Food Aid and Food Security Policy Paper

USAID\'s new Food Aid and Food Security policy paper provides an
overview of the changing nature of global food security and the recent
changes in both domestic and international conditions affecting food
aid. It will guide program development and resource allocation for all
USAID-administered food aid activities.

This paper was prepared in consultation with the Private Voluntary
Organizations that manage much of the U.S. food aid program and with
USAID field missions. The statistical information comes from several
international sources, including the International Food Policy Research
Institute.

The Agency will be flexible in applying this guidance. Our ultimate
objective is improvement in the food security of poor and hungry people.
We believe by focusing our activities according to the guidance
contained in this paper we will increase the impact of our P.L. 480
resources.

USAID is committed to reviewing food security issues on an ongoing
basis. We will continue to work closely with the PVOs and through
international and related fora on food security issues. We will focus on
the opportunity to introduce innovative new programs to reduce hunger
and support sustainable development, especially in the Horn of Africa.

I appreciate the many constructive suggestions, which came from the PVOs
and from USAID field missions and the collaborative spirit, which
surrounded this effort.

Deputy Administrator, USAID

February 1995

FOOD AID AND FOOD SECURITY

USAID POLICY PAPER

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY. . . . Pg 1

INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . 5

FOOD SECURITY. . . . . . . . . .6

MEASURES TO IMPROVE. . . . . . 12

FOOD SECURITY

FOOD AID. . . . . . . . . . . .16

FOOD AID POLICY AGENDA. . . . 21

FOOD AID MANAGEMENT. . . . . . 25

OBJECTIVES

PROGRAM AND MANAGEMENT. . . . .27

POLICY CONCLUSIONS

**Executive Summary**

Since enactment of P.L. 480 in 1954, the global agricultural economy has
changed radically. U.S. food aid and related foreign assistance programs
have contributed to rapid expansion of global food security. Even in
developing countries, hunger no longer dominates daily life.

However, the past forty years have produced uneven progress. The
challenge of world hunger in the 1990s, particularly in Africa, is real.

800 million people in the world are chronically undernourished.

More than 180 million children are severely underweight.

13 million people die every year from hunger and related causes, mostly
children under 5.

An estimated 35 million people \"at risk\" needed 4.5 million tons of
emergency food assistance in 1994.

In the long run, USAID believes sustainable development offers the best
hope for significant reduction in hunger, and food aid has an important
and special role to play in this effort.

But the conditions which govern U.S food assistance have changed since
1954. The U.S. no longer generates large agricultural surpluses\--food
aid is now a scarce resource. Moreover, U.S. government funding for food
aid is subject to the same budget constraints as other forms of
assistance\--every dollar allocated for food aid is equivalent to a
dollar of development assistance.

In this new environment, USAID must ensure that food aid is used as
effectively and efficiently as possible.

This policy paper is the logical next step toward making food aid a more
effective and efficient resource for promoting food security in needy
countries. It draws on \"lessons learned\" in successful efforts in Asia
and Latin America to help poor people move from hunger and malnutrition
to sustainable development. The paper is designed to provide broad
guidance to USAID field managers and to the Private Voluntary
Organizations (PVOs) that implement much of the U.S. food aid program.
It is the responsibility of these field managers, including the PVOs, to
decide how best to achieve food security.

This policy paper provides guidance on the program interventions USAID
believes are most likely to achieve sustained improvements in food
security. [It is not prescriptive.]{.underline} However, the evidence in
support of these reforms is increasingly compelling.

**USAID\'s goal is to increase the impact of food aid in reducing
hunger.**

For Title III programs, this means USAID will give greater priority in
allocating food aid to those countries that need food most and within
those countries will concentrate on programs with direct linkages to
increased agricultural production and consumption.

Similarly, Title II development programs will focus on improving
household nutrition, especially in children and mothers, and on
alleviating the causes of hunger, especially by increasing agricultural
productivity. Other programs which can clearly be shown to improve food
security, for example, by increasing incomes in rural and urban areas
through economic and community development and by promoting sound
environmental practices, will also be considered.

For Title II development programs, priority will be given to programs in
those countries that need food most and where food insecurity is
greatest. However, programs will also be eligible for funding in
developing countries where progress is being made but where there remain
large numbers of poor and hungry people.

Procedures for implementation of Title II programs will continue to be
developed in consultation with cooperating sponsors pursuant to the
requirements of Section 205 of P.L. 480, which creates the USAID/PVO
Food Aid Consultative Group.

For both Title II and Title III, these priorities will help ensure
scarce resources are allocated where they have the greatest impact.
Except for emergencies, food aid programs in countries where overall
U.S. foreign assistance has been terminated will be approved on an
exception basis only.

Performance monitoring and assessment systems will be introduced to
permit USAID and the PVOs to demonstrate more clearly the food security
impact of U.S. food aid programs. Responsibility for this new
\"managing-for-results\" system will fall primarily on the PVOs and
USAID\'s field missions. In turn, these field managers will be given
flexibility to propose activities which they believe will have the
greatest impact on improved food security.

**Experience has shown that food aid is most effective when used in
conjunction with complementary programs.** For example, the recipient
country itself must ensure that policies are in place which support
economic growth and sustained development. This suggests food aid has
its greatest potential for sustained impact on food security when it is
programmed as an integral part of a broader effort including USAID, PVO,
other donor and recipient country resources.

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

In summary, this paper provides an overview of food security in the
world today and identifies measures available to reduce hunger and
malnutrition. These new Agency policies are fully consistent with
existing legislation.

The principal policy consequences and management implications are:

\- [For Title III Programs]{.underline}

Greater priority in allocating food aid will be given to countries most
in need of food. Under current world conditions, those countries are
primarily in Africa.

Highest priority will be given to programs with direct linkages to
increased agricultural production and consumption.

\- [For Title II Programs]{.underline}

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

\- [For all Programs]{.underline}

> USAID will allocate resources and manage programs to increase the
> impact U.S. food aid has in reducing hunger.

Food aid will be integrated to a greater extent with other assistance
resources (particularly USAID resources). Proceeds from the monetization
of food can be used to complement direct feeding programs and to support
development programs, particularly those, which enhance agricultural
productivity and/or improve household nutrition.

Greater attention and resources will be allocated to strengthening the
program development and management capacity of USAID\'s food aid
partners: the Private Voluntary Organizations, local non-governmental
organizations and the World Food Program. USAID field missions will
strengthen collaboration and dialogue with these partners in working to
achieve mutually agreed objectives.

USAID will seek to identify greater budgetary flexibility to respond to
emergencies. Since overall food aid appropriations are likely to be
reduced, this flexibility will need to come from such measures as
expanding the types of commodities in existing reserve systems and
improved multilateral coordination.

