[House Hearing, 116 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
THE IMPLEMENTATION OF FARM BILL INTERNATIONAL FOOD ASSISTANCE AND
DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON LIVESTOCK AND FOREIGN AGRICULTURE
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
DECEMBER 10, 2019
__________
Serial No. 116-26
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Printed for the use of the Committee on Agriculture
agriculture.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
42-153 PDF WASHINGTON : 2020
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
COLLIN C. PETERSON, Minnesota, Chairman
DAVID SCOTT, Georgia K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas, Ranking
JIM COSTA, California Minority Member
MARCIA L. FUDGE, Ohio GLENN THOMPSON, Pennsylvania
JAMES P. McGOVERN, Massachusetts AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia
FILEMON VELA, Texas ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD,
STACEY E. PLASKETT, Virgin Islands Arkansas
ALMA S. ADAMS, North Carolina SCOTT DesJARLAIS, Tennessee
Vice Chair VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri
ABIGAIL DAVIS SPANBERGER, Virginia DOUG LaMALFA, California
JAHANA HAYES, Connecticut RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois
ANTONIO DELGADO, New York TED S. YOHO, Florida
TJ COX, California RICK W. ALLEN, Georgia
ANGIE CRAIG, Minnesota MIKE BOST, Illinois
ANTHONY BRINDISI, New York DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina
JEFFERSON VAN DREW, New Jersey RALPH LEE ABRAHAM, Louisiana
JOSH HARDER, California TRENT KELLY, Mississippi
KIM SCHRIER, Washington JAMES COMER, Kentucky
CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine ROGER W. MARSHALL, Kansas
CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois DON BACON, Nebraska
SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York NEAL P. DUNN, Florida
SALUD O. CARBAJAL, California DUSTY JOHNSON, South Dakota
AL LAWSON, Jr., Florida JAMES R. BAIRD, Indiana
TOM O'HALLERAN, Arizona JIM HAGEDORN, Minnesota
JIMMY PANETTA, California
ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona
CYNTHIA AXNE, Iowa
______
Anne Simmons, Staff Director
Matthew S. Schertz, Minority Staff Director
______
Subcommittee on Livestock and Foreign Agriculture
JIM COSTA, California, Chairman
ANTHONY BRINDISI, New York DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina,
JAHANA HAYES, Connecticut Ranking Minority Member
TJ COX, California GLENN THOMPSON, Pennsylvania
ANGIE CRAIG, Minnesota SCOTT DesJARLAIS, Tennessee
JOSH HARDER, California VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri
FILEMON VELA, Texas TRENT KELLY, Mississippi
STACEY E. PLASKETT, Virgin Islands JAMES COMER, Kentucky
SALUD O. CARBAJAL, California ROGER W. MARSHALL, Kansas
CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois DON BACON, Nebraska
JIMMY PANETTA, California JIM HAGEDORN, Minnesota
Katie Zenk, Subcommittee Staff Director
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Conaway, Hon. K. Michael, a Representative in Congress from
Texas, opening statement....................................... 4
Costa, Hon. Jim, a Representative in Congress from California,
opening statement.............................................. 1
Prepared statement........................................... 3
Marshall, Hon. Roger W., a Representative in Congress from
Kansas:
Submitted letter............................................. 37
Submitted legislation........................................ 38
Peterson, Hon. Collin C., a Representative in Congress from
Minnesota, opening statement................................... 17
Rouzer, Hon. David, a Representative in Congress from North
Carolina, opening statement.................................... 4
Witnesses
Isley, Ken, Administrator, Foreign Agricultural Service, U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C..................... 6
Prepared statement........................................... 7
Submitted questions.......................................... 46
Supplementary material....................................... 44
Hicks, Trey, Director, Office of Food for Peace, Bureau for
Democracy, Conflict, and Humanitarian Assistance, U.S. Agency
for International Development, Washington, D.C................. 10
Prepared statement........................................... 12
Submitted questions.......................................... 52
Supplementary material....................................... 45
THE IMPLEMENTATION OF FARM BILL INTERNATIONAL FOOD ASSISTANCE AND
DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS
----------
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 10, 2019
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Livestock and Foreign Agriculture,
Committee on Agriculture,
Washington, D.C.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:01 a.m., in
Room 1300 of the Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Jim
Costa [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Members present: Representatives Costa, Brindisi, Hayes,
Cox, Craig, Harder, Plaskett, Panetta, Peterson (ex officio),
Rouzer, Thompson, Marshall, Bacon, Hagedorn and Conaway (ex
officio).
Staff present: Melinda Cep, Malikha Daniels, Isabel Rosa,
Katie Zenk, Callie McAdams, Jennifer Tiller, Dana Sandman, and
Jennifer Yezak.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JIM COSTA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM CALIFORNIA
The Chairman. Good morning, everyone. And I want to thank
all of you for being here this morning. The Subcommittee on
Livestock and Foreign Agriculture will now come to order.
This morning's subject matter is the implementation of the
farm bill international food assistance and development
programs, an effort that our country has been engaged in for
decades, and a program that I believe has--or programs, I
should say, plural--real merit, and in so many different ways,
addresses the basic needs of humanitarian assistance around the
world, and really, as the richest nation in the world, puts
America in responding to the needs that are so many out there
and really shows us attempting to put the very best foot
forward.
We want to hear from the testimony here this morning from
our two witnesses on the implementation of last year's
bipartisan reauthorization of the farm bill as it relates to
international food assistance and the development programs that
were part and parcel to that reauthorization.
