GAO 

United States Government Accountability Office

Report to Congressional Committees

INTERNATIONAL 

FOOD ASSISTANCE 

Key Issues for 

Congressional 

Oversight 

September 2009 

GAO-09-977SP 
Page i GAO-09-977SP 

Contents 

Letter 1

Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 23 

Appendix II GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments 26 

Related GAO Products 27 

Figures 

Figure 1: Trends in U.S. Food Aid, Fiscal Years 2001 to 2008 5 

Figure 2: Cost Comparison of WFP Local Procurement and U.S. Inkind Food Aid by Region, 2001 to 2008, and Average of 

Median Delivery Times for 10 Recipient Countries in SubSaharan Africa, 2004 to 2008 6 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain 

copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be 

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately. 

 International Food Assistance 
United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548 

 

September 30, 2009 

Congressional Committees 

The number of individuals experiencing hunger has grown to more than 1 

billion worldwide in 2009, up from a record 963 million in 2008, according 

to the United Nations (UN) Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). 

FAO attributes this upsurge in hunger to the global economic crisis, which 

followed rising food and fuel prices from 2006 to 2008. However, even 

before these crises, the number of undernourished1

 people had been 

increasing annually in sub-Saharan Africa—where some of the world’s 

food needs are greatest—underscoring the need to improve international 

food assistance. 

International food assistance includes both emergency food aid and longterm food security programs. Due to rising food prices, increasing 

conflicts, poverty, and natural disasters, in 2007, a record 47 countries—27 

located in Africa—faced food crises requiring emergency assistance, 

according to FAO.2

 To address these emergencies, countries provide food 

aid as part of a humanitarian response to address acute hunger through 

either in-kind donations of food or cash donations. In-kind food aid is food 

procured and delivered to vulnerable populations, while cash donations 

are given to implementing organizations, such as the UN World Food 

Program (WFP), to procure food in local and regional markets, also 

referred to as local and regional procurement (LRP). International food 

assistance also includes a development-focused response to address longterm chronic hunger through food security programs.3

 While food aid has 

helped to address the immediate nutritional requirements of some 

rnational Food Assistance

 

1

FAO defines “undernourishment” as the condition of people whose food consumption is 

continuously below a minimum dietary energy requirement for maintaining an acceptable 

minimum body size, living a healthy life, and carrying out light physical activity. While we 

recognize that there are different technical definitions for “chronic undernourishment,” 

“food insecurity,” and “hunger,” we use these terms interchangeably in this report. 

2

The 27 countries in Africa requiring emergency assistance in 2007 represents an 80 percent 

increase in the number of countries requiring such assistance from 1993 to 2000, or 15 

countries. 

3

According to FAO, food security occurs 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. 

Page 1 GAO-09-977SP Inte
 

vulnerable people in the short term, it has not addressed the underlying 

causes of persistent food insecurity. 

As the largest donor to international food assistance, contributing over 

half of all food aid supplies to alleviate hunger and support development, 

the United States plays an important role in responding to emergency food 

aid needs and ensuring global food security. However, GAO has previously 

reported that U.S. agencies’ efforts to reduce global food insecurity4

 in 

sub-Saharan Africa have been fragmented and uncoordinated.5

 For 

decades, the U.S. government has set goals to improve the effectiveness of 

U.S. food aid by reaching global targets for reducing hunger, malnutrition, 

and poverty.6

 Global targets were set at the 1996 World Food Summit and 

reaffirmed in 2000 with the Millennium Development Goals, when the 

United States and more than 180 world leaders pledged to halve the total 

number and proportion of undernourished people reported worldwide 

from the 1990 level by 2015. 

The U.S. administration continues to commit to international food 

assistance by pledging U.S. leadership in developing a new global 

approach to hunger and the Secretary of State has emphasized the 

importance of a comprehensive approach to sustainable systems of 

agriculture in rural areas worldwide. In July 2009, the United States and 

assembled leaders at the Group of 8 (G8) Summit in L’Aquila, Italy, agreed 

to a $20 billion, 3-year commitment to increasing food security.7

 The U.S. 

share of this commitment, or $3.35 billion, includes $1.36 billion for 

agriculture and related programming to establish food security in fiscal 

year 2010, representing more than double the fiscal year 2009 budget 

request level. 

 

4

Food insecurity—the lack of access of all people at all times to sufficient, nutritionally 

adequate, and safe food, without undue risk of losing such access—results in hunger and 

malnutrition, according to FAO. 

5

GAO, International Food Security: Insufficient Efforts by Host Governments and 

Donors Threaten Progress to Halve Hunger in Sub-Saharan Africa by 2015, GAO-08-680 

(Washington, D.C.: May 29, 2008). 

6

U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), U.S. International Food Assistance 

Report (2008). 

7

Members of the G8 are Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, the United 

Kingdom, and the United States. In addition, the European Union is represented within the 

G8. 

Page 2 GAO-09-977SP International Food Assistance
 

Enclosed are a series of papers highlighting key issues to assist in 

developing this new global approach to hunger and to help shape oversight 

agendas to evaluate these efforts. Our objectives were to (1) update U.S. 

agencies’ responses to GAO’s previous international food assistance 

recommendations and (2) identify potential oversight questions for 

congressional consideration. Since 1996, we have published 18 products 

that provided insight, many with recommendations, on international food 

assistance. Specifically, in the past 3 years, we issued four reports with 16 

recommendations to improve the efficiency of U.S. food aid and food 

security programs.8

 Over the course of our work, we also identified 

improvements that were needed, as well as obstacles that affect the 

success of program planning and implementation. As a result, we have 

identified five issues for Congressional consideration to ensure more 

efficient and effective international food assistance: (1) coordination and 

integration, (2) needs assessments and market information, 

(3) transportation and logistics, (4) nutrition and food quality control, and 

(5) monitoring and evaluation. 

• Coordination and integration: In 2007 and 2008, we reported a lack of 

coordination and integration among food aid stakeholders. In 2007, we 

reported that U.S. food aid is funded under four program authorities and 

delivered through six programs administered by the U.S. Agency for 

International Development (USAID) and the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture (USDA). The programs serve a range of objectives, including 

humanitarian goals, economic assistance, foreign policy, market 

development, and international trade.9

 We found inadequate coordination 

between U.S. agencies in tracking and responding to food delivery 

problems. In 2008, we found that interventions designed to mitigate the 

factors that contribute to food insecurity—such as low agricultural 

productivity, limited rural development, government policy disincentives, 

and poor health—have been fragmented and uncoordinated across the 

U.S. government.10 For example, the U.S. Presidential Initiative to End 

 

8

GAO, Foreign Assistance: Various Challenges Impede the Efficiency and Effectiveness of 

U.S. Food Aid, GAO-07-560 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 13, 2007); GAO-08-680; International 

Food Assistance: Local and Regional Procurement Can Enhance the Efficiency of U.S. 

Food Aid, but Challenges May Constrain Its Implementation, GAO-09-570 (Washington, 

D.C.: May 29, 2009); and International Food Assistance: USAID Is Taking Actions to 

Improve Monitoring and Evaluation of Nonemergency Food Aid, but Weaknesses in 

Planning Could Impede Efforts, GAO-09-980 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 28, 2009).

9

GAO-07-560. 

10GAO-08-680. 

Page 3 GAO-09-977SP International Food Assistance
 

Hunger in Africa was limited to USAID programs, although it purported to 

be a governmentwide strategy.11 As a result, we made two 

recommendations to the Administrator of USAID: (1) develop an 

integrated governmentwide U.S. strategy for achieving food security in 

sub-Saharan Africa that includes improved collaboration with host 

governments and other donors and (2) report to Congress annually on the 

progress of implementing this strategy. Although U.S. agencies have met 

regularly to develop a governmentwide food security strategy, the strategy 

has yet to be published and reporting on its status is premature. 

