|
U.S. INTERNATIONAL FOOD ASSISTANCE
REPORT 1999
"Z"Z'ZZ
'uiir1
UNITED STATES AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL
DEVELOPMENT
Washington, D.C.
January 2000
I I Il Orc
I USAID-
U.S. INTERNATIONAL FOOD ASSISTANCE REPORT, 1999
This report may be ordered from
USAID Development Experience Clearinghouse (DEC)
1611 North Kent Street
Suite 200
Arlington, VA 22209-2111
Telephone: (703) 351-4006
Fax: (703) 351-4039
E-mail: docorder@dec.cdie.org
U.S. INTERNNAONA FOOD ASSISTANCE REPORT, 1999
Table of Contents
List of Acronym s...................................................................................................... iii
st of Partner Organizations.................................................................................... iv
Preface ................................................................................................... . ............... v
In Appreciation........................................................................................................ vi
Executive Sum m ary............................................................... ........................................ 1
Introduction ............................................................................................................ 4
Food Assistance for Global Food Security...................................... .............. 4
Defining Food Security ..................................... ............................. 5
Food Security and Nutrition .............................................. ............... 6
I. The Challenge: Global Hunger and Food Insecurity ............................................. 7
A. Poverty and Other Causes of Food Insecurity.............................................. 7
Global Food Supply and Demand........................................ ............ 8
Regional Variations in Food Insecurity................................ ............. 9
Sub-Saharan Africa.............................................. .............. 10
South and East Asia............................................ ............... 11
B. The Constraints Facing Food Aid ..............................................................12
Increased Emergency Food Aid Requirements.......................................12
Availability of Food Aid ....................................................................14
II. The Response: Targeting Aid for Greater Food Security ..........................................17
A. From the World Food Summit to Action ................................... ........... 17
The U.S. Action Plan for Food Security...........................................18
B. U.S. International Food Assistance Programs.............................................19
P.L. 480 Title I: Trade and Development Assistance.............................19
P.L. 480 Title II: Emergency and Development Assistance Programs......20
Title II Emergency Activities.................................................21
Title II Development Activities...............................................24
Other Title II Activities.......................................................... 27
Section 202(e) and Institutional Strengthening Grants..........27
Farmer-to-Farmer Program .............................................28
P.L 480 Title III: Food for Development........................................30
Section 416(b) .................................................................................31
Food for Progress & FY 1999 Country Highlights ..................................33
C. Partners for Global Food Security ............................................................35
United States-European Union Cooperation......................... ........... 35
Regional Food Aid Codes of Conduct..............................................35
Regional Approach to Food Security: African Initiatives .......................35
III. Highlights: The Programs in Numbers................................... ..............................37
A. P.L. 480 Title I...................................................................................... 37
B. P.L. 480 Title II...........................................................................................38
Emergency Activities .........................................................................39
Development Activities................................... ...................................39
Section 202(e) and Institutional Strengthening Assistance Grants..........40
Farmer-to-Farmer ......................................................................... 41
U.S. INTERNATIONAL FOOD ASSISTANCE REPORT, 1999
C. P.L. 480 Title III.....................................................................................41
D. Food for Progress..................................................................................... 41
E. Section 416(b) ......................................................................................42
IV. Accomplishments FY 1999......................................... .................................... 43
A. Increasing Program Effectiveness through Reengineering ..........................43
USAID-Administered Programs .........................................................43
Title II Emergency Activities..................................................43
Title II Development Activities...............................................47
USDA-Administered Programs.............................................................49
B. Improved Food Assistance Management.................................................50
Compliance with USAID Environmental Impact Regulation 216...............50
C. Improved Monetization Management..... ................................................51
D. Support for Cooperating Sponsors..........................................................53
E. Micro-Nutrient Fortification.....................................................................54
F. Impact Evaluation, Lessons Learned & the Sphere Project .........................54
V. U.S. International Food Assistance: Impact on the U.S. Economy ..........................56
A. Direct Gain-Benefits to U.S. Producers, Processors,
Packagers and Transporters ....................................................................56
B. Indirect Gain-The Win/Win of International Food Assistance ....................58
C. U. S. Stakeholders: Working Together for Better Results.......................... 59
Afterword: P.L. 480, USAID and the On-Going Cassava Success Story in Uganda & the
East African Region ................................................................................61
Appendices ...................................................... . .................................................... 62
1. U.S. International Food Aid Programs: Basic Descriptions ......................... 63
2. U.S. Foreign Assistance Fiscal Year 1999 ...................................................64
3. USDA Title I & USAID Title III Programs: Summary Budget, Commodity and
Tonnage Tables ........................................ .........................................65
4. USAID Title II Emergency Activities: Summary Budget, Commodity,
Recipient and Tonnage Tables ...........................................................66-67
5. USAID Title II Development Activities: Summary Budget, Commodity,
Recipient and Tonnage Tables.............................................................68-69
6. USDA Food for Progress Program: CCC-Funded & Title I-Funded Activities:
Summary Budget, Commodity and Tonnage Tables...................................70
7. Section 416(b) Program Donations.........................................................71
8. Section 202(e) and Institutional Strengthening Assistance (ISA).................. 72
9. P.L. 480 Title II FY 1999 Congressional Mandates.............................. ..73
10. Summary: Total U.S Food Aid FY 1999.....................................................74
11. Food Aid Convention: Annual Grain Shipments .........................................75
12. Countries with Approved U.S. Food Assistance Programs, FY 1999 ..............76
U.S. INTERNATIONAL FOOD ASSISTANCE REPORT, 1999
LIST OF ACRONYMS
BHR.................................Bureau for Humanitarian Response (USAID)
CCC................................Commodity Credit Corporation
CDIE..............................Center for Development Information and Evaluation (USAID)
CFW ................................Cash-for-Work
CRS ...............................Congressional Research Service
CS..................................Cooperating Sponsor
DA.................................Development Assistance (funds)
DAP.................................Development Activity Proposal
ERS.................................Economic Research Service (USDA)
EU ...................................European Union
FAC...............................Food Aid Convention
FACG ............................Food Aid Consultative Group
FAS..................................Foreign Agricultural Service (USDA)
FAO.................................Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
FFE...........................Food-for-Education
FFP ................................Office of Food for Peace (in the USAID/BHR Bureau)
FFPr..............................Food for Progress Program (Food Security Act, 1985)
FFW.................................Food-for-Work
FTF ................................Farmer-to-Farmer Program of P.L. 480
FY..................................Fiscal Year
GHAI.............................Greater Horn of Africa Initiative
GTG................................Government-to-Government
ICRC..............................International Committee of the Red Cross
IDP ...............................Internally Displaced Person
IEFR ................................International Emergency Food Reserve
IFPRI ..............................International Food Policy Research Institute
IGAD............................... Inter-Governmental Authority on Development
IO ....................................International organization
IR ..................................Intermediate Result
ISA ..................................Institutional Strengthening Assistance Grant
ISG ..................................Institutional Strengthening Grant
LAC...............................Latin America and Caribbean Bureau (USAID)
LDC...............................Least developed country
LIFDC..............................Low-income food-deficit country
M&E................................Monitoring and evaluation
MOU................................Memorandum of Understanding
MT................................. Metric ton(s)
NIS ................................Newly Independent States of the Former Soviet Union
NGO ................................Non-Governmental Organization
OFDA..............:.............Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance (USAID)
PAA...............................Previously Approved Activity (Title II)
P.L. 480 .........................U.S. Public Law 480
PRO .................................Protracted Relief Operation/WFP
PRRO...............................Protracted Relief and Recovery Operation/WFP
PVO...............................Private voluntary organization
R4....................................USAID's Results Review and Resources Request
Section 202(e).................P.L. 480-authorized financial support for Title II activities
Section 416 (b) ..............Surplus Commodity Donations Agricultural Act of 1949
SUSTAIN.......................Sharing U.S. Technology to Aid in the Improvement of Nutrition
UMR..............................Usual Marketing Requirements
UNHCR .........................United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees
UNICEF .........................United Nations Children's Fund
USAID...........................United States Agency for International Development
USDA ..............................United States Department of Agriculture
WFP...............................United Nations World Food Program
U.S. INTERNATIONAL FOOD ASSISTANCE REPORT, 1999
LIST OF PARTNER ORGANIZATIONS
ACDI/VOCA .................Agricultural Cooperative Development International/Volunteers in Overseas
Cooperative Assistance
ADRA............................Adventist Development and Relief Agency
AFRICARE......................Africare
AG.FOUND ...................Agricultural Foundation
AGUDATH....................Agudath Israel of America, Inc.
AIA................................American International Association of the Hematologists of the World for
Children, Inc.
AKF...............................Aga Khan Foundation
ARC.................................American National Red Cross
ATG.................................Armenian Technology Group
CARE ............................Cooperative for Assistance and Relief Everywhere, Inc.
CARITAS/Peru..............Caritas Peru
CFI...................................COUNTERPART International, Inc.
CHAMAH......................Chamah
CNFA ............................The Citizens Network for Foreign Affairs
CRM.............................Christian Rescue Mission
CRS ...............................Catholic Relief Services USCC
CRS/IFTH......................Catholic Relief Services/Interfaith, Indonesia
CWS ..............................Church World Service
DOULOS .........................Doulos Community, Inc.
DPPC .............................Disaster Prevention and Preparedness Commission/Ethiopia
EOC.................................Ethiopian Orthodox Church
FAR ...............................Fund for Armenian Relief
FFTP..............................Food for the Poor, Inc.
FHI ..................................Food for the Hungry, Inc.
FTC ...............................Feed the Children
GJARN ..........................Global Jewish Assistance Relief Network
IOCC .............................International Orthodox Christian Charities
IRC ................................International Rescue Committee
IPHD................................International Partnership for Human Development
LEA...............................Lishkas Ezras Achim
LWR ..............................Lutheran World Relief
MCI ..............................Mercy Corps International
NCBA/CLUSA.................National Cooperative Business Association
NPA...............................Norwegian Peoples' Aid
OICI.................................Opportunities Industrialization Centers International, Inc.
PROJECT AID /PAS........Project Aid Siberia
PCI..................................Project Concern International
PRISMA ..........................Projects in Agriculture, Rural Industry, Science & Medicine, Inc./Peru
REST .............................Relief Society of Tigray (Ethiopia)
RFCP/CBI......................Russian Farm Community Project, Inc./Cooperative Business International
SALESIANS (SSI)...........Salesian Missions
SAWSO .........................The Salvation Army World Service Office
SCF/U.S.........................Save the Children Federation, Inc.
SHARE ..........................World SHARE
TECHSRV/TNS .............TechnoServe
UMCOR.........................United Methodist Committee on Relief
WFP...............................World Food Program
WINROCK/WI.................Winrock International Institute for Agricultural Development
WVI...............................World Vision, Inc.
U.S. International Food Assistance Report, 1999
PREFACE
This report provides an overview of United States (U.S.) Government food assistance
activities through Public Law 480 (P.L. 480) and related statutes during FY 1999. The
United States Agency for International Development (USAID), which administers P.L.
480's Title II and Title III programs, is responsible for the bulk of U.S. food aid assets.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) administers Section 416 (b), Title I and
Food for Progress (FFPr) programs. Despite recent budgetary constraints, the United
States (U.S.) has remained the world's major provider of food assistance. This year,
record surpluses in some U.S. commodities and increased need for food aid worldwide
led to a substantial increase in total U.S. food assistance. With the legal framework of
the Government Performance and Results Act, USAID, USDA and its partner organi-
zations are committed to continually looking at ways to improve food aid programs:
planning strategically, relating budgets to a performance plan, evaluating and compiling
accomplishments, and reporting to the public.
Chapter I, "The Challenge: Global Hunger and Food Insecurity," focuses on the
more than 800 million people today who are chronically undernourished including
over 180 million underweight children. It analyzes the growing need for food aid
resources in the face of limited global availability and the rising requirements for
emergency food aid. The growing mismatch between food aid supply and demand
emphasizes the need for more focused geographical targeting of food assistance and
directed use of food aid in programs which have as their goals and objectives
sustainable development leading to the alleviation of food insecurity.
Chapter II, "The Response: Targeted Food Aid for Greater Food Security," reviews
the programs and activities through which the U.S. Government provides food
assistance in emergencies and helps food insecure populations reach the point where
they can feed themselves. Country-specific examples illustrate strategies. The U.S.
Action Plan for Food Security, our follow-up to the World Food Summit,
coordination with other donors, and other related initiatives are also discussed.
Chapter III, "Highlights: The Program in Numbers," provides an overview of the
U.S. FY 1999 international food aid program in terms of resources allocated to each
program component, as illustrated by graphs and figures.
Chapter IV, "Accomplishments 1999," reports on improvements in food aid management
by USAID and USDA, as well as progress on Title II program performance indicators
that demonstrate people-level impact and improvements in technical capacity for
managing and implementing food assistance programs. These are achieved through the
efforts of USAID's Bureau of Humanitarian Response/Office of Food for Peace, USAID
Missions and cooperating sponsors. Improvements in program design and documen-
tation through compliance with USAID's environmental Regulation 216, improved
management of commodity monetization, increased nutritional benefit to food aid
recipients through Vitamin A fortification of vegetable oil, and two recent impact
evaluations in food-deficient countries are also discussed. Lastly, the impressive
accomplishment of the NGO-initiated Sphere project is highlighted.
Chapter V, "U.S. International Food Assistance: Impact on the U.S. Economy," offers a
brief overview of the direct and indirect ways Americans benefit from food assistance
programs. This includes both the spending to purchase, process, package and transport
food assistance commodities and the increased trade that comes from the economic
development that non-emergency food assistance supports.
U.S. Food Assistance Report, FY 1999
IN APPRECIATION
In the last year, the tragic deaths of a number of humanitarian
assistance workers underscored the courage and compassion
consistently shown by the international relief community in
performing their duties, often under exceedingly difficult and
dangerous conditions. In October 1999, we received news of
the tragic killing of WFP and UNICEF international staff, while
on mission in south-east Burundi. On November 12, 1999, a
WFP-chartered plane with 24 passengers and crew crashed north
of Pristina, in Kosovo. All 24 were killed, including three WFP
staff members. As UN Secretary General Kofi Annan wrote in
a letter of tribute to the families of the victims: "The men and
women who play a part in humanitarian work are a special
breed. Their work is the finest, most concrete expression of
international cooperation and compassion for those in need."
WFP Executive Director Catherine Bertini commented: "We
honor the lives of twenty-four people who chose as their life's
work to improve the lives of others. They created the substance
of their destiny by their commitment, their energy, their
courage, their dedication. They have touched the lives of
thousands of people in Kosovo and throughout the world...
people that they may never have met, but whose lives are
improved forever because of their work."
It is indeed fitting that the 1999 Nobel Peace Prize was
awarded to the French non-governmental organization
Medecins sans Frontieres (Doctors without Borders) for their
exemplary work in humanitarian assistance around the globe,
including activities in some 20 conflict-ridden countries. As
the Norwegian Nobel Committee noted: "In critical situations,
marked by violence and brutality... each fearless and self-
sacrificing helper shows each victim a human face, stands for
respect for that person's dignity, and is a source of hope for
peace and reconciliation."
On November 4, 1999, USAID and Members of Congress
honored the work of humanitarian relief agencies (including
Doctors without Borders) that have responded to more than
140 disasters which occurred over the past two years affecting
millions of vulnerable people in some of the world's poorest
countries. USAID Administrator J. Brady Anderson remarked
at the ceremony held at the Hart Senate Office Building:
"Thousands of people around the world have benefited from
the work these courageous organizations have done. The U.S.
Government is fortunate to partner with these organizations
and we are glad to have the opportunity to honor their work."
U.S. INTERNATIONAL FOOD ASSISTANCE REPORT, 1999
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
United States international food assistance shares the bounty
of American agricultural productivity with those in need
around the world. The main mechanism for international
food assistance is the Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance
Act of 1954, also known as Public Law 480 (P.L. 480). In re-authorizing
P.L. 480 legislation through the Federal Agricultural Improvement and
Reform Act (FAIR), commonly referred to as the 1996 Farm Bill,
Congress reaffirmed the principal intent of US international food
assistance programs to:
Combat world hunger and malnutrition and their causes;
Promote broad-based, equitable and sustainable development,
including agricultural development;
Expand international trade;
Develop and expand export markets for U.S. agricultural
commodities; and
Foster and encourage the development of private enterprise and
democratic participation in developing countries.
U.S. food aid responds to emergencies from both natural and man-made
causes, moving U.S.-produced food into the world's most dangerous and
devastated regions. U.S. food aid also addresses nutritional inadequacies
and longer-term food security issues, working with a variety of
government and non-government partners to promote sustainable
agriculture, open markets, and nutritional improvements, especially for
women and children health.
In Fiscal Year (FY) 1999, the United States provided nearly 10 million
metric tons, valued at more than $2.4 billion, to 82 developing and re-
industrializing countries, reaching millions of people worldwide. This
assistance was almost equally divided between emergencies and longer-
term development programs.
U.S. international humanitarian and development food assistance also
has a positive impact on the U.S. economy. The U.S. economy benefits
directly because commodities used in food assistance programs are
produced by American farmers, and processed and packaged by
American businesses. The commodities are transported by U.S. rail or
motor transport to U.S. ports to be shipped in large measure on U.S. flag
vessels to recipient countries. Indirectly, millions of Americans benefit
when international food assistance promotes the development that helps
former aid recipients become commercial importers of American
commodities.
U.S. INTERNATIONAL FOOD ASSISTANCE REPORT, 1999
FY 1999 witnessed an unprecedented combination of events that dramatically
increased the need for international food assistance. The aftermath of
Hurricanes Mitch and Georges in Central America and the Caribbean, severe
flooding in Asia and continuing droughts in the Horn of Africa reduced food
supplies in all three regions. The continuing international financial crisis, most
severe in Asia, also affected developing nations in Africa and Latin America.
Devaluation of local currencies left some countries hard pressed to purchase
food imports necessary for adequate consumption. In countries such as
Indonesia, the financial crisis compounded the impact of a food emergency
initially related to weather patterns and political turmoil, and violence in East
Timor added to the calamity. Food emergencies from conflict or post-conflict
repercussions continued to demand a large portion of food assistance resources.
The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) directly
manages the bulk of U.S. P.L. 480 international food assistance. P.L. 480 Title
II activities, valued at $949 million, moved a total of 1.9 million metric tons of
U.S.-produced food-stocks assisting more than 45 million direct beneficiaries
worldwide in 1999. Title II funding included support to the Farmer-to-Farmer
(FTF) program technical assistance by U.S. volunteers to developing
countries and emerging democracies in agriculture and agribusiness. USAID
also manages P.L. 480 Title III programs bilateral grant food assistance tied
to policy reforms. In FY 1999, three of the most distressed and food insecure
countries in the world-Ethiopia, Mozambique and Haiti-received a total of
$21.7 million in Title III aid. These countries have shown their capacity to use
food assistance effectively and, importantly, the governments are increasingly
committed to longer-term reforms promoting food security.
For FY 1999, USDA-administered Title I and Title I-funded Food for Progress
agreements were signed for 2.2 million tons value at about $656.1 million. In
addition, Food For Progress programs using CCC funds were planned with
U.S. private voluntary organizations for projects in over 20 countries totaling
over 160,000 tons of commodities valued at over $60 million (not including
ocean freight).
Near the end of FY 1998, a Presidential Initiative under Section 416(b)
authorized 2.5 million metric tons of wheat and wheat products to meet urgent
humanitarian needs. This instrument proved exceedingly important in the U. S.
Government's response to a number of unfavorable food supply situations that
carried over into FY 1999, including adverse weather and economic difficulties
in Asia, and hurricane devastation in Central America and the Caribbean. Also,
in FY1999, the widespread shortfall of the Russian grain harvest and that
country's ensuing catastrophic financial crisis prompted the President to extend
Section 416(b) funding to move surplus U.S. agricultural products to assist the
people of Russia and five other countries of the former Soviet Union. New U.S.
agreements with the governments of North Korea and Vietnam committed
sizable quantities of U.S. food stock all to relieve hunger due to flooding and
related crisis. In all, some 5.5 million metric tons of commodities, primarily
wheat and wheat flour, were donated to 45 nations under the Section 416(b)
program. Donations of $209 million to the World Food Program (WFP) under
Section 416(b) aided refugees, the internally displaced, and victims of floods
and droughts in 23 countries.
U.S. INTERNATIONAL FOOD ASSISTANCE REPORT, 1999
The Russian assistance package included both Title I concessional loans and
direct donations of Section 416(b) and Food for Progress commodities. The
size of this assistance package (3.1 million metric tons and almost $750
million), when added to generous Section 416(b) donations elsewhere,
accounted for a substantial increase worldwide in FY 1999 U.S. food aid
compared to prior years.
During FY 1999, both USAID and USDA, the administering agencies for U.S.
international food assistance, continued improvements in program
management. After a successful pilot in FY 1998, this year saw full
implementation of pre-positioned food aid stocks. Quantities of selected
commodities stored at two key U.S. ports are greatly improving food aid
delivery by reducing delays and avoiding "food aid pipeline" bottlenecks. This
pre-positioning activity also helps to strengthen the economic vitality of these
ports.
USAID-administered Title II emergency and non-emergency operations are
now reporting on the development-oriented food security objectives and
performance indicators established in 1996. Improved monitoring systems are
showing the impact of targeted assistance to the most food insecure and
disadvantaged population groups. USAID staff is working with its cooperating
sponsors to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of monetizing
commodities as well as overall program planning, reporting and approval
process.
Additional accomplishments in FY 1999 include the decision to fortify all
packaged vegetable oil used in P.L. 480 Title II programs with Vitamin A. A
new policy addressing nutrient fortification of corn-soy blend was established
this year. These nutrient policies applied to food aid for developing countries
will help reduce the incidence of childhood blindness and many other diseases,
while increasing beneficiary resistance to infection. Moreover, USAID's Center
for Development Information and Evaluation (CDIE) completed two country
impact evaluations on Haiti and Mozambique, both priority countries of U.S.
food assistance programs. CDIE is proving a valuable clearinghouse for
information on "best practices" related to international food assistance.
"With America's current surplus of grain, we have a
moral obligation to act when millions of people elsewhere
are going hungry or without adequate nutrition. At a time
of turmoil around the world, these [commodities] will
serve as a tool of mercy and a tangible expression of
commitment to peace and prosperity for people
everywhere."