Greater priority will be given to the relief to development continuum.
Food insecure countries must be prepared to cope with recurring drought
and with political conflict. Equally important, relief programs must
ensure families are able to return as quickly as possible to productive
lives.

In adopting these policy and management reforms, USAID is recommitting
itself to the effective and efficient use of food aid as a resource for
sustainable development. Field managers and PVOs will be expected to
fully consider this guidance and justify program proposals in terms of
food security results. In turn, they will be held accountable for
achieving such results once programs have been approved.

**[FOOD AID & FOOD SECURITY]{.underline}**

**I. INTRODUCTION**

The ability of the world to feed itself has improved dramatically over
the last three decades. Intensive agriculture and new crop varieties
have fueled steadily increasing per capita food production. Decreasing
world food prices have made food more available to a greater number of
people. In 1975, approximately one in three people in developing
countries was underfed; today, the number of underfed has dropped to one
in five.

The long-term sustainability of this progress, however, is increasingly
at risk. Advances in major crop yields, such as wheat and rice, have
slowed. The intensive use of land and water, which brought major
production increases, now brings growing environmental costs. And most
significantly, world population continues to grow at the rate of nearly
100 million people per year\--mostly in the developing world.

Though millions have benefited from the world\'s agricultural progress,
the distribution of global food supplies is very uneven, with hunger
still prevalent in some regions of the world, particularly South Asia
and sub-Saharan Africa.

The challenge of world hunger in the 1990s is real:

800 million people are chronically undernourished.

More than 180 million children around the world are severely
underweight.

13 million people die every year from hunger and related causes (mostly
children under age 5).

An estimated 35 million people \"at risk\" needed 4.5 million tons of
emergency food assistance in 1994.

Most hunger is still found in rural areas\--large regions of persistent
poverty, such as the Horn of Africa, where development has failed and
fragile ecosystems and civil strife combine to keep hunger alive. Rapid
urbanization has also drawn growing numbers of rural poor who have
little or no access to jobs and are therefore unable to feed their
families.

For the United States, global hunger is both a humanitarian concern and
a strategic problem. Americans have traditionally supported humanitarian
assistance for those in need and in crisis. However, our aid reflects
not just a noble humanitarian impulse, but also an investment in
preventive diplomacy. Hunger and food insecurity contribute to political
instability; exacerbate environmental degradation; create migration
pressures and displaced populations; and prevent sustainable
development. Ultimately, global hunger affects our own basic interests
as a nation.

However, alleviating hunger is a daunting challenge, especially so if
self reliance is the goal. The causes of hunger are complex, and
improvements in food security are difficult to sustain.

Hunger results from lack of broad-based economic growth, especially for
the very poor. Hunger prevents people from being economic participants,
except in desperation or as supplicants\--and lack of economic
opportunity engenders poverty. Increased food productivity plays an
important role in alleviating hunger and in broad-based economic growth.
Very few countries have experienced rapid economic growth without growth
in food productivity preceding or accompanying it.

Hunger results from environmental degradation. Food insecurity drives
the exploitation of marginal lands, the misuse of water supplies, the
exhaustion of soils, and deforestation. Nearly two-thirds of tropical
deforestation currently comes at the hands of small-scale
agriculturalists attempting to grow more food.

Hunger results from lack of access to family planning services. World
population is growing by 100 million per year, straining the productive
capacity of agriculture. Hunger also causes poor maternal health and
high rates of infant mortality\--the latter a factor that drives higher
birth rates.

Hunger is a democracy issue. Pursuit of democracy is hampered when basic
human needs are lacking. Conversely, democratic governments tend to be
more responsive to the basic needs of their people.

**II. FOOD SECURITY**

**A. Definition of Food Security.**

People are \"food secure\" when they have regular access (either through
production or purchasing power) to sufficient food for a healthy and
productive life.

Drawing on the 1990 legislative reforms to P.L. 480, USAID in 1992
issued a broad definition of food security: When all people at all times
have both physical and economic access to sufficient food to meet their
dietary needs for a productive and healthy life. This definition further
notes that three distinct variables are central to the attainment of
food security: availability, access, and utilization. These variables
are interrelated.

**Food availability** is achieved when sufficient quantities of food are
consistently available to all individuals within a country. Such food
can be supplied through household production, other domestic output,
commercial imports or food assistance.

> **Food access** is ensured when households and all individuals within
> them have adequate resources to obtain appropriate foods for a
> nutritious diet. Access depends upon income available to the
> household, on the distribution of income within the household and on
> the price of food.
>
> **Food utilization** is the proper biological use of food, requiring a
> diet providing sufficient energy and essential nutrients, potable
> water, and adequate sanitation. Effective food utilization depends in
> large measure on knowledge within the household of food storage and
> processing techniques, basic principles of nutrition and proper child
> care.

**B. Food Insecurity Today**

Global agriculture currently produces ample calories and nutrients to
provide all the world\'s people healthy and productive lives. However,
food is not distributed equally to regions, countries, households and
individuals. A substantial share of the world\'s supply of calories and
nutrients is allocated to diets rich in animal protein. At the same
time, many families have insufficient food to meet their basic needs and
must be considered chronically food insecure.

Food aid can help meet a fraction of the needs of the poor. However,
improved access to food\--through increased agricultural productivity
and incomes\--is essential to meet the food needs of the world\'s
growing population. Agricultural productivity includes measures across
the entire spectrum of the food system which reduce food costs in real
terms and increase incomes.

If historical patterns hold, rising incomes will result in increased
effective demand for food, and, in turn, increased production. In a
world where there are already many food insecure people, this process
will create additional uncertainty about food supplies for the poor,
especially if food prices also rise. However, it also means there is
real potential for expanding the incomes of the poor if ways can be
found to improve their productivity both on and off the farm.

**South Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa are the regions most affected by
chronic food insecurity.**

African food security has declined in the 1980s due to rapid population
growth, economic stagnation, and civil strife. The combination of
growing population and lagging food production in sub-Saharan Africa
points to an impending crisis for the region. During the decade of the
1990s, the food gap in Africa is expected to more than quadruple to 50
million tons of grain equivalent, an amount far beyond either the
ability of African nations to import or developed countries to supply
through food aid.

While the trends in South Asia are not as disquieting, food insecurity
will remain a significant problem. Crop yields are increasing at a
slower rate than over the past three decades. By the year 2025, the
cereal food gap alone in Asia is expected to

be 255 million tons.[^1]

Basic economic statistics and more complex indexes including measures of
nutritional status can be used to evaluate the food security status of a
population. At the simplest level, per capita income growth, per capita
food production, the percentage of total household income spent on basic
foods, and the percentage of the population falling below the country\'s
poverty line are useful indicators. For example, a six year decline in
per capita income in several African countries is indicative of growing
food insecurity. Similarly, per capita food production declined in
twenty-six African countries, without any significant growth in the
industrial or service sector to compensate for production, employment
and revenue losses. Among the poorest Asian households, sixty to seventy
percent of income is spent to purchase basic foods.