• Needs assessments and market information: Ensuring that food aid 

reaches the most vulnerable populations is critical to enhancing its 

effectiveness. Emergency needs assessments include analyses of various 

factors, among them the effects of the crisis on vulnerable populations, 

strategies used by these populations to deal with the crisis, and its impact 

in terms of food insecurity. They are usually carried out as a joint effort by 

several organizations, including FAO, WFP, and nongovernmental 

organizations (NGO), in response to a request from the government of an 

affected country. In 2007, we found that estimates of emergency food 

needs have differed significantly and, in some cases, have resulted in 

delays in appropriately responding to crises with sufficient food and 

complementary assistance.12 In 2009, we also found that unreliable market 

information and poorly functioning or unintegrated markets can cause 

adverse impacts on local or regional markets where food aid is 

purchased.13 Therefore, we made recommendations to (1) enhance the 

reliability and use of needs assessments, (2) determine ways to provide 

adequate nonfood resources when it will enhance the effectiveness of U.S. 

food aid, and (3) improve market information collected in areas where 

U.S.-funded LRP occurs. Although U.S. agencies have addressed the first 

two recommendations with new guidelines, it is too soon to tell how plans 

to address the third recommendation will be implemented. 

• Transportation and logistics: In 2007, we reported on U.S. food aid and 

highlighted several inefficient logistical planning and transportation 

 

11Other U.S. agencies, such as the Millennium Challenge Corporation and USDA, provide 

substantial assistance that includes efforts intended to address agriculture and food 

security in sub-Saharan Africa, but these efforts are not integrated into the U.S. Presidential 

Initiative to End Hunger in Africa. 

12GAO-07-560. 

13GAO-09-570. 

Page 4 GAO-09-977SP International Food Assistance
 

practices.14 Specifically, we noted that despite growing demand for food 

aid, rising business and transportation costs contributed to a 52 percent 

decline in average tonnage delivered from 2001 to 2006. With the addition 

of 2007 and 2008 data, more recent trends indicate that, despite increases 

in U.S. funding for emergencies, the tonnage of food aid delivered 

continues to decline. From 2006 to 2008, U.S. food aid funding increased 

by nearly 53 percent, while tonnage delivered fell by 5 percent over that 

time period (see fig. 1). 

 over that 

Figure 1: Trends in U.S. Food Aid, Fiscal Years 2001 to 2008 

In 2009, we determined that LRP is generally more cost-effective and 

timely than U.S. in-kind food aid (see fig. 2).15 However, certain legal 

requirements for U.S. food aid, such as the requirement to procure only 

U.S.-grown agricultural commodities and to transport those commodities 

on U.S.-flag vessels, known as “cargo preference,” may constrain U.S. 

agencies’ use of LRP. Therefore, we made the following recommendations: 

(1) improve food aid logistical planning through cost-benefit analysis, 

(2) work with stakeholders to modernize ocean transportation and 

contracting practices, (3) update implementation and reimbursement 

methodologies for transportation of U.S. food aid, and (4) update the 

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

Program funding

(U.S. dollars in millions)

Metric tons of food aid delivered

(in thousands)

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2007 2008

Major emergencies

Afghanistan

and

Southern Africa

Iraq Sudan, 

Ethiopia,

and

Eritrea

2006

Sudan 

and 

Horn of 

Africa

Global 

Food 

Price 

Crisis

Source: GAO analysis of USAID and USDA data.

Tonnage 

Funding

 

14GAO-07-560. 

15GAO-09-570. 

Page 5 GAO-09-977SP International Food Assistance
 

Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between U.S. food assistance 

agencies and the Department of Transportation (DOT) to minimize the 

cost of cargo preference regulations and resolve uncertainties associated 

with the application of cargo preference requirements to regional food 

procurement. Although USAID, USDA, and DOT have made significant 

inroads to improving logistical planning and modernizing ocean 

transportation and contracting practices, DOT has not updated its 

regulations pertaining to cargo preference, and the agencies have not 

signed a comprehensive MOU that addresses our concerns as 

recommended. 

Figure 2: Cost Comparison of WFP Local Procurement and U.S. In-kind Food Aid by 

Region, 2001 to 2008, and Average of Median Delivery Times for 10 Recipient 

Countries in Sub-Saharan Africa, 2004 to 2008 

a

Time elapsed between the purchase order date and the date WFP takes possession of the food in 

the recipient country. Additional time is required for the food to reach intended beneficiaries. 

b

The 10 recipient countries are Burkina Faso, Democratic Republic of Congo, Kenya, Malawi, Mali, 

Sudan, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia, and Zimbabwe. 

0 30 60 90 120 150

Average cost differential 

(percentage by which the cost of 

U.S. in-kind food aid differs from

the cost of local procurement)

International

In-kind donations (international)

Cash donations

Time in days

Regional

Local

Time (in-kind donations)

Time (cash donations)

Time saved (cash donations)

Average median delivery timea

for 10 countries in sub-Saharan Africab

Worldwide 25% more

Sub-Saharan Africa 34% more

Asia 29% more

Latin America 2% less

Source: GAO analysis of USAID and WFP data.

• Nutrition and food quality control:16 In 2007, we reported that although 

U.S. agencies had made efforts to improve the nutritional quality of food 

aid, the appropriate nutritional value of the food and the readiness of U.S. 

agencies to address nutrition-related quality issues remained uncertain.17

We also found that some impediments to improving the nutritional quality 

of U.S. food aid prevented the most nutritious or appropriate food from 

 

16“Food quality” refers to the adherence of the food to product specifications and quality 

standards to ensure food safety and nutritional content. 

17GAO-07-560. 

Page 6 GAO-09-977SP International Food Assistance
 

reaching intended recipients. In 2009, we reported on concerns about the 

quality of food procured in developing countries and adherence to certain 

product specifications.18 As a result, we recommended that USAID and 

USDA (1) establish a coordinated system for tracking and resolving food 

quality complaints; (2) develop an interagency mechanism to update food 

aid specifications and products; and (3) collect evidence on LRP’s 

adherence to quality standards and product specifications. Although 

USAID and USDA have established a commodity quality “feedback loop” 

to resolve food quality complaints and both agencies have commissioned 

studies on food aid specifications, they have not yet initiated plans to 

collect evidence on LRP adherence to quality standards. 

• Monitoring and evaluation: Monitoring and evaluation are critical 

oversight and program management tools that could help ensure that 

strategic objectives and intermediate goals of international food assistance 

programs are met. In 2007, we found that USAID and USDA did not 

sufficiently monitor food aid programs.19 In September 2009, we 

determined that USAID lacks a comprehensive plan for monitoring and 

evaluating nonemergency food aid.20 We also found that while USAID’s 

Office of Food for Peace has initiated an upgrade of its information 

technology system, its plans lack a concept of operations document that 

communicates overall system characteristics. As a result, we 

recommended that USAID and USDA (1) develop an information 

collection system to track monetization transactions21 and (2) improve 

monitoring of food aid to ensure proper management and implementation. 

In addition, we recommended that USAID (3) develop a concept of 

operations document to help reduce the risks associated with upgrading 

the Office of Food for Peace’s information technology system and 

(4) develop an integrated monitoring and evaluation plan that links 

monitoring and evaluation to key USAID goals, establishes a systematic 

process for determining appropriate budget levels and staff resources, 

examines all available funding options, and establishes time frames for 

implementing and evaluating the plan. Although USAID and USDA have 

addressed the first two recommendations by developing an information 

collection system to monitor food aid and monetization transactions, most 

 

18GAO-09-570. 

19GAO-07-560. 

20GAO-09-980. 

21Monetization is the practice of using food aid to generate cash for development projects. 

Page 7 GAO-09-977SP International Food Assistance
 

of USAID’s planned monitoring and evaluation actions are still in progress 

and it is too early to assess their impact. 

The issues discussed in the five enclosures—accompanied by potential 

oversight questions—are based on completed and ongoing GAO work on 

international food assistance. This report also expands on the issues 

discussed on GAO’s transition Web site at 

http://www.gao.gov/media/video/gao-09-294sp. We obtained information 

for this report from agency documents and interviews with agency 

officials in Washington, D.C., including USAID and the Departments of 

Agriculture, State, and Transportation. Appendix I contains additional 

details about our scope and methodology. We conducted our work from 

June 2009 to September 2009. The work on which this report is based was 

conducted in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 

standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to 

obtain sufficient and appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis 

for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe 

that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings 

and conclusions based on our audit objectives. 