USDA Secretary Dan Glickman, April 29, 1999
U.S. INTERNATIONAL FOOD ASSISTANCE REPORT, 1999
INTRODUCTION
"We pledge our political will and our common and national commitment to
achieving food securityfor all and to an ongoing effort to eradicate hunger in
all countries, with an immediate view to reducing the number of malnourished
people to half their present level no later than 2015. "
Rome Declaration, World Food Summit, 1996
FOOD ASSISTANCE FOR GLOBAL FOOD SECURITY
public Law 480 (P.L. 480) was enacted in 1954 as the U.S.
government's primary food assistance legislation. While earlier
legislation allowed for agricultural surpluses to be donated to
voluntary agencies for relief work, these surpluses were not
consistently available. P.L. 480 ensured a steady supply of food to
agencies for longer-term projects. The Federal Agriculture
Improvement and Reform Act of 1996, commonly referred to as the
"1996 Farm Bill" re-authorized and amended P.L. 480. This food aid
legislation states:
It is the policy of the United States to use its abundant
agricultural productivity to promote the foreign policy of the
United States by enhancing the food security of the
developing world through the use of agricultural commodities
and local currencies accruing under this Act to:
1. Combat world hunger and malnutrition and their causes;
2. Promote broad-based, equitable, and sustainable
development, including agricultural development;
3. Expand international trade;.
4. Develop and expand export markets for United States
agricultural commodities; and
5. Foster and encourage the development ofprivate enterprise
and democratic participation in developing countries.
U.S. strength and global leadership, particularly in the agriculture
sector is a major resource for emergency relief to the needy around
the world. Moreover, U.S food assistance policy directed at the
promotion of long-term food security yields mutual benefits for both
aid recipients and American citizens, as food aid-supported
development activities open up new possibilities for expanding U.S.
agricultural and manufacturing markets.
Title II, Section 416(b)
and Food for Progress
food assistance
activities are
implemented by
Cooperating Sponsors
(CS):
* The World Food
Program (WFP);
* U.S. private
voluntary
organizations
(PVOs);
* Cooperative
development
organizations
(CDOs);
* Non-governmental
organizations
(NGOs); and
* Government-to-
Government Title II
emergency
assistance.
Title I, Title III, and
some Section 416(b)
and Food for Progress
assistance programs
are implemented by
recipient governments.
The three Titles of P.L. 480 each have specific objectives and provide aid to
countries at varying levels of economic development. In addition, three other
U.S. Food Aid Authorities support international food assistance. The Food for
Progress Act of 1985 provides commodities to countries expanding free
enterprise in their agricultural economies. Food aid may be given directly to
needy citizens or monetized to provide funds for development projects.
"Food security exists
when all peoples at all
times have physical and
economic access to
sufficient food to meet
their dietary needs for a
productive and healthy
life. Food security has
three dimensions:
AVAILABILITY of
sufficient quantities of
food of appropriate
quality, supplied
through domestic
production or imports;
ACCESS by households
and individuals to
adequate resources to
acquire appropriate
foods for a nutritious
diet;
UTILIZATION of food
through adequate diet,
water, sanitation, and
health care."
Source: The U.S. Position
Paper Prepared for the
World Food Summit, July
1996
U.S. INTERNATIONAL FOOD ASSISTANCE REPORT, 1999
Agreements may be with governments, PVOs, NGOs, private entities,
cooperatives, or intergovernmental organizations. Section 416(b) of
the Agricultural Act of 1949, as amended, provides for overseas
donations of surpluses acquired by the Commodity Credit Corporation
(CCC). Lastly, the Food Security Commodity Reserve Act of 1996
provides for a 4 million metric ton food reserve to meet humanitarian
food assistance needs in developing countries, when other U.S. food
assistance funding has been fully committed. (See Appendix 1 for a
descriptive chart on U.S. Food Aid Programs.)
DEFINING FOOD SECURITY
The 1990 Farm Bill first identified the concept of food security as an
objective of U.S. food assistance programs. In the Bill, food security
was defined simply as "access by all people at all times to sufficient
food to meet their dietary needs for a productive and healthy life." The
USAID Food Aid and Food Security Policy Paper (USAID, 1995) and
the U.S. Position Paper for the World Food Summit (November 1996)
further expanded and refined the definition of food security to
encompass the three dimensions of access, availability and utilization
of food for all. Through the World Food Summit, this definition has
been accepted by most nations.
Addressing global food security is essential to U.S.
strategic interests as it promotes political and economic
stability beyond its humanitarian goals. U.S. international
food assistance continues to play an important role in
achieving global food security. Providing adequate food
for sustenance in times of crisis is necessary and will
remain a key task of food assistance programs.
Food relief is not, however, sufficient to achieve global
food security. Long-term food security requires a much
more comprehensive and targeted food assistance
strategy, which promotes the social and economic
conditions that enable individuals to gain access to food,
either by producing it themselves or earning income to
buy it.
The food security concept now serves as a planning tool
and framework for designing U.S. international food
assistance activities and for measuring their "people-
level" impact. This framework encompasses project
management, monitoring and evaluation objectives and
tracks institutional strengthening needs. In short, U.S.
international food assistance will continue to meet acute
emergency needs in accordance with commitments of the
World Food Summit's Plan of Action, while also helping
food insecure populations develop to the point where they
can feed themselves.
Declaration of the World
Food Summit (Rome 1996)
Seven Commitments to Food
Security:
1. Create a peaceful enabling
environment with full and equal
participation of women and
men to ensure food security
and poverty eradication;
2. Reduce poverty and
facilitate access to food;
3. Adopt sustainable policies
for agriculture, forestry and
rural development;
4. Facilitate trade, a key
element in food security;
5. Improve forecasting and
early response to prevent and
resolve food security
emergencies;
6. Promote optimal allocation
and use of public and private
investment for human resource
development;
7. Implement, monitor and
follow-up the Summit's Plan of
Action at all levels.
U.S. INTERNATIONAL FOOD ASSISTANCE REPORT, 1999
FOOD SECURITY AND NUTRITION
Linking food aid to food security and nutrition is critical. Malnutrition, an
indicator of food insecurity, is a consequence of inadequate dietary intake
and feeding practices, as well as the lack of sanitation, clean drinking water
and health services that can lead to increased instance and severity of disease.
The access, availability and utilization of food adequate for proper nutrition
are often compromised by social, political, economic and cultural elements.
Of the nearly 12 million children under five who die each year in developing
countries, 55 percent of the deaths are attributable to malnutrition (according
to UNICEF's, State of the World's Children, 1998 which focuses on the
problem of child hunger). Because malnutrition can lead to intellectual and
physical dysfunction and vulnerability to disease, it robs developing
countries of potential productivity. By some estimates, the disability and loss
of life associated with vitamin and mineral deficiencies may reduce the gross
national product of developing countries by as much as 5 percent per annum.
Food assistance particularly targets young children, as children are
among the most vulnerable to effects of inadequate nutrition. However,
malnutrition can start before birth. UNICEF reports that in Asia, where
half of all children are underweight, 60 percent of women of childbearing
age are underweight. In Southeast Asia, 45 percent of childbearing age
women are underweight; in Sub-Saharan Africa, the proportion of
underweight women is 20 percent. Interventions that target pregnant and
lactating women support stronger children and stronger children grow
into stronger, more productive adults.
Whatever the misconceptions, the dimensions of the
malnutrition crisis are clear. It is a crisis, first and foremost,
about death and disability of children on a vast scale, about
women who become maternal mortality statistics partly
because of nutritional deficiencies and about social and
economic costs that strangle development and snuff out hope.
The State of the World's Children, UNICEF, 1998
U.S. INTERNATIONAL FOOD ASSISTANCE REPORT, 1999
I. THE CHALLENGE: GLOBAL HUNGER AND FOOD INSECURITY
A. POVERTYAND OTHER CAUSES OF FOOD INSECURITY
Chronic poverty is the chief cause of food insecurity. Poverty
condemns too many families to a cycle of food insecurity,
vulnerability and dependency. They lack adequate land and
water to either produce their own foodore e omic
opportunity to exchange labor for the income needed to purchase
food in adequate amounts. Among the factors contributing to poverty
in the developing world are:
low agricultural productivity and limited availability
of arable land,
high rates of population growth,
inadequate infrastructure,
inappropriate economic and environmental policies,
unequal distribution of assets such as land and lack of
credit,
low levels of education and poor health status,
environmental degradation and,
civil conflict.
At the national level, food insufficiencies may be due to inadequate
agricultural production and/or inabilities to import foodstuffs. Civil
unrest or inadequate infrastructure can disrupt or prevent the
development of distribution networks even when food is available
within a country or region. Finally, social conditions and cultural
norms often prevent adequate access to and/or utilization of food,
especially by women. Appropriate agricultural and trade policy,
investment in rural infrastructure, improved sanitation, health care
and education all contribute to better nutrition and long-term food
security.
Increasingly, development agencies are focusing on the importance
of improving women's education, farming techniques and/or their
incomes as a key to improving household food security and nutrition.
* Women account for more than half the labor required to produce food consumed in the
developing world, and perhaps three-fourths in Sub-Saharan Africa.
The majority of women in developing countries are illiterate. This has serious
implications for agricultural productivity and incomes. Better-educated farmers are
more likely to adopt new technologies and to use extension services.
Women's incomes are more strongly associated with improvements in children's
health and nutritional status than are men's incomes.
Source: Women: The Key to Food Security, Food Policy Report, IFPRI, 1995
World Food Aid
Deliveries, 1998 All
Donors
Sub-Saharan Africa:
2.9 million tons
South & East Asia:
2.9 million tons
North Africa & Middle
East:
0.35 million tons
Latin America & The
Caribbean:
1.0 million tons
Europe & NIS:
0.8 million tons
WORLD TOTAL:
8.0 million tons
Source: World Food
Program, The Food Aid
Monitor, May 1999
Note: In 1999, WFP
expects an increase of
50% or more (Source:
WFP/Intemational Food
Aid Information System)
U.S. INTERNATIONAL FOOD ASSISTANCE REPORT, 1999
GLOBAL FOOD SUPPLY AND DEMAND
Global food supply is sufficient to feed the world's population. The
problem has been in unequal distribution of food supplies and the
inability of poorer countries either to produce sufficient food or to
generate enough income to import adequate levels of food. As we
look to the next century the picture changes.
Nearly 75 million people will be added to the world's population
every year from now through 2020. Rising incomes in many
developing countries, especially Asia, will spur a large increase in
global demand for food. To close the large gap between food
production and demand projected for 2020, the International Food
Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) concludes:
The world's farmers must produce 40 percent more
rice, wheat, and other grains;
Developing countries must double their cereal
imports; and
Sixty percent of the developing world's cereal
imports will likely have to come from the United
States.
"To minimize the risk of food shortages, policymakers must begin
taking steps now," says Dr. Per Pinstrup-Andersen, in World Food
Prospects: Critical Issues for the Early Twenty-First Century
(IFPRI, 1999). Dr. Pinstrup-Andersen, IFPRI's director general and
a coauthor of the report, warns that "poor countries and poor people
risk losing out on the economic benefits of more open global trade.
International trade liberalization has to go hand-in-hand with national
policy reforms, investments in the agriculture sector, access to
developed-country markets, and the elimination of export subsidies
in industrialized countries."
During the next several decades, population growth will be a
significant factor determining overall and regional demand for
food. Despite projections of slowed population growth rates, the
UN estimates world population will be over 8.5 billion by 2025.
Over 95 percent of the increase will take place in developing countries.
The challenge is assuring that these people will have sufficient food
and nutrition to become productive participants in growing
economies engaged in sustainable development.
"In the next two
generations our
world will consume
twice as much food
as has been
consumed in the
entire history of
humankind."
Rajul Pandya-Lorch,
Director, Vision
2020 Project at:
Building
Partnerships to
Achieve Food
Security: An NGO
Consultation,
June,1999
"The bad news is that
there will continue to be
a lot of hungry people.
The good news is that
if we choose the
appropriate tech-
nologies and make the
right investments, the
world's farmers will be
able to satisfy global
food needs."
Dr. Per Pinstrup-
Andersen, IFPRI 1999
U.S. INTERNATIONAL FOOD ASSISTANCE REPORT, 1999
REGIONAL VARIATIONS IN FOOD INSECURITY
At current rates,
global demand for
food will almost
double in 30 years.
The greatest
dernand for food
will, like population
growth, be
concentrated in
developing
countries.
The largest per-
centage increase in
demand for food
will be in Sub-
Saharan Africa.
(USDA, 1999)
Approximately 828 million people are chronically undernourished
in the world. After declining steadily during the 1970s and 1980s,
the numb, of chronically hungry people in the world has increased
since the early 1990s according to the findings of FAO's The State
of Food andAgriculture 1998. While no region is immune to
hunger, the vast majority of these people live in 87 low-income
food-deficit countries (LIFDCs), as defined by the UN's Food and
Agricultural Organization (FAO). These countries have difficulty
producing enough food to feed their populations and often lack the
financial resources to import the amount necessary for adequate
consumption. Almost half of these LIFDCs are in sub-Saharan
Africa. Most of the rest are in Asia and Latin America, but some
Eastern European states making the transition from centrally
planned to market economies also fit into the LIFDC bracket.
Despite notable anticipated progress, IFPRI projects that 135
million children under five years of age will be malnourished in
2020. This represents a decline of only 15 percent from 160 million
in 1995, in contrast to the World Food Summit's goal of a 50
percent overall reduction in hunger. One of every four children in
developing countries will still be malnourished in 2020 compared
with every third child in 1995. (IFPRI, World Food Prospects:
Critical Issues for the Early Twenty-First Century, 1999)
There are 87 Low-Income
Food-Deficit Countries
(LIFDCs) in the World:
South & East Asia
Latin America &
The Caribbean
North Africa &
Middle East
Sub-Saharan Africa
Europe & NIS
The United Nations defines
LIFDCs as "all countries
which are net importers of
basic food-stuffs with per
capital GNP not exceeding
the level set by the World
Bank to determine eligibility
for soft loan (IDA-
International Development
Association) assistance."
Sources: UN/FAO 1999
NOBEL ECONOMIST SAYS ADEQUATE NUTRITION KEY TO ECONOMIC GROWTH
In his address accepting the Nobel Prize in Economics in 1993, University of Chicago economist,
Dr. Robert W. Fogel presented historical evidence of the linkage between diets and agricultural production.
With data going back to 1700 in Britain and France, he showed that human labor productivity did not soar
until sufficient nutrition permitted continuous strenuous labor. Dr. Fogel notes, "... the bottom 20 percent
of the population subsisted on such poor diets that they were effectively excluded from the labor force, with
many of them lacking the energy even for a few hours of strolling."
Dr. Fogel adds, "Poor nutrition increased vulnerability to diseases chronic and contagious -
disabling people and further reducing productivity." He concludes, "When the mean amounts of calories are
as low as they are in the poor nations of the world, labor force participation rates are bound to be low,
especially when the hours of labor are adjusted for the intensity of labor. I estimate that...improved gross
nutrition accounts for roughly 30 percent of the growth of per capital income in Britain between 1790 and
1980."
Dr. Robert W. Fogel, "Economic Growth, Population Theory, and Physiology: The Bearing of
Long-Term Processes on the Making of Economic Policy, in The American Economic Review, June 1994
.. . .. . .. . .... ........==-----
U.S. INTERNATIONAL FOOD ASSISTANCE REPORT, 1999
Malnutrition is of particular concern in Sub-Saharan Africa
and South Asia. These regions will, for the foreseeable
future, remain food insecure and will require food aid
resources, even in the absence of further natural disasters
and other complex emergencies to which they are prone.
Sub-Saharan Africa. Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA)
is the region with the highest proportion of
chronically undernourished people. Although SSA
grain yields are projected to increase, they will fall
short of the growth required to significantly improve
food security. If present trends continue, USDA
estimates that two-thirds of the region's population,
or 484 million people will be undernourished by
2008. (USDA/ERS, Food Security Assessment: Why
Countries Are At Risk, 1999.)
The principal causes of food insecurity in this region
are low levels of agricultural productivity and low
average per capital real GDP. Moreover, civil strife
in many countries disrupts food production and
distribution networks. Yet, the number of African
countries with positive economic growth rates is
increasing. Nevertheless, the food import bill of
many countries diverts resources from investments
in long-term development a situation especially
acute for countries with slow or stagnant growth.
SOUTHERN AFRICA: FOOD PRODUCTION AND
PROJECTIONS
* Southern Africa is
becoming hotter
and dryer
* Only 6% of the
land is arable
* Increasing population
pressure on marginal
land
* Scarce physical and
financial resources
* Small holders
account for 70%
of production
* Cereal yields are
decreasing 3%/year;
birth rate increasing
3%/year
* About 70% of the labor
force are dependent on
agriculture subsistence,
employment & income
Source: USAID Regional Center for Southern Africa
Nine of the 10 countries
with the highest child
mortality rates are in Africa
Highest Child Mortality:
1. Sierra Leone
2. Angola
3. Niger
4. Afghanistan
5. Mali
6. Liberia
7. Malawi
8. Somalia
9. Congo, Dem. Rep.
10. Mozambique
Source: The State of the
WorlcfsChildren
UNICEF,1999
In Sub-Saharan Africa, 210
million people, or 39%, of
the population are
chronically under-
nourished. (FAO, 1998)
By 2008, current trends
indicate that number
will rise to 484 million
people, or 64% under-
nourished. (USDA,
1999)
4
U.S. INTERNATIONAL FOOD ASSISTANCE REPORT, 1999
In East and Southeast
Asia, 258 million people,
or 15% of the population,
are underourished.
In South Asia, 254
million people, or 21% of
the population, are
underourished.
(FAO, 1998)
South and East Asia. Economic growth and
agricultural innovations in the last 20 years have eased
malnutrition in the region. Despite these gains, Asia still
has half a billion chronically undernourished people. By
2008, nearly 40% of the region's population will still not
be able to meet their nutritional needs (USDA, 1999).
With increased agricultural productivity from Green
Revolution innovations, the principal causes of food
insecurity are not always related to the inadequate
availability of food. Factors that contribute to high levels
of food insecurity in South Asia are:
* Inequitable income distribution with profound
poverty among the rural landless and other
vulnerable groups;
* Illiteracy and the low social status of women, which
constrains their access to food and their ability to
secure food for their children; and
* High population density and inadequate water and
sanitation infrastructure exacerbate health problems
that prevent proper nutrition.
"Projected Growth in Food Production, 1998-2008"
Production growth needed to dose the nutrition gap in Sub-Saaran
Africa far exceeds projected raes.
e
o>
4
a -
L)
4)
4.00%
3.50%
3.00% .
2.50% J.
200%/.
1.50%
1.00%
0.500/%
0.00% -
SProected growh Growth needed to fill nutrition gap
SSA Asia LAC NorthAmerica NIS
Source: USDAERS. Food Security Assessment Wy Contries AreAt Rsk, 1999
U.S. INTERNATIONAL FOOD ASSISTANCE REPORT, 1999
B. THE CONSTRAINTS FACING FOOD AID
FOOD AID NEEDS AND AVAILABILITY
T he U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) estimates both
long-term global food aid needs and the future availability of
food aid. A 1995 report looked especially at the need for
food grains over the period 1996-2005 in 60 low-income, traditionally
food-importing countries. The report concluded that, even with
optimistic projections for agricultural production and income growth in
developing countries, estimated need for (cereal-based) food assistance
will nearly double over the next decade. Total food aid needed to
maintain consumption and to meet emergency needs, about 15 million
tons in 1996, will increase to 27 million tons by 2005 (USDA/ERS,
October, 1995).
INCREASED EMERGENCY FOOD AID REQUIREMENTS
Weather-related disasters led to increasing numbers of emergency
responses by U.S. and world aid donors in FY 1999. The aftermath
of Hurricanes Mitch and Georges left much of Central America and
the Caribbean in need of both short- and long-term assistance.
Countries of the Sahel and Southern Africa continued to experience
poor harvests due to severe weather. Bangladesh experienced
record-breaking water levels for extended periods, imperiling people
and disrupting planting. Indonesia's prolonged drought exacerbated
the impact of the financial crisis in that country. Additionally,
drought and a severe winter freeze in the area of the former Soviet
Union combined with a difficult market transition in the agriculture
sector and the near collapse of the Russian financial system in
August 1998, required increased food assistance to Russia and
several NIS countries.
Man-made disasters, such as civil strife and post-conflict reper-
cussions, continued to place a burden on food security in many
countries. Allied interventions in Kosovo and East Timor reaffirmed
Western governments' support for both humanitarian action and
support of human rights and democracy. Armed conflicts in Angola
and Sierra Leone forced the temporary withdrawal of aid workers.
Continuing conflicts have disrupted food production and distribution
in Sudan, Democratic Republic of Congo, and Guinea-Bissau.
Countries in Africa's Great Lakes region are still struggling to
resettle and reintegrate refugees and internally displaced populations.
The numbers and demands of complex emergencies requiring
humanitarian assistance to refugees and displaced persons are
growing.
Many Climatologists
believe the world-
wide epidemic of
droughts, forest fires
and floods that
accompanied the
phenomena of El
Niio and La Niia
will intensify and
become more
frequent as climatic
change takes hold.
Source: World
Disaster Report
1999
International
Federation of Red
Cross and Red
Crescent Societies.
In 1996, 10 cents of
every dollar went to
emergencies-when
at the same time,
official development
assistance had
decreased 15 percent
from 1991.
Source: Complex
Humanitarian
Emergencies and
USAID's Humanitarian
Response: Synthesis
of Findings, CDIE,
September 1999
U.S. INTERNATIONAL FOOD ASSISTANCE REPORT, 1999
Increase in Number ofComplex Emergencies
1994
01999
S13
55
Source: UNICEF, State of the World's Children, 2000.
The World Food Program (WFP) used over 70 percent of its food aid resources
for emergency relief and protracted feeding of refugees and other displaced
persons in FY 1999. By contrast, in the 1980s, two-thirds of WFP resources
went to development efforts. WFP estimated that total food aid requirements
through the end of 1998 and into 1999, driven largely by emergencies, had
gone up by almost 55 percent compared to the same period last year.
Trends in Humanitarian Food Emergencies Due to
Man-Made and Natural Disasters
The recent spike in natural disasters greatly increased needs
for emergency food assistance. Historically, man-made crises
have demanded more aid; however, both types of emergencies
are trending upwards.
U.S. INTERNATIONAL FOOD ASSISTANCE REPORT, 1999
AVAILABILITY OF FOOD AID
The Food Aid Convention (FAC) is the legal instrument for ensuring a
minimum flow of cereals as food aid. A recent renegotiation of the treaty,
issued for signature in July 1999 has improved its structure and
commitment levels to make it a more effective mechanism for managing
global food aid flows. Reforms included:
Permitting contributions to be expressed in terms of monetary
value as well as quantity;
Permitting transport and other operational costs to be
counted towards a member's minimum annual
contribution;
Broadening the list of products eligible for consideration
as donated food aid;
Limits on the use of concessional food assistance loans.