Last year 80 million people around the world required food
assistance that we participated. I suspect the number is
greater than that. Over 150 million children under the age of 5
are stunted, it is believed, as a result of malnutrition by
various international studies.
More than 11 million people alone who have been displaced
in Syria and Yemen that are living in refugee camps, we know
have been suffering for years as a result of that civil war.
And clearly we and the European Union and others are doing what
we can, but I suspect more needs to be done to address that.
Certainly when I have spoken to the King of Jordan and others,
they talk about the great impact that those refugee camps have
had.
According to the United Nations, the risk of hunger and
malnutrition could increase by up to 20 percent by the middle
of this century as a result of climate change and increased
population. And let me give you a little perspective on that.
About 3 years ago, the planet clicked seven billion people.
Now, to give you some perspective, over 200 years ago we had
1.7 billion. In 200 years we have gone from about 1.7 billion
people to 3 years ago over seven billion people, and it is
estimated by the middle of this century there will be an
additional two billion people throughout the world. That is two
billion more people that need nutrition and need a reliable
source of nutrition that goes beyond subsistence.
That is the challenge out there. And obviously as the
Chairman and Members of this Subcommittee participate, I also
have the good fortune to be on the Foreign Relations Committee,
and we look to see how we can mitigate and solve these programs
through combining of the best of bipartisan leadership that we
have in our country. And so that bipartisan leadership goes
back decades. The McGovern-Dole Food for Education obviously
was by Senator Dole and Senator McGovern that provided progress
and Food for Peace to build a more prosperous world that
provides assistance from the American people.
And when you look about that effort is going back in the
1980s to today and fast forward, last year we provided almost
$4 billion in assistance from the United States in a host of
these different programs; $4 billion. That is significant. In
the Fiscal Year 2018, the McGovern-Dole Food for Education
Program reached over four million of the most vulnerable women,
infants, and children. And Food for Progress provided nearly
70,000 people to apply improved technologies, and Food for
Peace, and title II programs served over 35 million
beneficiaries.
And to paraphrase a great comment that President Reagan
indicated, it is, as opposed to providing food which is always
so necessary, to teach people how to, using a fishing analogy,
but if you teach people how to grow food then they can be
subsistent on their own. And that is what these programs
attempt to do, to enhance our national security, obviously, put
our best food forward, and that increases global security,
stability, resiliency, and cooperation.
Other efforts like the Farmer-to-Farmer Program, the
Borlaug Program, and the Cochran Fellowship help expand
technical skills across agricultural value chains in the
developing world. I have seen that firsthand in India, and it
really is a program in which the Indians take a great deal of
pride in and support, and it is has obviously changed India's
ability to provide food for themselves.
Through these efforts, we are promoting international
partnerships that are critical in this day and age, harmonizing
standards that lead to mutually beneficial trading
relationships, because when we have the same standard of food
quality and food safety, obviously we can engage in greater
trade. Through these efforts we are providing international
efforts that reflect Congress's bipartisan support.
We will request from this Administration that these
programs continue to bring together a diverse set of important
domestic stakeholders, and these stakeholders are American
farmers, ranchers, dairymen and -women who provide that food,
who produce that food. Nobody does it better than the American
farmer. And in providing that support, we improve livelihoods
and we build partnerships throughout the breadbasket of
America, and at the same time we address disasters that occur
for a combination of reasons around the world.
It is in that role that this Subcommittee will ensure, and
we want to hear this morning how these programs, including
changes from the 2018 Farm Bill, are fully implemented.
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today, and I,
in consultation with the Ranking Member, pursuant to Rule
XI(e), excuse me, I want to make sure that Members of the
Subcommittee are aware that other Members of the full Committee
may join us today.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Costa follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Jim Costa, a Representative in Congress from
California
Thank you all for joining us today as we evaluate the
implementation of farm bill food international assistance and
development programs.
Last year, 80 million people around the world required emergency
food assistance. Over 150 million children under the age of 5 are
stunted as a result of malnutrition. More than 11 million people in
Syria and Yemen alone have been displaced due to conflict. And,
according to the United Nations, the risk of hunger and malnutrition
could increase by up to 20 percent by 2050 due to climate shocks.
As the chair of this Subcommittee and a Member of the Foreign
Affairs Committee, I have the privilege of overseeing how the U.S. is
working to mitigate and solve these problems through impactful
leadership around the globe.
Programs like McGovern-Dole Food for Education, Food for Progress,
and Food for Peace help build a more prosperous world by providing
assistance from the American people, and in the cases of many of these
programs, providing assistance directly from American farmers.
In Fiscal Year 2018, the McGovern-Dole Food for Education program
directly reached over four million of the most vulnerable women,
infants, and children, Food for Progress helped nearly 70,000 people
apply improved technologies, and the Food for Peace title II program
served 35 million beneficiaries. With all our efforts included, the
U.S. spent nearly $4 billion on international food assistance programs
in 2018.
These programs also help to enhance our national security by
increasing global stability, resiliency, and cooperation. Other efforts
like the Farmer-to-Farmer program and Borlaug and Cochran Fellowships
help expand technical skills across agricultural value chains in the
developing world.
Through these efforts, we are promoting international partnerships
and harmonizing standards that lead to mutually beneficial trading
relationships.
Despite past budget requests from this Administration, these
programs continue to bring together a diverse set of important domestic
stakeholders to improve livelihoods, build partnerships, and respond to
the worst disasters around the world. It is the role of this
Subcommittee to ensure these programs, including changes from the 2018
Farm Bill, are fully implemented.
