- Email: [email protected]
OECD expert meeting on the scope and conditions for improved use of food aid for development
Conferences Food aid as a development tool OECD
Expert Meeting
Aid for Development,
on the Scope 30-37
March
and Conditions 1978,
Food aid is an emotional subject. Fund raising agencies learned long ago that the picture of a little child holding out an empty food bowl brought in the cash like nothing else, and even today there is evidently more public support in some developed countries for direct transfers of food to feed the starving millions than for cash to enable them to buy their own food. Similarly, food aid is attacked on emotional grounds. It has been criticized for lowering the recipient’s agricultural prices and also, paradoxically, for raising them. If a survey shows that a population receiving a food aided feeding programme is well nourished, food aid is criticized for not reaching the needy; if the survey reveals a malnourished population, food aid is criticized as ineffective. This colloquium, organized by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) Development Centre, which brought together 26 individuals from developed and developing countries, therefore served the most useful purpose of the claims and cutting through counterclaims of partisans on both sides, redefining the problem areas and suggesting means of improvement. were drawn from Participants institutes and agencies research involved in supplying or receiving food aid, but all attended in their personal capacities. The object of the meeting was not to produce a unanimous set of reff ecting government resolutions positions, but to encourage an exchange of views among independent experts officials. The and operational underlying rationale was that, at least in the short term, food aid will continue to be important and that it is both necessary and possible to improve the ways in which it is provided and used. Indeed, one view was that the notion of food aid as temporary is erroneous, and
318
for Improved
Use of Food
Paris, France
that it should more realistically considered as a permanent feature.
be
Additionality In the light of this, the first issue raised, whether food aid displaces or is additional to financial aid, was particularly significant. There was a feeling among many participants, however, that although the question of additionality may be a valid one for certain countries, as a general issue it is somewhat hypothetical. It does, however, lead into a discussion of the relative merits of food aid for development and financial aid, and the the two can be ways in which Although in theory coordinated. financial aid ought to be better in all circumstances (assuming it is made available on similar terms) because it can do everything food does and more besides, it was argued that in practice this may not be the case because, for whatever reason, food aid often reaches people who are missed by other projects. Food aided projects that reach or have the potential to reach the poorest groups within a country face a number and logistical of administrative problems because the poor are often remote. Since recipient governments may be unable or unwilling to provide resources to overcome these problems, was some support among there participants for the view that instead of emphasizing the two types of aid as competitors, more attention could be given to the ways in which they can be with financial aid coordinated. providing the non-food costs of food aided projects. Such mutual support would increase the onus on food aid donors of ensuring that their projects are well advised and fit into the recipient’s overall development strategy. The relationship between food aid
and agriculturaf production received a lot of attention. There was agreement that food aid is not enough and is no substitute for agricultural development in developing countries. Nevertheless, the two are not mutually exclusive, and there were several proposals on how they might be better related. The relation might be, from a pessimistic viewpoint, to minimize the disincentive effect of food aid on production; or, more optimistically, to enable food aid to assist agricultural development. Suggestions included using food aid for stabilization reserves, as an input into an agricultural development project, and to finance differential pricing. A novel proposal was that food be given to poorly nourished farmers at critical agricultural seasons to increase the productivity of their labours.
Allocation The controversial subject of allocating food aid both among the various recipients and between project and bulk supply was of course of major concern. The lion’s share of food aid is in the form of bulk supplies. There was a wide measure of support for the view that in theory project food aid had some advantages, not least in that it enables donors to initiate desirable activities that might otherwise be neglected by the recipients. At the same time, it was also recognized that there exist major data gaps so that often we do not know exactly who receives the food or, if we do know, what effect it has on their consumption and production patterns. One frequently reiterated point was that aid has indirect food many consequences and that its evaluation should be assisted by wide ranging social and economic surveys of the beneficiaries and their milieu, preferably undertaken by local researchers. In any event, desirable though project aid might be, it is improbable that recipients initiate sufficient new projects to absorb a signi~cantly larger proportion of food aid, and it was underlined that ‘projects’ must not be fabricated simpiy to make use of available aid. Given that bulk aid will continue to be important some participants wanted a more determined effort by donors to control the use to which funds from the sale of the food
FOOD
POLICY
November
1978
Corlferences are put. Others felt that this was chasing
a chimera, and an undesirable one at that. Regarding the criteria for allocation among countries, there was disagreement over whether demand or creating employment absorptive capacity should be the main determinant: and in the case of the former. whether effective demand or nutritional requirement were more important. Ail agreed that demand for food aid would exceed supply.