Global food assistance contributions showed a significant increase
for 1998/99. Low international grain prices and abundant supplies in
both the U.S. and Europe were in part responsible for increased
contributions from the U.S. and the European Union.
Food Aid Contribution to Developing Countries' by Major Donors
Trends 1995/96 -1998/99
10000
8000
-- USA
S6000 -- EU
S--- Canada
o -- Japan
I-
- -Australia
4000- --Other
-All Donors
2000
0-
1995/96 1996/97 1997/98 1998/99
SAs Defined by OECD. Does not Include Georgia, Russia or Ukraine.
Source: International Grains Council/FAC Secretariat
U.S. INTERNATIONAL FOOD ASSISTANCE REPORT, 1999
U.S. domestic agricultural policy, embodied in the 1996 Farm Bill,
seeks to reduce farming on highly erodible land, place some land in
conservation reserves, and stabilize agricultural supplies to avoid
'boom and bust' cycles. However, an unusually large U.S. grain
crop, particularly wheat, filled silos and sent prices plummeting in
1999. This and increased demand for aid abroad, including the
Russian Assistance Package, led to the largest increase in U.S.
international food assistance in a decade. The United States
continued to be the largest donor to the World Food Program.
Worldwide, for all programs, the U.S. contributed nearly 10 million
metric tons of food aid to 82 countries.
The increase in U.S. international food assistance in FY 1999 is
reflected in higher funding levels for P.L. 480 Title II programs, due
in large measure to the passage of the Kosovo Supplemental
Appropriation Act. Funding for P.L. 480 Title I also increased over
FY 1998 levels. The trend of reduced funding for Title III programs,
bilateral grant/donations to governments linked to policy reforms,
also continued in FY 1999. It is noted that Title III assistance levels
have declined from a high of over $300 million in 1993 to $21.7
million for programs this year.
P.L. 480 Title I Funding
1995-1999
,500
2 400
S300
| 200
E 100
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
Fiscal Year
P.L 480 Title III Funding
1995-1999
150
100
.2
O -
0
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
Fiscal Year
P.L. 480 Title II Funding
1995 -1999
950
S920
a890
.2 860
2 830
800
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
Fiscal Year
Food for Progress FY 1999
1995-1999
S400
S300
a 200
S100 -
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
Fiscal Year
U.S. INTERNATIONAL FOOD ASSISTANCE REPORT, 1999
The President's Food Initiative, providing Section 416(b) surplus
commodities to countries in need, dramatically increased volumes of
food supplies flowing through Food for Progress (FFPr). FFPr is
limited by a maximum of 500,000 metric tons and transportation
costs rather than by dollar value of commodities; it reached
maximum tonnages in FY 1999.
Section 416(b) Donations to World Food Program (WFP) and 45 Countries
$600 million
529.7
$525 million
$450 million
$375 million
$300 million
$225 million 29.1
$150 million
$75 million
$0
World Food Program Country Donations
Note: Since there were no surpluses in recent years, there is no trend line for Section 416(b) donations.
The total value of Section 416(b) program donations for FY1999 was $738.8 million.
(See Appendix 7 for a complete listing by country.)
U.S. INTERNATIONAL FOOD ASSISTANCE REPORT, 1999
II. THE RESPONSE: TARGETING AID FOR GREATER FOOD
SECURITY
"The arrival [during 1999] of the six billionth human being on this earth is a moment of
utmost significance, a moment that is not only symbolic but has tangible meaningfor us all.
That child's arrival, so close to the dawn of the new millennium, makes this a time for
reflection. A time to look ahead to the challenges we face if all the people on this planet are to
lead the decent lives that human beings have a right to expect."
USAID Administrator, J. Brady Anderson
Global food security is of interest to the United States not
only for humanitarian reasons, but because of its
implications for both political stability and economic
prosperity. While the U.S continues to provide humanitarian
assistance to countries in need of emergency food aid, it also works
to promote long-term food security by targeting development
assistance that address the root causes in chronically food insecure
nations.
The history of U.S. development assistance shows that countries that
improve their food security and their economies often become major
trading partners for U.S. goods. Such countries also tend to be more
stable and more democratic.
A. From the World Food Summit to a U.S.
Action Plan
The 1996 World Summit focused the world's attention on chronic
problems of hunger and malnutrition. The United States, along
with 185 other countries pledged to reduce the number of food
insecure people by half--from over 800 million today, to no more
than 400 million-by the year 2015.
The Summit recognized that food security incorporates not only the
traditional idea of ensuring adequate food availability, but also the.
need for social and economic conditions which enable families to
gain access to food, either by producing food themselves or earning
income to buy food. Finally, food security assumes the effective
and efficient utilization of food. Efforts to promote long-term food
security, therefore, will include a wide array of measures aimed
broadly at eradicating poverty, increasing production, improving
health and nutrition, and empowering women as both food
producers and caregivers. International food assistance has a role
both as a means for carrying out the development associated with
this agenda and as a resource to promote the creation of adequate
safety nets during the transition to food self-sufficiency.
THE 1996 WORLD FOOD
SUMMIT ENCOURAGED FOOD
ASSISTANCE
DONORS TO:
* Sharpen the focus of
food aid on the most
chronically food -
insecure countries and
regions;
* Provide an appropriate
volume of food aid on
the basis of need;
* Establish incentives to
encourage the best use
of food aid; and
* Strive to ensure that
food aid reaches those
with the most
responsibility for
household food security
especially women.
U.S. INTERNATIONAL FOOD ASSISTANCE REPORT, 1999
THE U.S. ACTION PLAN ON FOOD SECURITY
In endorsing the World Food Summit's Plan of Action in November 1996, the U.S.
reaffirmed its commitment to improve food aid programs for response to
emergencies and to help chronically hungry populations achieve long-term food
security. Immediately following the World Food Summit, the U.S. government
created an Inter-agency Working Group on Food Security and a Food Security
Advisory Committee, with 30 representatives from civil society including industry,
NGOs, and academia. The result of their work, the "U.S. Action Plan on Food
Security: Solutions to Hunger" was released in March, 1999.
The U.S. Action Plan
on Food Security's
International
Dimension related to
food security safety
nets sets three
priority areas
involving food aid:
* Targeting a greater
portion of food aid
to the most needy
in chronically food-
insecure countries;
* Developing and
incorporating
gender-sensitive
analysis and
policies into food
aid programs; and
* Improving the
efficiency and
effectiveness of
food aid programs.
The Action Plan is a long-term blueprint on how the U.S. will
contribute to the goals set forth at the World Food Summit. It
outlines policies and actions aimed at alleviating hunger at home
and abroad. Issues covered include: Trade and Investment;
Research and Education; Sustainable Food Systems and the
Environment; Food Security Safety Nets; Information Mapping of
Food Insecurity; and Food and Water Safety.
The section on food security safety nets sees international food
assistance as a flexible resource that can both mitigate short-term
hunger and promote the development that can lead to longer-term
food security. In order to maximize the effectiveness and
efficiency of U.S. international food assistance programs in
promoting global food security, the Action Plan puts priority focus
on the most food insecure countries. Priority will also be given to
recipient countries with policies that promote market economy,
gender equality and food security. The Plan seeks to strengthen
coordination, especially at the country and regional levels on the
qualitative aspects of food aid. In trade negotiations, the United
States will work with countries to achieve freer trade and to assure
that its benefits, especially lowering food prices and raising
incomes, are equitably realized.
Results of a separate USAID study, "Meeting the World Food Sum-
mit," is included in Appendix A of the U.S. Action Plan. It proposes
a model of costs and interventions needed to achieve the World Food
Summit goal of halving world hunger by 2015.
THE REGIONAL COST OF REDUCING UNDERNUTRITION (US$ /PERSON)
IeeiESoh
Asa Aia Arc
Rural Roads
Agriculture Research
Safe Water
Targeted Income-Increasing Assistance
Women's Education
Totals:
Source: U.S. Action Plan on Food Security: Solutions to Hunger, USDA, 1999
1923
1162 249
75 312
236 1021
347 961
49 130
1869 2673
U.S. INTERNATIONAL FOOD ASSISTANCE REPORT, 1999
B. U.S. Internaontional Food Assistance Programs
The U.S. government's food assistance in promoting food
security flows from programs authorized by three major laws:
Public Law 480 (the Agricultural Trade Development and
Assistance Act of 1954), Section 416(b) of the Agricultural
Act of 1949, and the Food for Progress Act of 1985. All of
these programs were re-authorized by the 1996 Federal
Agriculture Improvement and Reform (FAIR) Act, more
commonly known as the 1996 Farm Bill.
PUBLIC LAW 480
The Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act of
1954, P.L. 480, is the principal instrument for U.S. inter-
national food assistance. Food for Peace is the common name
for P.L. 480 which has three food aid titles. Each title has
different objectives and provides commodity assistance to
countries at different levels of economic development.
P.L. 480 TITLE I: TRADE AND DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE
The Title I program is administered by the U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA). Under Title I, developing country gov-
ernments (or in some cases private entities) buy U.S. agricultural
commodities on concessional credit terms, usually long-term low-
interest loans. The U.S. government negotiates agreements with the
recipient governments/entities for payment in dollars. Repayment
terms vary depending on the country's financial situation, but may
provide credit terms up to 30 years, with a grace period on payment
of the principal of up to five years and interest rates ranging from
2% to 4%. The agreements also stipulate development objectives
and activities the recipient country will undertake.
Authority to sign agreements with private entities, not neces-
sarily U.S.-based, is relatively new. The 1996 Farm Bill
allowed this flexibility to facilitate collaboration with inter-
national organizations, such as the World Bank in supporting
private sector development in targeted countries. This year
such private entity agreements, valued at $12.3 million, were
signed with two organizations in Indonesia.
Under Title I, commodities, primarily bulk corn, wheat, soybeans and
rice are purchased in the U.S. market and distributed or sold by the
developing country government in its local markets. The local
currency sale proceeds are used to support development objectives
stated in the agreement.
U.S. International Food
Assistance Programs:
1)P.L.480
Title I
Title II
Emergency
Development
Title III
Gov't.-to Gov't.-Grants
Title V
Farmer-to-Farmer
2) Section 416 (b) of the
Agricultural Act of 1949
3) Food For Progress
Countries with FY 1999
Title I Agreements:
Africa
Cote d'lvoire
Asia and Middle East
Indonesia
Pakistan
Philippines
Latin Am./ Caribbean
Ecuador
El Salvador
Guatemala
Guyana
Jamaica
Europe/ Newly Independent
States
Georgia
Russia
Uzbekistan
U.S. INTERNATIONAL FOOD ASSISTANCE REPORT, 1999
In FY 1999, the U.S. had Title I agreements with 12 countries for
purchase of almost 2 million metric tons of U.S. food commodities
valued at more than $420 million. Russia's agreements accounted for
$286.6 million, 68 percent of FY 1999 Title I-funded sales. (See
Appendix 3 for a breakdown of all Title I country recipients,
commodities, and volumes.)
In a given year, a portion of Title I funds may be shifted to USDA-
administered Food for Progress (FFPr) programs, described more fully
below. This year, Russia received an additional $220 million in funding
through Title I/FFPr.
P.L. 480 Title II: Emergency and Development
Assistance Programs
U.S. Agency for
International Traditionally, the bulk of U.S. International Food Aid flows through
Development goals: targeted relief operations and development projects under Title II,
administered by the U.S. Agency for International Development
GOAL 1: Broad-based (USAID). Implementation of emergency and development (non-
Economic Growth and
Agricultural Development emergency) food assistance activities supports broader USAID goals.
Emergency relief activities during and after man-made and natural
GOAL 2: Governance and disasters directly support the Agency's goal of saving lives and reducing
Democracy; suffering.
GOAL 3 Education and Title II-funded development programs promote broad-based economic
growth and agricultural improvements that are critical to long-term food
GOAL 4: Population and security, along with health protection and population stabilization to
Health; ensure sustainable development. Food for education, agricultural
extension and other components of development activities support
GOAL 5: Environment;
education and training with a targeted emphasis on opportunities for
GOAL 6: Lives Saved, women and girls.
Suffering Reduced and
Development Potential Title II development activities closely adhere to a number of regulations:
Restored; environmental, ensuring that any project minimizes erosion, water or air
GOAL 7: USAID A pollution; and a periodic economic analysis to ensure that food aid does
Premier Development not undermine host-country agricultural production and markets.
Agency.
USAID's Food for Peace Office within the Bureau for Humanitarian
Assistance (USAID/BHR/FFP) has undertaken several initiatives,
particularly with their cooperating partners, for streamlining procedures and
for improving the management and monitoring of food assistance programs.
Title II projects in recipient countries are implemented by a variety of
cooperating sponsors (CSs) who specialize in humanitarian relief and
development assistance. These include private voluntary organizations
Complex
emergencies are
characterized by:
Refugees and/or
internally displaced
people;
Disruption to
traditional food
supply networks;
Fragile or failing
economic, political
and social
institutions;
Environmental
degradation.
Source: USAID
U.S. INTERNATIONAL FOOD ASSISTANCE REPORT, 1999
(PVOs), non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and inter-national
organizations (IOs). USAID's major implementing partner for
delivering emergency food assistance is the United Nations' World
Food Program (WFP); the U.S. is WFP's largest food aid donor.
The Title II budget is divided into emergency and development
(non-emergency) activities. In recent years, the increasing number
of complex crises and natural disasters necessitating emergency
relief has strained limited food assistance budgets. Yet, emergency
and development activities are not mutually exclusive. USAID is
placing increasing emphasis on linking emergency relief with
development strategies for longer-term food security in crisis-prone
regions. Thus, the Title II emergency portfolio includes
development-oriented activities. Similarly, the development
portfolio includes both rapid response capacity to natural disasters
and non-emergency humanitarian aid that often provides a safety
net for orphans, the elderly, the infirm and the disabled.
TITLE I: EMERGENCY ACTIVITIES
Both natural and man-made disasters most often require
emergency food assistance. P.L. 480 Title II has traditionally
been the major U.S. humanitarian response to such disasters.
While the type of program undertaken varies depending on the
scope, nature and duration of the emergency, activities are
usually implemented in a shifting, unstable and sometimes
dangerous environment.
An increasing number of "natural disasters" (floods in China,
mudslides in Honduras and Venezuela) are being exacerbated
by environmental pressures such as clear cutting of upstream
forests and dense informal settlements constructed on hillsides
or in flood plains. These tragedies are teaching important
lessons for the future.
In FY 1998, the most recent year for which complete reports
are available, USAID responded to more than 70 declared
disasters, of which 51 were natural disasters, compared to 27
the previous year. Several major emergencies were related to
the weather abnormalities of El Nino and the Southern
Oscillation (ENSO). The economic impact of ENSO has been
profound in the many developing countries of Africa, Asia and
Latin America that are heavily dependent on seasonal
agricultural production.
"Natural disasters
claimed more than
50,000 lives and
resulted in
economic losses
exceeding $90
billion during 1998.
Natural disasters
including floods...
the widespread
destruction caused
by hurricanes... the
fires that ravaged
Indonesia, Brazil,
and far eastern
Russia wreaked
three times more
havoc than in 1997."
Source: Humanitarian
Assistance Goal
Review (USAID, July
1999)
U.S. INTERNATIONAL FOOD ASSISTANCE REPORT, 1999
Despite the upturn in natural disasters, complex emergencies
continue to receive the major share of the Title II emergency funding.
These emergencies, most often stemming from civil unrest and armed
conflict, may last much longer than those caused by natural disasters,
sometimes for years. Often during complex emergencies, large
numbers of people flee their homes becoming either international
refugees or internally displaced persons.
Linking Relief &
Development:
Principles & Operating
Guidelines
1. Countries have
primary responsibility
for their transition
from relief to
development;
2. International partners
are responsible for
assuring the positive
impact of their
programs through
effective strategic
coordination
upholding the
Principles;
3. Relief programs
reinforce development
objectives;
4. Programs are
designed to help
prevent or mitigate
disasters.
(Source: USAID)
Typically, emergency relief activities are either targeted to
specific groups or to general feeding programs. Targeted
feeding may be carried out through one or more of several
possible components:
Supplementary feeding Therapeutic feeding
Food-for-work Food-for-agriculture
USAID emergency operations often combine components
and change to address local needs and conditions. For
example, a direct feeding program for refugees may evolve
into a food-for-work or food-for-agriculture activity to
increase the beneficiaries' self-reliance and ease the
transitionfrom relief to recovery.
Relief interventions are designed and refined as the
emergency evolves so as to minimize dependence on food
aid. Needs assessments help determine the correct level of
aid and the best choices for activity components.
Assessments may use beneficiaries' available coping
mechanisms, poverty level, local market environment and/or
nutritional status as indicators to determine food aid needs.
Targeting food aid ensures relief reaches the most
vulnerable populations within the larger group effected by
the emergency. Emergency activities most frequently
target:
Pregnant and lactating women;
Children, especially those under five;
Orphans or unaccompanied children;
Elderly, infirm and handicapped;
Those identified as malnourished.
Monitoring and needs assessments allow adjustment of targeting
during program implementation. Supplemental feeding of targeted
groups may be added as the relief strategy changes to reflect
improving conditions and reduced need for general food distribution.
U.S. INTERNATIONAL FOOD ASSISTANCE REPORT, 1999
In Uganda: At camps for internally displaced persons (IDPs), a one-year World
Vision project demonstrated that development approaches can be applied even in
camp settings, using the right methods. The project found that ongoing training of
farmers through a network of extension staff and contact farmers is more effective
than "single short" training.
Training activities emphasized increased food production, improved access to markets
and enhanced local capacities of farmers. This enabled IDPs to be more self-sufficient
in food production and less reliant on relief support. The program also provided
improved seeds and tools along with better farming technologies. Activities also
included marketing of non-traditional cash crops and capacity building of farmers'
associations.
In the same region, at health units located near the IDP camps, Catholic Relief
Services (CRS) continued providing supplementary feeding for moderately
malnourished children under five and their mothers. Severe cases obtained protein-
rich corn-soy blend in supplement to general rations.
In Bulgaria: The socio-economic crisis has severely affected the lives of the elderly
who have little chance of gaining work to improve their self-sufficiency. One Title II
partner, American Red Cross, is sharing information on the special needs of elderly
pensioners and other extremely vulnerable individuals with Government, UNDP and
other local partners. Provision of timely and comprehensive information has resulted
in a change in government policy with elderly pensioners now receiving modest
pension increases.
Source: SOl: Results Review and Resource Request FY 2001, BHR/FFP April, 1999
The link between relief and development was initially viewed as a
continuum. Relief operations, in response to a humanitarian crises,
would be followed by rehabilitation and then development programs.
However, in long-lasting complex emergencies, the linkage between
relief and development is not necessarily sequential. USAID is working
with cooperating sponsors to understand the complexities in
programming for such transitions.
Integration of direct feeding activities with other productive inputs is a
very effective way of moving people from relief to recovery. General
feeding rations provide the safety net to support displaced persons or
refugees in the short-term after an emergency. Non-food inputs, such as
training, tools and seeds, support the move from relief dependency to
self-reliance. Food-for-work programs provide rehabilitation of rural
infrastructure and local agricultural systems, while meeting people's
immediate food needs. As general rations are scaled back for the
population at-large, targeted supplemental rations can continue
providing aid for the most vulnerable groups.
U.S. INTERNATIONAL FOOD ASSISTANCE REPORT, 1999
TITLE II: DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES
The United States' P.L. 480 Title II development food aid Percent of Title II Funding
program (i.e., non-emergency food aid) constitutes the Supporting Key Food Aid
Development Activities:
single largest source of USAID funding focused on food
security programs. The USAID/BHR Office of Food for Health and Nutrition 41%
Peace administers Title II non-emergency programs a Agriculture 39%
$400-million-dollar-plus development portfolio. This is a Education 10%
flexible resource that can be used in needy countries for Water and Sanitation 6%
direct feeding, or monetizing to generate local currency for Micro-Enterprise 4%
development activities.
As set forth in the FoodAid and Food Security Policy Paper (USAID, 1995),
priority is given to activities that improve household nutrition and
agricultural productivity. Both activities, described in more detail below, are
keys to developing long-term food security. Currently 80% of the
commodities programmed through Title II development activities support
these two priority areas. Other areas of focus include education, micro-
enterprise development and humanitarian assistance.
Health and Nutrition activities directly support proven interventions for child
survival and nutrition. These include promotion of breast-feeding, immunization
against preventable childhood diseases, increasing micro-nutrient consumption,
and antenatal care. Improving water quality and sanitation is also important to
supporting human health.
LIBERIA: FOOD ASSISTANCE ON THE ROAD TO RECOVERY
Relative political stability in Liberia during 1998 allowed large numbers of
Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs) and refugees to resettle in their hometowns and
villages. The impact of the food distribution was twofold. Given the large number
of returnees, the availability of the commodities succeeded in "bridging" the food
security gap and served as an inducement for voluntary return of IDPs to their home
communities. Shelters were emptied and refugee camps closed after March 1998.
The prolonged civil war left much of Liberia's infrastructure in ruins. During nine
months in 1998, a CRS "food-for-work" program provided food to 120,127 workers
who rehabilitated an estimated 1,000 miles of feeder roads, 100 bridges, 10 schools,
and 10 small infrastructures. CRS's program supported regular staff attendance at
159 health and welfare institutions and 247 schools, as indicated by the attendance
logs at each institution.
CRS also distributed food to 11,600 persons employed in medical institutions and
schools. The food distribution succeeded in re-staffing health and welfare
institutions to about 80 percent of their pre-war levels and improved the quality of
services provided to vulnerable people.
Source: SO1: Results Review and Resource Request FY 2001, BHR/FFP April, 1999
U.S. INTERNATIONAL FOOD ASSISTANCE REPORT, 1999
In India: CARE implements the single largest Title 1 development program, running
numerous projects targeung maternal and infant health, anemia. and better nutrition. The
Integrated Health and Nutrition Project's TINHP) goal is to increase women's capacity to
attain optimal health and nutrition for themselves and their children, especially girls.
Through close collaboration with Government of India and other partners, the program -
covering seven states, the largest geographic territory of all CARE projects reaches 8.2
million women and children in 123.000 villages.