The Chairman. I will defer to the Ranking Member for his
comments at this time.
Mr. Rouzer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will defer to the
former Chairman.
The Chairman. And the Ranking Member would like to defer to
the Ranking Member of the full Committee, former Chairman of
the House Agriculture Committee, the gentleman from Texas.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM TEXAS
Mr. Conaway. Thank you, Jim. David, I appreciate that.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Many thanks to our witnesses for
taking time to be here today.
I won't take much time, but I would like to say that we
worked hard on the provisions of the 2018 Farm Bill that made
adjustments to our international food assistance and
agriculture development programs. And as a proud supporter of
the important work these programs do, I am ready to hear more
about how implementation is going.
There is a strong partnership between USDA and USAID to
carry out these programs, which I am sure we will hear more
about today. We also have a broad coalition of stakeholders
both in the United States and internationally, which is
essential. Still, it is critical and absolutely crucial that
food assistance and agriculture development efforts focus on
building resilience, whether it is for disaster, economic
downturns, or conflicts. Those we are helping are in countries
around the world in places like Ethiopia, Nicaragua, Jordan,
and Cambodia. Our efforts must lead to greater capacity for
them to weather their own challenges that come before them, and
ultimately reduce hunger, poverty, and the need for U.S.
intervention.
With that, I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman from Texas and I will
now defer to the Ranking Member of this Committee, Member
Rouzer, for his opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DAVID ROUZER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM NORTH CAROLINA
Mr. Rouzer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to thank
our witnesses for being here today. I look forward to your
testimony regarding international food assistance and
development programs authorized in the farm bill and subsequent
implementation by both the USDA and USAID.
Now, this is our first hearing on international food
assistance and agriculture development in this Congress. The
food we deliver and development activities we promote are
critical tools that feed people, build agriculture capacity,
and foster good will between the United States and our friends
around the world.
This hearing today allows us an opportunity to review how
the changes made in the farm bill have been executed thus far.
American farmers play an important role in producing the
crops that are delivered through in-kind food aid. A bag of
rice, wheat, flour, or any one of dozens of other products
grown by U.S. farmers are powerful symbols of the productivity
and generosity of America, but it is not just farmers who are
involved.
As we know, in addition to the fine farm families and food
processors here in the United States, food assistance and
international agriculture development rely on partnerships
among USDA, USAID, the shippers and associated transportation
industries, non-governmental organizations, international
organizations such as the World Food Programme, host-country
governments, other donor governments, third-party auditors, and
American volunteers, among many, many others. This coalition of
participation and support is what allows American agriculture
assistance to fulfill such an important need around the world,
and it is the rich history of U.S. generosity through in-kind
food aid that makes this coalition possible.
Food for Peace, an example of this important coalition in
action, celebrated its 65th anniversary this year. Many other
programs like Food for Progress, McGovern-Dole, the Bill
Emerson Humanitarian Trust, and Farmer-to-Farmer have also
built similar success.
These programs help those in other countries produce their
own food, learn more about production agriculture, and in the
case of McGovern-Dole, encourages school attendance and
learning by delivering a nutritious meal.
This is, however, over time these programs lay the
groundwork for individuals and families in impoverished
countries to stand on their own two feet.
In recent years, particularly since 2010, the U.S. has
provided locally and regionally-procured food and cash-based
assistance in addition to in-kind food aid. Certainly, these
are important tools in the toolkit of food aid delivery. There
are certain circumstances, such as during conflict or where
local markets are well functioning, where U.S. agriculture
commodities may not be the best option. But overwhelmingly,
overwhelmingly, in many cases, U.S. agriculture products are in
fact the best option.
It is U.S. farm products covered with an American flag and
delivered in countries of need that are the true backbone of
the assistance the United States provides. It is critical that
American agriculture in-kind assistance remains as the backbone
for years to come.
Thank you again to our witnesses for being here today, and
I look forward to your testimony.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman. And we will now begin
with our witnesses and the presentation of their testimony.
The Members who request an opening statement, we have for
the record they provide their testimony and we will forego so
there will be ample time for questions.
I would like to obviously welcome our witnesses. The first
is Ken Isley, Administrator of Foreign Agricultural Service of
the United States Department of Agriculture. He was appointed
March 2018 and he leads the agency staff not only here in
Washington, but 93 offices around the world that expand trade
and export opportunities for American agriculture. If he seems
familiar, it is because he is. He has been around for a while
and he grew up on his family's farm in Iowa. And so we look
forward to hearing your comments, and please begin. You know
the routine here. You have 5 minutes and when the light turns
yellow you have a minute left, so, please proceed.
STATEMENT OF KEN ISLEY, ADMINISTRATOR, FOREIGN
AGRICULTURAL SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURE, WASHINGTON, D.C.
Mr. Isley. Thank you very much, and good morning Ranking
Member Conaway, Chairman Costa, and other Members of the
Subcommittee.
I am pleased to appear today with my colleague Trey Hicks,
Director of USAID's Office of Food for Peace. I appreciate the
opportunity to discuss the implementation of the international
food assistance and capacity-building programs administered by
USDA.
As Administrator of the Foreign Agricultural Service, I am
proud to represent the dedicated and talented women and men
from our agency, and I want to thank you for your continued
support.
Last December when Congress passed and President Trump
signed the 2018 Farm Bill, the Department immediately
prioritized implementation and we hit the ground running. The
bill includes authorization, and in some cases funding, for
USDA's agricultural development and capacity-building programs.