FAO has prepared a food security index. It derives from four measures:

the proportion of the population, on average during the course of the
year, who do not have enough food to maintain body-weight and support
light activity;

the magnitude of the food gap of this undernourished group from the
national average requirements for dietary energy;

an estimate of the extent of risk associated with facing temporary
annual shortfalls in dietary energy supplies; and

the effects of cereal food aid shipments.[^2]

Food insecurity today has a devastating impact on families and on the
countries in which they live. Where the food insecure make up a
substantial portion of the total population, as they do in some parts of
South Asia and in Africa, the impact can overwhelm a country\'s
development opportunities. Food insecure people are, by definition,
unable to lead healthy and fully productive lives. They drain the social
service budgets of the poorest developing countries, and they lack the
simple physical energy needed to contribute fully to their own
livelihood.

The most pernicious impact of food insecurity, however, is its toll on
children. Severe malnutrition results in very high infant and child
mortality and, for those children who survive, there are many life-long
medical complications, including mental retardation. Recent research has
also demonstrated that even mild-to-moderate malnutrition significantly
raises the risk of mortality in children. Since this mild-to-moderate
malnutrition is so much more common in the poorest countries, this means
it is prominent in total child mortality.

**C. Causes of Food Insecurity**

Many factors interact to create food-insecure situations:

chronic poverty, low agricultural productivity, high rates of population
growth, civil conflict, poor infrastructure, ecological constraints,
inappropriate economic policies, limited arable land and even cultural
practices developed over many years. These are not discrete, independent
factors, but related elements of the food security equation.

The chief cause of food insecurity is chronic poverty: persistent lack
of economic opportunity either to produce adequate food or to exchange
labor for the income to purchase adequate food.

In some countries, such poverty results from the unequal distribution of
economic opportunities and benefits due to political exploitation or
poor economic policies. In others, poverty results from pervasive
failure of the national economy to grow and as a result to generate
broad based opportunities to produce food or income.

A related major factor affecting food security is the underlying dynamic
of population growth. Approximately 100 million people will be added to
the world population every year for the foreseeable future. By the year
2025, the population will total 8.5 billion, of whom 7 billion will live
in developing countries. Sub-Saharan Africa will grow from 500 million
today to 1.2 billion by 2025.

Although global rates of under nutrition are falling, rapid growth of
population in some countries and regions inflates the number of
malnourished, and weakens the capacity of these countries to become food
self-reliant through domestic production and commercial imports. The
United Nations Children\'s Fund (UNICEF) reports that the annual number
of births is declining in Latin America; births will peak in Asia in the
mid-1990s (the year 2000 for South Asia) and then begin to fall.
However, in Africa the annual number of births will continue to rise
well into the next century.

Agricultural output, is another major factor in the world hunger
equation.[^3] In Africa, for example, food production increased by 33%
in the 1980s, but [per capita]{.underline} output of food actually
declined as population growth outstripped increased food production.

A related factor contributing to food insecurity is poor infrastructure.
Improved on-farm productivity will not increase food security if farm
production is unable to make it to market. Farm-to-market roads, for
example, may be poor to non-existent, hampering distribution and access
to food. Sufficient and well-functioning infrastructure is essential to
facilitate exchange and access to markets.

Inappropriate policies, which result in disincentives to local
production and efficient marketing, are another cause of food
insecurity. Often local farmers have no incentive to invest in sound
agricultural or environmental practices because of price controls,
insecure land tenure and/or overly centralized government structures,
which stifle local initiative. Private food distribution may be
discouraged by excessive regulations and by unfair competition from
subsidized and inefficient government-run parastatals.

Food insecurity can be exacerbated by disease, poor water and sanitation
systems, inadequate nutritional knowledge, and cultural conditions,
which affect consumption patterns. The integration of food security
initiatives with other health and education programs can effectively
address many of these problems. UNICEF recently estimated that child
nutrition could be enhanced as well or better through prevention of
diarrheal disease as through supplementary feedings.

Civil war and ethnic conflicts also threaten food security by cutting
off whole segments of a country\'s population from food supplies and
disrupting traditional agriculture. Chronic food shortages in the Horn
of Africa have been exacerbated by civil conflict.

**D. Food Insecurity in Emergencies**

All countries confront natural disasters at one time or another. All
countries experience some form of political conflict. However, food
insecure countries are particularly vulnerable. The sense that they will
not be able to feed themselves and their children is one of the most
important \"tripping mechanisms\" in inducing families to leave their
homes and become refugees or internally displaced. In Africa, the number
of refugees and internally displaced has risen from one million in the
early 1970s to over twelve million now.

The demand for emergency food aid has grown dramatically. Between 1989
and 1993, world-wide emergency food needs have doubled from \$1.1
billion to \$2.5 billion per year, according to the World Food Program
(WFP). One of the reasons for this phenomenon is the increase in
protracted emergencies. \"Complex disasters\" [^4] are placing
continuing burden on relief agencies: e.g., Sudan since 1983, Angola
since 1989, Somalia since 1991. In 1992, NIS and Eastern Europe became
new recipients of U.S. food aid, and now constitute a large share of
total aid (22% this year). Additional short-term needs tied to civil
strife in Bosnia, Rwanda, Haiti, and elsewhere will likely continue to
place growing demands on food resources.

**III. MEASURES TO IMPROVE FOOD SECURITY**

In a real and important sense, USAID\'s entire portfolio contributes to
food security. USAID\'s strategic priorities\--economic growth, health
and population, the environment, democracy, and humanitarian
assistance\--each supports improved food security. Helping countries to
achieve sustainable development is the surest way to eliminate the
chronic poverty, which is the root cause of food insecurity. USAID will
continue this integrated approach, drawing on development assistance
resources to target critical problems in needy countries.

In the case of very poor developing countries, improved agricultural
productivity has played a critical role in establishing basic food
security. In the major development success stories in Asia\--first Korea
and Taiwan, then Thailand India and Indonesia, and now even
Bangladesh\--efforts to promote productivity growth resulted in basic
food security for large numbers of people and provided the initial
stimulus for economic growth and development. Through productivity
increases, food production expanded rapidly and food prices fell
relative to nominal wages. The poor were able to procure more food for
their families, helping to improve household nutrition, and at the same
time to devote some of their resources to other basic needs, including
education. Demand for family planning services increased as the
importance of child labor in agriculture declined. Incomes grew in rural
areas, stimulating investment in off-farm activities and eventually
leading to sustained growth.

USAID investments in agriculture played a leading role in this effort.
The International Agricultural Research Centers provided key
technological breakthroughs, which led directly to this \"green
revolution.\" USAID bilateral assistance programs provided policy
counsel, coordination with other donors and international institutions
such as the World Bank, and direct investments in agriculture. Food aid
was used to improve access to food and provide balance of payments
support. In some cases, direct

feeding was used to improve household nutrition.