INHP's strategy emphasizes imersectoral coordination and collaboration with UNICEF,
WFP, World Bank and others to complement resource flows and reduce duplication of
efforts. CARE is also promoting active partnerships with community based organizations
(CBOs). providing increased local capacity in nutnuon and health programs. Recently the
INHP created its first partnerships with corporate NGO's, linking CARE to Industrial
Federations and Chambers of Commerce. CARE expects to benefit from expanded resources
and technical inputs as well as spreading the ethic of"corporate social responsibility."
Source. Partnership in Nutrition and Health Sector of CARE-lndia- A Review of Progress
To-Date. CARE-India. January. 1999
Agricultural food-assisted activities support increased productivity through
technical assistance and training to small farmers and their families to promote
sustainable farming practices, more productive and diversified farming systems and
improved post-harvest management and marketing. This area also includes activities
that improve natural resource management. Food-for-work activities are used to
improve the physical resources available to a farming community. These activities
mobilize the labor of the rural poor to construct small-scale irrigation and drainage
systems and infrastructure for soil and water conservation.
In Bolivia: Project Concern International's (PCI) agricultural program is
helping families increase farm income and achieve food security. PCI irrigation
projects permit farmers to diversify into crops thai have a higher value in the
market. This was particularly) helpful given the El Nino-induced drought which
dropped average production in non-PCI project areas to only 2MT per family,
or in some cases a complete loss of the harvest. By contrast. PC! participant
farmers produced an average 4.7 MT during FY 1998 PCI farmers increased
their net agricultural income (compared with 1996 baselines) because of their
diverse/higher value crops.
In Ghana: TechnoSene (TNS) is working with small-scale farmers and food
processors to improve agricultural productivity and increase rural incomes and
employment. Through training and technical support services. TNS is teaching
agricultural and business skills. In one year, using Title II monetization
proceeds, TNS/Ghana assisted 78.350 direct beneficiaries, more than half of
whom were women. through support of 222 community-based enterpnses
Farmers invested approximately $20.000 and leveraged an additional $752,000
in credit The result was generation of $1.36 million in rural income via sales
of local agricultural products and services.
Source: S02: Results Review and Resource RequestFY 2001, BHR/FFP, April, 1999
U.S. INTERNATIONAL FOOD ASSISTANCE REPORT, 1999
Education (Food-for-education [FFE]) activities integrate school
feeding programs with other efforts to improve the quality of teaching
(staff and curriculum) as well as school infrastructure. Since female
education is a key marker of development, FFE activities also promote
increased female school attendance. For example, in Burkina Faso,
CRS is giving a monthly take-home ration to girls who maintain at
least an 85 percent attendance record, providing families an incentive
to keep their daughters in school. Because childcare responsibilities
often keeps older girls from attending school, the same program also
offers day care and meals for younger siblings while the girls attend
school. In Bolivia, Ghana, and Haiti, Title II FFE activities are
targeted to the same schools where the governments are enacting large-
scale school reforms funded by the World Bank.
Humanitarian relief, a general assistance "window" of non-emergency
food assistance programs, provides safety nets to especially vulnerable
populations. Frequently, humanitarian relief food is provided in
conjunction with other assistance activities. In FY 1999, eight
countries had non-emergency humanitarian food assistance program
components. This aid is generally direct feeding and targets those
unable to take advantage of development activities in their
communities. Beneficiaries may include orphans, the elderly, patients
in hospices and hospitals and HIV/AIDS victims/families.
Micro-enterprise undertakings, which constitute only a small
percentage of the Title II development portfolio, often target women,
expanding opportunities for productive activities which, in turn,
increase incomes and thereby improve access to food. Such credit
programs offer important lessons in business practices, group decision-
making, and leadership, as women establish and run their own "village
banks."
THE WIN- WIN- WIN OF TITLE II DEVELOPMENT: BANGLADESH
In Bangladesh, CARE's 5-year rural infrastructure develop-
ment project is providing jobs to landless workers on rural
roads, flood protection, tree planting and slope protection
projects which will help mitigate against future flood disasters.
The CARE project is primarily funded by annual sales of
120,000 metric tons of P.L. 480 wheat to the GOB. The wheat
itself is then used by the government in its own school feeding
programs for needy children. The multiple winners in this effort
are: the rural poor getting jobs and income; the children getting
nourishment; the residents of rural areas getting improved
infrastructure; and, American wheat farmers finding markets.
U.S. INTERNATIONAL FOOD ASSISTANCE REPORT, 1999
OTHER TITLE H ACTIVITIES
Section 202(e) and Institutional Strengthening Assistance (ISA)
Grants
USAID administers Section 202(e) of P.L. 480 and the Institutional
Strengthening Assistance (ISA) grants for its cooperating sponsors
(CSs). Given the key role of these partners in managing and
implementing food aid programs, strengthening their capacities is both
a continuing and good investment. These grants have led to significant
improvements in Title II program design and execution, as well as
better impact monitoring and generation of quality results reviews.
Section 202(e) funds are used primarily to support in-country
administrative and managerial capacity to manage food assistance
programs. In FY 1999, total Section 202(e) funds programmed
amounted to $28 million. Funds have been used to develop computer-
based information systems to improve food delivery logistics,
commodity tracking and impact assessment. Funds have also covered
expenses associated with better identification of food-insecure
populations, as well as regular monitoring of program impacts and
conducting environmental evaluations.
Institutional Strengthening Assistance (ISA) grants have been
instrumental in building the capacity of CS headquarters' staffs to
provide better accountability and oversight for their diverse multi-year
food assistance activities. In FY 1999, ISA grants totaled $5 million.
ISA Grants Have Led to Cooperating Sponsor Improvements in:
Design of technically-sound food aid activities;
Transfer of technical and management skills and expertise to in-country program
staff,
Definition of impact indicators and establishment of impact monitoring and
evaluation systems;
More accurate Bellmon Determinations (Analyses of impact of food aid on
domestic production and markets);
Improvement of programming efficiency and consistency among USAID
cooperating sponsors;
Participation in strategic planning efforts with BHR/FFP, USAID Missions and
other donors;,and
Development of conceptual ("best practices") models for guiding food aid
activities.::.
U.S. INTERNATIONAL FOOD ASSISTANCE REPORT, 1999
The Farmer-to-Farmer Initiative,
authorized under Title V of P.L. 480, was
established in 1986 and was re-authorized
by the 1996 Farm Bill. The USAID/Bureau
for Humanitarian Response/Office of Private
and Voluntary Cooperation (BHR/PVC)
manages the program.
This program is not a direct food aid program;
rather, it provides short-term technical assistance
through American volunteer farmers. The goal is
to improve production, marketing and distribution
of agricultural commodities in developing
countries.
In 1991, USAID in consultation with the
Inter-agency P.L. 480 Coordinating
Committee, adopted a special initiative to
bring the Farmer-to-Farmer (FTF) program to
the Newly Independent States (NIS) of the
former Soviet Union. This program will
continue through September, 2003.
The FTF volunteer assignments continue to
shift in emphasis from assistance to individual
farmers, government organizations and
agricultural education institutions to support
for farmers' cooperatives and associations,
agribusinesses and agricultural credit and
financial institutions that provide a sound,
private-sector base for farm operations.
This year, volunteers undertook 710
assignments in 31 food insecure countries. In
11 Independent States of the former Soviet
Union, 442 assignments were completed. In
20 other targeted countries in Asia, Africa,
and Central and South America, volunteers
completed an additional 268 assignments.
Total P.L. 480 funding for the FTF program in
FY 1999 was $10.87 million.
NIS Farmer-to-Farmer
Assignments FY 99
Armenia 20
Azerbaijan 20
Belarus 16
Georgia 13
Kazakhstan 40
Kyrgyz Republic 39
Moldova 13
Russia 168
Turkmenistan 21
Ukraine 69
Uzbekistan 23
Total 442
World-Wide
(Non-NIS target
countries)
Farmer-to-Farmer
Assignments -
FY 1999
Bangladesh
Bolivia
Ecuador
El Salvador
Ethiopia
Ghana
Guatemala
Guyana
Haiti
Honduras
India
Jamaica
Mexico
Mongolia
Mozambique
Nepal
Nicaragua
Philippines
Uganda
Zimbabwe
Total
U.S. INTERNATIONAL FOOD ASSISTANCE REPORT, 1999
FY 1999 COUNTRY HIGHLIGHTS FARMER-TO-FARMER
Turkmenistan: FTF helped an entrepreneur start a mushroom business.
In a six-month period after starting his own business, he earned $5,000 -
almost ten times his previous income, producing both mushrooms and
mushroom spawn. He expanded his business, added a new variety of
mushroom, and hired three family members to work with him. He is
now teaching eleven satellite growers how to grow, package and market
high quality mushrooms. The long-term goal is to form an association
of mushroom producers.
Georgia: The FTF program is helping establish a system of agricultural
credit cooperatives. An independent foundation has been established to
administer the credit program. FTF volunteers have provided assistance
to this foundation and in organizing private farmers to form credit
cooperatives. In 1997, 16 loans were made by one credit cooperative,
and they achieved a 96 percent repayment rate. In 1998, three credit
cooperatives made 56 loans totaling $350,000. The pilot program with
FTF assistance is well tested, and in 1999, the USAID mission provided
additional loan capital, expanding the program to seven credit
cooperatives
Armenia: The FTF program grantee assisted in the registration of
VISTAA/ Armenia (Volunteers in Service to Armenian Agriculture) as a
local NGO to utilize the services of underemployed agricultural
professionals. Initially, the VISTAA volunteers were given field
training. In 1999, VISTAA volunteers carried out 40 technical
assistance projects. VISTAA now operates at more than 50 percent cost
recovery from assignments funded by international agencies and expects
to be self-supporting in about two years.
Mexico: Land O'Lakes is working with producers from the local Indian
communities in Chiapas, Tabasco and Oaxaca. Land O'Lakes
collaborates with the International Indian Treaty Council to field Native
American volunteers who carry out technical assistance assignments.
Three major ongoing projects are: organic brown rice production, cacao
processing and building a coffee roaster. Losses in rice production and
processing were reduced from over 30% to 10%. New methods also
improved rice quality, increasing Chiapas farmers' prices by 275%.
They now have an incentive to meet market demand and are planting 12
times more area than last season.
Mongolia: The FTF, working with ACDI/OCA, has leveraged
significant resources to improve veterinary assistance to an animal
husbandry/breeding project and to obtain U.S.-manufactured tilling
equipment for a model grain production project. Two grants for
veterinary assistance and cashmere breeding improvement worth
$330,000 and $70,000, respectively, were obtained from the Mongolian
Ministry of Agriculture.
U.S. INTERNATIONAL FOOD ASSISTANCE REPORT, 1999
P.L. 480 Title III: Food for Development
USAID's Title III provides government-to-government grants
for support of long-term economic development in the least
developed countries in ways that help address food and nutri-
tion problems. Title III has been an effective instrument
in assisting countries to implement difficult policy choices
necessary to promote long-term food and nutritional im-
provements worldwide. In Haiti, Bangladesh, Ethiopia,
Eritrea, Mozambique, Nicaragua and many other past recipient
countries, Title III has enabled USAID to play a critical role in
helping governments privatize food and fertilizer markets,
attract poor children into school, and better address chronic food
shortfalls.
Funding priority for P.L. 480 Title III is accorded to:
Countries most in need of food;
Countries in which Title III programs form part of a
strategy to establish/enhance long-term food
security;
Programs with direct links to increased
agricultural production and local
consumption.
Donated Title III commodities are normally sold on the
domestic market of the recipient country, although in some
cases they are put into national food security reserves for use in
emergencies. Under this program, sales of commodities
generally generate local currency that is used to advance food
security objectives. This may include infrastructure develop-
ment, support for rural credit cooperatives, agricultural
production and marketing improvement programs, or other
economic development activities.
In FY 1999, 116,400 metric tons of wheat flour and wheat
worth $21.7 million were distributed through Title III to
strengthen food security in Ethiopia, Haiti, and Mozambique.
This is a decrease of 27 percent from FY 1998 funding levels.
Title III supports
policy reforms,
such as:
* Changing price
policies that are
unfavorable to
producers or
discourage
productivity;
* Ending export
and import
policies that
hinder investment
in agricultural
enterprises; and
* Generating invest-
ments in rural
infrastructure,
which supports
economic growth.
U.S. INTERNATIONAL FOOD ASSISTANCE REPORT, 1999
SECTION 416(b): THE BIG FOOD AID STORY IN FY 1999
The Agricultural Act of 1949 authorizes the donation of surplus food and
feed grain owned by the USDA Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC).
Surplus food assistance distributed domestically is authorized by
Section 416(a) of the Act; surpluses shipped overseas are covered under
Section 416(b). In the 1990s, CCC stocks and 416(b) transfers had
declined sharply. In 1998 a confluence of events dramatically changed
this picture. The U.S. received a huge number of emergency food
assistance requests due to severe weather conditions worldwide (e.g.,
floods in Bangladesh, drought in Indonesia) coupled with acute financial
crisis in many developing countries. At the same time, world wheat
prices had declined to record low levels.
COUNTRY CASES TITLE III FOCUS ON FOOD SECURITY
In Ethiopia: Ethiopia ranks as a most food insecure country. In a
three-year program totaling $44.9 million, Ethiopia received
assistance to deal with drought and crop shortages. The government
has also used wheat shipments for relief feeding. During the first
two years of the project, Ethiopia took significant measures to
liberalize markets for agricultural inputs and stimulate greater
private sector involvement. Numerous rural roads have been
constructed or repaired, and numerous local tolls and tariffs, which
had impeded rural market development, have been removed.
In Haiti: Significant damage caused by Hurricane Georges in
1998, has only added to the plight of this nation plagued by
economic stagnation and a slow recovery from political change. In
FY 1999, a significant quantity of bulk wheat was sold to the
recently privatized flour mill. The government of Haiti uses
Title III proceeds to build and refurbish rural roads, both increasing
market access from rural areas and stimulating economic activity in
secondary town and cities.
In Mozambique: Decades of war have left Mozambique ranked as
a most food insecure country. While the country is endowed with
vast arable land, agricultural development progress to date has been
hampered by the lack of infrastructure, education skills and capital.
Mozambique's policy reforms include liberalizing agricultural
prices, curtailing state monopoly of cereal procurements,
privatizing transportation, improving land title security and
constructing and repairing roads.
U.S. INTERNATIONAL FOOD ASSISTANCE REPORT, 1999
Historic U.S. Wheat Prices
(per bushel)
$5.00-
$4.50-
$4.00-
$3.50
$3.00
$2.50
*1999 Wheat $2.58/bushel (preliminary estimated average price)
Source: USDA Agricultural Statistics Board
Note: U.S. Futures prices for wheat are at a 22-year low.
In July 1998, President Clinton called on USDA with their authority under the
CCC Charter Act of 1948 to purchase wheat for international humanitarian
assistance distribution under Section 416(b). Negotiations continued into FY
1999. By year's end, 5.5 million metric tons commodities were moved under
Section 416(b) agreements.
SECTION 416 (b) FOOD AID INITIATIVE
"Let me just say that for those of us in the humanitarian relief and emergency food
business, this has been one of the worst years on record. We've had the El Nino
drought; we've had a larger number ofconflicts than usual; we've had the Asian
financial crisis that has caused, in the case ofIndonesia, the economy to virtually
collapse. As we reach the end of the fiscal year here, most of our Title II resources
that we use for emergency food have been depleted. "
(Then) USAID Administrator, J. Brian Atwood*
"Starting next week, USDA will begin buying wheat for foreign food donations,
opening new export channels for American farmers... [to] countries that currently
cannot make commercial purchases from the U.S."
USDA Secretary, Dan Glickman*
The effects of the President's decision was primarily felt in Fiscal Year 1999 when
commodities including wheat, wheat flour, corn meal, corn, bulgur, and non-fat dry
milk left the U.S. By the end ofFY 1999, 45 countries and two regions had
benefited from the Section 416(b) program-either through direct donations
arranged with the U.S. Government or from stocks supplied to the World Food
Program. In total, 5.5 million metric tons valued at almost $739 million was
provided in FY 1999.
*Both men speaking at the announcement of the President's decision to provide surplus
U.S. commodities for foreign food assistance under Section 416(b), July 18, 1998
I A
NJ V
U.S. INTERNATIONAL FOOD ASSISTANCE REPORT, 1999
Food for Progress
CCC-funded Food
For Progress
(23 countries)
Armenia
Azerbaijan
Bosnia-Herzegovina
El Salvador
Equatorial Guinea
Georgia
Guatemala *
Haiti
Honduras
Indonesia
Ivory Coast
Kazakhstan *
Kyrgyzstan
Moldova
Nicaragua
Russia
South Africa
Swaziland
Tajikistan
Togo
Turkmenistan **
Uzbekistan "
Zimbabwe
SFunded as part of a
Central American
program
" Part of a jointly-funded
program
Title I-funded Food
For Progress
(4 countries)
Bosnia-Herzegovina
Honduras
Nicaragua
Russia
The USDA-administered Food for Progress program,
authorized under the Food for Progress Act of 1985, assists
developing countries, and particularly emerging democracies
"that have made commitments to introduce or expand free
enterprise elements in their agricultural economics through
changes in commodity pricing, marketing, input availability,
distribution, and private sector involvement." Food for
Progress agreements can be signed with governments or with
private voluntary organizations, non-profit agriculture
organizations, cooperatives, intergovernmental organizations
or other private entities.
Food for Progress is supported through one of three
mechanisms, via transfer of Title I funds or via Commodity
Credit Corporation (CCC) funds, or through the use of
Section 416(b) commodities in CCC inventories. The
program is authorized through FY 2002 at an annual level of
500,000 metric tons of food commodities and up to $30
million in CCC-funds for transport and $10 million for
administrative costs. Appropriations for FY 1999 raised the
transportation cap to $35 million and the cap for the
payment of administrative costs to $12 million.
In FY 1999, some 413,640 metric tons of commodities
valued at over $295 million were programmed through Food
for Progress to support private enterprise development and
food security activities in 23 countries. Initially focused on
the former Soviet Union, USDA's geographic scope for
FFPr now reaches to food-insecure countries in Africa, Asia,
Central Europe and Latin America. In response to hurricane
disasters, USDA donated corn, beans, soybean meal and
other products valued at $13.5 million under FFPr. USDA
initiated new programs in Sub-Saharan Africa during FY
1999 in Swaziland, Togo and Zimbabwe.
FY 1999 COUNTRY HIGHLIGHTS-FOOD FOR PROGRESS
South Africa USDA's agreement with Africare, now in its second year, uses
sales proceeds from approximately 3,000 metric tons of sunflower seed oil to
continue strengthening the rural economy in the Nebo District in South Africa's
Northern Province and Msinga District in Kwa Zulu, Natal.
Zimbabwe The Citizens Network for Foreign Affairs (CNFA), is monetizing
2,500 metric tons of soybean oil. CNFA is using the proceeds to fund an 18-
month program improving Zimbabwean small-scale farmers' access to inputs,
U.S. INTERNATIONAL FOOD ASSISTANCE REPORT, 1999
services and markets. The program has three main elements: training village
level retailers to improve their business management skills; expanding village
level retailers' access to credit by backing short-term loans through a guarantee
fund; and supporting the development of an input distribution infrastructure by
offering matching grants for investments in wholesaling in target areas.
Swaziland A Food for Progress agreement, signed with World Vision, will
monetize approximately 10,000 metric tons of wheat. The goal of the
Swaziland Water Project for Drought Mitigation (SWP) two-year program is
to improve the health, income and household resources for people in 20 low-
income communities in the Lowveld area of Swaziland through dam and garden
construction and marketing of produce.
Togo The agreement with Opportunities Industrialization Centers
International (OICI) was signed, providing approximately 8,000 metric tons of
rice for monetization. The proceeds are being used in four initiatives: training
of village-level extension agents, upgrading farmer cooperatives into
procurement and marketing cooperatives, developing savings and credit
federations, and training seminars for government extension agents and others.
Cote d'Ivoire The agreement with Winrock International provides
approximately 15,000 metric tons of rice. Winrock is addressing natural
resource and environmental issues, advancing the leadership role of women in
agriculture, and expanding regional training capabilities and resources for
women and small farmers.
Equatorial Guinea A total of 1,040 metric tons of rice, pinto beans,
vegetable oil and wheat flour is provided to the International Partnership for
Human Development (IPHD). Some of the vegetable oil and wheat flour will
be monetized. IPHD is using the proceeds to: provide grants and loans for
income generating activities; expanding training and farm model capabilities at
one Agricultural School; establishing a chicken raising project; and, increasing
fishing activities. A direct feeding program is distributing the remaining
commodities to poorer segments of the population, primarily women and
children who are hospitalized.
Planting Seeds for Tajikistan and Russia For the first time, planting seeds
went to countries in need under food assistance programs, specifically, 2,000
tons of wheat seed to Tajikistan and 15,000 tons of corn and vegetable seeds to
Russia.
Russia 26,500 tons of crude sunflower oil were provided to the USA Poultry
and Egg Export Council to fund an integrated broiler project in Russia. The
$10 million of monetization proceeds generated provide funding for the start-up
of a modern poultry production enterprise and fulfill a key commitment of the
U.S.-Russia bilateral commission.
U.S. INTERNATIONAL FOOD ASSISTANCE REPORT, 1999
C. PARTNERS FOR GLOBAL FOOD SECURITY
The U.S. Government works in close partnership with numerous
bilateral, international, regional and sub-regional organizations on
food assistance-related issues. A coordinated approach is seen as
the most effective way to support national food security efforts.
United States-European Union Cooperation
In 1995, U.S. and senior European Commission officials
established a coordinating body for food security efforts. The
Permanent Mechanism for Consultation and Coordination on
development cooperation and humanitarian assistance (PMCC)
was formed under the umbrella of the Trans-Atlantic Initiative.
High-level annual meetings to assess progress are held either in
Brussels or Washington, D.C.
Regional Food Aid Codes of Conduct-Horn of Africa
USAID collaborated on development of a draft Code of Conduct
for Food Aid in the context of Food Security for IGAD, the
Inter-Governmental Authority on Development. This sub-regional
organization is comprised of the seven most drought-prone
countries of the Greater Horn of Africa Region. The draft IGAD
Code of Conduct for Food Security incorporates best practices on
relief to development linkage, conflict resolution, gender
perspective and other development components. Among other
principles, the Code recognizes:
U.S.-EU Food Security
Cooperation has
identified seven
countries where there is
mutual interest to
promote the formulation
of national food security
strategies:
Bangladesh
Bolivia
Kyrgystan
Ethiopia
Haiti
Malawi
Mozambique
The Seven Country
members of IGAD:
Djibouti
Eritrea
Ethiopia
Kenya
Somalia
Sudan
Uganda
The importance of food aid as one resource to address
hunger and disease due to food shortages;
Long-term food security efforts and their role in mitigating
emergencies;
Food aid as a flexible resource needing careful programming to
prevent interference with long-term food self-reliance; and
Full integration of food aid with complementary investments,
regional trade policies and other resources.