I am pleased to report that we effectively implemented all such
programs for Fiscal Year 2019, publishing new regulations when
necessary, and positioning ourselves to seamlessly implement
programs as funded in Fiscal Year 2020.
Our reauthorized programs include the Food for Progress
Program, the McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and
Child Nutrition Program, and the Local and Regional Food Aid
Procurement Program. The farm bill also amended two important
fellowship programs, the Borlaug International Agricultural
Science and Technology Fellowship Program and the Cochran
Fellowship Program. Each is being implemented without
interruption.
In August we announced Fiscal Year 2019 Food for Progress
awards of more than $138 million to improve agriculture
productivity in developing countries, and expand trade projects
planned for Africa, Asia, and South America are intended to
reach over 238,000 beneficiaries directly over the next 5
years.
Most recently, an updated Food for Progress regulation was
published to reflect a farm bill required expansion of eligible
entities to include U.S. public and nonprofit colleges and
universities.
From McGovern-Dole, Fiscal Year 2019 awards of $170 million
were announced this summer to support school feeding programs
in Cambodia, Guinea-Bissau, Haiti, Malawi, Mauritania,
Mozambique, Togo, and Uzbekistan. These projects will provide
school meals and nutrition programs for pregnant women, nursing
mothers, infants, and children in countries with high food
insecurity.
Entering Fiscal Year 2020, McGovern-Dole had a total of 40
active projects valued at $961 million in 30 countries that are
expected to reach over 4.5 million beneficiaries this year.
In November, FAS published an updated McGovern-Dole
regulation to implement a 2018 Farm Bill required change to
provide for not more than ten percent of program funds for
local and regional procurement of commodities. This reflects
new authority, separate from an existing stand-alone LRP
program. Fifteen million of Fiscal Year 2019 funds were
provided for that stand-alone local and regional procurement
program.
USDA announced allocations in August for projects in
Burkina Faso, Cambodia, and Nicaragua. These projects are
estimated to reach more than 100,000 school children,
augmenting over 20 million meals.
Cochran and Borlaug Fellowship programs offer mentoring to
agribusiness representatives, researchers, policy makers, with
the aim to promote food security, trade, and economic growth.
Under the 2018 Farm Bill, the programs continued operating this
year without interruption with fellowships awarded on a rolling
basis.
Recent training of Cochran fellows from Brazil's food
marketing and distribution industries at the University of
Nebraska led to a Brazilian company's purchases of high-quality
U.S. beef.
From selecting countries and priorities, to reviewing
proposals, evaluating project performance, and reporting
projects, USDA's food assistance staff coordinate with
colleagues at USAID. Collaboration does not just occur in
Washington. It occurs throughout the world.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I would be
pleased to answer any questions, including providing examples
to illustrate these programs implemented by USDA.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Isley follows:]
Prepared Statement of Ken Isley, Administrator, Foreign Agricultural
Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.
Chairman Costa, Ranking Member Rouzer, Members of the Subcommittee,
I am pleased to appear before you with my colleague, Trey Hicks,
Director of the Office of Food for Peace, U.S. Agency for International
Development (USAID). I appreciate the opportunity to discuss the
implementation of the international food assistance and capacity
building programs administered by the United States Department of
Agriculture (USDA) as authorized by the Agriculture Improvement Act of
2018 (2018 Farm Bill). As Administrator of the Foreign Agricultural
Service (FAS), I want to thank the Subcommittee for your continued
support for the work of the Agency and the Department.
Introduction
Last December, when Congress passed and President Trump signed the
2018 Farm Bill, the Department immediately prioritized implementing
new, updated, and reauthorized programs quickly and effectively. The
Trade and Foreign Agricultural Affairs mission area, which includes
FAS, hit the ground running. The trade title of the 2018 Farm Bill
includes authorization, and in some cases funding, for USDA's
agricultural development and capacity building programs. I am pleased
to report that we effectively implemented all such programs for Fiscal
Year 2019. Additionally, we have published new regulations for USDA
international food assistance programs that position the Agency to
seamlessly implement these programs in Fiscal Year 2020 when full year
appropriations are finalized.
International Food Assistance Programs
FAS-administered international food assistance programs
reauthorized through FY 2023 by the 2018 Farm Bill include: the Food
for Progress Program (FFPr); the McGovern-Dole International Food for
Education and Child Nutrition Program (McGovern-Dole); and the Local
and Regional Food Aid Procurement Program (LRP). The 2018 Farm Bill
also amended two fellowship programs which received FY 2019 funding:
the Borlaug International Agricultural Science and Technology
Fellowship Program (Borlaug) and the Cochran Fellowship Program
(Cochran).
I would note that the President's 2020 Budget is focused on
eliminating duplication and increasing efficiency, effectiveness,
performance and accountability. The Budget prioritizes USAID bilateral
assistance, including food security programs led by USAID's Bureau of
Food Security (the interagency lead for Feed the Future), food aid,
education, and related development programs and does not seek funds for
the FFPr or McGovern-Dole.
Implementation Launch
With the challenges created by the late December reauthorization of
farm bill programs, the partial government shutdown through most of
January, and mid-February securing of full year 2019 appropriations
behind us, FAS launched the implementation of our FY 2019 food
assistance programs. Importantly, the programs are authorized to be
implemented by Private Voluntary Organizations (PVOs),
intergovernmental organizations, and other eligible entities. In March,
we held a public meeting with eligible entities and stakeholders to
solicit input on implementing farm bill programs.