Achieving food security has always been a complex development challenge.
Individual country circumstances vary widely and selecting appropriate
measures requires experience and the ability to respond to local needs.
Sustaining improvements in food security requires the ability to
understand issues at the global, national, community and household
level. Most important, achieving food security requires the initiative
and hard work of the people themselves and the institutional and
free-market environment, which will permit their efforts to be
successful.

**A. Importance of the Global Agricultural Economy**

The impact on the developing countries of expanding world food
production and growing agricultural trade can be significant. The price
of basic grains is determined in the global market, and can be
critically important for poor, food deficit countries. A growing market
also offers opportunities for many developing countries to expand
agricultural production, incomes and exports.

The new GATT agreement includes important new measures to reduce
subsidies and open markets. As a result, prices are expected to be
somewhat higher than they otherwise would be, which will benefit
producing countries. Increasing international prices will also provide
production incentives for developing countries. Expanded market access,
which will result from the GATT, will encourage expansion and
diversification of production as well.

The impact of the global food economy on any individual developing
country depends on the country\'s specific circumstances and its ability
to adjust to change. The degree to which a country benefits in this
volatile economy depends, among other factors, on its promotion of a
sound and supportive domestic policy environment. As an example, in
1993/94 food [production]{.underline} per capita declined in 45 of 70
low income food deficit countries when compared to average production
the previous five years. However, per capita food [use]{.underline}
declined in only 20 of these countries. The other 25 were able to adjust
and use commercial food imports and food aid to support consumption
increases.

Those countries, that make the necessary adjustments, will benefit in
the new global agricultural economy. For those that do not, higher
prices for imported basic food commodities will drain development
budgets and, perhaps, increase dependency on food aid. The GATT
negotiators recognized that the poor, food-deficit countries have
traditionally had difficulty adjusting and that food aid in the near
term could be especially important. However, food aid simply cannot fill
the supply gap over the longer term, and it is essential that the poor,
food deficit countries develop the expertise and the political will to
adjust to more open international markets. In countries where this is an
important issue, USAID field missions can play an essential supportive
role with technical assistance and multilateral contacts.

The U.S. Government has in past played a leadership role in negotiating
and monitoring the international agreements that regulate the global
agricultural economy. However, the lead agencies\--State and USDA\--have
properly concentrated on the interests of U.S. agriculture and its
developed economy competitors. USAID has had little role, and the
potential impact of trade on poor, food deficit countries has not been
monitored closely. USAID needs to do more in future.

As important, sustained improvement of global agricultural productivity
depends heavily on research investments. Past successes have focused on
the crops and farming systems of the developed countries and Asia-rice,
wheat and corn. To some extent national systems in the countries which
are making progress on food security can be relied upon for continued
research products suitable to their domestic crops. However, the poorest
countries will continue to rely on the International Agricultural
Research Centers. USAID continues to view these institutions as
important contributors to food security in poor countries and deserving
of significant support.

**B. USAID Agriculture Programs in Poor Countries**

Growth of agricultural productivity and improved household nutrition
have been the keys to establishing food security in poor countries.
Historically, USAID missions in very poor countries where food security
is a major problem have given high priority in their strategic planning
to agriculture.

Efforts to expand production of staple food crops have been pursued
through improvements in agricultural policies, bringing more land under
cultivation, and by increasing yields on existing lands through more
intensive use of inputs and through introduction of improved crop
varieties.

Now, bringing more land under cultivation is rarely an environmentally
acceptable alternative in most regions. In Asia, where total food demand
is greatest, the potential for new arable lands or even new irrigated
land is already limited. Use of new lands would cause irreversible
ecological damage as forests and hillsides are cleared for agriculture.

At the same time, some believe the potential for significant increases
in yields on available lands is declining. On a global scale, grain
production per person has shown signs of stagnation if not a slight
decline since 1985.[^5] In part, this results from removing lands from
production in the U.S. and in Europe in response to policies designed to
control excess production. However, it also appears growth in
productivity of the best agricultural lands in Asia has flattened out in
recent years. Some have attributed this \"plateauing\" in yields to lack
of sufficient investment in improved technologies. Food production per
capita is actually declining in several African countries.

Nevertheless, as most countries in Latin America and Asia have made
significant progress toward food security, overall USAID investments in
agriculture have declined significantly. Some have suggested this very
progress in many developing countries has resulted in a false sense of
security about the world\'s capacity to feed itself. As a result,
competition has arisen from other priority areas for scarce development
assistance resources. Remaining funding for agriculture, which is now
concentrated within USAID\'s Economic Growth priority area, has been
squeezed even for the poor, food deficit countries. In Africa, funding
for agriculture declined from a high of \$200 million per year in 1988
to \$125 million in 1993.

**C. USAID Household Nutrition Programs in Poor Countries**

Within households, food consumption by family members is dictated by a
variety of cultural priorities. It is essential that adequate income or
household production provide sufficient calories and nutritional balance
for all. Equally important, families must have access to clean water and
to fuel for preparing food, must understand the basic requirements of
family nutrition, and must have access to basic health care services.
Access to family planning services and adequate post-natal care,
including breast feeding, are also essential.

Within households, all of these food security responsibilities fall most
heavily on women. Their decisions translate the basic conditions
necessary for food security\--availability, access and
utilization\--into the reality of food secure families. Yet, these same
women suffer heavily from the effects of malnutrition. In 1990, an
estimated 370 million women between 15 and 49 years of age were anemic,
a condition that contributes to high maternal mortality rates,
especially during childbirth. Hence, programs to support and enhance the
role of women in developing countries can often make an important
contribution to food security.

USAID also supports research on nutrition at the household level and is
particularly interested in the potential contribution of vitamin A and
other micronutrients. There is increasing evidence that availability of
these critical elements in the diets of children can help reduce
morbidity and mortality. As important, there is also recent evidence
that mild to moderate malnutrition, which is closely associated with the
overall supply of calories, significantly increases the risks of child
mortality. In combination, these findings demonstrate that adequate
supply of food, a balanced diet, and knowledge of proper food
preparation and nutrition are all essential to sustained food security.

As with agriculture, the competition for foreign assistance resources
has meant that only modest funding can be made available for
international nutrition programs.

**D. Integrated Programs**

Achieving food security in the poorest developing countries is proving
an especially complex development challenge. The physical environment in
much of Africa is fragile and subject to periodic drought. Many areas of
Africa and all of South Asia are already densely populated, and growth
rates continue to be very high. Basic food crops of the poor\--sorghum,
millet, and cassava\--have not received sufficient attention in global
agricultural research. The political and cultural traditions

of many of the poorest countries, particularly in Africa, remain
distorted by the legacy of colonialism and by poverty. Ethnic conflict
and other civil strife regularly disrupt economic progress and sends
waves of refugees across national borders.

