Note: This document may not always reflect the actual appropriations determined by Congress. Final budget allocations for USAID's programs are not determined until after passage of an appropriations bill and preparation of the Operating Year Budget (OYB).

FOOD FOR PEACE

FY 1998 P.L. 480 TITLE II REQUEST . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $837,000,000
FY 1998 P.L. 480 TITLE III REQUEST . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $30,000,000

Hunger and food insecurity have declined since the First World Food Conference in 1 974. By any measure, there has been remarkable progress in increasing global food security. Nevertheless, at the World Food Summit which took place in November 1996, it was noted that, on a global level, more than 800 million people today remain chronically undernourished and more than 180 million children are severely underweight. For the United States, global hunger is both a humanitarian concern and a strategic problem. The U.S. Government provides resources to help those in need and in crisis while also working to eliminate the food insecurity that fuels political instability and environmental degradation.

P.L. 480 Food for Peace is a people-to-people program, from the United States to people who do not have access to sufficient food to. meet the needs for a healthy and productive life. In FY 1 996, $ 821 million in Title II and $52 million in Title III food assistance directly benefited over 50 million poor people in some 58 developing countries. Approximately 54% of the Title II program resources benefited victims of civil strife and natural disasters such as droughts. Most of these people were women and children who suffer most in emergencies caused by war or drought. The hungry poor who received Title If assistance also included landless agricultural workers, small farmers, women and children in maternal child health centers, and the urban poor--people below the poverty line with insufficient food and not enough money to buy the food needed for themselves and their families.

P.L. 480 programs can also lead to benefits for American agriculture. Nearly a quarter of the over $51 billion dollars in annual U.S. agricultural exports go to developing countries. Several of the leading importers of U.S. agricultural products, such as Egypt, Indonesia, Korea, Thailand and Taiwan, are former recipients of food assistance. Food aid positively affects almost every state in the union, with benefits accruing not only to farmers but also to food processors, packers, transporters, railroads, stevedores, ocean carriers and others. Moreover, according to a University of Maryland poll taken in January 1995, U.S. citizens support humanitarian assistance to the world's poor by a four to one margin.

Title If Emergency and Private Voluntary Organization Assistance Programs

U.S. private voluntary organizations (PVOS) are major partners in delivering food for emergency relief and development programs. In 1996, over $324 million of Title II food programmed for development activities was channeled through U.S. PVOS, benefiting over 21 million people. Title II food contribution programs are also managed by international and local nongovernmental organizations (NGOS) such as the International Committee for the Red Cross, United Nations agencies such as the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF), and the World Food Program (WFP). WFP is a prime instrument through which the United States provides multilateral food aid. U.S. food and cash contributions are estimated at nearly one-third of WFP's overall operating budget. As a lead donor, the United States has been in the forefront of working with WFP to improve its financial and management controls for distributing, monitoring and safeguarding donated commodities.

Title II works in the following areas:

  • In crisis, Title II assistance performs the most basic of functions: it saves lives. Drought, flood, and the ever increasing number of disasters caused by man rather than nature lead to life- threatening food needs. The scope and level of global emergency food aid needs continue to increase. Worldwide estimates of people requiring emergency food aid in order to maintain minimum nutrition now exceed 26 million. Overall requirements for these vulnerable groups approximate 3.5 million tons of food at a cost of roughly $2 billion.

  • In non-emergency settings, Title II programs focus on improving agricultural infrastructure to bring about sustained improvements in agricultural productivity. Labor-intensive, food-for-work activities support such diverse activities as the establishment of village-level grain and seed banks, the establishment of tree and shrub nurseries, the building of small-scale irrigation infrastructure, the construction of farm-to-market roads, promotion of terracing and reforestation, flood prevention embankments, and more. In areas where water is scarce, irrigation systems and more efficient use of water resources can increase agricultural productivity many times over.

  • Title II feeding programs at health centers encourage mothers to bring in their children. At these centers, children are immunized and mothers receive training in nutrition, health, family planning, community leadership, and even literacv.

  • Title II school and preschool feeding programs, in addition to increasing children's nutritional intake, promote and ensure school enrollment, particularly for girls.

  • In Title II food-for-work efforts, impoverished people are paid in food for their work on projec-ts that will improve their economies and increase economic opportunities for themselves and their neighbors: farm-to-market roads, water systems for irrigation and consumption, food storage facilities, flood prevention embankments, and more.

    USAID food aid policy provides for:

  • Priority to be given to activities in those countries that need food most and where food insecurity is greatest. Title II programs will focus on improving household nutrition, especially among mothers and children, and on alleviating the causes of hunger, especially by increasing agricultural productivity.

  • Allocation of resources and management of programs to increase the impact of U.S. food aid in reducing hunger. Food aid will be integrated to a greater extent with USAID dollar and other development assistance through improved country-level planning that assures complementarity between food aid and other USAID resources, and through greater cooperation with other donors.
  • Greater attention and resources allocated to strengthen the program development and management capacity of USAID's food aid partners.