Food for Progress
For FFPr, FAS issued the FY 2019 Notice of Funding Opportunity
(NOFO) in March.
Proposals were solicited to meet the two principal objectives of
FFPr: to improve agricultural productivity in developing countries and
emerging democracies and to expand trade in agricultural products.
Donated U.S. agricultural commodities are shipped to recipient
countries and sold on the local market in a process that is often
referred to as monetization. The proceeds, which we recently reported
averaged about 72 percent of the cost to U.S. taxpayers in FY 2018,
support agricultural, economic, or infrastructure development projects.
FFPr projects have trained farmers in animal and plant health, improved
farming methods, developed road and utility systems, established
producer cooperatives, provided microcredit, and developed agricultural
value chains. FFPr project implementers have included PVOs, foreign
governments, universities, and intergovernmental organizations.
In August, we announced awards of more than $138 million to improve
agricultural productivity in developing countries and expand trade in
agricultural products. The countries to be covered through these
projects in FY 2019 include Ethiopia, Indonesia, Paraguay, the
Philippines, Benin, Burkina Faso, Cote d'Ivoire, Ghana, Nigeria, and
Venezuela. There is also a project focused across the East African
Community. The allocation for Venezuela is contingent upon initiation
of a democratic transition. Together, these projects are intended to
reach over 238,000 beneficiaries directly over the next 5 years.
A FFPr project in East Timor has helped to support the export of
locally cultivated crops that do not compete with U.S. production and
created opportunities for subsistence farmers to increase their income.
USDA's FFPr activities in East Timor touch along the entire
agricultural value chain from providing seedlings to farmers, to
equipment purchases and assistance in exporting harvested crops. FFPr-
supported activities have resulted in new commercial market
relationships between U.S. companies and East Timor producers. The
program benefits local producers of several commodities, including
cloves, vanilla, coffee, black pepper, and cacao. After improved
agricultural techniques were implemented, the project's first yields of
organic, fair-trade certified coffee commenced in 2019 with more than
19 tons headed to international buyers, including U.S. importers. Each
year thereafter production is expected to increase gradually to a total
of 1,000 tons by 2029. U.S. companies have also recently purchased more
than 50 tons of cloves and 4 tons of vanilla.
Most recently, an updated FFPr regulation was published in August
to reflect a 2018 Farm Bill-required expansion of eligible entities to
include U.S. public and nonprofit colleges and universities.
McGovern-Dole
The McGovern-Dole program's statutory objectives are to improve
food security; reduce hunger; improve literacy and primary education,
with an emphasis on girls; and carry out maternal, infant, and child
nutrition programs. Awards are made for multi-year McGovern-Dole
projects. Entering FY 2020, McGovern-Dole had a total of 40 active
projects valued at $961 million in 30 countries. The projects are
expected to reach over 4.5 million beneficiaries in FY 2020.
FAS issued the FY 2019 NOFO for McGovern-Dole in March. Proposals
were solicited to provide school meals for preschool and primary school
children, and nutrition programs for pregnant women, nursing mothers,
infants, and children 5 years of age or younger, in countries with high
food insecurity. FY 2019 awards were announced in August. $170 million
in funding was awarded to support school feeding programs in Cambodia,
Guinea-Bissau, Haiti, Malawi, Mauritania, Mozambique, Togo, and
Uzbekistan.
Last year, Kenya, whose school feeding program was originally
launched by the World Food Programme (WFP) in 1980 and which was funded
by McGovern-Dole starting in 2004, became the first country in Africa
to transition all schools previously supported by McGovern-Dole to a
government-supported national school meal program. The Government of
Kenya has become a leader in school feeding, developing home grown
school meals policies and programs. USDA worked closely with our
implementing partner, WFP, to support Kenya's efforts. McGovern-Dole
projects in Kenya in the past have supported more than 4,000 schools.
In November, FAS published an updated McGovern-Dole regulation to
implement a 2018 Farm Bill-required change to provide for not more than
ten percent of program funds to be used directly for local and regional
procurement of commodities. This reflects new authority separate from
authority for an existing, stand-alone LRP program.
Local and Regional Food Aid Procurement Program
First authorized as a permanent program in the 2014 Farm Bill, the
LRP program was designed to provide a complementary mechanism for
delivering international food assistance. Including local commodities,
such as fruits and vegetables, can increase the acceptability and
palatability of nutritious meals, strengthen supply chains, and boost
local support for sustainability. LRP is also authorized to help
expedite provision of safe and quality foods to populations affected by
food crises and disasters. Some key objectives of LRP include
strengthening the ability of local and regional farmers, community
farmer groups, farmer cooperatives and associations, processors, and
agribusinesses to provide safe and nutritious high-quality commodities.
Funding preference is given to entities incorporating locally or
regionally procured commodities into activities under McGovern-Dole,
with the aim to strengthen the ability of local host governments to
take ownership of McGovern-Dole projects.
The FY 2019 appropriations Act directed $15 million of FY 2019
McGovern-Dole funds to be used to conduct the LRP program. USDA
announced a preliminary allocation of these funds in August to projects
in Burkina-Faso, Cambodia, and Nicaragua. These three USDA LRP projects
are estimated to reach more than 105,000 school-age children,
augmenting over 20 million meals.
A recent example of an LRP award was funding for a $2 million, 2
year project designed to incorporate orange-fleshed sweet potatoes into
daily school meals in Mozambique. Farmers received assistance growing
sweet potatoes that were then harvested and purchased for use at
schools, to improve the diet of 25,000 school-aged children. With the
proceeds earned from selling the sweet potatoes, the farmers were able
to reinvest in the following year's crops.