USAID and the Departments of Agriculture and Transportation provided 

technical comments on a draft of this report, which have been 

incorporated as appropriate. We are sending copies of this report to the 

congressional committees listed below. In addition, we are sending copies 

of this report to the President and Vice President of the United States, and 

executive branch agencies. The report also is available at no charge on the 

GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov. A list of related GAO products 

appears at the end of this report. 

Page 8 GAO-09-977SP International Food Assistance
 

If you or your staffs have any questions about this report, please contact 

Thomas Melito at (202) 512-9601 or melitot@gao.gov. Contact points for 

our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs can be found on 

the last page of this report. For press inquiries, please contact Chuck 

Young at (202) 512-4800. 

GAO staff who made key contributions are listed in appendix II. 

Jacquelyn L. Williams-Bridgers, 

 Managing Director 

International Affairs and Trade 

Enclosures 

Page 9 GAO-09-977SP International Food Assistance
 

List of committees 

The Honorable Blanche Lambert Lincoln 

Chair 

The Honorable Saxby Chambliss 

Ranking Member 

Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, 

 and Forestry 

United States Senate 

The Honorable John F. Kerry 

Chair 

The Honorable Richard G. Lugar 

Ranking Member 

Committee on Foreign Relations 

United States Senate 

The Honorable Herb Kohl 

Chair 

The Honorable Sam Brownback 

Ranking Member 

Subcommittee on Agriculture, 

 Rural Development, 

FDA and Related Agencies 

Committee on Appropriations 

United States Senate 

The Honorable Patrick J. Leahy 

Chair 

The Honorable Judd Gregg 

Ranking Member 

Subcommittee on State, Foreign Operations 

 and Related Programs 

Committee on Appropriations 

United States Senate 

The Honorable Collin C. Peterson 

Chair 

The Honorable Frank D. Lucas 

Ranking Member 

Committee on Agriculture 

House of Representatives 

Page 10 GAO-09-977SP International Food Assistance
 

The Honorable Howard L. Berman 

Chair 

The Honorable Ileana Ros-Lehtinen 

Ranking Member 

Committee on Foreign Affairs 

House of Representatives 

The Honorable Rosa DeLauro 

Chair 

The Honorable Jack Kingston 

Ranking Member 

Subcommittee on Agriculture, 

 Rural Development, FDA and Related Agencies 

Committee on Appropriations 

House of Representatives 

The Honorable Nita M. Lowey 

Chair 

The Honorable Kay Granger 

Ranking Member 

Subcommittee on State, Foreign Operations 

 and Related Programs 

Committee on Appropriations 

House of Representatives 

Page 11 GAO-09-977SP International Food Assistance
 

[This page left blank intentionally.] 

Page 12 GAO-09-977SP International Food Assistance
Page 13 GAO-09-977SP International Food Assistance 

Enclosure I: Coordination and Integration

International Food Assistance 

Background 

Multiple U.S. government agencies 

and stakeholders coordinate U.S. 

food assistance programs through 

various forums. In 1990, the U.S. 

government established the Food Aid 

Consultative Group (FACG) to 

coordinate international food 

assistance activities. The FACG 

meets twice a year and includes 

participants from U.S. Agency for 

International Development (USAID), 

U.S. Department of Agriculture 

(USDA), and the private sector, 

among others. The FACG is a 

consultative body guided by an 

Executive Committee. In 2009, four 

FACG working groups were 

established to discuss commodities 

procurement, packaging, child 

nutrition, and transportation. 

In May 2008, the Food Security SubPolicy Coordinating Committee was 

established to develop a 

governmentwide strategy. Ten U.S. 

agencies met biweekly until the 

group dissolved in January 2009. In 

April 2009, the new administration 

convened the Interagency Policy 

Committee led by the National 

Security Council and co-chaired by 

the Department of State and USAID. 

Also in 2009, a group of U.S. 

nongovernmental organizations 

(NGO) produced the Roadmap to 

End Global Hunger. This report

makes recommendations in four 

issue areas that are needed for 

addressing global hunger in the short, 

intermediate, and long term, as well 

as necessary funding requirements. 

These four issue areas include 

1. emergency response and 

management, 

2. social safety nets, 

3. nutrition programs, and 

4. market-based agriculture and 

infrastructure development. 

Key Findings 

International food assistance, which includes both food aid and food 

security programs, is provided by multiple U.S. agencies with differing 

strategies, goals, and objectives. In 2008, we reported that donors and 

other implementing partners experienced difficulties in coordination and 

that the United States lacked an integrated, governmentwide strategy to 

address the root causes of food insecurity. The U.S. Presidential Initiative 

to End Hunger in Africa—the principal strategy to meet its commitment 

toward halving hunger in sub-Saharan Africa—purported to be a 

governmentwide strategy, but was limited to only some of USAID’s 

agricultural development activities and did not integrate with other 

agencies in terms of plans, programs, resources, and activities to address 

food insecurity in Africa. We will publish a new report on U.S. efforts to 

address global food insecurity in February 2010. 

The United States has principally employed six programs to deliver food 

aid: Public Law (P.L.) 480 (renamed the Food for Peace Act in 2008), 

Titles I, II, and III; Food for Progress; McGovern-Dole Food for Education 

and Child Nutrition; and Section 416(b). Table 1 provides a summary of 

these food aid programs by program authority. 

Table 1: U.S. Food Aid by Program Authority, Fiscal Year 2008 

P.L. 480 (Food for Peace Act)

Program Title I Title II Title III 

Food for 

Progress 

McGovernDole Food for 

Education 

and Child 

Nutrition 

Section 

416(b)

Total budgeta $0 million $2,351 million $0 million b $166 million $99 million $0 millionc

Managing 

agency 

USDA USAID USAID USDA USDA USDA 

Description 

of assistance 

Concessional 

sales of 

agricultural 

commodities 

Donation of 

commodities to 

meet 

emergency and 

nonemergency 

needs; 

commodities 

may be sold incountry for 

development 

purposes 

Donation of 

commodities 

to 

governments 

of leastdeveloped 

countries 

Donation or 

credit sale of 

commodities 

to developing 

countries and 

emerging 

democracies 

Donation of 

commodities 

and provision 

of financial 

and technical 

assistance in 

foreign 

countries 

Donations of 

surplus 

commodities 

to carry out 

purposes of 

P.L. 480 (Title 

II and Title III) 

and Food for 

Progress 

programs 

Implementing 

partners 

Governments 

and private 

entities 

World Food 

Program and 

NGOs 

Governments Governments, 

agricultural 

trade 

organizations, 

intergovernmental 

organizations, 

NGOs, and 

cooperatives 

Governments, 

private 

entities, intergovernmental 

organizations 

See 

implementing 

partners for 

Title II, Title 

III, and Food 

for Progress 

programs 

Source: GAO analysis based on USAID and USDA data. 

a

Budget data are for fiscal year 2008. USDA data represent programmed funding, while USAID data 

represent appropriated funds as of August 2008. 

b

This program has not been funded in recent years. 

c

This program is currently inactive due to the unavailability of government-owned commodities. 

Because it is permanently authorized, it does not require reauthorization under the Farm Bill. 
Response to Recommendations 

Based on information provided by USAID and USDA and our own 

analysis, we determined that recommendation 1 has not been 

implemented. Although the Interagency Policy Committee has met 

regularly to develop a governmentwide food security strategy, the group 

has yet to publish its strategy. However, the Interagency Policy 

Committee has established an objective to help rural farmers feed 

themselves and to help countries establish sustainable agriculture 

systems by (1) investing in country-led food security plans, (2) 

coordinating stakeholders strategically, (3) supporting multilateral 

mechanisms, (4) ensuring a sustained commitment, and (5) focusing on a 

comprehensive approach to agriculture productivity. The Interagency 

Policy Committee has also identified seven principles for its food security 

strategy, including the following: 

Recommendations 

To enhance efforts to address global 

food insecurity and accelerate 

progress toward halving world 

hunger by 2015, particularly in subSaharan Africa, in 2008, we 

recommended that the Administrator 

of USAID take the following two 

actions: 

Recommendation 1 

Work in collaboration with the 

Secretaries of State, Agriculture, and 

the Treasury to develop an 

integrated, governmentwide U.S. 

strategy that defines each agency’s 

actions and resource commitments 

toward achieving food security in 

sub-Saharan Africa. 