  • Greater flexibility to respond to emergencies. Based on historical trends, the need for emergency food aid may not decline in the immediate future. Changes in global agricultural trade policies have resulted in decreased surplus stocks, sharply fluctuating international markets and a trend toward higher commodity prices. This has decreased the availability of food aid. To continue to adequately address emergency needs, greater flexibility and more efficient use of food aid resources enabling the optimum response must come from such measures as expanding and improving multilateral coordination and integrating food aid with development assistance funds.

    Most important, USAID expects its food aid and food security programs to result in local capacity for continued progress, even after U.S. assistance programs end. Building this local capacity is highlighted as an important objective of all USAID activities, since it is essential both to improved food security and to sustainable development.

    Hence, USAID is committed to working closely with all partners to:

  • Refine the concept of country (national) food security assessments through better definition of purpose, key elements, trends, data quality and discrepancies, and local government commitment. In this context, USAID and the European Community agreed to promote the formulation of national food security strategies and an action program to define clearly the roles and the contributions of recipient governments, donors and executing agencies in five low-income, food-insecure countries--Ethiopia, Eritrea, Malawi, Angola, and Bolivia-- during 1 996; and

  • Continue the momentum on identifying common, generic performance indicators and mutually acceptable methodologies that USAID and PVOs can use in measuring the impact of food aid.

    Financial resources also are specifically dedicated to strengthening the program development and management capacity of USAID's food aid partners. Funds authorized under section 202(e) of P.L. 480 and institutional support grants authorized by the Foreign Assistance Act assist cooperating sponsors to: (a) improve country program capabilities to use Title II food as a resource to achieve food security; (b) better account for Title II commodities; and (c) enhance management skills of staff involved in Title II programs both overseas and in Washington. For FY 1998, it is anticipated that $28 million in section 202(e) grants will be channeled to PVOs and the World Food Program.

    The following are examples of Title II programs implemented in FY 1996:

  • In India, the U.S. PVO, Cooperative for American Relief Everywhere (CARE), and WFP, act as partners in support of the Government of lndia's Integrated Child Development Services, the world's largest maternal and child health and education program. Since a 1 994 impact evaluation, both CARE and WFP are increasingly focused on improving the nutritional status of women and children, especially girls, and on strengthening womens' abilities to attain optimal health and nutrition services for their families via strengthened health services in their own communities. The central and participating state governments cover much of the infrastructure costs, including port clearance and inland forwarding of the Title II food inputs.

  • In Bolivia, the U.S. PVO, Adventist Development and Relief Agency (ADRA), is striving to guarantee food access to vulnerable families in semi-urban and rural areas through food-for- work programs aimed at improving health and sanitation infrastructure. Approximately 1 1,500 temporary jobs are provided monthly in eight areas where unemployed workers spend approximately 12 days per month improving water and sewer lines. ADRA is also conducting nutrition education among all food-for-work participants. About 85% of the women in the participating communities receive training in standard interventions in child survival, nutrition, and reproductive health care.

  • In Ghana, the U.S. PVO, TechnoServe, monetizes Title II wheat, generating local currencies which finance activities that assist small farmers and cooperatives. These activities are increasing agricultural productivity and rural incomes through improving small-holder yields of nutritionally essential foodstuffs and selected nontraditional export crops. Food security impacts have been demonstrated by TechnoServe through increased household incomes from maize production, small-scale palm oil milling, improved post-harvest storage I:acilities, and increased production of nontraditional export crops.

  • In the former Yugoslavia, USAID's Title II food aid, in conjunction with the European Community's assistancet continues to guarantee food security for 1.9 million Bosnians. U.S. food aid, in the form of wheat and wheat flour, has been one of the foremost demonstrations of the American people's concern for Bosnia's well-being.

    Farmer-To-Farmer Program

    Title II funds are also being used to support the Farmer-To-Farmer (FTF) program (Title V, Section 501 of P.L. 480) worldwide. Legislation funds the FrF program at a minimum level of 0.4% of P.L. 480 funds for the period of the Farm Bill. Actual funding is projected to be 0.9%-1.0% of the P.L. 480 budget, or approximately $11.3 million annually, for a total of $56.5 million during its current period of authorization (FY 1996-FY 2000).

    The objective of the FTF program is to use short-term U.S. volunteers to provide agricultural technical assistance, to developing countries worldwide. Under its current phase, approximately 3,750 FTF volunteers are expected to serve in 33 focus countries, including all 12 of the New Independent States of the former Soviet Union, and 21 other countries including six in Africa, five in the Asia and Near East region, and ten in Latin America and the Caribbean. The program utilizes the expertise of U.S. farmers, agriculturalists, land grant universities, private agribusiness and non-profit farm organizations on a voluntary basis in response to local needs identified by host country farmers and organizations. FTF volunteers are not overseas as development professionals but rather individuals who have domestic careers, farms and agribusiness, or are retirees who want to participate in development efforts. Volunteers normally spend about a month in a country. FTF volunteers have come from 49 of the 50 states. Over the last five years, FTF volunteers completed more than 3,700 assignments in more than 80 countries worldwide.

