United States General Accounting Office

GAO Report to Congressional Committees

March 1995 FOREIGN AID

Actions Taken to

Improve Food Aid

Management

GAO/NSIAD-95-74

GAO United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

National Security and

International Affairs Division

B-259723 

March 23, 1995

The Honorable Richard G. Lugar

Chairman

The Honorable Patrick J. Leahy

Ranking Minority Member

Committee on Agriculture,

 Nutrition, and Forestry

United States Senate

The Honorable Pat Roberts

Chairman

The Honorable E (Kika) de la Garza

Ranking Minority Member

Committee on Agriculture

House of Representatives

The Honorable Benjamin A. Gilman

Chairman

The Honorable Lee H. Hamilton

Ranking Minority Member

Committee on International Relations

House of Representatives

The 1990 Agricultural Development and Trade Act (P.L. 101-624) requires

us to periodically review food assistance programs authorized under

titles II and III of the act. In July 1993, we issued a comprehensive report

that made 13 recommendations to the Administrator of the U.S. Agency for

International Development (USAID) to improve the management of food aid

programs.1

 As agreed with your offices, this report focuses on actions

USAID has taken to implement the recommendations made in that report.

Background For over 4 decades the United States has provided agricultural commodity

assistance, or food aid, to foreign countries to combat hunger and

malnutrition, encourage development, and promote U.S. foreign policy

goals. The primary legal framework for U.S. food aid is provided under the

Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act of 1954, as amended,

commonly known as Public Law 480.

1

Food Aid: Management Improvements Are Needed to Achieve Program Objectives

(GAO/NSIAD-93-168, July 23, 1993).

Page 1 GAO/NSIAD-95-74 Foreign Aid
B-259723 

The 1990 Agricultural Development and Trade Act made several major

changes in the U.S. food aid program. One of the changes involved

providing agricultural commodities to developing countries to enhance

their “food security”, that is, access by all people at all times to sufficient

food and nutrition for a healthy and productive life.” Title II (Emergency

and Private Assistance Programs) of the act authorizes food donations in

response to famines and other emergencies and food aid grants to private

voluntary organizations (PVO) and cooperatives, intergovernmental

organizations, and multilateral institutions for nonemergency uses.2

 The

act also restructured the program to eliminate government-to-government

programs, except those for emergencies. In addition, the act provided for

nonemergency commodity assistance to be distributed through PVOs,

cooperatives, and intergovernmental organizations. Title II commodities

may be distributed to needy people, sold, exchanged, or distributed by

other appropriate methods.

Title III (Food for Development) of the act is intended to support

economic development and, if commodities are sold, to use the resulting

local currency revenues for development purposes. Title III provides

multiyear, government-to-government grants to least developed countries.

The title III legislation gives USAID considerable flexibility in designing food

aid programs that complement its overall country development activities.

USAID’s Office of Food for Peace is responsible for managing title II

programs, which are implemented overseas by PVOs, recipient government

agencies, or intergovernmental organizations.3 USAID’s regional bureaus are

responsible for title III programs, and overseas missions negotiate

agreements with recipient countries and monitor the implementation of

both titles II and III programs in the host countries.

In fiscal year 1994, title II commodities went to 55 countries, and title III

commodities went to 13 countries. The most commonly provided

commodities were wheat and wheat flour, corn, corn-soya blend, rice, and

vegetable oil, but non-food commodities, such as tallow, were also

provided. In fiscal year 1994, USAID distributed over 2 million metric tons of

agricultural commodities under title II and over 1 million metric tons

under title III. USAID’s fiscal year 1994 pledge to the World Food Program

2

USAID’s regulations exempt the World Food Program from regulations governing transfers of food to

other cooperating sponsors and from USAID oversight. This program was the subject of a separate

report, Foreign Assistance: Inadequate Accountability for U.S. Donations to the World Food Program

(GAO/NSIAD-94-29, Jan. 28, 1994).

3

In USAID’s organizational structure, the Food for Peace Office is under the Bureau for Humanitarian

Response.

Page 2 GAO/NSIAD-95-74 Foreign Aid
B-259723 

was approximately 475,000 metric tons, or about 22 percent of the title II

commodities, for activities in 33 countries.

Results in Brief In our July 1993 report, we identified a number of problems involving

USAID’s compliance with the 1990 Agricultural Development and Trade Act

and its management of Public Law 480 titles II and III food aid programs.