Recommendation 2 

Prepare and submit an annual report 

to Congress on progress toward the 

implementation of a governmentwide 

food security strategy. 

For more information, contact Thomas Melito 

at (202) 512-9601 or melitot@gao.gov and 

Phillip J. Thomas at (202) 512-9892 or 

thomasp@gao.gov.

• increase agricultural productivity, 

• stimulate postharvest and private sector growth, 

• support women and families, 

• maintain the natural resource base, 

• expand knowledge and training, 

• increase trade flows, and 

• support an enabling policy environment. 

Based on information provided by USAID and USDA and our own 

analysis, we determined that recommendation 2 has not been 

implemented. USAID officials stated that they plan to update Congress on 

progress toward implementation of a governmentwide food security 

strategy as part of the agency’s 2008 Initiative to End Hunger in Africa 

report; the full version of this report was not publicly available as of 

September 2009. A summary report provided by USAID identifies three 

food security pillars—(1) immediate humanitarian response, (2) urgent 

measures to address causes of the food crisis, and (3) related 

international policies and opportunities—used to respond to the 2007 and 

2008 global food crisis. However, the governmentwide strategy has not 

yet been finalized, and it is premature to report on its implementation. 

Oversight Questions 

1. What coordination and integration mechanisms has the U.S. 

government established to enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of 

U.S. international food assistance? 

2. What is the nature and scope of current U.S. global food security 

activities? What agencies, programs, and funding levels are involved? 

How are NGOs, international organizations, foreign governments, and 

host governments involved in these efforts? 

3. What progress have U.S. agencies made in developing an integrated 

governmentwide global food security strategy? What are the goals 

and timeframe for the implementation of the strategy? 

4. What key criteria has the U.S. government developed to assess the 

implementation of the global food security strategy? Does the U.S. 

government plan to report annually to Congress on the results of the 

strategy? 

Page 14 GAO-09-977SP International Food Assistance 
Page 15 GAO-09-977SP International Food Assistance 

Enclosure II: Needs Assessments and Market 

Information 

International Food Assistance 

Background 

Ensuring that food aid reaches the 

most vulnerable populations is 

critical to enhancing its effectiveness. 

Emergency needs assessments 

include analyses of various factors, 

among them the effects of the crisis 

on vulnerable populations, strategies 

used by these populations to deal 

with the crisis, and the outcome in 

terms of food insecurity. They are 

usually carried out as a joint effort by 

several organizations, including the 

Food and Agriculture Organization 

(FAO), the World Food Program 

(WFP), and NGOs, in response to a 

request from the government of an 

affected country. 

In addition to collecting primary data, 

assessors may use market 

information from other sources, such 

as recipient governments’ population 

estimates; national progress reports 

on policies, programs, and actions 

taken to reduce undernourishment; 

and agricultural data on market 

prices, production levels, and trade 

patterns. Assessors may also rely on 

precrisis vulnerability assessments 

and information generated by early 

warning systems, such as the USAIDfunded Famine Early Warning 

Systems Network (FEWS NET) and 

FAO’s Global International Early 

Warning System. 

Recommendations 

To improve the effective use of food 

aid, in 2007 and 2009, we 

recommended that the Administrator 

of USAID and the Secretary of 

Agriculture take the following three 

actions:

Key Findings 

The lack of comparable and reliable needs assessments and market 

information raises questions about the effectiveness of the use of food 

aid. While accurate and reliable market data would help ensure that U.S. 

agencies and implementing partners make optimal decisions with regard 

to when, where, and how to procure food locally or regionally, such data 

are not yet available. Weak coordination on assessments and the use of 

noncomparable methods have led to different estimates of food needs. 

Difficulties in identifying vulnerable populations have limited effective 

targeting. These factors represent significant challenges to increasing 

local or regional purchases of food aid; such purchases have the potential 

to indirectly support the development of local economies by increasing 

demand for agricultural commodities and raising farmers’ incomes, as 

shown in figure 1. 

Figure 1: Agricultural Commodity Value Chain Supported by Local and Regional 

Procurement (LRP) 

Aid

organizations

WFP Purchase for 

Progress (P4P)

Smallholder farmers

Processors and 

dryers

Quality

superintendents

and laboratories

Input suppliers

(Fertilizer, seeds, 

tools)

Large traders

Intermediate 

traders

Beneficiaries

Food aid

Value created by LRP: development, money, 

job creation, and demand

Food commodities and services provided by 

value chain parties

Food commodities purchased through WFP P4P Value created by WFP P4P

Source: GAO analysis and photos.
Response to Recommendations 

Based on information provided by USAID and USDA, and our own 

analysis, we determined that recommendation 1 has been implemented. 

On December 20, 2007, USAID completed its review of Cooperating 

Sponsor assessment tools and promoted and mainstreamed the results of 

the donor-led WFP Strengthening Emergency Needs Assessment 

Committee initiative. In fiscal year 2009, USAID contributed $7.6 million 

of the newly authorized 2008 Food for Peace Act funding to FEWS NET to 

support remote monitoring of food insecurity in Burundi, Pakistan, and 

Yemen, among other activities. USDA has developed a framework that 

analyzes the needs of vulnerable groups. USDA’s local and regional 

procurement (LRP) guidelines, to be released for public comment by the 

end of September 2009, provide implementing partners with this 

framework to facilitate and coordinate the implementation of purchases 

made under the LRP pilot program. This framework has potential use in 

guiding the sales of commodities in ways that will assist in meeting the 

food needs of vulnerable groups during nonemergencies. 

Recommendation 1 

Enhance the reliability and use of 

needs assessments for new and 

existing food aid programs by making 

assessments a priority in informing 

funding decisions, and more 

effectively build on lessons from past 

targeting experiences. 

Recommendation 2 

Determine ways to provide adequate 

nonfood resources in situations 

where there is sufficient evidence 

that such assistance will enhance the 

effectiveness of food aid. 

Recommendation 3 

Work with implementing partners to 

improve the reliability and utility of 

market intelligence in areas where 

the U.S.-funded LRP occurs, thereby 

ensuring that U.S.-funded LRP 

practices minimize adverse impacts 

and maximize potential benefits. 

For more information, contact Thomas Melito 

at (202) 512-9601 or melitot@gao.gov and 

Phillip J. Thomas at (202) 512-9892 or 

thomasp@gao.gov.

Based on information provided by USAID and USDA, and our own 

analysis, we determined that recommendation 2 has been implemented. 

In enacting the 2008 Food for Peace Act, Congress authorized an increase 

in the amount of cash, also referred to as 202e funding, that NGOs can use 

for nonfood-related activities such as needs assessments, monitoring, and 

evaluation reporting. USAID established new guidelines on eligible use of 

this funding, requiring better integration with other development 

programs. USDA also has the authority to use cash to support 

complementary activities through the Food for Education program. USDA 

has used this capability extensively to support efforts to build 

sustainability and fund infrastructure improvements. 

Based on information provided by USAID and USDA, and our own 

analysis, we determined that our 2009 recommendation 3 has not been 

implemented. Although USAID and USDA have plans to address this 

recommendation, it is too soon to tell how the plans will be implemented. 

For example, USAID plans to review its experience with LRP to identify 

lessons learned with regard to market surveillance and seek ways to 

integrate and utilize existing market information networks. However, this 

review has not begun. USDA officials told us they plan to ensure that 

commodities purchased under USDA’s LRP pilot program are not harmful 

to the market by overseeing the analytical methodologies used by NGO 

market analysts. However, contracts for USDA’s LRP pilot program have 

yet to be awarded. Lastly, USAID issued new guidance to comply with the 

Bellmon Amendment, which requires that commodities imported in 

recipient countries (1) have adequate storage facilities, preventing 

spoilage or waste and (2) do not negatively affect domestic production or 

distort local markets. However, it is too soon to tell how the guidance 

will minimize adverse market impacts and maximize potential benefits of 

LRP. 

