A guest blog by Todd Post, Bread for the World Institute
Bread for the World Institute unveiled today its 2012 edition of the Hunger Report, Rebalancing Act: Updating U.S. Food and Farm Policies. The 2012 Report picks up where the 2011 report left off, arguing for a stronger focus on U.S. food security programming on the 1,000 days window from pregnancy to age two.
The 2011 Hunger Report, Our Common Interest: Ending Hunger and Malnutrition, introduced Feed the Future, the U.S. global hunger and food security initiative, which is one of the Obama Administration's signature foreign aid programs. The 2012 report proposes ways for Feed the Future to be better coordinated with the U.S. emergency food aid program, P.L.480.
Feed the Future and P.L. 480 represent a very distinct division of labor in U.S. food security programming. The 2012 Hunger Report aims to bring both more into alignment. Feed the Future presents the U.S. government with an opportunity to test ways of coordinating agricultural development assistance and food aid, making U.S. foreign aid both more efficient and effective.
For example, Feed the Future supports improvements in agricultural infrastructure. Why not direct some of the resources for improving infrastructure to help countries build their capacity to do more local and regional purchase of food aid? Critics often say that developing countries don't have the infrastructure to mill and fortify food aid up to U.S. standards. Well, here's an opportunity to address that problem. This would achieve development objectives as well as strengthen parts of the agriculture and food production value chain.
In 2011 two impressive reports by U.S. government agencies examined the nutritional quality of food aid shipped from the United States. Nutritional quality matters most when targeting certain groups, such as young children, pregnant and lactating women, and those with compromised immune systems. A USAID/Tufts University report and a GAO report considered the feasibility of improving nutritional quality of food aid. The bottom line is it will cost more to provide more nutritious food aid.
The prospect of Congress committing new resources to improve the nutritional quality of food aid appears unlikely. In lieu of that, the 2012 Hunger Report argues for phasing out practices of monetizing food aid and using those savings to improve nutritional quality of food aid.
Monetizing food aid is a practice NGOs use to run agricultural development projects mostly. It goes back decades and became popular as agricultural development assistance fell out of favor with donors.
Monetization has always been controversial. It is widely understood to distort markets, hurting the same smallholder farmers that agricultural projects aim to help. Moreover, monetizing food aid is an extremely inefficient way to provide development assistance. Over a recent three-year period, GAO found that close to one-third of resources set aside for monetizing food aid, more than USD$200 million, was lost to development projects due to inefficiency.
Monetization may have been justified in some sense before Feed the Future, but now that the U.S. has stepped up investments in agricultural programming again, there may no longer be a compelling reason to continue this practice. NGOs may push back, but given when we know about the importance of early childhood nutrition, Bread for the World Institute thinks it makes good sense to eliminate monetization and divert those resources to improving the quality of food aid.
Comments