These problems included USAID’s lack of criteria and guidance for

implementing food aid programs, USAID’s inability to demonstrate the

impact of food aid on food security, and USAID’s failure to ensure

accountability for food aid resources. We made a number of

recommendations to the USAID Administrator. In particular, we

recommended that USAID establish criteria and guidance on how food aid

should be programmed, managed, and accounted for; assess the efficiency

of food aid for achieving food security; and evaluate the impact of food aid

on food security.

USAID has fully or partially implemented 11 of the 13 recommendations

made in our 1993 report. One of the major impediments to greater USAID

action on these recommendations has been the absence of a clear policy

as to how titles II and III food aid is to be used to enhance food security,

which was one of our major recommendations and which had not been

implemented until February 1995. USAID has not implemented two of the

recommendations. These recommendations focused on (1) establishing

criteria as to when U.S. procurement and shipping regulations could be

waived and (2) reporting to Congress on the efficiency of food aid for

achieving food security. Table 1 summarizes the status of USAID’s

implementation of the recommendations.

Page 3 GAO/NSIAD-95-74 Foreign Aid
B-259723 

Table 1: Summary of USAID’s

Implementation of Recommendations

Recommendation Status

Prior report

page numbers

Current report

page number

1 Definition and procedures for

declaring an emergency

PI 18-19, 26, 27 8

2 Criteria to bypass procurement

and shipping regulations

NI 19-20, 26, 27 8

3 Guidance on how food aid

programs enhance food security

FI 28-29, 35 9

4 Methodologies, indicators, and

data to evaluate impact

PI 32-36 10

5 Determining and reporting on the

efficiency of food aid

NI 32-36 11

6 Operational guidance for food aid

programs

PI 37-38, 45-46 12

7 Local currency guidance for loan

reflows

FI 37-38, 45 12

8 Adequate and properly trained

staff

PI 38-39, 45 13

9 Complete and accurate 

title II records

PI 39-40, 45 14

10 Accountability for monitoring

programs and verifying reports

PI 40-42, 45 14

11 Local currency for indigenous

nongovernmental organizations

PI 43, 45 15

12 Review of title II proposals within

45 days

PI 43-46 15

13 Submission of commodity

requests within 15 days

FI 43-46 16

Note: FI, fully implemented; PI, partially implemented; NI, not implemented.

Appendix I provides more detailed information about the extent of USAID’s

efforts to implement these recommendations.

Agency Comments In its comments on a draft of this report, USAID pointed out that, in four

cases, it differed with our characterization of its implementation of the

recommendations. In each of these cases, USAID provided additional details

on actions taken and expressed the opinion that it had done enough to be

considered at a higher level of implementation. We incorporated the

additional details into the report where appropriate. In two cases, the

additional information was sufficient to persuade us to upgrade our

characterization of the status of the recommendation’s implementation.

Page 4 GAO/NSIAD-95-74 Foreign Aid
B-259723 

USAID’s comments appear in their entirety in appendix III, along with our

evaluation.

Scope and

Methodology

We reviewed relevant USAID policy and operational guidance; records and

documentation from USAID and PVOs, including proposals and approval

schedules; and evaluations of food aid projects. We interviewed USAID

officials in the Bureau for Humanitarian Response, Office of Food for

Peace, regional bureaus, and other relevant USAID organizations and

representatives from several PVOs. We did not verify the accuracy of

commodity shipment data USAID provided.

In determining the status of a recommendation, we considered factors

such as resources expended, formal guidance issued, and research and

policy development efforts made. This enabled us to characterize each

recommendation as fully implemented, partially implemented, or not

implemented.

We conducted our review from August to December 1994 in accordance

with generally accepted government auditing standards.

We are sending copies of this report to the Administrator, USAID; the

Director, Office of Management and Budget; the Secretary of State, and

other interested congressional committees. We will also make copies

available to others on request.

If you or your staff have any questions concerning this report, I can be

reached on (202) 512-4128. Major contributors to this report were 

Ronald A. Kushner; George A. Taylor, Jr.; Elizabeth Nyang; and 

Margaret Gaddy Morgan.

