The overall tone from the most recent International Food Aid Conference (April 6-8) differed from the past several such events in its relative lack of contentiousness and its clear focus on the issue of global food security. My four main take-aways were:
• The skirmishes over commodity vs. cash food aid have been put aside, at least for now. All participants appeared to agree that both are necessary, and that it’s not a productive use of time and resources to continue squabbling: The commodity supporters don’t seem inclined to resist the increasing use of cash (a total of $200 million in the 2008 supplemental and 2009 omnibus) for food aid, as long as it doesn’t come from Title II, and the cash supporters seem resigned to the fact that the agriculture committees in Congress are never going to agree to use Title II resources for the purchase of food outside the U.S.
• There was a marked increase in attention to nutrition, particularly for children under two years of age. The importance of this issue was cited repeatedly, with one afternoon session devoted exclusively to the subject. The increasing availability of cash for food creates opportunities to address nutrition.
• The global food price crisis has eased somewhat, but we’re in for a prolonged period of short supplies and price volatility, rendering increasing productivity and rural incomes in areas of short supply all the more urgent.
• The focus of the Foreign Agriculture Service (FAS) is changing in a significant way, from simply flogging U.S. agricultural commodities to more of a development orientation, looking at longer term market development. The new Administrator of FAS and his boss, the Undersecretary for Food and Foreign Agriculture, both come out of a development background.
My colleague commented on one facet of the Secretary of Agriculture’s speech to the Conference – the increase in funding for Food for Education -- in his post on April 8. The Secretary’s speech primarily addressed the broad issue of global food security and seemed aimed more at the media and larger public than the delegates. His main point seemed to be that while we in the U.S. may be going through some difficult economic times, now is NOT the time to cut back on our international food aid and agricultural development commitments. Rather, we need to step up our efforts, both in terms of short-term (food aid) and long-term (agricultural development) interventions. This is not a time for looking inward. Invoking the example of the loaves and fishes, the Secretary remarked that we need to “remove the fear of sharing.”
The Secretary noted that one specific charge he received from President was to improve the nutritional value of what we feed our children. And while the specific reference was to school feeding in the U.S., he interprets the charge broadly, to include the nutritional value of our international food aid. He went on to cite the President’s recent commitment in London to doubling agricultural development funding, and stressed his commitment to expanding the USDA’s role in international agricultural development, the potential contribution of U.S. Land Grant Universities in international agriculture, and the need to expand other USDA programs such as Cochrane Fellows. Finally, he noted climate change’s on-going and potential impact on domestic and global agriculture, an issue on which he intends for USDA to lead.
Acting USAID Assistance Administrator for Democracy, Conflict and Humanitarian Assistance (which includes responsibility for food aid), Dirk Dijkerman, reiterated the urgency of addressing global food security, noting that the probability of effective action is better than at any time in the recent past -- there is broad consensus in favor of change, and there is general agreement on the direction of change. USAID’s particular focus will be on increasing productivity, especially in Africa, on regional trade, on expedited humanitarian assistance to the most vulnerable; and accountability. The Agency is also placing high emphasis on host country engagement in planning and implanting the new programs.
Overall, the urgency of the situation and the absolute necessity of tackling long-term solutions to global food security was the clear message. The need now is to maintain focus and follow through on the initiatives planned and underway.
Comments