aid, likeliest outcome is new account for LRP within USAID, separate from Title II funding
Political support for current form of U.S. food aid • In-kind assistance broadly supported by U.S. agriculture • Coalition of farm groups, food processors, shipping interests, NGO’s • U.S. public supports tangible aid to developing countries • American instinct is to provide items actually to be used by people in need • In Katrina aftermath in 2005, US Govt and NGO’s had to request that people send cash rather than food, water, clothing, etc. • Possible loss of broad-based political support if shift to cash assistance, especially if sent to countries or regions with reputations of corrupt governance • Face potential net decline in ability to address humanitarian goals if go to a fully cash program • More efficient per dollar spent, but significant probability of fewer dollars available overall • Cash account might be more vulnerable to diversion to other purposes in Congressional appropriations process—has never happened with Title II as in-kind program
Key successes in 2008 farm bill-Title II provisions • Provided more resources for pre-positioning of food aid shipments • Allowed PVO’s to take larger share of funds as cash to cover overhead expenses (Section 202(e)) • Authorized USAID to use Title II funds to conduct monitoring and oversight of projects, bolster FEWSNET coverage, upgrade computer system • Consolidated reporting requirements • Required agencies to review quality specifications, potential use of new products • Established safe box for non-emergency assistance • Provided additional resources for `Farmer-to-Farmer’ program
Successes of 2008 farm bill-other programs • Reformed operation of Emerson Trust • Eliminated maximum tonnage level • Required to treat cash and commodities interchangeably • Clarified release and management rules • Provided $84 million in mandatory money for McGovern-Dole program • Provided $60 million for pilot program for local and regional procurement
Next steps? • Don’t foresee additional changes to U.S. food aid programs before next farm bill in 2012, barring completion of Doha Round agreement and ratification by Congress • Expect heavy demand for food aid in next few years, given fragile condition of global economy • Senate Foreign Relations Committee plans to address reform of U.S. agricultural development programs during 111th Congress—no direct impact on food aid, but they are complementary activities