Regional Approach to Food Security: African Initiatives
President Clinton launched the Greater Horn of Africa Initiative
(GHAI) in 1994 to better link relief and development strategies in the
region. The guiding assumption in the Initiative is that by enhancing
regional food security and by strengthening African capacity to prevent,
mitigate, and respond to crisis, drought and other natural disasters need
not lead to famine in the region. Unfortunately, continued civil unrest in
U.S. INTERNATIONAL FOOD ASSISTANCE REPORT, 1999
the region during the last several years put additional strain on the
region's fragile, but developing, coping mechanisms.
Nearly 20 percent of the increased FY 1999 Title II budget supported
emergency and non-emergency (development) activities in the Greater Horn
of Africa region, most notably in Ethiopia, Kenya, Rwanda, Sudan and
Uganda.
The USAID African Food Security Initiative (AFSI)and the recently
passed Africa: Seeds of Hope Act support a broad commitment to
boosting rural agricultural production in order to improve nutritional status
and increase rural incomes. Approximately $45 million supports bilateral
and regional programs to expand food security activities in three critical
areas:
increasing agricultural production,
improving market efficiency and market access, and
increasing agricultural trade and investment.
The new Africa: Seeds of Hope Act requires USAID and USDA to work
with African partners in developing plans for using micro-credit finance
strategies, agricultural research and agricultural extension, and other
mechanisms to reduce rural poverty in Africa. The Act seeks to prioritize
economic development for small-scale farmers and struggling rural
communities. It encourages the Overseas Private Investment Corporation
(OPIC) to seek development funding from U.S. corporations investing
abroad for businesses, PVOs and NGOs that work directly with African
rural populations. The Act recognizes the role of African women in small-
scale agriculture, and asks USAID to put greater emphasis on
entrepreneurial opportunities for women in development programming.
To date, the number of small-scale farmers in Uganda benefiting from
income-enhancing USAID support has tripled (to 250,00 farmers) with
additional resources provided by AFSI. U.S. cooperative development
organizations are assisting new farmer organizations with support almost
doubling (to $41 million) since 1995. USAID has reviewed its definition of
'micro-enterprise' to assure wider applicability to African farmers and
rural poor. USAID-funded micro-enterprise programs in Africa have
expanded from $17 million in 1995 to $38 million in 1999.
Tackling hunger today is a prerequisite for sustainable
development tomorrow.
Ending the Inheritance ofHunger: FoodAid for Human
Growth, World Food Program 1999
U.S. INTERNATIONAL FOOD ASSISTANCE, 1999
III. HIGHLIGHTS: THE PROGRAMS IN NUMBERS
I n 1999, total U.S. international food assistance cost more than $2.4 billion and
moved nearly 10 million metric tons (MT) of commodities to 82 developing and re-
industrializing countries and three regions--the South Balkans, the African Sahel and
the Central American hurricane-impact region. Value-wise, 58 percent of this -
almost $1.4 billion (4 million MT) was provided through the P.L. 480 Food Assistance
program. The remainder was channeled through the Food-for-Progress program and
Section 416 (b). The following chapter provides information on funding, tonnage levels and
regional distribution of aid for the various components of U.S. international food assistance
program.
A. P.L. 480 TITLE
Title I government-to-government agreements provided concessionary credits to 12
countries for almost 2 million MT of commodities valued at nearly $421 million. (See
Appendix 3 for a summary of commodities and tonnage and funding levels by country.)
Four other countries received Title I-funded Food for Progress donations worth over $235
million (over 252,000 MT of commodities). These funding levels represent a dramatic
increase over 1998 levels, reflecting inter alia the considerable assistance to Russia in 1999.
Title I Allocations to Food for Progress
and Government to Government Agreements
1995-1999
$700
$600
$235
$500
Millions of $400
Dollars S300 $420
$200
$100
so
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
Fiscal Year D Title 1-FFPr
STitle 1-GTG
U.S. INTERNATIONAL FOOD ASSISTANCE, 1999
B. P. L. 480 TITLE II
Title II Food for Peace (FFP) activities, valued at almost $950 million, moved a total of
1.93 million MT and assisted more than 45 million beneficiaries in 56 countries and two
regions (the Sahel and South Balkans) in FY 1999. Funding for Title II increased over
FY 1998 levels, with spending on emergency programming ($513 million) continuing to
exceed that of development (non-emergency) programming ($435 million).
P.L. 480 Title II Programming
FY 1999
Millions of
Dollars
$600
$400
$200
$0
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
Fiscal Year Development
o Emergency
Title II Emergency and Development Activities FY 1999
by Region
$100 $150 $200 $250
Millions of Dollars
U.S. INTERNATIONAL FOOD ASSISTANCE, 1999
TITLE II EMERGENCY ACTIVITIES
In FY 1999, USAID supported 67 WFP and PVO/NGO-implemented Title II emergency
activities in 27 countries from four regions: Africa, Asia, Eastern Europe/Eurasia, and Latin
America and the Caribbean. The budget for Title II emergency activities in FY 1999 totaled
$513 million, including procurement and transportation for over 792,000 metric tons of
commodities (see Appendix 4 for a summary of tonnage and funding levels by country).
Once again, the majority of emergency activities (52%) took place in Sub-Saharan Africa.
However, emergency assistance to Latin America increased significantly in FY 1999 as a
result of Hurricanes Mitch and Georges.
Title II Emergency Assistance FY 1999
by Region
Eastern
Europe/Newly Latin America
Independent and the
States Caribbean
14% 16%
Asia/Near East
18%
Africa
52%
TITLE II DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES
In FY 1999, USAID supported 102 Title II development activities in 42 countries from
three regions: Africa, Asia, and Latin America and the Caribbean. The budget for Title II
development activities in FY 1999 totaled over $435 million, including procurement and
transportation for almost 1,140,000 metric tons of commodities (see Appendix 5 for a
summary of tonnage and funding levels by country). Development assistance to Latin
America and the Caribbean declined slightly in FY 1999, as assistance to this region took
on a greater orientation to emergency relief.
Title II Development Assistance FY1999 by
Region
Latin America
Asia/Near and the
East Caribbean
41% 27%
S- Africa
32%
U.S. INTERNATIONAL FOOD ASSISTANCE, 1999
SECTION 202(E) AND INSTITUTIONAL STRENGTHENING ASSISTANCE (ISA)
GRANTS
USAID is committed to increasing the capacity of its cooperating sponsors to manage food
aid programs through its Section 202(e) and Institutional Strengthening Assistance Grants
(ISA). Section 202(e) funding has almost tripled from $10 million in FY 1993 to $28
million in FY 1999. ISA funding, in FY 1999, totaled $5 million (see Appendix 8).
Section 202 (e) and Institutional Strenthening
Assistance Grants 1995 1999
$30
$25
$20
Dollars in
Millions $15
$10
$5
$0
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
SSection 202 (e)
Fiscal Year ISA nts
ISA Grants
FARMER-TO-FARMER
The Farmer-to-Farmer program fielded a total of 710 volunteer assignments in 31 countries
in FY 1999. This is an increase over FY 1998 in assignments and countries served,
although the Farmer-to-Farmer operating budget has remained constant at $10.9 million.
The vast majority of FTF activities took place in the NIS region more than twice all other
regions combined. Outside the NIS countries, the geographic zone recording the most
activities in FY 1999 was Latin America and the Caribbean.
Farmer to Farmer Activities by Region
FY 1999
Latin America
and Caribbean
Asia and Near
East
Africa
NIS
0 100 200 300 400 500
Number of Activities
147
S79
42
442
.... ....f.* --'
U.S. INTERNATIONAL FOOD ASSISTANCE, 1999
C. P.L. 480 TITLE III
USAID-administered Title III activities totaled $21.7 million in FY 1999 and moved over
116,000 MT of commodities to 3 countries: Ethiopia and Mozambique in Africa, and Haiti
in Latin America/Caribbean.
Title III FY 1999 Country Allocations
Mozambique
..6 28%
Bhiopia
26%
D. FOOD FOR PROGRESS
USDA's Food for Progress activities totaling more than $295 million moved over 413,000 MT
of commodities to over 20 countries in FY 1999. Of this, over 252,000 MT of commodities
were purchased with P.L. 480 Title I funds for $235 million. Assistance to Russia represented
the bulk of this assistance at over $220 million. An additional $60 million (not including
ocean freight) for 161,612 MT of commodities were provided for Food for Progress
programming by the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC).
Food for Progress FY 1999 by Region
Africa
4% Asia and
Near East
2Eastern
SEurope
2%
Latin Am.&
Caribbean
5%
NIS
87%
U.S. INTERNATIONAL FOOD ASSISTANCE, 1999
E. SECTION 416 (b)
In FY 1999, 45 countries and two regions received approximately 5.5 million metric tons valued
at about $739 million programmed under Section 416 (b). This included over 5 million MT of
wheat and wheat products under the President's special food aid initiative. Approximately
1.5 million MT of this was donated to the U.N. World Food Program (WFP) for emergency
operations in Kosovo and throughout Africa, Asia and Latin America. The remainder was
programmed though govemment-to-government agreements and agreements with private
voluntary organizations.
Section 416(b) FY 1999 by Region
Africa
LAC 6%
7%
NIS
34%
_E. Europe
4%
Asia/Near East
49%
U.S. INTERNATIONAL FOOD ASSISTANCE REPORT, 1999
IV ACCOMPLISHMENTS FY 1999
n FY 1999, USAID and USDA continued efforts to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of
their respective food aid programs. In addition to the significant increase in food aid assistance
provided, the agencies contributed to important domestic and international food aid initiatives
completed this year. These include updated fact sheets on nutrient composition, improving the
Commodity Reference Guide and contributing to the NGO-sponsored Sphere code of conduct for
emergency relief, in which food aid is regularly a critical component. These and other
accomplishments are covered in this chapter.
A. INCREASING PROGRAM EFFECTIVENESS THROUGH RE-ENGINEERING
SAID ADMINISTERED PROGRAMS
In 1996 USAID's Office for Food for Peace undertook a major initiative in re-
engineering and results-based management creating its "Strategic Plan for 1997 2001,"
a policy document that defines and focuses Title II emergency and development activities.
Following this strategic plan the BHR/FFP team has made strides in bringing Title II
emergency and development activities in line with USAID's principles. (See the 1997
U.S. International Food Assistance Report for a review of the strategic objectives and
intermediate results indicators related to the BHR/FFP Strategic Plan).
The Office of Food for Peace's Strategic Objective Number One (SO1) covers
emergency programs: meeting critical food needs oftargeted populations. Strategic
Objective Number Two (SO2) encompasses development programs: increasing the
effectiveness of USAID food aid programs forfood security. Progress indicators and
results achieved by the agency and its cooperating sponsors are analyzed, tabulated and
presented in annual "Results Review and Resource Requests (R4s)" published in the
spring following the close of each Fiscal Year. Most results presented in this section are
based on field experience from the FY 1998 program cycle, drawing data from the R4s
published in 1999.
TITLE I EMERGENCY ACTIVITIES
Emergency Food Assistance Strategic Objective (SO1)
Meeting critical food needs of targeted populations.
Within the overall Strategic Objective One, Intermediate Results (IR) indicators
are designed to measure progress toward:
Improved targeting of food aid to the most vulnerable populations (I.R. 1)
Food aid delivered to target groups on schedule (I.R. 2);
Improved planning to integrate relief activities to development (I.R.3); and
U.S. INTERNATIONAL FOOD ASSISTANCE REPORT, 1999
* Strengthened CS and host country capabilities to manage emergency food
aid programs (I.R. 4).
Under FY 1998
Title II Emergency
Programs, USAID
cooperating
sponsors reached
at least 16.4
million people in
need. US-
supported WFP
Protracted Relief
Operations
targeted an
additional 3.4
million.
Reaching target populations: The volatile circumstances and settings
for emergency assistance frequently pose obstacles to reaching targeted
groups. Populations can shift considerably during emergency relief
operations. Political constraints and other security issues can limit
access to beneficiaries. Despite this challenge, USAID cooperating
sponsors (CSs) reached at least 16.4 million beneficiaries with
emergency food assistance in FY 1998. This represents over 77 percent
of the target populations originally specified in assistance proposals.
(The difference of 23 percent includes those not reached [18%] and
those for whom no information was available [5%].) An additional 3.4
million beneficiaries were targeted for U.S. assistance through WFP's
Protracted Relief Operations in 12 countries; 9 in Africa and 3 in the
Asia/Near East region. (Recall that these reports cover FY 1998
activities, so do not include the Kosovo or East Timor operations which
occurred in 1999.)
Food security can deteriorate rapidly in emergency conditions or,
conversely, situations may stabilize or improve. The potential for such
change means that food assistance programs require continuous
monitoring and needs re-assessments. Reports for FY 1998, show
periodic needs assessments were conducted for 87.5 percent of all Title
II emergency assistance activities, exceeding targets by over 30 percent.
(Intermediate Result 1.2).
Positive nutritional impact on target populations: The BHR/FFP
emergency team has taken several steps to facilitate reporting on
nutritional status by cooperating sponsors including a reporting
template designed in conjunction with PVOs and the UN Administrative
Committee on Coordination, Subcommittee on Nutrition (ACC/SCN).
Data is being shared with ACC/SCN.
FY 1998 was the first year that CSs provided nutritional data and
survey results as part of the R4 process. For FY 1998 activities, 52
percent of emergency programs reported a positive effect on or
maintained the nutritional status of beneficiaries. This was just over the
target of 50 percent.
The case of World Vision's emergency work in Sudan shows the
impressive benefits of carefully targeted food aid, comprehensive and
complete surveys and opportune reporting on nutritional status.
U.S. INTERNATIONAL FOOD ASSISTANCE REPORT, 1999
Staving Off Starvation in Sudan World Vision
In Sudan, the 15 year civil war has greatly affected the nutritional status of
vulnerable groups such as children under five, and pregnant and lactating women.
The situation deteriorated in 1998 with renewed fighting in Bahr El Ghazal region.
Famine was exacerbated by two years of poor harvests followed in some areas by
flooding in 1998. Throughout 1998, the number of civilians at risk of death by
starvation increased rapidly from 350,000 in February to 700,000 in April,
burgeoning to 1.2 million in May 1998.
World Vision, Inc. started its work in southern Sudan in April 1993, responding to
high levels of malnutrition. At the time, about 25 percent of children under five
were malnourished. World Vision did general food distribution and opened feeding
centers for severely malnourished children. Regular surveys were conducted during
pre- and post-harvest periods to assess nutritional status and assist in providing data
on areas that might require additional food aid. This information was particularly
important during the hunger-gap period (April August).
World Vision carried out a nutritional survey of children under five in Tonj County
(November 1998) which indicated a global malnutrition rate of 18.3 percent.
Although still high, this was an improvement from the 33.4 percent malnutrition
rate in May 1998. These results confirmed the observations made during the survey
and the ongoing monitoring reports from the therapeutic and supplementary feeding
programs. It is a clear indication of improved nutritional status.
World Vision undertook similar surveys in 1997 during emergency health
interventions in Sudan's Gogrial County in the Bahr El Ghazal area. The first, in
April 1997, indicated very high levels of malnutrition (40.8 percent). A follow-up
survey in 1998 showed that the malnutrition rate dropped to 11.9 percent, reflecting
a very effective emergency feeding program.
Nutritional Survey Pathuon and Toch Payams of Gogrial County and Tonj County, Bahr
El Ghazal Region, South Sudan, World Vision/Sudan, November 1998
When a food crisis
develops...it is U.S.
food aid that invari-
ably arrives first. That
was the case in the
response for Hurri-
cane Mitch and for the
crisis in Kosovo."
Hugh Q. Parmer,
Assistant
Administrator, Bureau
for Humanitarian
Response, USAID,
Oct. 26, 1999
TIMELINESS OF FOOD AID DELIVERY: The perennial problem "Pipeline
shortages" delays in delivery of food aid was greatly improved by the full
implementation of year-round pre-positioned stocks at two U.S. ports this year.
(See box, below.) In FY 1998, when pre-positioning was still in a pilot phase, 47
percent of programs experienced pipeline shortages. However, when pre-
positioning of food aid commodities was fully implemented, all programs
reported timely deliveries. In response to Hurricane Mitch, airlifts of food from
stock at Lake Charles, LA occurred within 72 hours of the storm's passing. Also,
in FY 1999 temporary, one-time pre-positioning of food relief in Albania allowed
USAID to meet Kosovo refugees' needs quickly and efficiently.
In addition to speed of response, the pre-positioning of commodities is helping in
other ways. If food for non-emergency programs has been delayed in getting to
The
emergency
feeding
program
in Bahr El
Ghazal
reduced
malnutrition
from 40.8%
to 11.9% in
seven
months.
World
Vision/
Sudan
U.S. INTERNATIONAL FOOD ASSISTANCE REPORT, 1999
port, stockpiled commodities can fill in to assure full delivery of requested food. It also saves money
by avoiding "dead freight" charges. (Shippers charge for the full quantity requested in a contract
whether or not the full amount makes it on board.) Another advantage is that commodities can be
purchased when prices are low.
The BHR/Food For Peace emergency team continues taking steps to improve program
planning, the approval process, and food aid delivery mechanisms to assure food arrives
where it is needed when it is needed. A two-year proposal cycle (with an annual funding
review) for long-term and complex emergencies is facilitating planning and enabling
Cooperating Sponsors to better address relief-to-development transition issues. Moreover, a
new grant document has standardized emergency assistance proposals.
Pre-Positioning Initiative Saves Time and Money
This year, USAID and USDA undertook large-scale pre-positioning of
emergency food stocks at U.S. ports. This greatly expanded what had been
a successful pilot program in FY1998. Availability of commodities in Lake
Charles, LA enabled the Bureau of Humanitarian Response/ Food For
Peace to airlift critically needed food to Central America within days of
Hurricane Mitch's assault on the region. Emergency commodities landed
in West Africa and the Kosovo region within 30 days shipments that
previously would have taken 90 to 120 days to arrive in country.
Emergency stocks pre-positioned at Lake Charles and Houston's Jacinto
Port also allowed rapid response to urgent needs the Angola region,
Ethiopia, Indonesia, North Korea and Sudan. The program allows for
stockpiles of 65,000 metric tons or a value of $30 million dollars.
Planning for relief to development transition
The BHR/FFP team continues to encourage effective "relief exit strategies" for emergency
activities. Title II cooperating sponsors are supported in designing transition activities that
move recipients from relief to development. Transition and/or exit strategies were included
in 69 percent of all FY 1998 emergency activity proposals, exceeding the target by 6
percent.
During emergencies, local production, distribution networks and institutions are most often
seriously disrupted. In order for emergency activities to transition from relief to
development, programs must avoid negative impacts that delay the recovery of such local
systems. During FY 1998, over 88 percent of programs addressed this issue by including
mechanisms to build local capacity, encourage beneficiary participation, and utilize local
distribution networks. Programs aggressively seek to support community recuperation and
not undermine local agricultural production or markets.
U.S. INTERNATIONAL FOOD ASSISTANCE REPORT, 1999
TITLE II DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES
Development Food Aid Strategic Objective (SO2):
Increasing the effectiveness of USAID 's partners in carrying out Title II
development activities with measurable results related to food security with a
primary focus on household nutrition and agricultural productivity.
Strategic Objective 2 and its associated indicators are designed to measure the
people-level targets set by BHR/FFP's cooperating sponsors. This approach
follows directly from the Food Aid and Food Security Policy Paper, which
recommends that responsibility for the managing-for-results system falls primarily
on the CSs and USAID Mission staffs who can propose activities they believe will
have the greatest food security impacts. USAID/FFP's role is to improve the
capacity of CSs to:
1) Design food security monitoring and evaluation (M&E) systems;
2) Implement food security M&E systems; and
3) Achieve food security results.
While targets for continued improvements in CSs' ability to define and lay the basis for
reporting on performance monitoring plans were met, some targets for results achievement
by CSs, were not met. During FY 2000 the S02 team is proposing to reformulate the
strategic objective and revise some indicators for intermediate results.
In FY 1999, three-quarters of CSs' approved proposals identified objectively-measurable,
program-linked performance indicators, as defined in BHR/FFP guidance. Information
presented in the CSs' FY 1998 results reporting shows continued improvement in CS
ability to establish baseline data and targets for performance within one year of activity
approval. And, in a clear improvement over previous years, 75% of CSs' annual results
reports submitted contained performance-reporting data comparing results achieved against
targets. This increase in the proportion of CSs demonstrating the capacity for results-based
management, by developing and using a performance reporting plan, is a clear advance and
success of S02.
In addition to its management-by-results uses, this improved information collection ability
has positive impacts on the beneficiary communities, as evidenced by Catholic Relief
Services program in Benin.
Program Strengthened By Improved Information -Catholic Relief Services
CRS Benin has developed a Management Information System (MIS) that does more
than provide input to program managers. Some communities have begun using the
MIS to provide feedback to community members, local authorities, and Ministry of
Health (MOH) officials about the health situation in their area. A number of
communities indicate that vaccination information from the MIS showing high
needs encouraged MOH vaccination agents to come to villages or schedule health
education days to vaccinate children, effectively improving vaccination coverage.
U.S. INTERNATIONAL FOOD ASSISTANCE REPORT, 1999
The El Nifio weather phenomenon played an important role in preventing many CSs from
reaching targets set for health and, especially, agricultural activities. However, while some FY
1998 targets of increased yield or production were not met, Title II development activities have
been able to increase the resilience of the production systems they are working with, and decrease
risk as described in Chapter I and the example below.
Title I Program Reduces Small Fanners' Risk Food for the Hungry
FHI/Mozambique reports that its Agriculture Program was very successful
despite widespread flooding in the wet season and much drier condition than
normal thereafter While maize production province-wide was poor. farmers
that adopted FHl pracuces produced nearly 50 percent more per hectare than
non-assisted farmers.
Many CS staff from development programs pitched in during emergency operations this year. For
this and other reasons, some CSs did not submit results reports in time for inclusion in the R4.
Nevertheless, the CSs' FY 1998 Results Reports documented a range of success stories in
increasing agricultural productivity, household income and nutrition.
