Food Aid Update: The Truth Behind the Food Aid Pilot Program

Thank you for joining us in taking action over the last few months with calls to the Congress and Senate demanding food aid reform in the 2007 Farm Bill.

As you are already aware, the Oakland Institute had been advocating for 25 percent of US food aid (at least $300 million under the 2005 aid budget) to be provided in cash for local and regional purchases rather than as commodities procured in the United States and shipped to developing countries. Our 2005 report, Food Aid or Food Sovereignty? Ending World Hunger in our Time, clearly demonstrated that US food aid, purchased and bagged by US agribusinesses and shipped by US shipping firms - designed over 50 years ago when the US had abundant food surpluses to dispose of - is enormously inefficient. It was verified this year by the US Government Accountability Office whose study found that rising business and shipping costs have meant that the volume of food aid delivered over the last five years has fallen by more than 50 percent.

Despite widespread support for the proposal of 25 percent local purchase, including from the White House, the Senate, which appears set to start the final debate on the Farm Bill this coming week, will consider a watered down pilot program that would allocate only $25 million a year for four years to test local and regional purchases of food aid in the 2007 Farm Bill. This reflects the hypocrisy of the US Congress and Senate which refuses to change cost ineffective and inefficient US aid policies so it can continue to cater to vested interests. It is time to expose the truth behind the proposed pilot program - a PR attempt to silence US citizens and tax payers who have been advocating for change to make the US aid an effective tool in the fight against global hunger.

The virtues of purchasing food in recipient countries are self-evident and need full Congressional support and not pilot programs! And these policies are not untested. The European Union changed its policy of dumping its surpluses in developing countries eleven years ago - procuring a major share of its food aid - 96 percent in 2006 - in developing countries themselves. Canada increased local and regional purchases from 10 percent to 50 percent in 2005. The World Food Program also has extensive experience providing food aid this way with positive results - procuring nearly 50 percent of its aid locally or regionally.

Increase in food prices and growing impact of climate change on the poor makes it more urgent that the US aid starts responding to increasing global hunger and poverty instead of promoting corporate interest.

Also purchasing available food in the country experiencing a crisis or in a nearby country enables food aid providers to deliver more food more quickly. It also means that recipient governments are not compelled to accept genetically modified or culturally inappropriate foods. Local or regional procurement has the added benefits of encouraging local farmers to build up production levels and support regional economic development as well.

We at the Oakland Institute believe that it is time to expose the truth behind the proposed pilot program and continue to work to reform the way US food aid works so food sovereignty for all is ensured. Yes, the sorts of change towards which we are working will not happen overnight. But we know they must happen. But together we can work towards that goal!