Joseph E. Kelley

Director-in-Charge

International Affairs Issues

Page 5 GAO/NSIAD-95-74 Foreign Aid
Contents

Letter 1

Appendix I 

Status of USAID’s

Implementation of

Recommendations

8

Appendix II 

Countries With Titles

II and III Food Aid

Programs in Fiscal

Year 1994

17

Appendix III 

Comments From the

U.S. Agency for

International

Development

20

Tables Table 1: Summary of USAID’s Implementation of

Recommendations

4

Table II.1: Title II Programs Worldwide for Fiscal Year 1994 17

Table II.2: Title III Programs Worldwide for Fiscal Year 1994 19

Abbreviations

FFP Office of Food for Peace

PVO private voluntary organization

USAID U.S. Agency for International Development

Page 6 GAO/NSIAD-95-74 Foreign Aid
Page 7 GAO/NSIAD-95-74 Foreign Aid
Appendix I 

Status of USAID’s Implementation of

Recommendations

Recommendation

Number 1

Definition and Procedures for Declaring When a Food Deficit

Becomes an Emergency

The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) Administrator

should develop a working definition and procedures for declaring when a

food deficit constitutes an emergency under title II.

Status: Partially implemented.

USAID has clarified some of its operational guidance regarding the

declaration of emergencies. Specifically, USAID has identified specific

officials who are authorized to determine that emergency assistance is

needed and/or warranted; identified organizations and entities that may

request food for emergency assistance; and stated that USAID missions may

propose emergency programs before the required receipt of a formal

request. However, USAID has not defined the specific criteria to be used by

officials and organizations for determining when an ongoing food deficit is

no longer considered to be an emergency.

Under title II, which encompasses both emergency and nonemergency

programs, USAID gives priority to emergency programs and allocates

commodities to emergency programs first. Under this prioritization

system, nonemergency programs do not compete for resources equally

with emergency programs. Some emergency programs have evolved into

sustained feeding programs that include few, if any, developmental

aspects. For example, USAID has been providing title II emergency food aid

for at least 5 years in six locations around the world.

Recommendation

Number 2

Adherence to General Procurement and Shipping Regulations to

Respond Quickly to Emergencies

The USAID Administrator should develop criteria for exercising the

discretionary authority to make procurements and shipments to respond

quickly to food emergencies without adhering to general procurement and

shipping regulations.

Status: Not implemented.

The USAID Administrator has not developed criteria for exercising the

discretionary authority to make procurements and shipments to respond

quickly to food emergencies under title II emergency programs without

Page 8 GAO/NSIAD-95-74 Foreign Aid
Appendix I 

Status of USAID’s Implementation of

Recommendations

adhering to general procurement and shipping regulations. During neither

our previous review nor this follow-up review did we find that USAID had

exercised its discretionary authority. USAID officials told us that they could

adequately expedite procurements and shipments for long-term title II

emergency programs by taking other actions, including “early

programming” of commodities before formal budget approval; borrowing

commodities from local stocks, private voluntary organizations (PVO), or

multilateral organizations; transferring commodities from other title II

programs; and diverting commodities from U.S. sea ports or ships en route

to another title II program.

USAID officials provided us with two reasons why USAID does not use its

discretionary authority. First, the approval process within USAID would be

lengthy, thus defeating the purpose of expediting procurements and

shipments. Second, USAID would offend many major supporters and

constituents of food aid, such as farmers, processors, baggers, and

shippers, if it did not adhere to procurement and shipping regulations.

USAID, however, wants to retain the emergency procurement and shipping

authorities. In the event of a rapid-onset emergency, such as an earthquake

or flood, USAID would procure non-U.S. commodities or ship them on

non-U.S.-flag ships if the agency received an order from the President,

USAID Administrator, or other high-level official with the appropriate

authority.

Recommendation

Number 3

Guidance on How Food Aid Programs Enhance Food Security

To ensure that USAID’s food aid programs emphasize food security, as

required by the 1990 amendments to Public Law 480, the USAID

Administrator should clarify and provide guidance on how titles II and III

food aid programs are to meet the legislation’s food security objective.1

Status: Fully implemented.

On February 27, 1995, USAID issued a food aid and food security policy.

This policy is expected to help clarify and provide guidance on how food

aid can be used to achieve food security. The policy outlines the following

objectives: (1) allocating food aid to countries most in need; (2) enhancing

agricultural productivity and improving household nutrition;

(3) integrating food aid to a greater extent with other USAID resources;

1

U.S. policy, expressed in Public Law 101-624 (Nov. 28, 1990), calls for the United States to use its

abundant agricultural productivity to promote U.S. foreign policy by enhancing the food security of the

developing world.