In this complex environment, marginal efforts are unlikely to succeed.
USAID, working with other donors and the recipient countries, must be
prepared to mount a comprehensive, sustained effort. Where USAID field
missions decide food security is a major problem\--and the Agency
concludes it can and should pursue improvements in food security as a
program objective\--the USAID mission must be prepared to allocate the
full range of Agency resources to the effort. Donor coordination must
also be given high priority.

Since funding for agriculture and nutrition programs\--and for
broad-based economic growth in general\--will continue to be sharply
constrained, it is also essential that U.S. food aid be used as
efficiently and effectively as possible. This will require a good
understanding of the development context for individual countries and
regions and a sound analytical framework to guide policies which support
sustained progress.

USAID evaluations of food aid programs have shown that food assistance
is most effective where it is programmed in conjunction with dollar
funding for technical assistance and with local currency for logistical
support and grass-roots development activities. In fact, sustained
progress toward food security will depend heavily on progress on the
full range of factors contributing to sustainable development. This
means food aid will be most effective where it is integrated with other
USAID resources.

**IV. FOOD AID**

Title II and Title III of P.L. 480\--the food-aid programs USAID
administers directly\--total nearly \$1 billion per year. Food aid is a
very flexible resource and can be used to support improved food security
in a variety of ways. However, food aid is also a specialized resource,
which requires careful consideration of programming circumstances and
careful management.

**A. The Nature of Food Aid**

Food aid is a resource transfer, which can be conveyed in kind or
monetized. In past, food aid has served a wide range of U.S. government
purposes: surplus commodity disposal, relief aid and diverse development
interventions. It has proven flexible enough so that it can be used in a
variety of forms: balance of payments support, local currency for
projects, or in directed feeding programs. In many cases, food-aid sales
transactions within the recipient country have, in their own right, been
an important development tool, helping to strengthen markets and
encouraging policy change.

U.S. private voluntary organizations (PVOs) manage more than half of
USAID administered food aid. Drawing on their own resources and
management capacity, PVOs provide a unique and invaluable capacity to
manage local, community-based programs that directly reach the poor.
Local currency generated from the sale of food commodities provides an
important complementary resource the PVOs can reinvest in activities
designed to improve food security.

**1. Special Strengths:**

One of the obvious strengths of food aid is its immediate application in
feeding people\--either as part of a humanitarian relief effort, as part
of a recovery strategy or as part of a broader development effort. In
situations where food-as-food is critical to humanitarian or development
progress, food aid is the preferred USAID resource.

Food aid can also enhance the effectiveness of other development
programs such as nutrition education, family planning, child survival,
and community development projects. This can be accomplished either
through directed feeding or through \"monetization\" to generate local
currency.

An historic advantage of food aid was it was \"cheap\" in terms of costs
to the U.S. foreign assistance budget. For nearly four decades, food-aid
helped dispose of U.S. domestic agricultural surplus. It provided real
benefits to American farmers, and reduced storage and handling costs to
the U.S. government. However, with the onset in the late 1980s of new
agricultural policies designed to reduce surpluses, (now embodied as
well in the Uruguay Round of GATT), surplus commodities have and will
continue to decline precipitously.

No longer can food aid be considered a cheap resource for development
and relief. The budget for food aid is now equally subject to the
constraints, which confront the overall U.S. foreign assistance budget.
A dollar spent on food aid is a dollar not spent on \"development
assistance\" and vice versa.

**2. Special Considerations:**

Food aid also has several distinct characteristics, which must be
carefully considered when USAID missions and PVOs decide to use food as
a development tool\--and as humanitarian relief assistance.

Food aid should be managed so that it supports local agricultural
production. This may require special efforts to utilize local markets
for the distribution of food and careful timing of deliveries.
Otherwise, the introduction of food aid can disrupt local agricultural
markets, depressing prices and discouraging local farm production.
Commodity selection is also important. Food aid may prove
counterproductive if the commodity is unacceptable to local preferences
and, in extreme cases, can also distort local consumption patterns, with
long-term consequences for local agricultural markets.

Food aid can also be expensive to deliver and manage. Shipping costs,
including U.S. cargo preference and any necessary inland transportation,
add to the costs of delivering U.S. commodities. Proper monitoring of
the commodities themselves to guard against waste and diversion is
essential and can be costly. Monetization of food aid requires managing
the conversion of food into local currency and then acceptable oversight
of the disposition of the local currency. All these costs must be
carefully weighed against the benefits in considering alternative
approaches to accomplishing assistance objectives.

In most cases, food aid requires complementary investments to achieve
maximum impact, and USAID missions and the PVOs need to ensure those
resources will be available as food is delivered. Even with narrowly
stated objectives, such as nutritional improvement in poor children,
sustainable development is so complex a process that complementary
interventions are necessary. These interventions can be financed with
monetization, other local currency sources, or dollar funding. However,
they all have their own costs and require significant management
commitment.

In developing food aid programs, it is important to capitalize on the
special strengths of food aid. To do so requires full consideration of
the special circumstances which influence the costs and effectiveness of
these programs.

**B. FOOD AID PROGRAMS**

While food security is the umbrella policy goal for all food aid
programs, each of the USG food aid programs has different
characteristics.

**1. Title I**

P.L. 480 Title I export credit programs develop foreign markets for U.S.
farm products. This government-to-government assistance is provided on a
concessional loan basis and entails untargeted food distribution through
normal commercial channels. Title I is managed by USDA.

**2. Title II**

**(a) Development Programs**

Title II development programs provide food aid grants which are
implemented by PVOs or the World Food Program. Activities include pilot
programs for smallholder agriculture, supporting market liberalization
through policy change, nutrition and other child survival programs,
community development such as water and sanitation and environmental
restoration, or small-scale infrastructure development. A portion of
Title II commodities can also be monetized by PVO partners to fund
complementary development interventions to enhance the impact of food
programs and contribute to food security.

**(b) Emergency Programs**

Title II is also used for direct feeding activities to respond to
short-term, unanticipated food shortages. Emergency programs may be
implemented by PVOs, WFP or on a government-to-government basis.
Increasingly, emergency feeding is a component of relief efforts in
complex emergencies involving political conflict. (Sometimes these
\"emergencies\" can last for several years.) Food aid is sometimes
monetized to fund complementary activities such as distribution,
repackaging, and wet feeding in refugee camps. Emergency feeding is
usually managed by PVOs or the World Food Program.

**(c) World Food Program**

The World Food Program (WFP) is a UN Agency. It is the principal
multilateral channel for food aid. It provides food aid used in feeding
programs of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees. WFP also manages both
development and emergency feeding programs for bilateral donors,
including the U.S. The U.S. makes a biennial pledge of assistance to WFP
(currently \$300 million) to cover both commodity and transportation
costs for WFP development and refugee projects. Emergency food aid
channeled through WFP is committed in response to appeals for emergency
food for disaster relief. Direct contributions to WFP for management
have so far been minimal.