Alpaca Wool Growers Increase Their Incomes- TechnoServe
In Peru's Puno district, small producers of alpaca fiber recently orgamzed into legally-
recognized marketing enterprises, and for the first time directly negotiated sales with
International de Comercio. Inc. With credit through TechnoServe (TNS), 38 new enterprises
bought fiber from some 1.100 small producers living in remote communities. For the first
time, producers were paid under a classification system based on the quality of their fiber, as
opposed to selling at lower prices as a "single-bundle." The producers captured more value-
added for their products and increased their profits.
Child growth improves in Mozambique Africare
Africare Mozambique completed a pilot program using the "HEARTH" methodology to
target and improve the status of under-weight children using volunteer mothers. This
program was expanded to each of the communities included in Africare's outreach. The
results were very positive; 75 percent of the participating children gamed weight dunng a
28-day period. More importantly, the participating mothers had a graphic demonstration of
the link between better eating, weight gain and improved health status of their children.
The BHR/Food for Peace S02 team received very positive scores from those CSs that responded to
the annual survey on the quality of technical support rendered, for: a) program design and
implementation; and b) monitoring and evaluation. While acknowledged staffing constraints have
adversely affected the timeliness of some BHR/FFP processes, steps are being taken to increase
efficiency to the extent possible. Accessibility of all documents via the USAID Web page has
streamlined communications between BHR/FFP and its partners. The office also receives high marks
among the PVO and producer communities for openness to stakeholder input. The BHR/FFP team
has worked closely with the PVOs, their major umbrella organization, Food Aid Management (FAM),
and the Food Aid Consultative Group (FACG) to make Title II Guidelines more useful to CSs. (See
Section V for more on the Food Aid Consultative Group.)
U.S. INTERNATIONAL FOOD ASSISTANCE REPORT, 1999
USAID Missions are partners in food aid management and have continued to expand their
capabilities. Consistent with the decentralization goals of its re-engineering strategy, the
USAID Food for Peace Office is delegating decision-making and Title II development resource
allocation to selected USAID Missions. Thus far, BHR/FFP has signed Memoranda of
Understanding with five Missions representing the following food-insecure countries:
Bangladesh, Haiti, India, Mozambique and Peru.
BHR/FFP developed a list often Mission management criteria to assist in: 1) assessing the
strengths and weaknesses of Mission Title II program management; 2) identifying capacity
needs and developing appropriate training responses, where possible; and 3) evaluating
Mission capacity for re-delegation of greater management responsibilities and approvals of on-
going programs.
During FY 1999, S02 team members, assisted by the Health and Child Survival Fellow and
staff from the Global Bureau/Population, Health and Nutrition's Food and Nutrition Technical
Assistance (FANTA) project, conducted informal yet in-depth reviews of each Title II country
program visited during the FY 2000 program review cycle.
Integration with Other Activities and Strategies
Consistent with USAID policy, BHR/FFP's team seeks to maximize integration of Title II
activities with other USAID resources available in recipient countries and to increase
participation by national/local governments in supporting development activities. An example
of the latter is the Indian government's payment of all costs associated with internal transport,
shipping and handling of Title II development commodities within India, in addition to
underwriting a sizable percentage of CARE's in-country administrative costs.
BHR/FFP encourages cooperation among USAID Missions, PVOs, international organiza-
tions such as WFP, and other food assistance donors in carrying out food security
assessments and M&E activities. These collaborative efforts improve program quality while
often reducing the cost of such activities.
USDA-ADMINISTERED PROGRAMS
USDA achieved impressive results in delivering Section 416(b) food aid to 45
countries and 2 regions during FY 1999. Often, complex agreements required
negotiation to both ensure the security of commodities and the timely monitoring
of their delivery to target groups. In addition to the negotiating teams,
commodity purchasing and export specialist worked to meet ambitious delivery
goals.
By the end of Fiscal Year 1999 USDA had shipped approximately 5.5 million metric
tons of food grains, pulses, dry milk, and other commodities under the Section
416(b) authorization. (Shipment of remaining commodities under agreements signed
later in the Fiscal Year continued throughout calendar year 1999.) USDA concluded
government-to-government agreements with 31 countries. Some food in-secure
nations received commodities both under regular agreements and
"Let me give some well-
deserved credit to USDA
employees for their
dedication and hard work
on this food aid package.
The magnitude,
complexity, and in many
cases lack of precedent
for these agreements
imposed extraordinary
demands on their time,
commit-ment, and
creativity."
USDA Secretary Dan
Glickman in testimony
before the House
Agriculture Committee,
Oct. 6, 1999
U.S. INTERNATIONAL FOOD ASSISTANCE REPORT, 1999
through U.S. commodity contributions to the World Food Program. Twenty-three
countries received such assistance through WFP.
In addition to the unusual volume of Section 416 (b), USDA successfully managed an
increase in the dollar value of its Title I portfolio. In FY 1998, USDA had changed its
process in order to complete agreements earlier in the year thereby avoiding year-end
bottlenecks. This change has facilitated the flow of increased food assistance.
B. IMPROVED FOOD ASSISTANCE MANAGEMENT
COMPLIANCE WITH ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REGULATION 216
Starting in FY 1998, all Title II development food assistance
activities began submitting environmental documentation along with
all new and follow-up proposals (DAPs and PAAs). This
documentation brings Title II food assistance programs into
compliance with USAID's environmental procedures under Title 22,
Code ofFederal Regulations, Part 216, also known as 22 CFR 216,
or simply Regulation 216. The purpose is to show that programs
consider and take steps to avoid or lessen any potentially adverse
environmental impacts their activities might create.
Many Title II development activities, such as training and direct food
distribution through hospitals or schools have little or no impact on
the environment and, therefore, require only brief documentation for
compliance. Other activities with more potential impact require an
Initial Environmental Examination (IEE). These activities may still
be acceptable if the proposal includes measures to avoid or lessen any
adverse environmental impact. In cases where there may be a
potentially significant impact, a more extensive Environmental
Assessment is required before the activity will be approved for
USAID funding. Large-scale public works types of food aid
activities most often require a full Environmental Assessment. (See
side box.)
Activities that may require an
Environmental Assessment:
* Road construction and
rehabilitation;
* Agricultural terracing, leveling or
clearing;
* Sewage, irrigation, drainage,
dam construction and other
water management projects;
* Introduction of non-native plant
species;
* Large-scale agricultural
mechanization;
* Use of certain pesticides
An Environmental Working Group (EWG) formed in FY 1998 is chaired by the PVO umbrella
organization, Food Aid Management (FAM), and includes representatives from USAID BHR/Food for
Peace, USAID's Regional Bureaus, as well as a USAID Environmental Officer and an environmental
expert from Catholic Relief Services. The EWG developed a comprehensive manual and an easy-to-use
field guide to Regulation 216 for use by P.L. 480 Title II food aid programs. Information on who must
comply, how to fill out documentation and deadlines for compliance, as well as suggestions on monitoring
and mitigation strategies included in the materials helps reduce environmental impacts by facilitating
compliance. This field guide is also available in French and Spanish.
Virtually all proposals for FY 1999 and FY 2000 activities were submitted with the necessary
documentation for compliance with Regulation 216. Many CSs changed planned activities to
U.S. INTERNATIONAL FOOD ASSISTANCE REPORT, 1999
mitigate against adverse impacts, such as potential runoff from road building and
other construction activities. The IEE process has engendered cooperation among CSs
to share lessons leaked across their global programs. For example, CARE's
environmental assessment (EA) for road construction/rehabilitation, which suggests
several mitigation strategies, is now being used as a guide by other CSs in Central and
South America.
In FY 1999, the Environmental Working Group's activities moved CSs beyond
simple compliance to a more integrated approach to food assistance programming that
incorporates sound environmental planning. Field-based training provided assistance
to CSs on programming design for improved mitigation and monitoring strategies.
Training often includes special topics such as integrated pesticide management (IPM),
soil conservation, small-scale irrigation, and water and waste management, as
appropriate to the needs of the program area.
C. IMPROVED MONETIZATION MANAGEMENT
Food assistance that can be monetized is an important tool for development.
Cooperating sponsors market some or all of food aid in the recipient country in order to
raise local currency for support of the development activities that can improve long-
term food security.
USAID, in conjunction with cooperating sponsors, continue efforts to improve
management of monetized food assistance. Monetization-supported activities must
conform to USAID's food aid and food security policy guidelines, address underlying
causes of hunger and seek to improve long-term food security through sustainable
development objectives:
PVO Monetization
Management
Accomplishments,
FY 1999
PVO Monetization Manual
completed
Three Food Aid
Management Workshops
Training in Wash., DC
and Accra, Ghana for 53
staff and members from
13 Cooperating Sponsor
organizations
* Agricultural production improves when poor farmers have
access to agricultural extension services that are supported
by funds from monetized food assistance.
* Nutrition education programs to improve household dietary
practices often tap monetization proceeds.
* Funds may also be used to provide credit for micro-
enterprises that can help alleviate poverty.
* Cash from monetized commodities is increasingly used to
cover management and logistical costs for moving food aid
in recipient countries formerly covered by overall foreign
assistance dollar support which has declined in recent
years.
U.S. INTERNATIONAL FOOD ASSISTANCE REPORT, 1999
A Bellmon
Determination Analysis
is submitted with all food
assistance proposals to
show:
* The recipient country
has adequate storage
facilities;
* Food Aid will not
disrupt domestic
production or
marketing.
A Usual Marketing
Requirement (UMR)
analysis is conducted for all
govemment-to-govemment
agreements and in the case
of third country
monetization to ensure that
P.L. 480 sales do not
disrupt:
* World commodity
prices; or
* Normal commercial
trade patters.
While monetization means that a portion of food assistance is not
distributed directly to targeted beneficiaries, monetized food assistance
still plays a role in improving the availability of food in recipient countries
and provides major assistance for long-term food security efforts. It
increases the overall supply of food in recipient countries that likely would
not be able to import food commercially due to inadequate foreign
currency reserves an important consideration given the current financial
crises in many developing economies.
All cooperating sponsors are required to submit a Bellmon Determination
Analysis with their Title II food assistance activity proposals and before any
Title II commodity is shipped, the Mission Director of the benefited country
must certify that a current Bellmon Determination Analysis has been
completed. The request with this certification must then be approved by the
Director of USAID's Office of Food for Peace. Similarly, prior to shipment
of Title II goverment-to-government food assistance, a Usual Marketing
Requirements (UMR) analysis must be completed to determine that the
bilateral food aid transfer will not disrupt trade patterns or market prices.
The increasing trend toward monetization has affected the commodity mix
channeled through P.L. 480 Title II programs, with more bulk commodities
being called for by PVOs because these have been easier to monetize. The 75
percent mandate for value-added foods has not been met. The Food Aid
Consultative Group (FACG) has increasingly addressed the concerns of U.S.
domestic producers and processors supplying P.L. 480 commodities. Through
the FACG, USAID and USDA are continuing to work with CSs and producer
and processor groups to identify strategies to minimize any negative impact the
trend towards monetization has on domestic producers and processors. (See
further discussion of FACG in Section V of this report.)
Monetization: One PVO's Point of View
Africare carries out its food aid programs by monetiing
commodities. Africare's Food for Development Director notes that
the process has multiple benefits. First. food commodities are
targeted for calorie-deficient countries. Second, the legal arid
financial transactions and logistical arrangements to protect in-
country shipments of food aid builds local capacity in these skills
i luch %ill remain important as counties enhenallh move to
commercial imports for boosting food security.
Source Africare Headquaners
U.S. INTERNATIONAL FOOD ASSISTANCE REPORT, 1999
D. SUPPORT FOR COOPERATING SPONSORS
As noted throughout this report, many U.S. food assistance programs are implemented by
several dozen cooperating sponsors (CSs), primarily U.S.-based private voluntary
organizations. USAID undertakes many efforts to strengthen CS capabilities. A successful
joint effort of USAID and the major U.S. PVOs is FAM Food Aid Management whose
work chairing the Environmental Working Group was reported above.
A major task in FY 1999 focused on the development of a Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E)
"tool kit" by FAM. The M&E working group collaborated with the Food and Nutrition
Technical Assistance (FANTA) project on Sampling Methodologies at a May 1999
Workshop. A Monetization Workshop was also included as part of FAM's Annual Meeting
(November 1998).
Also in FY 1999, the FAM Monetization working group produced the PVO Monetization
Manual (September 1999). Monetization working group members Africare and ACDI/VOCA
jointly hosted field-based monetization training (July 1999). Local Capacity Building (LCB)
was identified as the topic theme for presentation at FAM's November 1999 Annual Meeting.
FAM: A PVO Resource for Improved
Food Aid Management
Food Aid Management (FAM) is a technical support and resource center for
PVOs involved in food assistance programs. Its members are the major
U.S.-based Cooperating Sponsors (CSs). FAM was created to "promote the
efficient and effective use of food aid resources to help alleviate hunger and
contribute to food security." FAM works to achieve this goal by managing
the three following objectives:
Promoting information exchange and coordination
SProviding a forum for discussion and collaboration
Developing food aid standards
FAM members established three priority working groups on:
1) Monetization; 2) Monitoring and Evaluation; and 3) Local Capacity
Building.
FAM also manages an extensive Food Security Resource Center (FSRC);
develops training and workshops; produces and disseminates a variety of
food security-related documents and tools in support of the Title II
cooperating sponsors; and provides a central point for Title II CS
coordination. Much of FAM's FSRC library of resources is available on
line, serving PVOs, researchers and agencies worldwide. FAM's Internet
address is: www.foodaid.org
U.S. INTERNATIONAL FOOD ASSISTANCE REPORT, 1999
E. MICRO-NUTRIENT FORTIFICATION
This year major steps in nutrient fortification programs went forward. Last
year's decision to fortify all edible vegetable oils with Vitamin A led to a
testing period for all shipments undertaken in FY 1999. This testing prepared
suppliers for the rule's implementation date of December 1, 1999.
Vitamin A deficiency has long been targeted by U.S. and other international
food assistance programs because Vitamin A deficiency can lead to reduced
resistance to infection and increased risk of mortality. It is also the single
most common cause of blindness in children in developing countries.
The decision to fortify vegetable oil was based on a study by SUSTAIN, a
USAID cooperating partner, and after consultation with nutritionists,
commodity specialists and cooperating sponsors. Fortification of vegetable
oil is a cost-efficient and safe mechanism to supply vitamin A to recipients at
recommended levels. In the edible oil medium, vitamin A is stable in
shipment and in cooking.
SUSTAIN, Sharing United States Technology to Aid in the Improvement of
Nutrition, also completed the Micronutrient Assessment Project (MAP) in FY
1999, which addresses fortification of cereal commodities. MAP directly
influenced a new policy. Now all dry cereal products processed for food aid,
for the first time, have minimum enforceable standards for micronutrients.
The testing phase for implementing this requirement began in October, 1999.
Full enforcement will begin in 2000. These new micronutrient standards have
been incorporated in fact sheets updating the Commodity Reference Guide.
F. IMPACT EVALUATIONS, LESSONS LEARNED, & SPHERE
During 1999 USAID's Center for Development Information and
Evaluation (CDIE) completed two country impact evaluations examining
U.S. provision of food aid in two countries where political conflict and
poverty created complex humanitarian emergencies Haiti and
Mozambique.
In the case of Haiti, CDIE describes the effects of the U.N. economic embargo
that sought, unsuccessfully, to oust the regime. While emergency food aid
provided by USAID and others succeeded in ensuring the survival of the most
vulnerable, CDIE notes, "Economic sanctions can cause or exacerbate a
humanitarian crisis, requiring short-term emergency assistance..."
CDIE also highlighted the fundamental role played by food aid in recovery
U.S. INTERNATIONAL FOOD ASSISTANCE REPORT, 1999
efforts. Specifically, food-for-work met immediate needs; moreover, as part of
the package, tools, seeds and other inputs in addition to food were provided.
These USAID-supported projects enabled rural households to resume farming,
thereby creating a link to longer-term agricultural development.
The Mozambique Impact Evaluation assesses the effectiveness of USAID
emergency assistance provided from 1987 through 1995, covering the final years
of a 16-year civil war, a major drought, and protracted peace accord negotiations,
i.e., the difficult beginning of the transition from relief to development. CDIE
notes that food aid was a valuable resource and that local government institutions,
often weak and fragile, were overwhelmed by the emergency and could not by
themselves manage supply or distribution. This meant that USAID and PVOs
were called upon to directly manage most aspects of food aid logistics. Among
lessons learned were the importance of continuing and constant coordination of
donor, PVO and government efforts. Additionally, rapid demobilization of
combatants and their reintegration into civilian life is a sine qua non for the
transition from relief to recovery. Such demobilization and reintegration was
aided by opportune provision of food, training and settlement support. As in
Haiti, the importance of food-for-work accompanied by seeds-and-tools
programs, that assist people in supporting themselves, was underscored.
Several of the themes in the CDIE evaluations were echoed in USAID's 1999
Humanitarian Assistance Goal Review. The Review emphasized more focus on
ways to support the local economy to enable it to be able to meet basic, food,
water, shelter and health needs as quickly as possible. In short, these studies and
reviews provide us a better understanding of program implementation in transition
countries and how to strategize for these situations.
Another major accomplishment in FY 1999 was the completion of the Sphere
Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards in Disaster Relief. The
Sphere project, an impressive international effort begun in 1996, creates a code of
conduct protecting the rights of the vulnerable populations in conflict situations.
Specifically, the Charter governs assistance to refugees and conflict victims
through agreed upon international standards in the sectors of shelter and site
management, food aid, public health, water supply and sanitation. More than
250 organizations contributed to the development of the Charter.
In consultation with other donors, USAID will strive to target its humanitarian
assistance to projects and organizations that provide assistance according to
the SPHERE project.
U.S. INTERNATIONAL FOOD ASSISTANCE REPORT, 1999
V. U.S. INTERNATIONAL FOOD ASSISTANCE:
IMPACT ON THE U.S. ECONOMY
"We can both help the American Farmer and in the
tradition of the United States, provide humanitarian relief
to the needy and the developing world. "
Dan Glickman, USDA Secretary
While U.S. international food assistance is grounded in
American humanitarianism, it also benefits the U.S.
economy. The $2.4 billion in U.S. food aid provided
this year, bought American food for a hungry world. The food
went overseas; however, much of the money stayed here.
International food assistance has always been, in part, a
mechanism to channel the abundance of American agricultural
potential. Used as food aid, American food abundance
alleviates suffering in countries in crisis. But Americans
benefit, too both directly and indirectly as goods and
services used to provide food assistance are purchased in the
U.S., packaged in the U.S. and transported to ports for
shipping, primarily on U.S. carriers.
When food assistance is used to support development
activities, it can alleviate poverty and promote economic
growth in recipient countries. Research has shown that as
incomes in developing countries rise, consumption patterns
change and food imports increase. In short, aid leads to trade,
from which Americans stand to directly benefit.
A. Direct Gain-Benefits to U.S. Producers,
Processors, Packagers and Transporters
The U.S. government commits approximately one-half of one
percent of its total budget to foreign assistance annually. Of
this, approximately 80 percent of all assistance funds are spent
in the U.S. to purchase goods and services from American
businesses all over the country. Farmers produce the millions
of dollars worth of agricultural commodities that are purchased
for P.L. 480 programs. Bulk agricultural commodities are
purchased from U.S. brokers. Wheat flour, corn meal,
vegetable oil and other processed food products, such as corn-
soy-blend, are produced by American processing
manufacturers. Processed commodities are packaged in bags,
tins and other containers that are produced and printed in the
U.S. Finally, commodities travel from producer and processor
"The U.S. farmer is the
most indispensable
person on the planet."
David Brinkley
Domestic
Beneficiaries of
United States
International
Food Aid:
Agricultural
Producers;
Processors:
Millers, Edible
Oil refiners,
etc.;
Packaging
Manufacturing;
Rail and Motor
Transport
Lines;
Ocean
Commercial
Shipping Lines;
and
Ports.
U.S. INTERNATIONAL FOOD ASSISTANCE REPORT, 1999
to port, where they are loaded for shipping to recipient
countries in large measure on ships sailing under U.S. flag.
Perhaps most self-evident are the benefits from P.L. 480
purchases to large agricultural producer states such as Kansas,
Nebraska, Iowa, Oklahoma, Washington, North and South
Dakota, and Indiana. However, the benefits are actually
distributed more broadly across the U.S. Fortificants that are
added to commodities to combat micronutrient deficiencies in
beneficiary populations are purchased from companies in
Connecticut, New Jersey, Missouri, Tennessee, Kansas and
Illinois. Bags and other containers are produced in Ohio,
Arkansas, Utah, Missouri, Kansas, Iowa, Texas, California and
Florida. Depending on the location of the processing facility
and the final destination, the commodities may be shipped out
of one of 14 ports in Texas or out of ports in Louisiana,
Florida, Tennessee, North and South Carolina, California or
Washington State.
To more fully understand the domestic financial implications of
food aid, USAID has commissioned an economic analysis of the
state-by-state economic impacts of U.S. food assistance programs.
That study should be completed in early 2000. The information
presented here seeks to give a brief overview of the issue.
Economic Impacts from Sales of 50,000 MT of Packaged
Vegetable Oil
The estimated benefit to American producers, processors.
packaging and transportation sectors from the purchase is:
" Value-added market for 275,000 acres of Minnesota
soybeans:
* One year full employment for a Tennessee vegetable oil
packaging plant;
* Six months total production of a medium-sized Iowa soybean
oil refinery
* Four months production for an Illinois metal container
manufacturer;
" Three days production for an Indiana steel mill;
* Four months production for an Alabama corrugated shipping
container manufacturer;:
* One month fill employment for longshoremen at a major
Louisiana port;:: :-
* Eight months sailing for a U.S flag vessel;
* Multi-state transportation impact 700 rail carloads of
refined oil, 1,250 truckloads of packaging materials; 2,775
truckloads of packaged vegetable oil
Source: William Hudson, Vice President, CalWestern Packaging Corp,,
1998
Over 900,000 metric tons
of commodities are
transported each year to
final port of exportation on
Class I railroads lines,
including:
Union Pacific
Burlington Northern
Santa Fe
Norfolk Southern
CSX Transportation
Kansas City Southern
Class II Railroads, the
Motor Carry Industry, and
Inter-modal Marketing
Companies also benefit
from P.L. 480 commodity
transport.
