International Food Assistance: Key Issues for Congressional Oversight
Published: 2009-09-30T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: 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 undernourished 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 long-term 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. 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 long-term chronic hunger through food security programs. While food aid has helped to address the immediate nutritional requirements of some vulnerable people in the short term, it has not addressed the underlying causes of persistent food insecurity. 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.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: 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. 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.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: 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 undernourished 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 long- term 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. 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 long- term chronic hunger through food security programs. While food aid has  helped to address the immediate nutritional requirements of some  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 insecurity in  sub-Saharan Africa have been fragmented and uncoordinated. 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. 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. 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.
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. 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. 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. For example, the U.S. Presidential Initiative to End  Hunger in Africa was limited to USAID programs, although it purported to  be a governmentwide strategy. 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. 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. 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  practices. 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   over that  time period (see fig. 1).  time period (see fig. 1).
In 2009, we determined that LRP is generally more cost-effective and  timely than U.S. in-kind food aid (see fig. 2). 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  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.
Nutrition and food quality control: 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.  We also found that some impediments to improving the nutritional quality  of U.S. food aid prevented the most nutritious or appropriate food from  reaching intended recipients. In 2009, we reported on concerns about the  quality of food procured in developing countries and adherence to certain  product specifications. 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. In September 2009, we  determined that USAID lacks a comprehensive plan for monitoring and  evaluating nonemergency food aid. 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 transactions 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  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.
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.
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.
subsections: section_title: Recommendations
paragraphs: 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:   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?