Oversight Questions 

1. What have been the results of agency activities aimed at enhancing the 

reliability and use of needs assessments for food aid programs? 

2. To what extent have USAID and USDA worked with their 

implementing partners in the field to improve market intelligence in 

areas where U.S.-funded LRP occurs? 

3. What efforts are currently under way to improve market integration 

and information? 

Page 16 GAO-09-977SP International Food Assistance 
Page 17 GAO-09-977SP International Food Assistance 

Enclosure III: Transportation and Logistics

International Food Assistance 

Background 

The Cargo Preference Act of 1954, as 

amended, which is enforced by the 

Department of Transportation (DOT) 

and the U.S. Maritime Administration 

(MARAD), requires USAID and USDA 

to transport up to 75 percent of the 

gross tonnage of all U.S.-funded food 

aid on U.S.-flag vessels. Delivering 

U.S. food aid from vender to village 

requires on average 4 to 6 months, 

including: (1) purchasing the 

commodities, (2) awarding 

transportation contracts, (3) bagging 

the food, (4) transporting the food to 

a U.S. port for export, (5) shipping 

the food to an overseas port, and 

(6) transporting the food by truck or 

rail to its final distribution location. 

While agencies have in some cases 

tried to expedite food aid delivery, 

the entire logistics process often 

lacks the timeliness required to meet 

humanitarian needs in emergencies 

and may at times result in food 

spoilage. 

Recommendations 

To improve the efficiency of U.S. 

food aid—in terms of its amount, 

timeliness, and quality—in 2007 and 

2009, we recommended that the 

Administrator of USAID and the 

Secretaries of Agriculture and 

Transportation take the following 

four actions with regard to 

transportation and logistics: 

Recommendation 1 

Improve food aid logistical planning 

through cost-benefit analysis of 

(1) supply management options, such 

as long-term transportation 

agreements, and (2) prepositioning 

(or positioning U.S. food aid in 

warehouses abroad), including 

consideration of alternative methods, 

such as those used by WFP.

Key Findings 

Food aid procurement and transportation are costly and time-consuming. 

According to USAID officials, transportation and other delivery costs are 

requiring a larger share of program resources at the expense of procuring 

more food to feed hungry people. Owing to elevated ocean freight rates and 

soaring fuel prices, transportation costs surged and were reflected in higher 

costs incurred for global food aid deliveries. Although USAID’s cost per 

metric ton of ocean transportation declined from 2001 to 2003, this cost 

increased significantly from 2003 to 2008 (see fig. 1). DOT officials expect 

transportation costs to decline as a result of the global economic downturn. 

Figure 1: USAID Ocean Transportation Cost Per Metric Ton, Calendar Year 2001 to 

2008 

0

40

80

120

160

200

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Source: GAO analysis of USAID data.

Cost per ton of ocean transport (Constant U.S. dollars)

Calendar year

Various factors cause inefficiencies in food aid logistics, including 

(1) funding and planning processes; (2) ocean transportation contracting 

practices; and (3) legal requirements, such as cargo preference. 

Uncertainty regarding cargo preference could also constrain U.S. 

agencies’ implementation of local and regional food procurement. 

Response to Recommendations 

Based on information provided by USAID, USDA, and DOT, and our own 

analysis, we determined that recommendation 1 has been implemented. 

USAID, in coordination with DOT, completed a cost-benefit analysis of a 

long-term transportation agreement with the Department of Defense’s 

U.S. Transportation Command under a Universal Service Contract (USC). 

However, a proposed pilot program was not well received by some of the 

shipping industry, and USAID officials found the USC rates to be 

uncompetitive with open market rates for particular transportation 

routes. USAID plans to investigate other long-term transportation options, 

and USDA will wait for USAID’s feedback before pursuing similar options. 

After an independent study on prepositioning was completed, USAID 

officials evaluated proposals to expand the number of warehouses from 

which it prepositions food abroad to five regions around the world, 
Response to Recommendations 

including the Horn of Africa, Central and Southern Africa, Southeast Asia, 

West Africa, and the U.S. Gulf area. USAID expects to award a contract by 

September 30, 2009. 

Recommendation 2 

Work together and with stakeholders 

to modernize ocean transportation 

and contracting practices to include, 

to the extent possible, commercial 

principles of shared risks, 

streamlined administration, and 

expedited payment and claims 

resolution. 

Recommendation 3 

Seek to minimize the cost impact of 

cargo preference regulations on food 

aid transportation expenditures by 

updating implementation and 

reimbursement methodologies to 

account for new supply practices, 

such as prepositioning, and potential 

costs associated with older vessels or 

limited foreign-flag participation. 

Recommendation 4 

Expedite updating the Memorandum 

of Understanding (MOU) between 

U.S. food assistance agencies and 

DOT to resolve uncertainties 

associated with the application of 

cargo preference to regional food 

procurement. 

For more information, contact Thomas Melito 

at (202) 512-9601 or melitot@gao.gov and 

Phillip J. Thomas at (202) 512-9892 or 

thomasp@gao.gov.

Based on information provided by USAID, USDA, and DOT, and our own 

analysis, we determined that recommendation 2 has been implemented. 

USAID, USDA, and DOT have established a new transportation working 

group of the FACG, standardized transportation contracts, and performed 

market research on the cost of commercial marine insurance. USAID and 

USDA have streamlined administration by combining shipments of U.S. 

food aid whenever possible, which can result in reduced transportation 

costs. In June 2008, nearly all USAID and USDA packaged commodities 

were combined, according to a joint USAID and USDA report to Congress 

in January 2009. USAID has solicited information, evaluated proposals, 

and made a recommendation on an electronic payment system for freight. 

USDA will continue to pay for freight electronically through its existing 

system and upgrade in fiscal year 2010. USDA’s new food procurement 

regulations, released in May 2009, clarified eligibility requirements of 

entities that receive food aid through USDA’s Food for Progress and 

McGovern-Dole Food for Education and Child Nutrition programs and set 

administrative procedures for resolving cargo claims. 

Based on information provided by USAID, USDA, and DOT, and our own 

analysis, we determined that recommendation 3 has not been 

implemented. On September 4, 2009, USAID, USDA, and DOT signed a 

new MOU outlining a unified government legal position that clarifies how 

vessels will be categorized for purposes of cargo preference compliance. 

However, this MOU does not address concerns raised in our 

recommendations related to cargo preference costs. Another MOU, which 

outlines how to calculate reimbursement of ocean freight costs and 

coordinate the administration of cargo preference requirements, was last 

updated in 1987 and does not reflect modern transportation practices. To 

minimize the cost impact of cargo preference, USAID, USDA, and DOT 

must reach a new agreement that would commit all parties to some 

significant changes in cargo preference administration. According to DOT 

officials, a revised MOU cannot be completed until its cargo preference 

regulations are updated. Although DOT has begun the regulatory reform 

process with the Office of Management and Budget, as of September 30, 

2009, the regulations had not been updated. According to a USAID official, 

finalizing DOT regulations could extensively delay the signing of an MOU. 

As we noted in our 2009 report, there is no requirement that finalizing 

regulations precede an MOU, nor does an MOU preclude the issuance of 

new regulations. 

Consistent with recommendation 3, we determined that 

recommendation 4 has not been implemented. However, agencies have 

resolved one area of uncertainty by agreeing that cargo preference applies 

to 50, rather than 75, percent of the tonnage of food transported by sea 

regionally. 

Oversight Questions 

1. What are the results of agency efforts to (1) modernize ocean 

transportation and contracting practices and (2) update cargo 

preference implementation and reimbursement methodologies? 

2. What key steps, if any, have agencies taken to address and minimize 

the cost impact of cargo preference regulations on food aid? 

3. What information and data related to long-term costs and benefits of 

increased efficiencies in food aid logistics should agencies collect? 