More than 80 percent of
food aid commodities
were shipped on vessels
of major U.S. ocean
transport companies,
including:
Waterman Steamship
(NY)
Sealift, Inc. (NY)
American President Lines
(CA)
Farrell Lines (NY)
Sea-Land (NJ)
U.S. INTERNATIONAL FOOD ASSISTANCE REPORT, 1999
B. INDIRECT GAIN-THE WIN/WIN OF INTERNATIONAL
FOOD ASSISTANCE
U.S. agricultural relies increasingly on exports, and
specifically on the growth of markets in developing
countries. Currently, American farmers plan on the
fact that production from more than a third of all
harvested acreage will be exported, including an
estimated 55 percent of wheat, 43 percent of rice, 35
percent of soybeans and 18 percent of corn (CRS
Issue Brief, Hanrahan, 1998). These exports translate
into jobs for Americans both in farm and non-farm
jobs. USDA estimates that agricultural exports
generate an estimated 895,000 full-time civilian jobs,
over half in the non-farm sector.
Developing economies are proving to be the greatest
area of market growth for U.S. agricultural exports.
Approximately half of all U.S. agricultural exports
now go to developing economies, mostly countries in
Asia. The crisis in Asian financial markets was felt
acutely and immediately in America's farm pro-
ducing states. Given the inability of vulnerable
developing countries in Asia and elsewhere to
continue their commercial purchases of U.S. com-
modities, P.L. 480 and Section 416(b) allocations
made it possible for the U.S. government to continue
commodity purchases. The result is that needy people
in many countries had their food needs met and U.S.
farmers continued to export.
Despite the Asian financial crisis and its slow
recovery, the trend toward more U.S. exports is
predicted to continue. Developing countries are
expected to more than double net cereal imports by
2020 as a result of population and income growth
(Pinstrup-Anderson and Cohen, IFPRI Brief 56, Oct.
1998).
Moreover, the U.S. farmer directly benefits the most
when developing countries expand their rural
economies. An International Food Policy Research
Institute study shows that each dollar increase in
developing-country farm output leads to 73 cents in
new imports, including 17 cents of agricultural
imports and 7 cents of cereal imports (IFPRI, June
1995).
Some of the Top U.S. Ports
of Export for P.L. 480
Commodities in FY 1999
include:
1. Houston, TX (Jacintoport)
2. Lake Charles, LA
3. Chicago, IL
4. Corpus Christi, TX
5. New Orleans, LA
6. Seattle, WA
7. Milwaukee, WI
8. Sacramento, CA
9. Charleston, SC
10. Memphis, TN (Litco)
11. Baltimore, MD
12. Norfolk, VA
"Approximately one-third
of the Title II [food aid] in the
last year and the two previous
years was processed, fortified
and blended cereal-based
commodities procured from
U.S. grain processing
companies."
Hugh C. Parmer, Assistant
Administrator, USAID Bureau
for Humanitarian Response,
at the North American Millers
Association Meeting, Oct. 22,
1999
U.S. INTERNATIONAL FOOD ASSISTANCE REPORT, 1999
Food Aid
Consultative Group
Members and
Regular
Participants:
Cooperating
Sponsors
(All Full Members)
ADRA,
ACDI/VOCA,
Africare,
American Red Cross,
CARE,
Caritas del Peru,
Catholic Relief
Services,
The Citizens Network
for Foreign Affairs,
Coalition for Food Aid,
Cooperative Housing
Foundation,
Counterpart Inter-
national,
OIC International,
PRISMA,
Project Concern
International,
Relief Society of Tigray,
Save the Children
Federation/USA,
TechnoServe,
World SHARE Inc., and
World Vision Inc.
Producer Groups
Official Members:
North American Millers'
Association,
Land O'Lakes,
Dry Bean Council, U.S.
Wheat Associates
Regular Participants
USA Dry Pea and Lentil
Council, Seaboard
Corporation,
International Food
Additives Council,
National Potato Council,
Vegetable Oil
Producers,
National Oilseed
Producers Association,
North American Export
Grain Association,
USA Rice Federation,
American Soybean
Association,
U.S. Feed Grains
Council,
Washington and
Oregon Potato
Commission.
Many of our largest trading partners are former
aid recipients. The list includes Japan and many
of the European countries that received assis-
tance after World War II. It also includes more
recent emerging markets such as Mexico, South
Korea, and Egypt.
C. US. STAKEHOLDERS WORKING TOGETHER
FOR BETTER RESULTS
The Food Aid Consultative Group (FACG) is
an important forum for communication and
problem solving between the three key U.S.
stakeholder groups in international food
assistance: the U.S. government, as represented
by USAID and USDA officials, cooperating
sponsors and commodity producer groups. The
1990 Farm Bill established the FACG to
regularly review and address issues concerning
the effectiveness of regulations and procedures
that govern Title II food assistance programs.
As originally organized, FACG served as a
mechanism for PVOs to share their ex-
periences and ideas in order to improve
delivery systems and enhance accountability
in implementing food assistance. The 1996
Farm Bill re-authorized the FACG, expanded
it to include representatives of agricultural
producer groups and required that the group
meet formally at least twice a year. FACG
members have seized the opportunity of this
forum, forming working groups to address
issues and provide input for U.S. food
assistance policies and practices.
The FACG working groups meet frequently
and report back to the larger group at their
semi-annual meetings. Working Groups have
focused on such topics as:
* Policy and Program Coordination;
* Monitoring and Evaluation Costs and
Requirements;
U.S. Government
Representatives
FACG:
Official Members:
USAID Assistant Admini-
strator, Bureau for
Humanitarian Response
(for the USAID
Administrator);
USAID Inspector General;
USDA Foreign Agricultural
Service/Export Credits
(for the Undersecretary
of Agriculture/FAS).
Regular Participants:
USAID Food for Peace
Director and staff;
USDA Foreign Agricultural
Service/ Program
Planning Division.
* Monetization;
U.S. INTERNATIONAL FOOD ASSISTANCE REPORT, 1999
* Capacity Building;
* Transportation; and
* Relief to Development Transitions.
Communication and coordination between U.S.
international food assistance stakeholders are further
enhanced by Export Food Aid Conferences
sponsored by USDA. Initiated in 1998, the
Conferences are now annual events.
Held in Kansas City, location of the USDA
Commodity Procurement Office, the conferences
bring together 250 representatives from USDA,
USAID, co-operating sponsors, commodity
producers, processors and transportation lines. The
two-day conference covers wide aspects of
international food assistance provision. PVOs share
their experiences of implementing programs on the
ground in foreign countries. Producers, processors
and transportation lines explain their perspectives on
providing and moving food assistance commodities.
USAID and USDA representatives give overviews
of program objectives, directions and logistics.
Panel-style discussions allow each group to better
understand the needs and concerns of the others.
The conference provides a valuable mechanism for
improving coordination and increasing effectiveness
among the diverse stake-holders in food assistance
programming.
"The U.S. Government's P.L. 480 programs mobilize the
abundance of the nation'sfarms and the ingenuity of our
food processing industry, shipping companies, packagers,
port facilities, and private voluntary organizations to relieve
the suffering of the world's hungry people. Together we lift
up the poorest and mitigate the misery of those struck by
natural disasters and civil strife. "
Hugh Q. Parmer, Assistant Administrator, USAID Bureau
for Humanitarian Response, at the Second Annual Export
Food Aid Conference, October 26/27, 1999
The overall value of
U.S. agriculture exports
in 1998: $53.7 billion.
This represents 8% of
all U.S. Exports.
Source: USDA/ERS
U.S. INTERNATIONAL FOOD ASSISTANCE REPORT, 1999
AFTERWORD
P.L. 480, USAID AND THE ON-GOING CASSAVA
SUCCESS STORY IN UGANDA AND THE
EAST AFRICAN REGION
In Africa, cassava production is the highest in the world -
80-90 million metric tons annually. More than 200 million
Africans depend on cassava as their main staple food,
making it the most important food security crop in Sub-
Saharan Africa. In Uganda, cassava is the second most
important staple food crop in terms of production but the
most important for food security. In Uganda, between
12-15 million people grow cassava on 400,000 hectares of
land. Annual production peaked at 3.5 million tons in 1989.
Then a new and devastating form of cassava mosaic disease
(CMD) struck, reducing national production levels by
approximately 40 percent. From 1992-97, losses to CMD in
Uganda alone were approximately $60 million/annum.
USAID and others (including ACDI/VOCA) stepped
forward to address the pending crisis. Funding amounting to
approximately $9.5 million (of which a minimum of
$4 million was currency generated through sales of P.L. 480
Title III and Title II-provided commodities) was given to the
International Institute for Tropical Agriculture (IITA) and
the National Agricultural Research Organization (NARO),
for both cassava research and deploying disease-resistant
planting materials.
This still-continuing investment has basically rolled back
cassava mosaic crop losses for farmers throughout Uganda.
Moreover, disease resistant varieties of cassava are now
being grown in six countries in the region.
Source: USAID/Uganda
U.S. INTERNATIONAL FOOD ASSISTANCE REPORT, 1999
APPENDICES
1. U.S. International Food Aid Programs: Basic Descriptions .................................... 63
2. U.S. Foreign Assistance Fiscal Year 1999 ............................................... ............ ... 64
3. USDA Title I & USAID Title III Programs: Summary Budget, Commodity
and T onnage Tables ......................... .................................. ................................. 65
4. USAID Title II Emergency Activities: Summary Budget, Commodity,
Recipient and Tonnage Tables ....................... .................................. ............. 66-67
5. USAID Title II Development Activities: Summary Budget, Commodity,
Recipient and Tonnage Tables.................................... ............. 68-69
6. USDA Food for Progress Program: CCC-Funded & Title I- Funded Activities:
Summary Budget, Commodity and Tonnage Tables ................................................ 70
7. Section 416 (b) Program Donations................................. ........................ 71
8. Section 202(e) and Institutional Strengthening Assistance (ISA) ........................... 72
9. P.L. 480 Title II FY 1999 Congressional Mandates................................. ............. 73
10. Summary: Total U.S. Food Aid FY1999 ...................... ........................74
11. Food Aid Convention: Annual Grain Shipments....................................75
12. Countries with Approved U.S. Food Assistance Programs, FY 1999.................76
U.S. INTERNATIONAL FOOD ASSISTANCE REPORT, 1999
APPENDIX 1
Principal United States International Food Aid Programs
Appendix 1
Programs Agency Purpose
P.L. 480: TITLE I USDA Concessional commodity sales through long-
term loans.
TITLE II USAID Development and Emergency Relief Programs
in partnership with PVOs, NGOs, WFP and
Government-to-Government (emergency only).
TITLE III USAID Government-to-Government commodity
donations to least developed countries linked to
policy reforms.
Food for Progress Act of USDA Commodity donations offered for emerging
1985 democracies/developing countries making
commitments to introduce or expand free
enterprise elements in their agricultural
economies. Agreements may be with
governments, PVOs, NGOs, private entities,
cooperatives, intergovernmental organizations.
Agriculture Act of 1949: USDA Surplus commodities to PVOs, NGOs, WFP,
Section 416(b) Government-to-Government, donated to
accomplish foreign food aid objectives.
Food Security Commodity USDA/USAID A four million metric ton reserve that can be
Reserve tapped to meet emergency humanitarian food
needs in developing countries.
U.S. INTERNATIONAL FOOD ASSISTANCE REPORT, 1999
APPENDIX 2
U.S. FOREIGN ASSISTANCE
FY 1999 ($'000)
Grant Assistance
(Enacted Amounts)
Economic Support Fund $ 3,213,831
Development Assistance $ 1,789,000
SEED/NIS $ 1,397,000
International Disaster Assistance $ 388,000
Peace Corps $ 241,769
Migration and Refugee Assistance $ 906,000
SSupport for Eastern European Democracy/Newly Independent States
Food Assistance Programs
Title I
Title II
Title III
Food for Progress
Section 416(b)
Farmer-to-Farmer
$ 7,935,600
$ 2,436,625
420,705
949,096
21,700
295,375
738,879
10,870
Total U.S. Foreign Assistance
U.S. Foreign Assistance
FY 1999
Grant 1
Assistance
76.51%
$10,372,225
Food Assistance Programs
Title III
0.89%
Food for
Progress
12.12%
Farmer-to-
Farmer
0.04%
Section 416(b)
30.32%
Appendix 2
U.S. INTERNATIONAL FOOD ASSISTANCE REPORT, 1999
APPENDIX 3
Public Law 480 Title I and Title III Programs,
FY 1999
Title I Programs*
Country Commodity Metric Tons Value
Cote D'lvoire Rice 21,200 5,000,000
El Salvador Tallow, Vegetable Oil 8,900 3,805,000
Ecuador Soybean Meal (SBM) 27,900 5,000,000
Georgia Wheat 32,800 4,300,000
Guatemala Tallow, SBM 77,300 10,300,000
Guyana Corn, SBM 8,300 1,300,000
Indonesia Rice, Wheat 216,300 46,000,000
Jamaica Rice 34,000 9,000,000
Pakistan Wheat 104,800 13,000,000
Philippines Rice, SBM, Feed Grain 139,200 30,000,000
Russia Corn, Soybeans, Rice,
Beef, Poultry 1,237,800 286,600,000
Uzbekistan Soybeans 33,400 6,400,000
Total Title I 1,941,900 $420,705,000
*Source: USDA/FAS 10/99
Note: Not all agreed sales registered by 10/99. Value does not include ocean freight of $44.2 million
Title III Programs**
Country Commodity Metric Tons Value
Ethiopia Wheat 24,900 5,700,000
Haiti Wheat, Wheat Flour 64,800 10,000,000
Mozambique Wheat 26,700 6,000,000
Total Title III 116,400 $21,700,000
**Source: USAID/BHR/FFPIS 10/99
Appendix 3
U.S. INTERNATIONAL FOOD ASSISTANCE REPORT, 1999
APPENDIX 4
P.L. 480 TITLE II EMERGENCY PROGRAMS IN FY 1999
RECIPIENTS1 TONNAGE VALUE2
COUNTRY SPONSOR COMMODITY ('000) (MT) ($'000)
Angola FFP/EOS Not Applicable (NA) NA NA $53.50
CRS Bulgur No Info. $175.50
WFP/IEFR Beans, Corn, CSB, HE Biscuits 798 18,840 $14,662.50
WFP/PRO Beans, Corn, CSB, Veg. Oil 2,160 23,607 $18,984.30
Afghanistan AKF* CSB, Lentils, Veg.. Oil, Wheat 182 6,690 $4,885.80
WFP/PRO CSB, Other 10 2,520 $1,473.90
Armenia WFP/PRRO Veg.Oil, Wheat 10 3,500 $2,114.00
Azerbaijan WFP/PRRO Peas, Veg. Oil, Wheat 20 6,500 $4,235.70
Balkans Region CRS Beans, HE Biscuits, Rice, Veg. Oil, Wh. Flour 150 21,290 $12,465.50
MCI Beans, Rice, Veg. Oil, HE Biscuits 380 15,720 $12,351.30
WFP/IEFR Beans, Veg. Oil, Wheat, Wheat Flour, CSB, Rice, 1,820 43,180 $32,269.40
HE Biscuits
Burundi WFP/IEFR Veg. Oil 1,399 520 $656.30
Congo WFP/IEFR Beans, CSB, Cornmeal, Veg. Oil 350 8,150 .$5,855.80
Djibouti WFP/PRO Wheat, Wheat Flour, Veg. Oil 2 3,150 $1,553.60
Dominican Rep. ARC* Beans, Rice, Veg. Oil, CSB 312 10,100 $6,774.20
WFP/IEFR Beans, Peas, Rice, Veg. Oil, Bulgur 200 6,550 $3,359.00
El Salvador WFP/IEFR Beans, Corn, Rice, Veg. Oil, CSB 67 2,140 $1,114.20
WFP/PRRO Beans, Rice, Veg. Oil 10 950 $579.80
Ethiopia GTG' Sorghum, Wheat No Info. 32,400 $8,581.10
REST Veg. Oil, Wheat, Lentils 150 14,690 $5,883.60
CRS Veg. Oil, Wheat, CSB 431 4,520 $3,763.10
WFP/IEFR Veg. Oil, Lentils, CSB 1,468 19,550 $11,629.90
WFP/PRO Peas, Veg. Oil No Info. 3,500 $3,092.30
Georgia WFP/PRO Peas, Veg. Oil 10 400 $415.20
Guatemala CARE Beans, Bulgur, CSB, Rice, Veg. Oil 37 365 $469.10
CRS Beans, Rice, Veg. Oil, CSB, Corn 264 4,715 $3,585.70
WFP/IEFR Corn, Beans, Veg. Oil, Rice, CSB 105 2,940 $1,796.30
WFP/PRRO Beans, CSB, Rice, Veg. Oil 10 1,180 $686.10
Guinea WFP/IEFR CSB 200 500 $261.70
WFP/PRRO CSB, Peas, Veg. Oil 737 4,400 $3,572.90
Honduras CARE Corn, Beans, Veg. Oil, Rice, CSB, Cornmeal 490 20,386 $13,241.20
CRS Beans, Corn, Rice, Veg. Oil 100 19,000 $11,253.00
WFP/IEFR Corn, Beans, Veg. Oil, Rice, CSB 1 25,240 $11,444.40
WFP/PRRO Beans, CSB, Rice, Veg. Oil 10 9,430 $5,498.70
Indonesia CARE Rice, Beans 130 10,700 $6,637.80
CRS Rice, Wheat-Soya Blend (WSB) 118 5,120 $3,295.10
CRS/IFTH Rice 360 21,000 $11,814.80
CWS Rice 126.7 2,110 $1,348.00
MCI* Rice, CSB, Veg. Oil 18 5,520 $3,541.20
WFP/IEFR Rice, Veg. Oil No Info. 4,000 $1,012.00
WVI* Rice, Veg. Oil No Info. 11,170 $6,927.30
Kenya WFP/PRO Peas, Lentils, CSB, Veg. Oil 349 5,930 $4,552.80
Korea (DPRK) CARE* CSB, Rice No Info. 15,000 $8,301.60
WFP/IEFR CSB, Corn, Rice, Cornmeal (S-F) 16 70,000 $38,363.50
Appendix 4
U.S. INTERNATIONAL FOOD ASSISTANCE REPORT, 1999
RECIPIENTS' TONNAGE VALUE2
COUNTRY SPONSOR COMMODITY ('000) (MT) ($'000)
Liberia CRS* Bulgur,CSB,Lentils, Veg. Oil 89 10,290 $7,111.20
WFP/PRO Beans, Peas, CSB 737 5,370 $3,405.20
WFP/PRRO CSB, Peas, Veg. Oil, Bulgur 811 3,700 $2,340.40
Nicaragua ADRA* Beans, Rice, Veg. Oil, CSB 59 2,523.0 $1,930.30
PCI* Beans, Rice, Veg. Oil, CSB 29 2,539.0 $1,965.00
SCF* Beans, Rice, Veg. Oil, CSB 50 2,789.0 $2,175.50
WFP/IEFR Beans, Rice, Veg. Oil, CSB, Corn 800 15,512.0 $8,594.60
WFP/PRRO Beans, Rice, Veg. Oil, 20 6,340.0 $4,435.20
Rwanda GTG' Veg. Oil NA 1,650 $2,033.50
WFP/IEFR CSB, Cornmeal (S-F), Veg. Oil 1,399 7,730 $5,200.70
WFP/PRRO CSB, Corn, Peas, Veg. Oil 20 12,220 $4,998.70
Sahel Region WFP/IEFR Beans, Bulgur, Veg. Oil 1,040 14,920 $8,186.30
Sierra Leone CARE* Bulgur, Lentils, Peas, CSB, Veg. Oil 151 7,670 $5,429.90
CRS* Bulgur, CSB, Lentils, Veg. Oil 114 5,830 $4,546.10
WFP/PRO CSB 1,030 $605.70
WFP/PRRO CSB, Veg. Oil 74 2,270 $1,487.20
WVI* Bulgur, Lentils, Veg. Oil 104 5,610 $4,045.50
Somalia CARE* Corn, Sorghum, Wheat 25 16,000 $9,939.60
Sudan ADRA CSB, Lentils, SF Sorghum Grits, Veg. Oil 57 7,780 $4,946.20
CRS* CSB, Lentils, Sorghum, Veg. Oil 309 17,340 $14,910.70
FFP/EOS Not Applicable (NA) NA NA $228.30
LWR* Lentils, Sorgum, Veg. Oil 230 11,070 $13,195.10
NPA Lentils, Sorghum, Veg. Oil 120 8,570 $5,909.10
WFP/IEFR CSB, Veg. Oil 2,360 7,000 $15,225.00
WFP/PRO Wheat, Veg. Oil 138 9,380 $3,816.00
WVI* Lentils, Sorghum 128 6,190 $9,585.20
Tajikistan WFP/PRRO Wheat Flour 20 8,000 $3,781.60
Tanzania WFP/IEFR CSB, Corn, Cornmeal, Peas, Veg. Oil 1,743 13,000 $6,361.80
WFP/PRRO CSB,Corn, Cornmeal, Peas, Veg. Oil 40 42,500 $24,991.80
Uganda WFP/IEFR CSB, Cornmeal, SF Cornmeal, Peas, Veg. Oil 337 15,500 $8,472.90
WFP/PRO Corn, Peas 200 2,000 $939.90
Zambia WFP/IEFR Sorghum 692 5,000 $2,192.50
Unallocated, propositioned Beans, CSB, Lentils, Peas, Veg. Oil, Wheat Flour NA 27,720 $13,008.00
WORLDWIDE SHIPPED TOTAL 792,216 $500,527.40
WORLDWIDE TOTALS 24,897 792,116 $513,445.50
1 Recipient Information not available for all activities.
2 *Asterisk indicates Activity Values include Section 202(e) funds.