Page 9 GAO/NSIAD-95-74 Foreign Aid
Appendix I 

Status of USAID’s Implementation of

Recommendations

(4) strengthening USAID’s cooperating partners, such as PVOs and the World

Food Program; (5) ensuring that emergency programs do not drain food

aid away from development programs; and (6) placing greater emphasis on

the “relief to development” continuum. USAID circulated a draft of its policy

to PVOs in September 1994 to solicit their comments.

In addition to issuing written policy, USAID has been involved in several

other activities focusing on developing a food security policy and strategy.

These activities include conferences, retreats, and seminars with USAID

officials, PVOs, legislative staffs, and representatives of other organizations.

USAID has also developed and issued other policy guidance specifically for

titles II and III programs. For example, USAID issued title II guidance for

fiscal year 1995 program proposals submitted by PVOs, which states that

title II programs must address the linkage between their food aid activities

and the food security policy and broad-based sustainable development

strategies of the recipient countries and USAID missions. The guidance also

requires that PVOs discuss and justify in detail the criteria for measuring

program effectiveness in terms of food security. In addition, USAID issued

title III policy guidance, which states that, beginning in fiscal year 1995, all

new title III programs will be concentrated in countries with the greatest

need and that the programs will focus on policy reforms and activities

directly affecting or improving food production and consumption,

including nutrition.

Recommendation

Number 4

Monitoring and Evaluating Impact; Collecting Data for Evaluations

To ensure that USAID’s food aid programs emphasize food security, as

required by the 1990 amendments to Public Law 480, the USAID

Administrator should develop and systematically apply methodologies and

performance indicators to monitor and evaluate the impacts of food aid

programs on food security and direct that missions and PVOs collect data

necessary for such evaluations.

Status: Partially implemented.

USAID is currently in the process of developing methodologies and

performance indicators for monitoring and evaluating impact. The Office

of Food for Peace (FFP) has developed and established an overall

“management for results” approach that changed its program focus from

measuring program outputs to measuring impacts. FFP has also initiated

Page 10 GAO/NSIAD-95-74 Foreign Aid
Appendix I 

Status of USAID’s Implementation of

Recommendations

efforts with USAID’s Center for Development Information and Evaluation

and other organizations to assist it in more clearly linking FFP’s program

goals and objectives to eventual outcomes and impacts. In addition, FFP

officials have sponsored and participated in numerous group meetings,

such as workshops, conferences, and seminars, that focused on the

importance of demonstrating impact. In many of these meetings, USAID

worked closely with PVO and other officials. According to some USAID

officials, the lack of an overall food security policy hampered USAID’s

efforts to develop and apply methodologies and indicators.

USAID officials also told us that USAID missions utilize USAID’s Performance

Information and Strategic Management System to assist in identifying

objectives and indicators for measuring progress. The officials

acknowledged that the system has been somewhat useful but that it does

not provide adequate guidance to missions and PVOs because it does not

include specific food aid methodologies and performance indicators for

monitoring and evaluating the impact of food programs. The officials told

us that they were currently working toward integrating food-related

impact indicators into the system. USAID officials acknowledged that

measuring impact will not be easy but that measuring it will not be

possible without relevant data.

For fiscal year 1994 title III program proposals, USAID required that the

programs include a standardized monitoring and evaluation system to

determine the programs’ impact on food security. However, USAID did not

include detailed procedures describing the specific types of data to be

collected or the methodology for processing the data to determine impact.

Several PVO officials told us that, due to the lack of specific and clear

guidance, they were uncertain whether their current methodologies and

performance indicators would satisfactorily demonstrate impact.

Recommendation

Number 5

Reporting to Congress on the Efficiency of Food Aid

To ensure that USAID’s food aid programs emphasize food security, as

required by the 1990 amendments to Public Law 480, the USAID

Administrator should report to Congress on whether food aid is the most

efficient means for addressing food security.

Status: Not implemented.

Page 11 GAO/NSIAD-95-74 Foreign Aid
Appendix I 

Status of USAID’s Implementation of

Recommendations

To date, USAID has not determined and reported to Congress on whether

food aid is the most efficient means for addressing food security. FFP

officials told us that FFP was planning a project to analyze the efficiency of

food aid. The officials also stated that an efficiency analysis would be

included in all future FFP reviews of food aid program proposals that

include a monetization component.