Page 18 GAO-09-977SP International Food Assistance 
Page 19 GAO-09-977SP International Food Assistance 

Enclosure IV: Nutrition and Food Quality 

Control 

International Food Assistance 

Background 

Food aid commodity specifications 

include specific requirements that 

commodity vendors must follow to 

meet USAID’s or USDA’s contracts 

for producing and delivering the 

commodities. The specifications 

contain standards relating to the 

quality, appearance, and delivery of 

the product; conditions under which 

it is to be grown or produced; explicit 

descriptions regarding its nutrient 

content; and details of the inspection 

process. For example, one 

congressional mandate for U.S. food 

aid requires that 75 percent of the 

approved nonemergency food aid 

program commodities that are 

processed, fortified, or bagged be 

“value-added,” or include certain 

micronutrients. As of September 

2008, only 48 percent of Food for 

Peace, Title II, U.S. food aid was 

value-added. According to the World 

Health Organization, deficiencies in 

micronutrients, such as iron, vitamin 

A, and zinc, rank among the top 10 

leading causes of death from disease 

in developing countries, and 

micronutrient fortification of food aid 

is considered one of the most costeffective approaches to addressing 

widespread deficiencies. 

Recommendations 

To improve the efficiency and 

effectiveness of U.S. food aid—in 

terms of its amount, timeliness, and 

quality—in 2007 and 2009, we 

recommended that the Administrator 

of USAID and Secretary of 

Agriculture take the following three 

actions with regard to nutrition and 

quality control of international food 

assistance: 

Recommendation 1 

Establish a coordinated system for 

tracking and resolving food quality 

complaints. 

Key Findings 

In 2007, we reported that although U.S. agencies had made efforts to 

improve the nutritional quality of food aid, the appropriate nutritional 

value of the food and the readiness of U.S. agencies to address nutritionalrelated quality issues remained uncertain. U.S. agencies and stakeholders 

were not coordinating adequately to respond to food and delivery 

problems when they arose. For example, in 2006, we found live and dead 

insects in bags of cornmeal shipped to Durban, South Africa, as shown in 

figure 1. 

Moreover, USAID and USDA did not have a central mechanism to update 

food aid products and their specifications. Commodity suppliers 

complained that food aid product specifications were not as clear and 

consistent as in the commercial sector and that some requirements for 

food aid commodities were outdated and no longer necessary. In 2009, 

we reported that LRP of food aid can provide more culturally appropriate 

food, but concerns persist about the quality of the food and adherence to 

certain product specifications. We found that evidence on LRP’s 

adherence to quality standards and product specifications had not been 

systematically collected. 

Figure 1: Delays Led to Contamination of U.S. Food Aid in Durban, South Africa in 

2006 

Source: GAO.

Response to Recommendations 

ID and USDA, and our own 

ted. 

ails 

ty 

, 

Based on information provided by USA

analysis, we determined that recommendation 1 has been implemen

USAID and USDA have worked together to strengthen the current system

for tracking and resolving food quality complaints. Within a subgroup of 

the FACG, USAID, USDA, and stakeholders have developed a flow chart 

of standard operating procedures to resolve food quality complaints, also

known as the commodity quality “feedback loop.” As of August 2009, 

USDA officials had incorporated into the feedback loop additional det

concerning halting distribution and shortening the response time and 

planned to circulate the final version to the FACG. USAID used the 

feedback loop to facilitate the U.S. response to two recent food quali

complaints of corn-soya blend delivered to Haiti and Guatemala. Finally

the FACG has initiated an ad hoc field reporting group on food quality 
Response to Recommendations 

that has met regularly since September 2006 to share information about 

food quality problems. 

Recommendation 2 

Develop an interagency mechanism 

to update food aid specifications and 

products. 

Recommendation 3 

Collect evidence on LRP’s adherence 

to quality standards. 

For more information, contact Thomas Melito 

at (202) 512-9601 or melitot@gao.gov and 

Phillip J. Thomas at (202) 512-9892 or 

thomasp@gao.gov.

Based on information provided by USAID and USDA, and our own 

analysis, we determined that recommendation 2 has been implemented. 

USAID awarded a contract to Tufts University’s School of Nutrition to 

evaluate the nutritional needs of food aid beneficiary populations against 

the commodities currently available to meet those needs in the context of 

total available food resources. This study will review current enrichment 

and fortification technologies and delivery methods and involve the active 

participation of industry, academic, and operational experts. USAID and 

USDA are developing a framework for reporting adherence to commodity 

quality standards focused on food aid manufacturing and processing. In 

September 2008, SUSTAIN—a nonprofit organization whose mission is to 

improve nutrition in developing countries through innovative applications 

of food science and technology—published a food aid quality study for 

USDA that developed new product specifications for food aid to meet U.S. 

commercial food industry quality standards. USDA is working with USAID 

to implement the recommendations of the study. In response to the 

study, USDA’s Federal Grain Inspection Service is analyzing the 

manufacturing variability of corn-soya blend to improve the standards and 

testing of domestically procured products. 

Based on information provided by USAID and USDA, and our own 

analysis, we determined that our 2009 recommendation 3 has not been 

implemented. Although USAID and USDA have plans to address this 

recommendation, the agencies have not yet initiated these plans. USAID is 

currently drafting guidance for future LRP purchases that will include 

quality standards and product specifications requirements, as well as 

testing and reporting procedures to ensure adherence to those 

requirements. USDA intends to require that LRP implementing partners 

(1) document the steps taken to ensure food safety and the effectiveness 

of those steps for all purchases; (2) stipulate the minimum acceptable 

commodity quality standards and product specifications in procurement 

contracts for commodities sourced from farmer associations and 

commercial sources; and (3) report on the quality and specifications for 

all local and regional procurements, as well as document their 

appropriateness for those in need of assistance. 

Oversight Questions 

1. What are the results of U.S. agencies working together to coordinate 

efforts to track and resolve food quality complaints? 

2. How have implementing partners utilized the FACG’s “feedback loop” 

and what has been the outcome? 

3. How have U.S. agencies implemented SUSTAIN’s recommendations 

on updating specifications and improving nutritional standards of U.S. 

food aid? 

4. What are the major challenges faced by implementing partners to 

ensuring U.S. food aid meets quality standards and specifications? 

5. Where are U.S. nutrition resources directed and what nutrition 

interventions do they support? 

Page 20 GAO-09-977SP International Food Assistance 
Page 21 GAO-09-977SP International Food Assistance 

Enclosure V: Monitoring and Evaluation

International Food Assistance 

Background 

Monitoring and evaluation are critical 

oversight and program management 

tools that could help to ensure that 

strategic objectives of international 

food aid programs are met. 

For the purposes of this enclosure, 

we consider whether agencies are 

monitoring (1) that the necessary 

inputs for programs (equipment, 

supplies, and personnel) are in place 

and that programs are being 

implemented as intended, and 

(2) that programs are achieving their 

expected outputs and targets by 

regularly tracking performance 

indicators. 

For the purposes of this enclosure, 

we consider whether agencies are 

evaluating (1) the extent to which 

program objectives were achieved, as 

well as the factors that influenced 

outcome achievement, and (2) the 

degree to which outcomes and 

impacts can be attributed directly to 

programs, and the cost-effectiveness 

of the programs. 

Recommendations 

To improve the efficiency and 

effective use of food aid, in 2007 we 

recommended that the Administrator 

of USAID and the Secretary of 

Agriculture take the following two 

actions with regard to monitoring and 

evaluating international food 

assistance: 

Recommendation 1 

Improve monitoring of food aid 

programs to ensure proper 

management and implementation. 

Key Findings 

In 2007, we reported that USAID and USDA were not sufficiently 

monitoring food aid programs, particularly in recipient countries, due to 

limited staff, competing priorities, and restrictions on the use of food aid 

resources. USAID is taking a series of actions in an effort to improve its 

monitoring and evaluation of nonemergency food aid programs, as 

mandated by the 2008 Food for Peace Act, shown in figure 1. 

Figure 1: USAID Allocations of the Food for Peace Act Funding for Monitoring and 

Evaluation in Fiscal Year 2009 and Implementation Timelines 

Source: GAO analysis of USAID data.