3 Food for Peace Emergency Operational Support.
4 Government-to-government agreement
5 Adjusted for confirmed fallout and unallocated commodities.
Source: USAID/BHR/FFPIS, 12/99
Appendix 4
U.S. INTERNATIONAL FOOD ASSISTANCE REPORT, 1999
APPENDIX 5
TITLE II DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS IN FY 1999
RECIPIENTS TONNAGE VALUE2
COUNTRY SPONSOR COMMODITY ('000) (MT) ($)
Bangladesh CARE* Wheat 187,360 $39,720,300
WFP* Wheat, Veg. Oil 1,530 16,550 $6,635,600
Benin CRS* Bulgur, Veg. Oil, Wheat Soy Blend (WSB), Wheat 53 4,790 $1,956,300
Bolivia ADRA* Lentils, Peas. Soy-fortified (SF) Bulgur, Wheat Flour,
Corn Soya blend (CSB), SF Cornmeal 112 14,540 $6,910,600
CARE* Bulgur, CSB, Peas, Wheat Flour 20 5,080 $2,648,800
FHI* Lentils, Peas, SF Bulgur, Wheat Flour, CSB, SF
Cornmeal 73 9,220 $4,405,700
PCI* Lentils. Peas. SF Bulgur, Wheat Flour. CSB, SF
Cornmeal 98 12,760 $6,093.500
Burkina Faso AFRICARE* Wheat Flour 2,830 $1,432,200
CRS* Beans, SF Bulgur, Rice, Veg. Oil 353 21,200 $11,602,700
WFP Peas, Cornmeal 174 4,650 $2,003,500
Burundi WFP CSB, Corn. Peas 10 4,240 $1,687,200
Cameroon WFP Peas, Veg. Oil, Rice 56 4,030 $1,974,400
Cape Verde ACDI Corn 9,490 $1,765,100
WFP CSB 70 800 $317,600
Central African Rep. WFP Peas, Veg. Oil, CSB 142 700 $430,000
Chad AFRICARE* Wheat Flour 1,000 $622,800
WFP Veg. Oil, SF Cornmeal 484 2,890 $1,486,700
Cote D'Ivoire WFP Rice 210 400 $201,200
Dominican Republic WFP Veg. Oil. Bulgur 120 1,900 $711.700
Ecuador WFP Rice, CSB 91 1,350 $642,000
Egypt WFP Lentils 65 1,000 $457,000
El Salvador WFP Veg. Oil. Beans, Corn. Rice 392 3,250 $1,589,800
Eritrea AFRICARE* Veg. Oil 530 $727,700
Ethiopia AFRICARE* Veg. Oil, Wheat 4,190 $1,933,900
CARE Veg. Oil, Wheat 5 10,060 $3,950,800
CRS Veg. Oil, CSB, Wheat, Bulgur, Rice, Lentils 112 18,690 $8,704,300
EOC Veg. Oil, Wheat 12 8,917 $3,529,200
FHI* Veg. Oil, Wheat 7 9,710 $4,087,500
REST* Veg. Oil, Wheat, Lentils 40 13,410 $7,066,100
SCF* CSB, Wheat, Veg. Oil 8 1,200 $673,700
WFP Wheat 1,860 14,000 $4,788,000
WVI* Veg. Oil, Wheat 36 4,180 $1,646.600
Gambia CRS CSB, Veg. Oil 33 3,200 $2,073,100
WFP CSB 10 300 $149.100
Ghana ADRA* Rice, SF Bulgur, WSB 40 16,680 $4,710,700
CRS* Sorghum, SF Sorghum Grits, Veg. Oil, WSB, Wheat, 233 26,330 $9,494,200
Rice, CSB
OICI* Rice, Wheat 6,150 $2,023,000
TECHSRV Wheat 16,000 $3,808,000
WFP Peas, Veg. Oil 38 580 $334,500
Guatemala CARE* Beans, Bulgur, CSB, Rice, Veg. Oil, SF Bulgur, Corn 113 18,340 $4,984,700
CRS* Beans, Rice, Veg. Oil, CSB, Corn 23 45,080 $9,402,500
SHARE Beans, Rice. Veg. Oil, CSB, Corn 85 4,850 $1,631,900
WFP Cor, Beans, Veg. Oil 945 6.640 $1,876,000
Guinea WFP Peas 57 160 $58,100
Guinea Bissau AFRICARE* NOT APPLICABLE $202,700
Guyana WFP Wheat 31 2,050 $584,200
Haiti ADRA SF Bulgur. Veg Oil, Peas. WSB, Lentils 230 16,550 $7,026.100
CARE Beans, SF Bulgur. WSB, Lentils, Wheat 231 6,750 $3,040,400
CRS Lentils, SF Bulgur, Veg. Oil, WSB 209 12,330 $5,339,100
WFP Veg. Oil, CSB, Cornmeal, Peas. SF Bulgur. Corn 578 4,400 $1.575,200
Honduras CARE Beans, CSB. Rice, Veg. Oil, Wheat. Corn. Cornmeal 19 10,184 $3,343.200
WFP Corn, CSB 47 9.440 $2,220,100
india CARE* CSB. Veg. Oil 7.257 198,750 $95,102,100
CRS* Bulgur. Veg. Oil. CSB 737 52,790 $22,169,000
WFP CSB. Veg. Oil 171 25,660 $10,632,400
Appendix 5
U.S. INTERNATIONAL FOOD ASSISTANCE REPORT, 1999
RECIPIENTS' TONNAGE VALUE2
COUNTRY SPONSOR COMMODITY ('000) (MT) ($)
WFP CSB, Vcg. Oil 171 25,660 $10,632,400
Kenya ADRA* Wheat, Veg. Oil 1,890 $985,200
CARE Veg. Oil 690 $459,500
CRS CSB, Vcg. Oil, Wheat 30 6,730 $2,535,500
FHI* Veg. Oil, Wheat 2,680 $960,500
TECHSRV* Veg. Oil 1,450 $1,057,900
WFP Peas, Corn 350 5,450 $1,544,800
WVI* Wheat, Veg. Oil 1,450 $526,400
Lesotho WFP Cornmeal, Veg. Oil 104 2,040 $970,600
Madagascar ADRA* Veg. Oil 2,480 $1,818,100
CRS* CSB, Rice, SF Bulgur, Veg. Oil 56 6,490 $3,317,200
CARE* Veg. Oil 3,280 $2,293,200
WFP Rice 63 1,020 $513,100
Mali AFRICARE* Wheat Flour 1,000 $554,500
WFP Wheat Flour, Veg. Oil 10 2,200 $1,110,600
Mauritania DOULOS SF Sorghum Grits, Veg. Oil, WSB 19 1,930 $969,900
WFP Veg. Oil, CSB 20 430 $258,600
Mozambique ADRA* Wheat 7,460 $1,748,500
AFRICARE* Wheat 4,350 $1,176,300
CARE* Wheat 14,310 $3,622,900
FHI* Wheat 6,970 $1,649,900
SCF* Wheat 4,730 $1,255,800
WFP Peas, Veg. Oil 257 810 $573,000
WVI* Wheat, Veg. Oil 42,480 $14,130,800
Nicaragua ADRA* CSB, Veg. Oil, Beans, Rice 36 2,780 $1,534,600
PCI* CSB, Veg. Oil, Beans, Rice 30 2,480 $1,396,200
SCF* CSB, Veg. Oil, Beam, Rice, Comn 35 2,660 $1,247,900
WFP CSB, Veg. Oil, Rice, Corn 410 4,480 $1,630,200
Niger WFP CSB, Veg. Oil 60 870 $754,700
Pakistan WFP Veg. Oil 766 4,610 $4,531,600
Peru ADRA* Bulgur, Peas, Veg. Oil, Wheat Flour, CSB, Lentils 50 16,810 $9,139,700
CARE Lentils, Rice, Veg. Oil, Wheat Flour 50 20,700 $12.630,900
CARITAS Bulgur, Peas Veg. Oil, Wheat Flour, CSB 68 23,540 $14,186,900
CRS Veg. Oil 3,620 $2,410,900
PRISMA* Bulgur, CSB, Peas, Veg. Oil 53 23,080 $13,653,000
TECHSRV Vg. Oil 1,400 $932,400
WFP Peas 256 290 $105,300
Rwanda CRS Beans, Conmmeal, Veg. Oil, CSB 18 2,200 $1,269,400
WFP Peas, Veg. Oil 10 320 $216,400
Senegal WFP Veg. Oil, Rice 246 2,250 51,251.800
Sri Lanka WFP Rice 61 3,420 $1,720,300
Tanzania WFP CSB, Veg. Oil 10 1,010 $465,400
Uganda ACDI* Veg Oil, Wheat 9,850 $7,492,200
AFRICARE* Wheat 3,460 $1,490,200
TECHSRV* Wheat 4,000 $1,592,800
WVI Wheat 2,400 $924,000
Yemen WFP Veg. Oil, WSB, Wheat Flour 114 2,630 $1,558,100
Zambia WFP Veg. Oil, Beans 61 540 $488,900
WORLDWIDE APPROVED LEVELS 1,139,851 $450,839,400
WORLDWIDE TOTAL' 20,461 1,139,851 $435,650,200
1 Recipient information not available for all activities.
2 *Asterisk indicates Activity Values include Section 202(e) funds.
3 Adjusted for confirmed fallout and unallocated commodities.
Source: USAIDIBHR/FFPIS, 12/28/99
Appendix 5
U.S. INTERNATIONAL ASSISTANCE REPORT, 1999
APPENDIX 6
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
FOOD FOR PROGRESS PROGRAM: FY 1999
S Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC)-Funded
Country Sponsor Commodity Metric Tons Value
(NMT) ($)
Armenia FAR Corn Soy Blend, Beans, Lentils, Rice 3,200 3,345,722.90
Peas, Oil, Wheat flour, Dry Milk, Wheat soy
UMCOR Vegetable Oil, Dry Milk 2,500 3,470,278.00
Azerbaijan ADRA Corn Oil, Rice, Beans, Vegetable Oil 3,820 1,907,607.20
Bosnia/Herzegovina MCI Sunflower Oil 3,500 2,894,640.00
Central America PCI Com, Soybean Meal 5,700 686,814.00
El Salvador TNS Soybean Meal 8,000 1,351,245.00
Equatorial Giunea IPHD Rice, Beans, Vegetable Oil, Wheat Flour 1,040 576,166.80
Georgia IOCC Beans, Rice, Sunflower Oil, Vegetable Oil 3320 2,532,816.10
IRC Soybean Meal 4,000 720,000.00
UMCOR Soybean Oil 1,200 782088.00
Haiti SM Pinto Beans 3,900 1,535,463.80
Honduras ZAMORANO Tallow 2,000 636,250.00
Indonesia ACDINOCA Soybean Meal 10,000 1,754,500.00
IRD Wheat 30,000 3,844,500.00
Ivory Coast WINROCK Brown Rice 15,000 4,507,338.50
Kaz., Turk., Uzbek. ARC Rice, Beans, Vegetable Oil 4,050 2,389,164.60
Kyrgyzstan AIA Rice, Soybean Oil, Wheat Flour 3,000 1,441,015.00
ACDINOCA Wheat 5,000 603,650.00
MCI Vegetable Oil, Milled Rice 2,750 1,808,740.10
Moldova IPHD Rice, Beans, Soybean Oil 1,950 683,689.50
Nicaragua TNS Soybean Meal 6,000 1,071,000.00
Russia CHAMAH Beans, Rice, Vegetable Oil, Nonfat Dry
Milk, Pink Salmon, Wheat Flour 7,502 8,866,873.00
South Africa AFRICARE Crude Soy Oil 3,000 1,186,500.00
Swaziland WV NS Wheat 10,000 1,577,700.00
Tajikistan AKF Corn Soy Blend, Vegetable Oil, Dry Milk 2,900 2,444,680.00
CARE Vegetable Oil 560 404,941.60
GOT Wheat Seeds 2,000 1,081,578.60
MCI Rice, Vegetable Oil, Yellow Peas 2,800 1,386,232.90
STC Corn Soya Milk, Rice, Vegetable Oil 2,420 1,123,279.40
Togo OICI Milled Rice 8,000 2,297,550.00
Zimbabwe CNFA Crude Soy Oil 2,500 1,139,250.00
Total 161,612 60,051,269.00
Source: USDA/FAS, 12/99
NOTE: Totals subject to change. Value does not include ocean freight
P.L. 480 Title I-Funded Food for Progress FY 1999
Country Commodity Metric Tons Value
Bosnia-Herzegovina Sun Oil 4,750 3,863,080
Honduras Soybean Meal, Wheat 59,500 8,404,019
Nicaragua Pinto Beans 5,000 2,486,596
Russia Peas, Beans, Lentils, Rice,
Seeds, Veg. Oil, Dry Milk, Pork, 182,778 220,570,580
Total Title I: Food for Progress 252,028 $235,324,275
Source: USDA/FSA, 01/00
Appendix 6
U.S. INTERNATIONAL FOOD ASSISTANCE REPORT, 1999
APPENDIX 7
SECTION 416 (b) PROGRAM DONATIONS FOR FY 1999:
DONATIONS BY REGION REGULAR AND WORLD FOOD PROGRAM
Metric Tons (MT) Donated & Commodity Value
Country by Region MT (000) VALUE (000
REGULAR WFP REGULAR WFP
AFRICA
Congo
Ethiopia
Guinea
Gulnea-Bissau
Kenya
Liberia
Rwanda
Senegal
Sudan
Uganda
Total
ASIA & THE MIDDLE EAST
Afghanistan
Bangladesh
China
Indonesia
Korea, North
Mongolia
Pakistan
Philippines
Sri Lanka
Vietnam
Yemen
Total
EUROPE
Albania
Bosnia-Herzegovina
FYROM (Macedonia)
Montenegro
S. Balkans/Kosovo
Total
LATIN AMERICA & CARIBBEAN
Central American Regional
Dominican Republic
Ecuador
El Salvador
Guatemala
Guayana
Haiti
Honduras
Nicaragua
Peru
Torta
NEAR EAST
Jordan
NIS COUNTRIES
Armenia
Azerbalan
Georgia
Kyrgyzstan
Moldova
Russi
Tajikitan
Turk/Uz/Kaz
Total
Total Allocated All Countries
Resemve/PreDoesionina
20.00
20.00
600.00
186.50
80.00
15.00
300.00
50.00
50.00
25.00
100.00
1,406.50
6.00
16.50
74.88
15.00
11238
6.02
100.00
40.00
40.00
39.80
2.10
65.00
75.00
367.92
100.00
100.00
12.58
45.38
70.00
20.00
1,735.53
31.39
3.87
1,918.75
3,925.55
639.58
5.00
105.00
11.70
8.30
18.70
30.70
0.26
112.18
0.20
292.04
100.00
100.00
200.00
170.00
555.30
4.00
10.00
1,139.30
65.00
65.00
0.21'
0.51
0.25
15.00
1597
0.50
3.00
1.50
0.50
5.50
1,517.81
2,615.20
2,615.20
73,061.43
40,633.02
5,131.55
1,526.20
35,824.43
7,642.50
6,212.50
3,260.45
21,310.80
194,602.88
1,339.98
2,060.54
9,789.14
1.31250
14,502.16
503.48
14,236.01
4.731.33
5,225.57
5,316.53
218.04
7,856.28
10,491.10
48.57834
11,924.26
11.92426
1,512.70
5,700.41
8,050.00
3,748.99
232,828.02
4,708.92
98244
257.531.48
629,754.32
7538605
Program Totals 4,68.13 1,517.81 506,140.37 209,124.62
Note: Metnc tons reflect agreement amounts. In eight cases total amounts were not shipped in 1999
Values are based on shipped amounts reported as of December 31, 1999. Cost of ocean freight is not
included
Note: Totals subject to change
Source: USDA:FSAPDD:EOB, 01/01/00
930.69
11,996.15
2.217.26
1,566.22
3,476.75
3,100.12
597.83
12,521.16
454.72
36,860.90
12,464.07
11,620.00
21,942.25
20,963.57
83,537.17
823.52
1,609.95
152,960.53
13,043.72
13,043.72
477.80
1,165.65
577.05
1,846.62
4,067.12
104.93
618.53
314.78
1,154.11
2,192.35
209,124.62
AppendlK 7
75360
U.S. INTERNATIONAL FOOD ASSISTANCE REPORT, 1999
APPENDIX 8
SAID BUREAU FOR HUMANITARIAN RESPONSEIFOOD FOR PEACE OFFICE
Section 202(e) & ISA Funds Allocation
FY 1995 1999 (Development & Emergency Activities)
Section 202(e) Levels
Section 202 (e) Funds for ISAs
FFP DA Levels
DA Funds Used for ISAs
FY1995 FY 1996 FY1997
$13,500,000 $25,000,000 $28,000,000
$1,362,095 $1,934,829 $3,158,874
FY 1998
$28,000,000
$865,180
FY 1999
$28,000,000
$1,911,401
$5,507,000 $4,157,000 $5,140,000 $5,000,000 $5,091,000
$3,400,000 $2,747,154 $2,776,762 $4,134,820 $3,088,599
ISA Levels (From Section
202(e) and DA Funds)
$4,762,095 $4,681,983 $5,935,636 1
$5,000,000 $5,000,000
Source: USAIDIBHRIFFP
Appendix 8
U.S. INTERNATIONAL FOOD ASSISTANCE, 1999
FY 1999
Target
Final Status
Sept. 1999
FY
Subminimum
1,550,000
1,281,238
APPENDIX 9
P.L. 480 Title II
1999 Congressional Mandates
Minimum Monetization Value-added Bagged in U.S.
2,025,000 15.0% 75.0% 50.0%
2,376,875 52.1% 58.1% 58.8%
Subminimum:
Minimum:
Monetization:
Value-added:
Bagged in U.S.:
Metric tons programmed for non-emergency program through PVOs/CDOs and the WFP.
Metric Ton Grain Equivalent (MTGE) used to report against target.
Total metric tons programmed under Title II. MTGE used to report against target.
Percentage of non-emergency programs that are PVO Monetization programs.
Percentage of non-emergency program food commodities that are processed, fortified, or
bagged.
Percentage of bagged non-emergency commodities that are whole grain to be bagged in
the United States.
Source: USAID/BHR/FFP 12/13/99
Appendix 9
U.S. INTERNATIONAL FOOD ASSISTANCE REPORT 1999
APPENDIX 10
SUMMARY:TOTAL US FOOD AID FY 1999
P.L. 480
Food for Progress
Title I
Title II
Emergency
Development
Title III
Subtotal P.L 480
Title I Funded
CCC Funded
Subtotal FFPr
METRIC TONS
1,941,900
792,116
1,139,851
116,400
3,990,267
252,028
161,612
413.640
U.S. DOLLARS
$420,705,000
$513,445,500
$435,650,200
$21,700,000
$1,391,500,700
$235,324,275
$60,051,269
295.375.544
Section 416(b)
Allocated* Regular 3,925,550 $529,754,220
WFP 1,517,810 $209,124,620
Farmer to Farmer $10,870,000
GRAND TOTAL 9,847,267 $2,436,625,084
* Does not include Reserve/Pre-Positioning
Note: Does not include $28,000,000 Section 202(e) and $5,000,000 ISA/DA
Does not include Section 416(b) cost of ocean freight
Appendix 10
U.S. INTERNATIONAL FOOD ASSISTANCE, 1999
APPENDIX 11
FOOD AID CONVENTION
ANNUAL GRAIN SHIPMENTS
1995/96 1998/99
(July/June years)
In Metric Tons (MT): Wheat Equivalent
MINIMUM ANNUAL
MINIMUM CONTRIBUTION (1999 Conv.)
ANNUAL VALUE
DONOR CONTRIBUTION 1995/96 1996/97(e) 1997/98 1998/991 COMMITMENT COMMITMENT
(1995 Conv.) fin Euros)
AUSTRALIA 300,000 298.146 305.127 293.221 273064 250.000
CANADA 400.000 448.764 468431 417.917 487.095 420,000
EU 1,755,000 2.413,991 2.049,591 2.201.162 1.962.481 1,320.000 130,000,000
JAPAN 300,000 474.870 326.835 302.626 560.135 300,000
USA 2,500,000 2.849.384 2.553.283 2.818.500 4.734,121 2,500.000
OTHER' 95,000 95,112 71,452 77.221 110.232 105,000
TOTAL 5,350,000 6,580.267 5.774,719 6.110.647 8,127.128 4,896.000 130,000,000
* Argentina, Switzerland, Norway
$ Includes contributions under IEFR Immediate Response Account (IRA), as reported by WFP.
Nole 1999 Convention COnlnDitlOns can
be in MT, monetary value, or a
combination of the two.
All shipments listed were in respect of the Food Aid Convention, 1995
Source: International Grains Council Secretariat
Appendix 11
U.S. INTERNATIONAL FOOD ASSISTANCE REPORT, 1999
Title I Title I-funded Title II
(13 countries) Food for Progress (continued)
fIA oonlr;Aga
Cote D'lvoire
El Salvador
Ecuador
Georgia
Guatemala
Guyana
Honduras
Indonesia
Jamaica
Pakistan
Philippines
Russia
Uzbekistan
Title III
(3 countries)
Ethiopia
Haiti
Mozambique
CCC-funded
Food For
Progress
(23 countries)
Armenia
Azerbaijan
Bosnia-Herzegovina
Cote D'Ivoire
El Salvador
Equatorial Guinea
Georgia
Guatemala
Haiti
Honduras
Indonesia
Kazakstan
Kyrgyzstan
Moldova
Nicaragua
Russia
South Africa
Swaziland
Tajikistan
Togo
Turkmenistan
Uzbekistan
Zimbabwe
~ADU EU ~E I~J
Bosnia- Herzegovina
Honduras
Nicaragua
Russia
Title II
(56 countries
2 regions)
Afghanistan
Angola
Armenia
Azerbaijan
Bangladesh
Benin
Bolivia
Burkina Faso
Burundi
Cameroon
Cape Verde
Central African Republic
Chad
Congo
CMte D'Ivoire
Djibouti
Dominican Republic
Ecuador
Egypt
El Salvador
Eritrea
Ethiopia
Gambia
Georgia
Ghana
Guatemala
Guinea
Guinea Bissau
Guyana
Haiti
Honduras
India
Indonesia
Kenya
Lesotho
Liberia
Madagascar
Mali
Mauritania
Mozambique
Nicaragua
Niger
North Korea
Pakistan
Peru
Rwanda
Senegal
Sierra Leone
Somalia
Sri Lanka
Sudan
Tajikistan
Tanzania
Uganda
Yemen
Zambia
Balkans Region
Sahel Region
Section 416(b)
(45 countries
2 regions)
Afghanistan
Albania
Armenia
Azerbaijan
Bangladesh
Bosnia-Herzegovina
China
Congo
Dominican Republic
Ecuador
El Salvador
Ethiopia
FROM
(Macedonia)
Georgia
Guatemala
Guyana
Guinea
Section 416 (b)
(continued)
Guinea-Bissau
Haiti
Honduras
Indonesia
Jordan
Kazakstan
Kenya
Korea, North
Kyrgyzstan
Liberia
Moldova
Mongolia
Montenegro
Nicaragua
Pakistan
Peru
Philippines
Russia
Rwanda
Senegal
Sri Lanka
Sudan
Tajikistan
Turkmenistan
Uganda
Uzbekistan
Vietnam
Yemen
Balkans Region
Central American Region
Appendix 12
U.S. INTERNATIONAL FOOD ASSISTANCE REPORT, 1999
THIS REPORT HAS BEEN PREPARED BY THE
U.S. AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT,
BUREAU FOR HUMANITARIAN RESPONSE,
IN COOPERATION WITH THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,
WASHINGTON, D.C.
|