Borlaug and Cochran Fellowship Programs
Borlaug and Cochran fellowship programs offer mentoring to
policymakers with the aim to promote food security, trade, and economic
growth. Both programs award funds on a rolling-basis. Opportunities to
host Borlaug and Cochran fellows are circulated through the U.S. Land
Grant University System, USDA, other Federal Government agencies, the
U.S. Agricultural Export Development Council, U.S. private
agribusinesses, and agricultural consultants.
Under the 2018 Farm Bill, both programs were subject to minor
amendments, but remained operating without interruption.
Cochran Fellowship Program
As directed, Cochran now allows for training in the U.S. or at
colleges or universities overseas with specific U.S. ties. For FY 2019
funds, FAS published its first NOFOs in March and began to award funds
under the 2018 Farm Bill amendments in April.
Since 1984, Cochran has provided short-term training for over
18,500 international Fellows from 126 countries worldwide. Cochran
operates in middle-income and emerging market countries, providing
training opportunities for senior and mid-level specialists and
administrators working in agricultural trade and policy; agribusiness
development; management; animal, plant, and food sciences; extension
services; agricultural marketing; and many other areas representing the
public- and private-sectors of interest to agriculture. Cochran
supports existing and potential foreign trade partners to expand
markets for U.S. exports and strengthen and assist eligible countries
in developing agricultural systems that can strengthen and enhance
trade opportunities for U.S. exporters.
For example, a 2018 Cochran program, conducted in partnership with
the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, provided training to eight Fellows
from Brazil's food marketing and distribution industries. The objective
of the training was to expose the Fellows to the marketing, usage, and
availability of U.S. beef. As a result of this Cochran training, a
Brazilian company purchased U.S. beef valued at $200,000, marking the
first sale of U.S. beef as a direct result of Cochran intervention.
Borlaug Fellowship Program
For Borlaug, FAS issued a NOFO for FY 2019 funds in May and began
awarding funds under the 2018 Farm Bill in June.
The Borlaug International Agricultural Science and Technology
Fellowship Program (Borlaug) was established in March 2004 to honor the
Nobel Laureate Dr. Norman E. Borlaug. The program promotes agricultural
productivity, food security, trade, and economic growth by providing
training and collaborative research opportunities to early and mid-
career scientists, researchers, or policymakers from developing and
middle-income countries. Borlaug Fellows spend 8 to 12 weeks in the
United States and work individually with U.S. scientists in their
fields to learn new research techniques, gain exposure to the latest
scientific developments in agriculture, and access fully-equipped
laboratories. Since the program's inception, USDA has supported more
than 850 Borlaug Fellows from 69 countries.
For example, a Borlaug Fellow from Thailand's National Bureau of
Agricultural Commodity and Food Standards attended Oregon State
University where she evaluated models to improve pesticide dietary risk
assessments for maximum residue levels (MRLs). She developed a dietary
risk assessment tool which supports the Thai Government when defending
their pesticide MRLs from challenges. This contributes to strengthening
the capacity of the Thai Government as a U.S. trading partner by
establishing MRLs for pesticides through enhanced adoption of science-
based standards.
Coordinating USDA Food Aid Programs
From selecting countries and priorities to reviewing proposals,
monitoring agreements, evaluating project performance, and reporting
progress, USDA's food assistance staff coordinate with colleagues
across the Department and the U.S. Government, particularly USAID, as
well as with donors, stakeholders, and recipients. USDA food assistance
staff work daily with their colleagues at USAID and meet regularly with
USAID's Office of Food for Peace to discuss issues related to priority
country selections, commodity specifications, leveraging resources, and
managing constraints. Collaboration with our interagency partners and
stakeholders does not occur just in Washington. As Administrator of
FAS, I know the benefits of FAS staff collaborating in posts around the
world. USDA's food assistance program staff work also closely with our
overseas posts and their overseas colleagues from USAID, the State
Department, the Department of Commerce, the Office of the U.S. Trade
Representative, the Millennium Challenge Corporation, and numerous
other agencies and stakeholders.
Conclusion
Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I am pleased to report
that the implementation of the international food assistance and
capacity building programs administered by the USDA as authorized by
the 2018 Farm Bill has been successful. I would be pleased to answer
any questions of the Subcommittee.
The Chairman. Thank you very much for your testimony.
And our next witness is Mr. Trey Hicks, Director of the
Office of Food for Peace at the U.S. Agency for International
Development. He was appointed Director on October 29, 2018. He
brings more than a decade of experience to the United States
Senate and he also served with Congressman Ted Poe, and so he
is a familiar face. And we appreciate his oversight efforts on
foreign assistance.
Thank you for your testimony, and please begin.
STATEMENT OF TREY HICKS, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF FOOD FOR PEACE,
BUREAU FOR DEMOCRACY, CONFLICT, AND
HUMANITARIAN ASSISTANCE, U.S. AGENCY FOR
INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT, WASHINGTON, D.C.
Mr. Hicks. Chairman Costa, Chairman Peterson, Ranking
Member Rouzer, Ranking Member Conaway, and other Members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for the invitation to discuss
international food assistance programs.
My name is Trey Hicks. I am the Director of USAID's Office
of Food for Peace, the largest provider of food assistance to
the world's most vulnerable people. Our work represents
America's generosity and it is crucial and critical to our
national security. We save lives, assist fragile countries
recovering from crises, and help poor people take their first
steps on their journey to self-reliance.