    FTF achievements include:

  • Through the intervention of an FTF volunteer, 160 tons of excess U.S. hybrid seed corn was donated to Georgia. The FTF volunteer worked with the Brother's Brothers Foundation. Asgrow Seed and other holding and shipping companies assisted in getting the seed to Georgia. The new private farmers organization distributed the seed, and the FTF volunteer trained the farmers on improved techniques of planting and harvesting. Production yields expanded 2-3 times, and now more that 2,000 farmers are believers in U.S. hybrid seeds.

  • In some cases, the experience gained by an FTF volunteer can lead to U.S. business development. An FTF volunteer, owner of two H&R Block franchises, provided assistance to two banks in Kazakstan and Kyrgyzstan to improve the credit application process and convert to international accounting standards. After the volunteer returned to the United States, he negotiated a franchise for both countries, and he has the right of first refusal to open H&R Block offices in Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan and Tajikistan. During the next five years, the company plans to open at least 50 offices in Kazakstan and 15 in Kyrgyzstan.

  • A bakery in Uganda requested technical assistance to develop a system of internal controls, to increase production, and to increase its market share. As a result of FTF volunteer assistance, several new recipes were introduced that have improved the quality and shelf-life of the product; employment increased from 12 to 30 full-time employees; and three new delivery vans were purchased to handle the increased demand. Sales expanded from $31,350 to $64,800 over a six-month period, and net monthly profit increased from $541 to about $9,200.

    Title III Food for Development

    The P.L. 480 Title III program is a key USAID instrument for enhancing food security in least developed countries. Since Title III is a government-to-government program, it provides USAID with an opportunity to address critical policy constraints within the context of national governments' food security and overall development agenda. Despite economic growth and increased global food supplies, malnutrition persists and the long-term trend is somber. A 1995 U.S. Department of

    Agriculture (USDA), study entitled 'Food Aid Needs and Availabilities: Projections for 2005" states that "Based on current trends for population growth rates and economic growth rates in developing countries, food aid needs will nearly double over the next decade, even with reasonably optimistic assumptions about recipient countries' ability to produce their own food or to import food commercially... .' The study recognizes that it will be very difficult for the United States and other donors to meet such an increase in food aid.

    To attempt to alter these trends and reduce the demand for food aid from the levels projected by USDA, USAID has made some fundamental shifts in the programming of Title III resources. USAID's food aid policy focuses the Title III program as follows: First, priority is given to countries most in need of food and that can demonstrate the importance of the program to establish long-term food security. Second, the highest priority is also given to programs with direct linkages to increased agricultural production and local consumption.

    Programs will continue to have a focus on policy reform by recipient governments. Examples of desired policy reform include: changing agricultural pricing policies that are unfavorable to producers and discourage productivity-enhancing technologies, ending import and export policies that reduce investment in agricultural enterprises, and generating investments in rural infrastructure which support economic growth. Local currencies generated from Title III programs are also used to advance food security objectives.

    During FY 1998, the $30 million in Title III resources will be used to support continuing policy reform and democratization in Haiti, and to strengthen food security initiatives in other low-income, food deficit countries. Title III resources will complement USAID's food security pilot program in Africa in FY 1998, entitled "Promoting Food Security: Africa and Beyond" in Mozambique and Ethiopia, helping to address major bottlenecks in agricultural policy, technology and rural infrastructure. A key focus of this new initiative is the integration of Title III food aid and development assistance.

    Title III achievements in FY 1996 include:

    In Bangladesh, the Title III program continues to increase food access of the poor through increased public investment and improved income growth. With the support of Title III wheat, the percentage of total public food distribution going to the most vulnerable sectors under the government's targeted food safety net program increased from 39% in 1992 to 68% in 1995. Three nutritional status indicators -- weight for height, weight for age, and height for age -- have improved over the past four Vears.

  • In Bolivia, which 'graduated" from the Title III program in 1996, a very successful intervention funded by Title III sales proceeds combined research, extension, credit and marketing services to expand production of domestic wheat. As a result, Bolivia has reduced its dependence on imported wheat by 25%. Title III proceeds also helped finance the country's successful national vaccination program which significantly increased coverage.

  • Ethiopia's Title III program will continue previous multi-year activities, building sustainable food security via support of agricultural policy reforms designed to reduce governmental interventions in the agriculture and food sectors, thus creating an enabling environment for private sector agricultural production.

  • In Honduras, the Title III program builds on earlier successes, continuing to improve food availability and access through land tenure reforms, liberalization of agricultural trade, creation of market information systems, strengthening agricultural research and extension, privatizing state enterprises, and improving management of strategic food reserves.
    [USAID Home]
    [USAID Home]
    CP 98
    [CP 98 Home]