Recommendation

Number 6

Issuance of Complete Operational Guidance

The USAID Administrator should issue complete operational guidance for

titles II and III food aid programs that reflect the 1990 legislative changes

to Public Law 480.

Status: Partially implemented.

USAID developed and issued guidance that incorporates the legislation’s

emphasis on food security into its operational procedures. In November

1994, USAID issued interim guidance in its revised Handbook 9.2

 The revised

handbook includes a broad discussion of food aid as it relates to food

security, as mandated in the 1990 legislation. USAID officials acknowledged,

however, that USAID still needed more specific guidance in several areas,

including methodologies and performance indicators for measuring and

assessing the impact of food aid on food security. The officials told us that

developing guidance without a formal food aid and food security policy

has been difficult. USAID, in cooperation with PVOs, is currently in the

process of trying to formulate policies and determine the types of data

needed to provide a basis for its operational guidance.

Recommendation

Number 7

Issuance of Local Currency Guidance for Loan Reflows

The USAID Administrator should clarify the July 1991 local currency

monitoring guidance to specify whether missions are required to monitor

only the initial use of local currency or whether they are also required to

monitor subsequent uses when loan funds are repaid and lent again.

2

USAID officials told us that USAID was phasing out its entire series of printed handbooks because

they are cumbersome and hard to use and become outdated soon after being issued. USAID plans to

replace the handbooks with a series of directives disseminated to USAID missions on compact discs

and accessible by mission staff on compact disk—Read Only Memory (also known as CD-ROM). The

officials estimated that USAID could begin introducing new procedures for implementing the

directives as early as October 1995.

Page 12 GAO/NSIAD-95-74 Foreign Aid
Appendix I 

Status of USAID’s Implementation of

Recommendations

Status: Fully implemented.

In December 1994, USAID issued guidance clarifying local currency

monitoring. The guidance states that (1) the monitoring responsibilities of

USAID missions must be identified in the agreement; (2) USAID missions are

responsible for monitoring projects involving local currency through the

completion date of the project agreement; and (3) at a minimum, USAID

missions must monitor the first use of local currency, and continued

monitoring of reflows depends on the development objectives of the

activity.

Recommendation

Number 8

Ensurance of an Adequate and Properly Trained Staff

As part of the integrated workforce management system, the USAID

Administrator should ensure that the agency has an adequate and properly

trained staff to manage food aid programs.

Status: Partially implemented.

FFP has taken several actions to train USAID and PVO staff involved in food

aid programs, but all needs have not been met. FFP designed and

conducted an orientation course for staff who have little or no working

knowledge of FFP’s mission and procedures. FFP also conducted a 1-week

food aid training session in September 1993 that was attended by USAID

headquarters and field staff and PVO staff involved in food aid programs.

FFP officials told us they plan to continue conducting at least two staff

training sessions annually. However, as of December 1994, only 20 of 54

USAID staff involved in managing food aid programs had received Food for

Peace Officer training.

FFP has also hired two officers with food-related experience to fill

vacancies created through attrition. FFP officials told us that FFP was also

in the process of recruiting another trained specialist for its staff.

However, as of December 1994, 6 of FFP’s 25 direct-hire professional staff

positions were vacant.

Within USAID, the Bureau for Management is responsible for training

activities. However, Bureau for Management officials told us in October

1994 that funding for FFP training had not been included in their budget for

several years because of competing demands from other USAID

components. In January 1995, the Bureau for Management agreed to

Page 13 GAO/NSIAD-95-74 Foreign Aid
Appendix I 

Status of USAID’s Implementation of

Recommendations

manage and finance several training courses for Food for Peace staff in

fiscal year 1995.

Recommendation

Number 9

Maintenance of Title II Records

The USAID Administrator should direct FFP to develop a system to maintain

complete and accurate records to document its title II program oversight

activities.

Status: Partially implemented.

FFP designed a new filing system to maintain title II records. In this system,

information for title II programs is to be organized by country and

functional category and maintained in one central location. FFP officials

told us that the new system was designed to provide a uniform method for

staff to easily identify and track title II program information. In addition,

FFP is planning to include an automated index for the filing system. FFP

officials said they are in the process of instituting the new system in all

title II country program files. For the 20 fiscal year 1994 title II emergency

programs, however, only 1 country file had been organized under the

system as of November 1994. During our review, we examined the one

reorganized title II emergency program file and found that it was properly

organized and contained adequate documentation for FFP to conduct its

oversight activities.