**3. Title III**

Title III of P.L. 480 funds government-to-government grants for
development activities. Title III programs normally include policy
reform conditions and frequently generate local currencies for
development projects.

Because Title III commodities most often enter untargeted commercial
distribution systems, Title III Agreements may contain commitments by
the host government to foster the availability and accessibility of
basic foods to the most disenfranchised households.

In May of 1994, USAID approved Title III guidance which states that
beginning in 1995 priority will be given to countries where there is the
greatest food need, and that the focus of new Title III programs will be
on policy reforms and activities directly affecting or improving food
production and consumption, including nutrition.

**4. Section 416(b)**

This program is administered by USDA. Section 416(b) of the Agricultural
Act of 1949 provides for overseas donation of surplus agricultural
commodities acquired by the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) as part
of its price support activities. Over the years, this program has
provided commodities worth hundreds of millions of dollars to meet
emergency needs and for developing countries, most recently in the new
independent states of the former Soviet Union. However, CCC-owned
inventories have been declining as domestic farm programs have brought
supply into closer relationship to demand, and availability of resources
for future commodity donations under this authority will be much less
than in the past.

**5. Food for Progress**

This program is administered by USDA. The Food for Progress Act of 1985
authorizes USDA to provide a maximum of 500,000 metric tons of
commodities on a grant or credit basis, using (a) funds appropriated to
Title I, Public Law 480; (b) the inventories which are available for
section 416(b) use; or (c) funds available to CCC, for needed
commodities which are available neither under P.L. 480 nor from CCC
inventory. To the extent that CCC funds are used for commodities from
the latter two categories, not more than \$30 million may be spent
annually for non-commodity costs. The grants and credits are to go to
developing countries that are engaged in economic policy reforms,
particularly within the food and agriculture sectors, and for emerging
democracies. Food for Progress assistance is intended to cushion the
effects of structural economic adjustment or other domestic economic
shocks that may affect food security.

**6. Direct Dollar Procurement**

Under special circumstances, USAID may also utilize dollar
appropriations for direct procurement of food. The International
Disaster Assistance account is used for local food procurement in
emergencies. Under the Freedom Support Act, USAID manages a small food
aid program (\$38 million in FY 1994) for countries of the former Soviet
Union.

**V. FOOD AID POLICY AGENDA**

As this paper has documented, there have been significant changes in the
food security of developing countries, with progress in many places but
real problems in others, particularly in Africa. In addition, the global
agricultural economy is changing rapidly, with surpluses being
eliminated and greater reliance on market forces. In response, USAID has
refined its policy guidance on food aid.

This new guidance will assist USAID field missions and PVOs in planning
the orderly evolution of U.S. food aid programs. The broad definition of
food security contained in the 1990 amendments to P.L. 480 will continue
to govern food-aid program development.[^6]

Within that broad frame of reference, USAID will provide implementation
guidance on how food commodities will be allocated and utilized to meet
food security objectives. This detailed implementation guidance will be
developed in consultation with the PVOs and USAID\'s field missions.

**A. Policy Guidance on Food Aid and Sustainable Development**

Food aid can be a valuable tool for advancing food security goals in
developing countries. The role of food aid in promoting food security
must be carefully designed, however, if USAID and the PVOs are to
achieve maximum effectiveness from this highly specialized assistance
instrument.

In providing food aid, it is essential to both understand the food
security problem in the recipient country and clearly identify the food
insecure population which U.S. assistance is designed to benefit. This
initial analysis\--carried out by USAID missions and PVOs\--will
determine the specific program interventions most likely to succeed.

USAID recognizes there are many ways to promote food security, with
appropriate interventions best determined by experienced field managers
able to weigh individual country and local community circumstances.
USAID\'s goal\--and that of the PVO cooperating sponsors\--must be the
effective and efficient use of food aid resources. The measure of
success in this regard will be the results which programs achieve in
terms of sustained improvements in food security.

In general, USAID believes programs designed to enhance agricultural
productivity and improve household nutrition have the greatest potential
for sustained improvements in food security. This is true in countries
where substantial numbers of the poor depend on agriculture for food or
income, such as countries in sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia.

Accordingly, USAID will give priority in allocating food aid resources
to programs that enhance agricultural productivity and improve household
nutrition in the most food insecure countries. These program and country
priorities are not intended to prescribe arbitrary solutions to real
world problems nor to restrict the flexibility of field managers.
Rather, USAID\'s intention is to provide guidance on what has worked
well and what appears to be in the mainstream of current scientific
thinking on how most effectively to improve food security over the long
run.

Over time, the application of these priorities is expected to
concentrate resources more heavily in Africa (particularly Title III
resources) and South Asia and that a growing share of total resources
will be used for programs to enhance agricultural productivity and
improve household nutrition. However, USAID will continue to approve new
food aid activities in other regions of the world and in other program
areas (particularly for Title II development programs). In such cases,
approval will depend on the ability of field managers to demonstrate
that resources will have a sustained impact on food security. In short,
the key to program approval will be the ability to demonstrate results.

In focusing the use of P.L. 480 resources, care will be taken not to
allow short-term food security goals to create disincentives to
longer-term self-reliance in food. A program that focuses on short-term
hunger must also address longer-term constraints if USAID is to support
sustainable development in food insecure countries. The optimal use of
food aid will be where it can have both short and longer term impacts.
In many cases, this will involve integration of government-to-government
programs such as Title III and PVO programs such as Title II. In most
cases, food aid will be programmed in conjunction with other assistance
instruments.

To implement this new results-oriented strategy, USAID will shift its
oversight focus from inputs and food aid distribution to the results of
these integrated programs. PVO partners will have greater control over
day-to-day implementation. USAID will focus increasingly on results.
Appropriate methods for evaluating these results will be included during
the program design phase. The criteria for measurement of successful
results must be quantifiable and precise. Detailed implementation
guidance for this \"Managing for Results\" strategy will be developed in
consultation with the PVOs.

In allocating funding for both PVO food programs and
government-to-government food assistance, priority will be given to
programs that enhance agricultural productivity, particularly benefiting
small farmers and the poor, and to programs that improve household
nutrition for poor families. A broad definition of both these priorities
will guide resource allocations. The objective will be to give priority
to activities that have significant impact across the entire food system
of a recipient country.

The following are illustrative interventions. Priority will be given to
these types of activities. However, USAID will always be open to
innovative proposals from field missions and PVOs that offer prospects
for significant improvements in food security. USAID is committed to
giving field managers the flexibility needed to achieve food security
results.