What is to be achieved7 There was sympathy for the view that too much was expected of food aid. Each and every delivery could not be expected to increase agricultural producton and improve the welfare of the poorest and increase employment
and promote institutional reform; in practice a choice between desirable but conflicting goals would be needed. were principles Seven guiding suggested and discussed although they were not universally accepted. First, food aid can be useful when food is a constraint on growth or equitable income distribution. It is particularly useful when, second, it substitutes for commercial imports, and when, third, it supports a broad, poverty oriented development plan emphasizing domestic food production. Fourth, food aid must be planned and guaranteed in advance, and fifth, it should consist of products indigenous to the recipients. Food aid must complement and not substitute for financial aid, and finally, any savings derived from it should be available for development. There was a broader consensus in
National food policies in the OECD Meeting
of the OECD
France, 9- 10 February
Committee
for Agriculture
Food policy is in. After a slow start the pace has quickened. In November 1975 the Norwegian Parliament approved a report ‘Norwegian Nutrition and Food Policy’ which was a blueprint for the development of a national food policy. In June 1977 the Canadian government launched a discussion paper ‘A Food Strategy for Canada’, which outlined the principal elements of a strategy to reinforce the basic objectives of their existing food policy. And in November 1977 the US Secretary of Agriculture claimed that for the first time the United States has a national food policy. In February of this year more evidence appeared that other governments have clearly begun to consider the food policy concept. The ministerial communique, issued as a result of the meeting on 9-10 February 1978 of the 24 member countries’ of the Organisation for Economic cooperation and Development (OECD), for the first time referred to food policy discussions by Ministers of Agriculture
FOOD
POLICY
at Ministerial
Level, Paris,
19 78
November
1978
from OECD countries. The communique provides a useful review of the issues: Food Policy Ministers noted the increasingly close links between agricuiturai production. processing, marketing and consumption of food. They exchanged views on this trend and on the possibilities of contributing to a greater regularity of supply, of achieving a better balance of interest among the various participants in the system, and of overcoming the adjustment problems encountered by some of them. Ministers stressed the need to pay greater attention to nutritional needs and food economics and to take account of them in framing their food policies. Ministers noted that it would be desirable to relate more closely the various Governmental objectives and measures with respect to food and agriculture. Furthermore, they considered that it was in the interest of all participants in the food systems, including consumers, to make these systems more efficient and open, and to achieve a better understanding of price formation at all stages of the food
favour of a ten point check list that did not seek to prescribe action but merely to highlight the questions to be asked of food aid. Who is receiving the food, and why? What is the capacity of the distribution system? How acceptable is the food? Is the work programme technically and economically sound, and are farmers protected? Indeed, are the recipient’s agricultural development policies adequate and have the dangers of dependence been assessed? Is the scheme integrated into the wider development activities of both donor and recipient? Finally, does the information needed to monitor impact exist? In too many cases, the answer to the last question is, no. Christopher Overseas
~eyeiopme~t
Stevens, institute,
London.
UK
chain. They invited the Organisation to assist in analysing these problems. Ministers also mentioned the effects of ecological energy. and technological constraints on developments in the food sector.