35%

40%

Famine Early Warning 

Systems Network (FEWS

NET), $7,600,000

New Food for Peace field 

staff positions, $5,000,000

3%, Information technology 

upgrade, $637,000

.02%, Monetization study, 

$5,000

Unused funding, $8,758,000

23%

Allocation of Food for Peace funding

Total = $22,000,000

Implementation timelines

Fiscal year

2008 2009 2010 2011

Information technology upgrade

Monetization study

FEWS NET

New Food for Peace field staff positions

Late Early Mid Late Early Mid Late Early

Note: Totals may not add due to rounding. 

USAID and USDA require NGOs and WFP to regularly monitor both 

emergency and nonemergency food aid programs. In 2007, we reported 

that about 50 percent of nonemergency U.S. food aid was monetized—

sold by NGOs in a recipient country as a means to generate cash for 

development projects. We also reported that U.S. agencies were not 

collecting or maintaining data electronically on the revenues generated 

from monetization, and therefore, the degree to which monetization 

revenues covered costs was not being monitored. 

Response to Recommendations 

Based on information provided by USAID and USDA, and our own 

analysis, we determined that recommendation 1 has been implemented. In 

passing the Food for Peace Act in 2008, Congress authorized up to $22 

million annually for fiscal years 2009 to 2012 to USAID to improve, 

monitor, and evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of nonemergency 

food aid programs. Congress required USAID to submit an 

implementation report on the agency’s efforts in these areas, and also 

required the Comptroller General of the United States to review USAID’s 

report and provide recommendations for improvement (see GAO-09-980). 

USAID plans to use approximately $5 million of its new Food for Peace 

Act funding to add 21 full-time field staff whose responsibilities will 

include the monitoring of nonemergency food aid programs. USAID also 

intends to expand the use of Layers—a computerized system using 
Response to Recommendations 

personal data assistant (PDA) devices for monitoring the implementation 

and management of nonemergency food aid programs. Layers has been 

piloted in Ethiopia, Haiti, and Madagascar, and USAID plans to expand 

usage to 20 countries by the end of 2012 through its cooperative 

agreement with the Academy for Educational Development. 

Recommendation 2 

Develop an information collection 

system to track monetization 

transactions. 

Recommendations 

In 2009 we also recommended that 

the Administrator of USAID take the 

following actions: 

Recommendation 3 

Develop a “concept of operations” 

document to help reduce the risks 

associated with upgrading the Office 

of Food for Peace information 

technology system. Such a document 

should adhere to industry best 

practices and include key elements 

such as major system components, 

interfaces to external systems, and 

performance characteristics. 

Recommendation 4 

Develop an integrated monitoring and 

evaluation plan that (1) links 

monitoring and evaluation to key 

USAID goals, (2) establishes a 

systematic process for determining 

appropriate budget levels and staff 

resources, (3) examines all available 

funding options, and (4) establishes 

time frames for implementing and 

evaluating the plan. 

For more information, contact Thomas Melito 

at (202) 512-9601 or melitot@gao.gov and 

Phillip J. Thomas at (202) 512-9892 or 

thomasp@gao.gov.

For USDA, as of May 2008, the Foreign Agricultural Service had 

established four staff positions entirely devoted to monitoring food aid 

programs. The agency also requested additional funding to hire two 

additional staff for monitoring and evaluation services in fiscal year 2010. 

This authority was initiated in the new Food for Progress and McGovernDole Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program regulations, 

published in May 2009. Finally, USDA adjusted its method for determining 

priority food aid recipient countries by prioritizing countries where a 

Foreign Agricultural Service attaché can provide monitoring and 

evaluation services for food assistance activities. 

Based on information provided by USAID and USDA, and our own 

analysis, we determined that recommendation 2 has been implemented. 

According to USAID, monetization transactions are currently reflected in 

annual results reports. The implementation of USAID’s Quarterly Web 

Interfaced Commodity Reporting System will occur in autumn 2009 and is 

expected to capture such transactions electronically. USAID officials 

anticipate the system will standardize and centralize all commodity 

information submitted by participating organizations, thereby facilitating 

reporting. USDA’s planned Food Aid Information System will include 

interaction with USAID on monetization outcomes and will provide data 

on commodity shipments, local conditions for monetization, and product 

quality. Contracting for the establishment of the system began in fiscal 

year 2009. 

Based on information provided by USAID, and our own analysis, we 

determined that recommendations 3 and 4 have not been implemented. It 

is too early to assess the impact of USAID’s planned monitoring and 

evaluation actions because most are still in progress. 

Oversight Questions 

1. What are the requirements of emergency vs. nonemergency food aid 

monitoring and evaluation? 

2. To what extent has USAID evaluated the effectiveness of the Layers 

monitoring system, and will its rollout take place as planned? 

3. To what extent have U.S. agencies developed a comprehensive 

monitoring and evaluation plan, in consultation with stakeholders, 

which details activities to be conducted, estimated budget, and 

relationship to a strategic plan? 

4. To what extent have U.S. agencies established policies to coordinate 

monitoring and evaluation efforts governmentwide, including 

overseas missions, and developed a strategy to ensure that results of 

evaluations will be used to improve existing programs? 

5. How are the outcomes and results of agency evaluations shared? 

6. How have U.S. agencies analyzed and used data gathered on cost 

recovery of monetization? 

Page 22 GAO-09-977SP International Food Assistance 
Appendix I: 

Methodology 

Objectives, Scope, and 

Page 23 GAO-09-977SP 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

The issues discussed in the five enclosures are based on completed and 

ongoing GAO work on international food assistance. They incorporate 

information from agency documents, including agency updates on 

programs implemented to respond to our past recommendations on 

international food assistance, and interviews with U.S. officials in 

Washington, D.C., including the Departments of Agriculture (USDA), State 

(State), and Transportation (DOT), and the U.S. Agency for International 

Development (USAID). Potential oversight questions were established by 

assessing agencies’ planned activities in response to our recommendations 

and determining additional questions that remain. 

We conducted our work from June 2009 to September 2009. The work on 

which this report is based1

 was conducted in accordance with generally 

accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require that we 

plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient and appropriate evidence to 

provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our 

audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a 

reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit 

objectives. 

Enclosure I: Coordination 

and Integration 

To discuss the extent to which U.S. agency officials are coordinating and 

integrating international food assistance activities, we relied on previous 

GAO reporting and reviewed the 2008 International Food Assistance 

Report (IFAR) and the 2008 Overview of the U.S. Presidential Initiative to 

End Hunger in Africa. We gathered budget data on food aid programs from 

the IFAR and agency officials and determined the data were sufficiently 

reliable for our purposes. We also interviewed State, USAID, USDA, and 

DOT officials to clarify roles and participation in the Food Aid 

Consultative Group, the Food Security Sub-Policy Coordination 

Committee, the Interagency Policy Committee, and the Global Food 

Security Response. We also collected and analyzed information prepared 

by the “Roadmap Coalition,” a group of U.S. nongovernmental 

organizations (NGO), including Bread for the World, CARE, Catholic 

Relief Services, Friends of the World Food Program, Mercy Corps, and 

Save the Children, among others. 

 

1

GAO-07-560, GAO-08-680, GAO-09-570, and GAO-09-980. 

 International Food Assistance 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

Enclosure II: Needs 

Assessments and Market 

Information 

To discuss the extent to which U.S. agencies have improved needs 

assessments and market information for more effective targeting of 

international food assistance, we relied on previous GAO reporting that 

included a review of several World Food Program (WFP) internal 

evaluations, including those related to needs assessments and targeting, 

and some external studies, such as those conducted by the Washington, 

D.C.-based International Food Policy Research Institute. We also relied on 

preliminary findings on the potential market risks, market intelligence, and 

development benefits associated with local and regional procurement of 

food aid that were validated at a roundtable that consisted of 10 experts 

and practitioners—including representatives from academia, research 

organizations, multilateral organizations, and NGOs. We also reviewed 

USAID and USDA guidance on (1) funding that can be used for nonfood 

activities, (2) compliance with the Bellmon Amendment, and 

(3) application for local and regional food procurement funding. Lastly, we 

spoke with USAID officials about plans to enhance the Famine Early 

Warning Systems Network. 