**Agricultural Productivity programs**

Food aid interventions might address: agricultural training,
technologies, and practices; agricultural policies, including pricing,
marketing, tax and tariff policies; development and funding of private
credit institutions; provision and marketing of agricultural inputs;
improved on-farm utilization of water resources; marketing and
transportation systems which promote the cost-effective movement of food
from source to need; food losses associated with ineffective and
inefficient harvesting, storage, processing and handling; off-farm
microenterprises which improve the marketing of food or agricultural
inputs; introduction of cash crops to improve rural incomes; and pilot
farming-systems activities at the grass-roots level.

**Household Nutrition programs**:

Food aid interventions might address: knowledge and practice of health
techniques, including those related to nutrition, child care, and
sanitation; education to reform practices that limit consumption of a
nutritionally adequate diet by certain groups or family members;
provision of potable water and sanitation; fortification of foods with
vitamins and minerals; pilot programs to improve local storage and
household preparation of food; urban feeding programs for vulnerable
groups; and demonstration feeding programs designed to develop social
safety nets.

**B. Policy Guidance on Emergency Food and the Relief-Recovery-
Development Continuum**

While \"relief\" food aid and \"development\" food aid are often
considered and managed as distinct entities, they are, in reality, part
of a continuum. Long-term food security efforts constitute the best
\"preventive strategy\" for dealing with acute food needs; conversely,
how emergency food needs are met can help influence longer term food
security.

The distinction between relief and development is one of degree not
kind. \"At risk\" populations are not just those at immediate risk of
starvation, but those who live on the edge of economic viability and who
represent potential \"emergency\" victims. Recurrent famines in the Horn
of Africa are not \"sudden\" events caused only by drought, but a
manifestation of many complex factors, including decades of war, failed
development and disenfranchisement. USAID and PVO cooperating sponsors
should seek to design interventions that address food vulnerability at
various stages and via different means.

A new framework is needed to assess need and to program resources across
the relief-development continuum. Specifically, relief and development
activities should focus on key, mutually reinforcing interventions,
including:

maintaining productive capacity;

preventing migration;

reinforcing development efforts; and

enhancing disaster management capacity.

Relief interventions must be designed and implemented on the basis of
the same principles that guide sustainable development: capacity
building, participation and sustainability. Decentralization and human
capital development should be pursued, to the maximum extent
practicable, in the course of relief operations.

Similarly, developmental activities should be undertaken in a manner
that decreases the need for relief intervention (i.e., through
addressing vulnerability). Development food aid programs, in conjunction
with other USAID resources, should help enable vulnerable groups to
develop means to cope with future periods of drought and even political
conflict. Programs that help the poor protect against or which mitigate
the impact of disasters also facilitate economic and social recovery
from crisis. There is need to develop additional interventions that
serve both disaster mitigation and long term sustainable development.
The following are examples of programs that might serve these twin
objectives, recognizing that local circumstances differ greatly and
adaptation to indigenous cultural priorities is critical to success.

\-- Conservation of natural resources such as watershed management and
sustainable harvesting of timber and non-timber products to preserve
ecosystem health and biodiversity, and ensure the longevity of these
resources.

\-- Diversification of farming systems to introduce drought-resistant
cultivators and practices to enhance soil-moisture retention in order to
reduce vulnerability to drought.

\-- Improved data collection to better identify vulnerable groups in
order to permit targeting of food aid during crises. Such surveys can
also identify cultural practices and beneficiaries\' perceptions, which
affect the relief-to-development continuum.

\-- Strengthening local NGOs and their linkages to national institutions
to assist with disaster mitigation and recovery as well as introduction
of activities to promote economic growth.

These sorts of programs can increase resilience in the face of natural
and man-made disasters and promote rapid return to sustainable
development.

**VI. FOOD AID MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES**

**A. A New Approach to Emergencies**

Emergency food relief needs are growing, as crises become more complex
and longer lasting. To enhance long-term planning and to meet recurrent
emergency needs without draining food aid for development, a mechanism
is needed to provide a budgetary \"cushion\" to meet unforeseen
emergency needs. Development of such a mechanism will require
collaboration within the Executive Branch and with Congress. New
legislation will likely also be necessary. USAID will initiate a
dialogue that can lead to this objective.

**B. Managing for Results with Title II**

The partnership between USAID and the PVOs will focus on improved food
security in the neediest developing countries. This partnership can be
strengthened through increased sharing of information, including greater
access by PVOs to USAID data sources. Better communication and
coordination between PVOs and field missions in the development of
strategic plans is also needed. USAID and the PVOs must move toward a
real \"shared responsibility\" concept in planning and managing food
programs.

Especially in key food-insecure countries, Title II development food aid
should be integrated with USAID strategic objectives, while respecting
the independence of PVOs. It is essential that USAID and PVO programs
work together to achieve maximum effectiveness where the need is
greatest.

USAID and PVOs should develop and implement a shared framework for
measuring results\--as well as inputs\--in food aid programs.

USAID must support PVO capacity building to help ensure results are
achieved.

USAID must also provide technical expertise and field support to mission
and PVO food security programs in the neediest countries.

**C. Reshaping Agricultural Research**

In chronic food insecure areas, USAID will support a comprehensive
approach that offers economically attractive agricultural alternatives
for farm families. Specifically, USAID will encourage development of
highly adapted \"food security\" crops. Examples of promising
technologies include:

new, highly productive, drought-resistant maize by the CGIAR wheat/maize
center;

\"super cassava\" developed by IITA (CGIAR center in humid/subhumid
Africa) offering African farmers not only 200% yield increases but also
new business opportunities for processing/marketing their products.

Systems integrating trees (for fuelwood, forage and fruit), livestock,
and crops for environmental sustainability and [enhancement]{.underline}
of nutrition, as well as economic savings and capital accumulation.

As part of its renewed commitment to participatory development, USAID
will adopt a broader and more inclusive vision in approaching food
security and agricultural research. USAID will work with national
systems (public and private) U.S. centers of excellence (universities,
USDA, private sector) and the IARCs. USAID is uniquely positioned to
help national systems access and adapt both technologies and policies.
Local currencies generated by P.L. 480 Title III could support
country-level programs in this effort.

**D. Donor Coordination**

USAID should play a more active role in donor coordination to improve
food security in the neediest developing countries. The U.S. role as a
major provider of humanitarian aid, combined with USAID\'s major field
presence, places USAID in a strong position to facilitate donor
coordination. An integrated food aid and development strategy\--possibly
with a regional focus, as in the Horn of Africa\--demands significant
coordination among donors, host governments, U.S. and local NGOs and
PVOs, and the multilateral institutions, including WFP.

**VII. PROGRAM AND MANAGEMENT POLICY CONCLUSIONS**

1\. There is growing difference among countries in terms of their
ability to provide food security to their people. As a result, many
millions of people, particularly in the poorest countries, have little
prospect of escaping a marginal life of hunger and malnutrition. Food
aid is a resource that is uniquely suited to addressing this need\--in
fact current P.L. 480 legislation instructs USAID to give priority to
the neediest countries.