The other ten paragraphs in the covered communique mainly the discussions on agricultural markets and relations with developing countries. Some of the opening speeches, most of which were made available to the press, provide some further insight. The speeches give the impression that there is much sympathy for the food policy perspective. The idea is appealing, that a broader look at the whole of the food production, processing and distribution system - the ‘food economy’ - could provide a useful way of looking at ail the bits and pieces of government policies and practices which affect it. A broad framework can help to relate one problem to another. However, recognition of the need for coherence in government policies is only a small step towards actually resolving some of the conflicts. A good sign was the statement on the need for a food policy by Eugene Whelan, Canadian Minister of Agriculture, who told his colleagues that ‘Canada is committed to achieving a state of balance and effectiveness by bringing together our various policies
319
Expert Meeting
Aid for Development,
on the Scope 30-37
March
and Conditions 1978,
Food aid is an emotional subject. Fund raising agencies learned long ago that the picture of a little child holding out an empty food bowl brought in the cash like nothing else, and even today there is evidently more public support in some developed countries for direct transfers of food to feed the starving millions than for cash to enable them to buy their own food. Similarly, food aid is attacked on emotional grounds. It has been criticized for lowering the recipient’s agricultural prices and also, paradoxically, for raising them. If a survey shows that a population receiving a food aided feeding programme is well nourished, food aid is criticized for not reaching the needy; if the survey reveals a malnourished population, food aid is criticized as ineffective. This colloquium, organized by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) Development Centre, which brought together 26 individuals from developed and developing countries, therefore served the most useful purpose of the claims and cutting through counterclaims of partisans on both sides, redefining the problem areas and suggesting means of improvement. were drawn from Participants institutes and agencies research involved in supplying or receiving food aid, but all attended in their personal capacities. The object of the meeting was not to produce a unanimous set of reff ecting government resolutions positions, but to encourage an exchange of views among independent experts officials. The and operational underlying rationale was that, at least in the short term, food aid will continue to be important and that it is both necessary and possible to improve the ways in which it is provided and used. Indeed, one view was that the notion of food aid as temporary is erroneous, and
318
for Improved
Use of Food
Paris, France
that it should more realistically considered as a permanent feature.
be
Additionality In the light of this, the first issue raised, whether food aid displaces or is additional to financial aid, was particularly significant. There was a feeling among many participants, however, that although the question of additionality may be a valid one for certain countries, as a general issue it is somewhat hypothetical. It does, however, lead into a discussion of the relative merits of food aid for development and financial aid, and the the two can be ways in which Although in theory coordinated. financial aid ought to be better in all circumstances (assuming it is made available on similar terms) because it can do everything food does and more besides, it was argued that in practice this may not be the case because, for whatever reason, food aid often reaches people who are missed by other projects. Food aided projects that reach or have the potential to reach the poorest groups within a country face a number and logistical of administrative problems because the poor are often remote. Since recipient governments may be unable or unwilling to provide resources to overcome these problems, was some support among there participants for the view that instead of emphasizing the two types of aid as competitors, more attention could be given to the ways in which they can be with financial aid coordinated. providing the non-food costs of food aided projects. Such mutual support would increase the onus on food aid donors of ensuring that their projects are well advised and fit into the recipient’s overall development strategy. The relationship between food aid
and agriculturaf production received a lot of attention. There was agreement that food aid is not enough and is no substitute for agricultural development in developing countries. Nevertheless, the two are not mutually exclusive, and there were several proposals on how they might be better related. The relation might be, from a pessimistic viewpoint, to minimize the disincentive effect of food aid on production; or, more optimistically, to enable food aid to assist agricultural development. Suggestions included using food aid for stabilization reserves, as an input into an agricultural development project, and to finance differential pricing. A novel proposal was that food be given to poorly nourished farmers at critical agricultural seasons to increase the productivity of their labours.
Allocation The controversial subject of allocating food aid both among the various recipients and between project and bulk supply was of course of major concern. The lion’s share of food aid is in the form of bulk supplies. There was a wide measure of support for the view that in theory project food aid had some advantages, not least in that it enables donors to initiate desirable activities that might otherwise be neglected by the recipients. At the same time, it was also recognized that there exist major data gaps so that often we do not know exactly who receives the food or, if we do know, what effect it has on their consumption and production patterns. One frequently reiterated point was that aid has indirect food many consequences and that its evaluation should be assisted by wide ranging social and economic surveys of the beneficiaries and their milieu, preferably undertaken by local researchers. In any event, desirable though project aid might be, it is improbable that recipients initiate sufficient new projects to absorb a signi~cantly larger proportion of food aid, and it was underlined that ‘projects’ must not be fabricated simpiy to make use of available aid. Given that bulk aid will continue to be important some participants wanted a more determined effort by donors to control the use to which funds from the sale of the food
FOOD
POLICY
November
1978
Corlferences are put. Others felt that this was chasing
a chimera, and an undesirable one at that. Regarding the criteria for allocation among countries, there was disagreement over whether demand or creating employment absorptive capacity should be the main determinant: and in the case of the former. whether effective demand or nutritional requirement were more important. Ail agreed that demand for food aid would exceed supply.