Recommendation

Number 10

Accountability for Monitoring Food Aid Programs and Verifying PVO

and Recipient Government Reports

The USAID Administrator should hold USAID’s principal officers at overseas

missions accountable for ensuring that food programs are adequately

monitored and reports for PVOs and recipient governments are verified or

at least spot-checked.

Status: Partially implemented.

USAID has continually maintained that its existing mission management

structure makes it clear that principal officers at overseas missions are

accountable for ensuring that food programs are adequately monitored

and reports for PVOs and recipient governments are verified or at least

spot-checked. USAID is in the process of undertaking actions that should

Page 14 GAO/NSIAD-95-74 Foreign Aid
Appendix I 

Status of USAID’s Implementation of

Recommendations

enhance principal officers’ accountability, including revising its

performance evaluations to include an assessment factor on food security

and linking the allocation of food aid resources more closely with

missions’ food security objectives. We believe that the actions planned, if

fully implemented, will address our concerns.

Recommendation

Number 11

Title III Provision of Local Currency to Indigenous

Nongovernmental Organizations

The USAID Administrator should develop systems to ensure compliance

with Public Law 480 requirements that minimum allocations of 

title III-generated local currency are provided to indigenous

nongovernmental organizations.

Status: Partially implemented.

In November 1994, USAID’s Bureau for Humanitarian Response issued

guidance requiring USAID missions to report annually on certain aspects of

local currency, including the percent of local currency used to support

indigenous nongovernmental organizations, the percent of local currency

used to support U.S. PVOs, and the types of projects supported with title III

local currency. To date, however, USAID has not systematically collected

data or reported on local currency allocations to indigenous

nongovernmental organizations.

Recommendation

Number 12

Timely Review of Title II Proposals

The USAID Administrator should develop systems to ensure compliance

with Public Law 480 requirements that title II proposals are reviewed and

approved or denied within the required time frame.

Status: Partially implemented.

In 1993, FFP developed and established an automated system to identify the

number of days from the date USAID receives a title II nonemergency

program proposal until the date the proposal is either approved or denied.

However, we reviewed the system in November 1994 and found that, for

all fiscal year 1995 title II program proposals received by FFP, none were

approved or denied within 45 days, as required.

Page 15 GAO/NSIAD-95-74 Foreign Aid
Appendix I 

Status of USAID’s Implementation of

Recommendations

Recommendation

Number 13

Timely Submission of Title II Commodity Requests to the

Department of Agriculture

The USAID Administrator should develop systems to ensure compliance

with Public Law 480 requirements that mission commodity requests are

submitted to the Department of Agriculture on time.

Status: Fully implemented.

FFP developed and established an automated system to identify the number

of days from the date USAID receives a title II nonemergency commodity

request until the date the commodity request is submitted to the

Department of Agriculture. The system is well documented and includes

written instructions and documentation for administering it. We reviewed

the system and found that, for all programs approved during the 1-year

period of June 1993 through June 1994, all commodity requests had been

submitted to the Department of Agriculture within 15 days, as required.

Page 16 GAO/NSIAD-95-74 Foreign Aid
Appendix II 

Countries With Titles II and III Food Aid

Programs in Fiscal Year 1994

This appendix lists the countries worldwide with titles II and III food aid

programs in fiscal year 1994. Table II.1 shows title II programs, and table

II.2 shows title III programs.

Table II.1: Title II Programs Worldwide

for Fiscal Year 1994

Region/country

Commodities

(in metric tons)

Valuea

(in thousands)

Africa

Angola 71,320 $45,452.5

Benin 5,020 2,189.8

Botswana 6,000 1,698.0

Burkina Faso 18,190 7,768.5

Burundi 48,130 40,302.1

Cape Verde Islands 18,760 3,455.9

Central African Republic 200 85.6

Chad 6,760 3,274.9

Eritrea 65,400 24,861.7

Ethiopia 177,590 67,100.8

Gambia 3,360 1,925.2

Ghana 34,820 8,362.3

Guinea Bissau 1,060 571.3

Kenya 45,170 20,326.7

Lesotho 7,900 3,381.2

Liberia 98,160 56,396.5

Madagascar 6,920 3,821.2

Malawi 25,000 8,775.0

Mali 600 219.4

Mauritania 2,610 1,334.0

Mozambique 50,320 15,966.1

Niger 12,020 3,978.6

Rwanda 57,970 44,235.9

Sao Tome 570 204.1

Sierra Leone 21,400 10,586.0

Somalia 24,000 16,807.6

Sudan 135,480 66,330.4

Togo 7,720 2,347.8

Uganda 2,000 2,113.8

Subtotal 954,450 $463,872.9

Asia

Bangladesh 110,990 $26,074.5

(continued)