Many different ways can be devised to determine which countries are
\"neediest.\" There are indices that have been developed by USAID, FAO
and others. All have their strengths and weaknesses. It is sensible not
to be too rigid in defining need, especially since P.L. 480 itself
provides some flexibility in country selection. However, all measures
point to basically the same set of countries, most of which are in
sub-Saharan Africa, as being most needy. There are also many needy
people in South Asia, though the trends there are more encouraging.

**Greatest priority in allocating food aid, particularly for Title III
programs, should go to countries most in need of food, which will mean
for the foreseeable future an increasing share of U.S. food aid will go
to sub-Saharan Africa.**

Within countries, USAID will continue to give priority to assisting food
insecure households. Targeting mechanisms will be developed for
community level assessments so that assistance reaches the most
vulnerable and provides for sustainable improvements in food security.

2\. P.L. 480 provides a flexible definition of food security, and USAID
has adopted an equally flexible definition in PD 19. This provides a
range of possible interventions within the terms of law and policy,
allowing line managers in USAID and the PVOs to adapt specific
interventions to country circumstances. Nevertheless, it is also
important for USAID, working with the PVOs for the programs they manage,
to convey clearly the priorities to be used in allocating resources.

Experience has shown the surest way to achieve improved availability,
access and utilization of food is through increases in agricultural
productivity and improved nutrition for the poor. Such programs increase
incomes and reduce the cost of food in real terms, together with more
effective utilization of this food by the poor. USAID will always be
prepared to support any program, which promises similar results. **Title
III resources will be allocated to programs with direct linkages to
increased agricultural production and consumption. Title II resources
will focus on improving household nutrition, especially in children and
mothers, and on alleviating the causes of hunger, especially by
increasing agricultural productivity.**

3\. Resources available for food security programs are under increasing
budgetary pressure. The overall need to reduce the federal deficit will
continue for the foreseeable future. In the case of food aid, declining
U.S. agricultural surpluses is expected to result in elimination of
416(b) surplus commodities. In the case of FAA resources, competition
from other priorities and earmarks will limit funding available for
agriculture. (Note that some of these priorities, such as population
programs, can also have a significant impact on food security.)

As a practical matter, food aid is a key resource directly available for
food security programs. However, there is growing evidence that food,
programmed by itself, has uneven impact as a development resource. Food
aid is most effective when used in conjunction with other resources in
promoting increased agricultural productivity and improved household
nutrition. Food will be programmed where it has intrinsic value as food.
This also means USAID missions with significant food aid programs will
need to ensure that adequate resources are made available to fund
complementary activities needed to assure maximum impact. These
resources can come from dollar appropriations, Title III local currency
generations or Title II monetization.

USAID will also be expected to maintain appropriate central support for
food security programs in terms of research and field support.

**Food aid should be integrated to a greater extent with other USAID
assistance resources.** **Greater priority on this integration must be
the responsibility of both missions and the PVOs.** **Proceeds from
monetization of food should complement direct feeding programs or should
be used to enhance agricultural productivity and improve household
nutrition.**

4\. USAID is committed to bringing food aid programs into a \"managing
for results\" system. This will help ensure the greatest possible impact
from scarce food aid resources. It will help ensure that complementary
resources necessary for success are identified and allocated. It will
help shift the focus of discussion on USAID programs and policies from
levels of inputs provided (either dollars or food) to the impact of
those resources.

USAID also intends to assist its partners, the PVOs and the World Food
Program, move in this direction. As USAID and its partners reach
agreement on the objectives and results intended and are confident of
the basic soundness of program plans, it should be possible for USAID to
leave routine oversight of implementation of food aid programs to these
partners. To reach this objective, it will be important for food aid
program proposals to demonstrate the same analytical rigor required of
dollar funded programs. This will require some \"capacity building.\"

Ultimately the success of food aid programs must be measured by
sustainability of results. In large measure, sustainability will depend
on the capacity of local institutions.

**Greater attention and resources will be allocated to strengthening the
program development and management capacity of USAID\'s food aid
partners: Private Voluntary Organizations, the World Food Program, and
local non-governmental organizations.**

5\. The growing number of complex emergencies, which frequently include
emergency feeding as a major relief component, have created pressure on
food aid development budgets. USAID is committed to the policy position
that sustainable development, including food security as a high
priority, is essential in the long run to preventing these complex
emergencies\--or at least mitigating their human impact.

USAID is also committed to responding effectively to emergencies.
Reconciling these two positions in the current budgetary environment is
very difficult. Certainly more effective coordination and wider
burdensharing among donors for emergencies is part of the answer. Better
planning for complex emergencies, which can extend for many years is
also important. In addition, the Executive Branch and Congress need to
develop new mechanisms to provide necessary food aid to cope with
sudden-onset emergencies, of which Rwanda is a recent example. **Greater
flexibility needs to be developed so that necessary resources are
available to respond to emergencies without draining away food aid
planned for development programs.**

6\. Food aid provides the largest share of resources allocated to
emergencies. In the past it has played an important role in the relief
to development continuum. For example, in the 1992 drought in Southern
Africa, it was programmed to utilize normal commercial channels as well
as targeted feeding programs to reach hungry people in their villages,
without resort to refugee camps. Local currency was used to provide
necessary inputs to encourage an early return to normal agriculture.

Equally important, food aid development programs often focus at the
grass-roots level, helping to build the food security resilience of the
poorest families. At this level it is possible to support individual
coping strategies for short- and long-term food security. When drought
or civil strife comes, families that have prepared are better able to
weather the crisis.

**Greater priority will be given to the relief to development continuum.
Food insecure countries must be prepared to cope with recurring drought
and even with political conflict. Equally important, relief programs
must ensure families are able to return as quickly as possible to
productive lives.**

[^1]:     ^?^ The \"food gap\" is the difference between needs and
    domestic consumption and imports. Estimate noted in \"Sustainable
    Agriculture for a Food Secure World\", Conway Panel, CGIAR Oversight
    Committee.

[^2]:     ^?^ Attachment I provides FAO\'s index.

[^3]:     ^?^ See Attachment II for a breakdown of agricultural growth
    rates needed to: 1) maintain status quo consumption; and 2) meet
    nutritional requirements.

[^4]:     ^?^ \"Complex disasters\" are emergencies which combine
    natural disasters (such as famine, earthquake, flooding) with
    ongoing civil conflict. As a result, complex disasters tend to be
    less amenable to resolution or amelioration, and consequently
    involve donor assistance over longer periods of time.

[^5]:     ^?^ Conway Panel, [Ibid.]{.underline}

[^6]:     ^?^ Section 402(s) of P.L. 480 defines food security as
    \"access by all people at all times to sufficient food and nutrition
    for a healthy and productive life.\"