What is to be achieved7 There was sympathy for the view that too much was expected of food aid. Each and every delivery could not be expected to increase agricultural producton and improve the welfare of the poorest and increase employment
and promote institutional reform; in practice a choice between desirable but conflicting goals would be needed. were principles Seven guiding suggested and discussed although they were not universally accepted. First, food aid can be useful when food is a constraint on growth or equitable income distribution. It is particularly useful when, second, it substitutes for commercial imports, and when, third, it supports a broad, poverty oriented development plan emphasizing domestic food production. Fourth, food aid must be planned and guaranteed in advance, and fifth, it should consist of products indigenous to the recipients. Food aid must complement and not substitute for financial aid, and finally, any savings derived from it should be available for development. There was a broader consensus in
National food policies in the OECD Meeting
of the OECD
France, 9- 10 February
Committee
for Agriculture
Food policy is in. After a slow start the pace has quickened. In November 1975 the Norwegian Parliament approved a report ‘Norwegian Nutrition and Food Policy’ which was a blueprint for the development of a national food policy. In June 1977 the Canadian government launched a discussion paper ‘A Food Strategy for Canada’, which outlined the principal elements of a strategy to reinforce the basic objectives of their existing food policy. And in November 1977 the US Secretary of Agriculture claimed that for the first time the United States has a national food policy. In February of this year more evidence appeared that other governments have clearly begun to consider the food policy concept. The ministerial communique, issued as a result of the meeting on 9-10 February 1978 of the 24 member countries’ of the Organisation for Economic cooperation and Development (OECD), for the first time referred to food policy discussions by Ministers of Agriculture
FOOD
POLICY
at Ministerial
Level, Paris,
19 78
November
1978
from OECD countries. The communique provides a useful review of the issues: Food Policy Ministers noted the increasingly close links between agricuiturai production. processing, marketing and consumption of food. They exchanged views on this trend and on the possibilities of contributing to a greater regularity of supply, of achieving a better balance of interest among the various participants in the system, and of overcoming the adjustment problems encountered by some of them. Ministers stressed the need to pay greater attention to nutritional needs and food economics and to take account of them in framing their food policies. Ministers noted that it would be desirable to relate more closely the various Governmental objectives and measures with respect to food and agriculture. Furthermore, they considered that it was in the interest of all participants in the food systems, including consumers, to make these systems more efficient and open, and to achieve a better understanding of price formation at all stages of the food
favour of a ten point check list that did not seek to prescribe action but merely to highlight the questions to be asked of food aid. Who is receiving the food, and why? What is the capacity of the distribution system? How acceptable is the food? Is the work programme technically and economically sound, and are farmers protected? Indeed, are the recipient’s agricultural development policies adequate and have the dangers of dependence been assessed? Is the scheme integrated into the wider development activities of both donor and recipient? Finally, does the information needed to monitor impact exist? In too many cases, the answer to the last question is, no. Christopher Overseas
~eyeiopme~t
Stevens, institute,
London.
UK
chain. They invited the Organisation to assist in analysing these problems. Ministers also mentioned the effects of ecological energy. and technological constraints on developments in the food sector.
The other ten paragraphs in the covered communique mainly the discussions on agricultural markets and relations with developing countries. Some of the opening speeches, most of which were made available to the press, provide some further insight. The speeches give the impression that there is much sympathy for the food policy perspective. The idea is appealing, that a broader look at the whole of the food production, processing and distribution system - the ‘food economy’ - could provide a useful way of looking at ail the bits and pieces of government policies and practices which affect it. A broad framework can help to relate one problem to another. However, recognition of the need for coherence in government policies is only a small step towards actually resolving some of the conflicts. A good sign was the statement on the need for a food policy by Eugene Whelan, Canadian Minister of Agriculture, who told his colleagues that ‘Canada is committed to achieving a state of balance and effectiveness by bringing together our various policies
319