Enclosure III: 

Transportation and 

Logistics 

To provide an update on improved delivery of international food 

assistance through more efficient transportation and logistics, we relied on 

previous GAO reporting, which included (1) analyzing food aid 

procurement and ocean transportation data provided by the Kansas City 

Commodity Office, (2) conducting structured interviews of the 14 U.S.-and 

foreign-flag ocean carriers that transport over 80 percent of U.S. food aid 

tonnage, and (3) collecting additional information from shipping agents 

and transportation experts. We analyzed USAID ocean transportation cost 

data for fiscal years 2001 to 2008 and found the data sufficiently reliable to 

represent trends over time. In July 2009, we attended a briefing for the 

commercial shipping industry, hosted by USAID and DOT-U.S. Maritime 

Administration, to understand the merits of a long-term ocean 

transportation contract for U.S. food aid with the U.S. Department of 

Defense Transportation Command. We also collected information from 

agency officials with regard to commercial marine insurance, electronic 

freight payment systems, and combined shipments. Lastly, we discussed 

the status of an interagency Memorandum of Understanding on cargo 

preference as it applies to food aid with officials from USAID, USDA, and 

DOT. 

Page 24 GAO-09-977SP International Food Assistance
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

Enclosure IV: Nutrition 

and Food Quality Control 

To assess food quality and nutrition issues of international food 

assistance, we relied on past GAO reporting that includes interviews with 

and reviews of reports by commodity suppliers, trade associations, and 

officials from NGOs, WFP, USAID, and the Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service. We also reviewed U.S. agency food aid product 

specifications, rules and regulations, commodity complaint logs, and 

quality control guidelines; USAID audit reports; and internal agency 

correspondence and documents concerning food quality and nutrition 

issues. We examined assessments and discussed with WFP procurement 

officers the quality of local and regionally procured food. Lastly, we 

evaluated USDA’s “feedback loop” flow chart for food quality complaints, 

a 2008 report prepared for USDA by SUSTAIN on new product 

specifications for food aid, USAID’s contract with Tufts University’s 

School of Nutrition to evaluate nutritional needs of food aid beneficiary 

populations, and USDA’s guidelines for implementing partners that receive 

funding through the local and regional procurement pilot. 

Enclosure V: Monitoring 

and Evaluation 

To assess U.S. agencies’ monitoring of food aid programs, we relied on 

past GAO reporting that included a review of agencies’ Inspectors General 

reports, monitoring and evaluation guidance for implementing partners, 

and staffing data. We also examined USAID’s December 2008 report to 

Congress, which outlined USAID’s plans to improve its monitoring and 

evaluation of nonemergency food aid programs. We interviewed USAID 

and USDA officials, including agency staff responsible for monitoring the 

implementation of nonemergency food aid programs, contractors, and 

implementing partners such as NGOs and WFP. Lastly, we reviewed 

documents and gathered information from USAID on information systems 

designed to collect data on commodities, recipients, losses, and 

monetization outcomes. 

Page 25 GAO-09-977SP International Food Assistance
Appendix II: 

A

GAO Contact and Staff 

cknowledgments 

Page 26 GAO-09-977SP 

Appendix II: GAO Contacts and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

Thomas Melito, (202) 512-9601 or melitot@gao.gov

Phillip J. Thomas, (202) 512-9892 or thomasp@gao.gov

In addition to the contact named above, Phillip Thomas (Assistant 

Director), Sada Aksartova, Larry Bridges, Carol Bray, Ming Chen, Debbie 

Chung, Lynn Cothern, Martin De Alteriis, Mark Dowling, Brian Egger, 

Etana Finkler, Kendall Helm, Joy Labez, Ulyana Panchishin, Harold Reich, 

Lisa Reijula, Julia A. Roberts, and David Schneider made key contributions 

to this report. 

GAO Contacts

Staff 

Acknowledgments 

 International Food Assistance 
Related GAO Products Related GAO Products 

International Food Assistance: USAID Is Taking Actions to Improve 

Monitoring and Evaluation of Nonemergency Food Aid, but Weaknesses 

in Planning Could Impede Efforts. GAO-09-980. Washington, D.C.: 

September 28, 2009. 

International Food Assistance: Local and Regional Procurement 

Provides Opportunities to Enhance U.S. Food Aid, but Challenges May 

Constrain Its Implementation. GAO-09-757T. Washington, D.C.: June 4, 

2009. 

International Food Assistance: Local and Regional Procurement Can 

Enhance the Efficiency of U.S. Food Aid, but Challenges May Constrain 

Its Implementation. GAO-09-570. Washington, D.C.: May 29, 2009. 

International Food Security: Insufficient Efforts by Host Governments 

and Donors Threaten Progress to Halve Hunger in Sub-Saharan Africa 

by 2015. GAO-08-680. Washington, D.C.: May 29, 2008. 

Foreign Assistance: Various Challenges Limit the Efficiency and 

Effectiveness of U.S. Food Aid. GAO-07-905T. Washington, D.C.: May 24, 

2007. 

Foreign Assistance: Various Challenges Impede the Efficiency and 

Effectiveness of U.S. Food Aid. GAO-07-560. Washington, D.C.: April 13, 

2007. 

Foreign Assistance: U.S. Agencies Face Challenges to Improving the 

Efficiency and Effectiveness of Food Aid. GAO-07-616T. Washington, 

D.C.: March 21, 2007. 

Darfur Crisis: Progress in Aid and Peace Monitoring Threatened by 

Ongoing Violence and Operational Challenges. GAO-07-9. Washington, 

D.C.: November 9, 2006. 

Foreign Assistance: Lack of Strategic Focus and Obstacles to 

Agricultural Recovery Threaten Afghanistan’s Stability. GAO-03-607. 

Washington, D.C.: June 30, 2003. 

Foreign Assistance: Sustained Efforts Needed to Help Southern Africa 

Recover from Food Crisis. GAO-03-644. Washington, D.C.: June 25, 2003. 

Food Aid: Experience of U.S. Programs Suggest Opportunities for 

Improvement. GAO-02-801T. Washington, D.C.: June 4, 2002. 

Page 27 GAO-09-977SP International Food Assistance
Related GAO Products 

Foreign Assistance: Global Food for Education Initiative Faces 

Challenges for Successful Implementation. GAO-02-328. Washington, 

D.C.: February 28, 2002. 

Foreign Assistance: U.S. Food Aid Program to Russia Had Weak Internal 

Controls. GAO/NSIAD/AIMD-00-329. Washington, D.C.: September 29, 

2000. 

Foreign Assistance: U.S. Bilateral Food Assistance to North Korea Had 

Mixed Results. GAO/NSIAD-00-175. Washington, D.C.: June 15, 2000. 

Foreign Assistance: Donation of U.S. Planting Seed to Russia in 1999 

Had Weaknesses. GAO/NSIAD-00-91. Washington, D.C.: March 9, 2000. 

Foreign Assistance: North Korea Restricts Food Aid Monitoring. 

GAO/NSIAD-00-35. Washington, D.C.: October 8, 1999. 

Food Security: Factors That Could Affect Progress toward Meeting World 

Food Summit Goals. GAO/NSIAD-99-15. Washington, D.C.: March 22, 1999. 

Food Security: Preparations for the 1996 World Food Summit. 

GAO/NSIAD-97-44. Washington, D.C.: November 7, 1996. 

(320685) Page 28 GAO-09-977SP International Food Assistance
GAO’s Mission The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; 

and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help 

Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s 

commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost 

is through GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday afternoon, GAO 

posts on its Web site newly released reports, testimony, and 

correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products, 

go to www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.” 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony 

Order by Phone The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 

production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 

publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and 

white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s Web site, 

http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 

MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information. 

Contact: 

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470 

Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov, (202) 512-4400 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 

Washington, DC 20548 

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Congressional 

Relations 

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548 

Public Affairs 

Please Print on Recycled Paper