Most of our work helps the hungriest people affected by
conflict and natural disasters, including refugees. This year,
90 percent of Food for Peace funding supported emergency
responses in 55 countries, helping tens of millions of people.
We have also development programs that address the root
causes of hunger in areas of chronic crisis. These programs
equip people with the tools to feed themselves, reducing the
need for future assistance.
Food for Peace provides life-saving food assistance in
several ways. In some instances, we provide in-kind food grown
in the United States or buy food locally or regionally. Other
times we provide vouchers or money, usually through electronic
debit cards, so people can buy food at local markets. None of
these options are better than the other. It depends on the
context of each emergency.
Given the jurisdiction of this Subcommittee, I will focus
on title II programs which are primarily used to buy food in
the United States. When Food for Peace uses U.S. commodities,
we work with NGOs like Catholic Relief Services or
international organizations like the World Food Programme. Our
partners choose from dozens of U.S. commodities, which Food for
Peace approves and buys on the open market. Next, we ship food
from U.S. ports to a recipient country. Upon arrival, the food
is prioritized to reach the most vulnerable, primarily young
children, women, and the elderly.
U.S. food is critical in places like Yemen, where there are
20 million hungry people, more than the combined populations of
Minnesota and North Carolina. In Yemen, conflict has led to
less food in local markets, rising food prices, fewer job
opportunities, and plummeting wages. Five years into this
conflict, families have used up their savings and can't afford
to buy food. In response, Food for Peace provided more than
775,000 metric tons of food to partners in Yemen this year
alone. One partner, the World Food Programme, feeds up to 12
million people every month.
We invest U.S. tax dollars responsibly. Food for Peace
works under very difficult circumstances, like in Yemen, but we
try to mitigate the risk through rigorous oversight, including
third-party monitoring, biometric registration, and hotlines.
We work with partners, other donors, and our Inspector General
to identify risks and take steps to protect our assistance.
We do not do this work alone. As Administrator Green has
said, tackling hunger requires an all-hands-on-deck approach.
We work with the State Department's Bureau of Population,
Refugees, and Migration on overseas refugee efforts. The U.S.
Department of Agriculture helps us buy title II food. Our
development activities are a central component of Feed the
Future led by USAID's Bureau for Food Security.
USAID has a long history of working with U.S. farmers, food
manufacturers, and others to buy and transport food. We also
look for opportunities to partner with private companies.
While our programs are impactful, there is always room for
improvement. The Famine Early Warning System Network predicts
more than 88 million people will need emergency food assistance
in 2020. To meet these needs, our programs must continue to
evolve.
The changes you have made to the Food for Peace Act in the
last farm bill improved efficiency and effectiveness, allowing
us to save more lives. For example, Provision 207(f) gives us
more funds for early warning, monitoring, and oversight, which
makes our programs more effective. And in the Fiscal Year 2020
budget request, we include a single international humanitarian
assistance account that would give us maximum flexibility to
program food assistance using the most appropriate tool for
each context to best meet needs.
USAID is also undergoing a transformation to improve our
work. Currently, Food for Peace works alongside the Office of
U.S. Foreign Disaster Assistance. We provide emergency food and
nutrition assistance while they tackle needs like shelter,
medical care, and hygiene.
The forthcoming Bureau for Humanitarian Assistance will
bring our offices together, streamlining our humanitarian
response.
Before closing, I want to thank the Food for Peace team and
our partners for delivering food assistance on behalf of the
American people.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify, and I look
forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hicks follows:]
Prepared Statement of Trey Hicks, Director, Office of Food for Peace,
Bureau for Democracy, Conflict, and Humanitarian Assistance, U.S.
Agency for International Development, Washington, D.C.
Introduction
Chairman Costa, Ranking Member Rouzer, and Members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for the invitation to speak with you today
about international food assistance programs.
My name is Trey Hicks, and I am the Director of the Office of Food
for Peace (FFP) within the Bureau for Democracy, Conflict, and
Humanitarian Assistance (DCHA) at the U.S. Agency for International
Development (USAID), the largest provider of food assistance to the
world's most vulnerable people.
Overview of the Office of Food for Peace
For 65 years, our mission has been to save lives and end hunger by
providing food assistance. We do this work because alleviating global
hunger represents the best of America's generosity and goodwill. It can
also advance U.S. security by helping to stabilize fragile regions,
which can make the world a safer place. By helping them recover from
crises, our work supports people as they take their first steps on the
Journey to Self-Reliance. These efforts complement the work of other
parts of USAID, including the Bureau of Food Security (BFS). My remarks
today focus on DCHA/FFP's efforts and mainly on title II.
Responding to Emergencies
The majority of our work helps the hungriest people affected by
conflict and natural disasters, including refugees. During Fiscal Year
2019, about 90 percent of DCHA/FFP's funding supported emergency
responses in 55 countries, which helped tens of millions of people.
DCHA/FFP continuously monitors food insecurity levels worldwide and
makes emergency funding decisions on a monthly basis, often to meet
anticipated emergency food needs several months in the future. Natural
disasters, such as hurricanes and earthquakes, evolving conflicts, and
political crises that result in population displacements often require
immediate assistance. DCHA/FFP balances these changing needs by
continuously adjusting programming priorities to ensure our food
assistance is reaching the most vulnerable populations worldwide.
When making funding decisions, DCHA/FFP carefully considers many
factors, including the severity of needs, the availability of funds,
contributions from other donors and the extent to which other donors
are doing their fair share, access and security constraints in affected
countries, as well as the capacity of our partners, all to ensure that
we invest our humanitarian resources responsibly and effectively.