Page 17 GAO/NSIAD-95-74 Foreign Aid
Appendix II 

Countries With Titles II and III Food Aid

Programs in Fiscal Year 1994

Region/country

Commodities

(in metric tons)

Valuea

(in thousands)

India 244,333 117,672.6

Indonesia 34,840 9,061.1

Pakistan 30,800 7,108.0

Philippines 51,393 15,706.2

Sri Lanka 2,060 432.6

Subtotal 474,416 $176,055.0

Europe

Bosnia-Herzegovina 187,900 $86,271.0

Croatia 16,250 8,367.3

Slovenia 2,440 1,023.3

Subtotal 206,590 $95,661.6

Latin America and the Caribbean

Bolivia 49,783 $20,722.7

Costa Rica 1,525 988.7

Dominican Republic 7,060 4,847.9

Ecuador 14,390 3,058.4

Guatemala 40,225 14,732.8

Guyana 1,850 732.1

Haiti 57,650 25,305.4

Honduras 46,070 12,898.8

Mexico 26,000 5,378.7

Nicaragua 6,020 3,062.4

Panama 150 138.8

Peru 174,120 80,360.1

Subtotal 424,843 $172,226.8

Near East

Egypt 27,560 $9,646.7

Gaza 1,500 792.7

Jordan 400 242.0

Morocco 620 375.1

West Bank 1,770 918.4

Subtotal 31,850 $11,974.9

Total 2,092,149 $919,791.2

Note: Figures include title II contributions to the World Food Program.

aDollar values include commodity and freight.

Source: USAID.

Page 18 GAO/NSIAD-95-74 Foreign Aid
Appendix II 

Countries With Titles II and III Food Aid

Programs in Fiscal Year 1994

Table II.2: Title III Programs Worldwide

for Fiscal Year 1994

Region/country

Commodities

(in metric tons)

Valuea

(in thousands)

Africa

Ethiopia 210,085.8 $44,699.8

Ghana 22,373.0 8,299.9

Guinea 25,004.0 9,000.0

Mozambique 70,180.0 14,999.9

Uganda 15,107.1 9,350.0

Subtotal 342,749.9 $86,349.6

Asia

Bangladesh 184,171.0 $44,815.8

Sri Lanka 95,000.0 24,999.3

Subtotal 279,171.0 $69,815.1

Latin America and the Caribbean

Bolivia 100,000.0 $14,892.0

Guyana 29,140.0 6,000.0

Haiti 35,300.0 15,000.0

Honduras 59,757.0 11,000.0

Nicaragua 44,916.9 13,026.1

Peru 130,548.0 23,000.0

Subtotal 399,661.9 $82,918.1

Total 1,021,582.8 $239,082.8

aDollar values include commodity and freight.

Source: USAID.

Page 19 GAO/NSIAD-95-74 Foreign Aid
Appendix III 

Comments From the U.S. Agency for

International Development

Note: GAO comments

supplementing those in the

report text appear at the

end of this appendix.

Page 20 GAO/NSIAD-95-74 Foreign Aid
Appendix III 

Comments From the U.S. Agency for

International Development

See comment 1.

Page 21 GAO/NSIAD-95-74 Foreign Aid
Appendix III 

Comments From the U.S. Agency for

International Development

Page 22 GAO/NSIAD-95-74 Foreign Aid
Appendix III 

Comments From the U.S. Agency for

International Development

See comment 2.

Page 23 GAO/NSIAD-95-74 Foreign Aid
Appendix III 

Comments From the U.S. Agency for

International Development

Page 24 GAO/NSIAD-95-74 Foreign Aid
Appendix III 

Comments From the U.S. Agency for

International Development

See comment 3.

See comment 4.

Page 25 GAO/NSIAD-95-74 Foreign Aid
Appendix III 

Comments From the U.S. Agency for

International Development

Page 26 GAO/NSIAD-95-74 Foreign Aid
Appendix III 

Comments From the U.S. Agency for

International Development

See comment 5.

Page 27 GAO/NSIAD-95-74 Foreign Aid
Appendix III 

Comments From the U.S. Agency for

International Development

Page 28 GAO/NSIAD-95-74 Foreign Aid
Appendix III 

Comments From the U.S. Agency for

International Development

See comment 6.

Page 29 GAO/NSIAD-95-74 Foreign Aid
Appendix III 

Comments From the U.S. Agency for

International Development

See comment 1.

Page 30 GAO/NSIAD-95-74 Foreign Aid
Appendix III 

Comments From the U.S. Agency for

International Development

See comment 1.

Page 31 GAO/NSIAD-95-74 Foreign Aid
Appendix III 

Comments From the U.S. Agency for

International Development

See comment 7.

Page 32 GAO/NSIAD-95-74 Foreign Aid
Appendix III 

Comments From the U.S. Agency for

International Development

See comment 8.

Page 33 GAO/NSIAD-95-74 Foreign Aid
Appendix III 

Comments From the U.S. Agency for

International Development

See comment 9.

Page 34 GAO/NSIAD-95-74 Foreign Aid
Appendix III 

Comments From the U.S. Agency for

International Development

The following are GAO’s comments on USAID’s letter dated February 3, 1995.

GAO Comments 1. The report text has been modified to reflect this information.

2. Although the funding level for title II development programs has

remained steady, the overall funding level for food aid-supported

development programs has declined because funds programmed for 

title III and section 416(b) programs have been reprogrammed for

emergencies.

3. We continue to believe that our July 1993 recommendation remains

valid because such criteria could function as a decision-making tool and

identify appropriate emergency responses to be made based on the nature

and severity of the situation. Under normal circumstances, commodity

procurement and shipping can take several months, which could be too

late to meet the immediate needs of emergency victims. For example, as

we reported in 1992, PVO officials in Angola and Mozambique reported that

food shipments were delayed to the detriment of some programs. In one of

these cases, the food aid did not arrive until 6 months to 1 year after the

request.1

 Additionally, despite USAID’s beliefs that the approval process

would not be a burden and that outside entities such as farmers and

shippers would not be offended, the FFP officials involved in the day-to-day

management of food aid programs believe that would be the case if the

normal procurement procedures were bypassed and non-U.S. commodities

and non-U.S.-flag carriers were used.

4. On February 27, 1995, USAID issued a food aid and food security policy.

The status of the recommendation was upgraded to fully implemented.

5. As of December 1994, we had found no evidence that USAID had made

progress toward determining the efficiency of food aid. Thus, we maintain

our characterization of the recommendation as not implemented.

6. We did not change our characterization of this recommendation to

fully implemented because a number of persons responsible for

implementing food aid programs, namely PVO officials, told us that current

USAID guidance found in both the revised Handbook 9 and the draft Food

Aid and Food Security Policy paper is too broad and that more details

regarding the specific methodologies and indicators to be used for

1

Foreign Disaster Assistance: AID Has Been Responsive but Improvements Can Be Made

(GAO/NSIAD-93-21, Oct. 26, 1992).

Page 35 GAO/NSIAD-95-74 Foreign Aid
Appendix III 

Comments From the U.S. Agency for

International Development

measuring the impact of food aid on food security have to be identified

either with additional guidance or addressed in current guidance.

7. Based on the information USAID provided, we upgraded the status of

the recommendation to partially implemented. However, we believe that

actions taken to date do not represent full implementation.

8. PVOs should not be expected to begin implementing programs based

on informal notification from USAID. USAID does not seem to recognize that

an informal approval presents an awkward situation for a PVO because it

would not be prudent for a PVO to program resources and/or initiate

program activities without formal approval from USAID.

9. The supporting documentation USAID referred to is the basis for our

conclusion that USAID has not been approving or denying program

proposals within 45 days, as required.

(711096) Page 36 GAO/NSIAD-95-74 Foreign Aid
Ordering Information

The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free.

Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the

following address, accompanied by a check or money order

made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when

necessary. Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a

single address are discounted 25 percent.

Orders by mail:

U.S. General Accounting Office

P.O. Box 6015

Gaithersburg, MD 20884-6015

or visit:

Room 1100

700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)

U.S. General Accounting Office

Washington, DC

Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000 

or by using fax number (301) 258-4066, or TDD (301) 413-0006.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and

testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any

list from the past 30 days, please call (301) 258-4097 using a

touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on

how to obtain these lists.

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested

Bulk Mail

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. G100
GAO/NSIAD-95-74 Foreign Aid