To anticipate food insecurity, DCHA/FFP uses data from the Famine
Early Warning Systems Network, or FEWS NET, which USAID funds--
including analyses of weather, markets, and trade conditions--to inform
our programmatic decisions. This information is critical in enabling
DCHA/FFP to respond early and robustly so our assistance has maximum
impact.
In addition to data from FEWS NET, DCHA/FFP often looks to a
disaster declaration from a U.S. Embassy, an emergency appeal issued by
the United Nations (UN), or a request from local authorities for
assistance because they do not have the capacity to respond adequately.
Most important, our staff and partners on the ground assess needs and
serve as critical sources of information. All of these inputs are
critical to help us determine if, when, and how to respond.
Tackling Chronic Hunger
We recognize that repeatedly responding to emergencies, while life-
saving, is an expensive stop-gap measure that will not end hunger nor
improve long-term food security. BFS leads Feed the Future, a whole-of-
government food security effort, that seeks to reduce the root causes
of hunger and future emergency food needs in areas subject to recurrent
food crises. While the FY 2020 Budget has proposed to eliminate title
II, Feed the Future programs include ongoing DCHA/FFP development
programs that also equip people with the knowledge and tools to feed
themselves.
In Fiscal Year (FY) 2019, DCHA/FFP invested over $365 million in
development food security activities in 12 countries, including several
Feed the Future target countries. These activities aim to reduce
chronic malnutrition among children under 5 and pregnant or lactating
women, increase and diversify household incomes, provide opportunities
for microfinance and savings, and support agricultural programs to
build resilience, reduce shocks, and the vulnerability to future shocks
and stresses.
Options for Emergency Food Assistance
Typically, DCHA/FFP provides people with life-saving emergency food
assistance in four ways: (1) food procured and shipped from the United
States; (2) food procured near crises (locally or regionally from
developing countries); (3) food vouchers; or, (4) cash or electronic
transfers for families to buy food in local markets. How we respond
depends on the context of the emergency, and includes factors such as
appropriateness, timeliness, effectiveness, and efficiency. For
example, access to vulnerable communities can be a challenge,
especially in conflict areas, where security may be a concern and may
make the logistics of moving in-kind assistance unmanageable. Increased
flexibility allows us to use the right tool at the right time to feed
more people. I'd like to share a few examples.
Even before the conflict began in Yemen, the country relied on
imports for the vast majority of its food. Today, conflict has left
more than 20 million Yemenis hungry, the largest food security
emergency in the world. USAID-provided in-kind food aid, such as
authorized under title II of the Food for Peace Act, is critical
because many Yemeni households cannot support themselves and food is
extremely expensive in local markets. In partnership with the UN World
Food Program[me] (WFP), we are reaching up to 12 million people in
Yemen every month with title II and other types of food aid.
In Jordan, where local, urban markets are functioning, DCHA/FFP
provides food assistance to refugees through electronic food vouchers.
In-kind food assistance is not a feasible option, because it would be
difficult to reach such a dispersed population in urban centers.
Vouchers, however, allow people to buy food in markets that are close
to where they live, while supporting the local economy in refugee-
hosting areas.
In the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, DCHA/FFP uses
different types of food assistance to respond to drought, displacement,
and other shocks. For refugees in eastern Ethiopia, DCHA/FFP provides
in-kind food, including U.S. title II food aid, as well as food
purchased in local and regional markets, because refugees live in
remote areas with limited local production, restricted access to
markets, and high food prices. Where markets are functioning, DCHA/FFP
uses market-based assistance to help people affected by drought or
displacement. Cash and vouchers enable them to choose food that meet
their needs best and provide dietary diversity, while bolstering local
markets.
Funding for the Office of Food for Peace
DCHA/FFP provides assistance primarily via two types of funding:
(1) Funds under title II of the Food for Peace Act, most recently
amended by the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018, over which this
Subcommittee has jurisdiction; and, (2) International Disaster
Assistance (IDA) funds under the Foreign Assistance Act (FAA) of 1961,
as amended.
Under title II, USAID provides U.S. commodities such as wheat,
beans, sorghum, and vegetable oil to meet emergency food needs. We also
use these funds to carry out development activities that address the
root causes of food insecurity and malnutrition.
IDA funds finance the full spectrum of emergency humanitarian
assistance operations in response to international crises, including
emergency food security activities. The Global Food Security
Reauthorization Act of 2017 recently amended the FAA and reauthorized
IDA, as well as the Emergency Food Security Program (EFSP), USAID's
market-based food assistance programs.
In his Budget Request for FY 2020, the President has not requested
funds for title II, IDA, or overseas humanitarian assistance in the
Migration and Refugee Assistance account, managed by the Bureau of
Population, Refugees, and Migration (PRM) at the U.S. Department of
State. Instead, the President proposes to create a new International
Humanitarian Assistance (IHA) account to provide food and non-food
humanitarian assistance to all populations in need through the most
effective and appropriate means for each crisis. The IHA account would
consolidate all overseas humanitarian assistance funding into a single
new, flexible account administered by USAID. Through the IHA account,
we would continue to be the world's largest humanitarian donor and
purchase food from U.S. farmers, which would remain a vital part of
U.S. food assistance programs overseas.
I will provide highlights about our current food assistance
operations including oversight, recent and forthcoming changes, and
coordination efforts within and beyond the U.S. Government for DCHA/
FFP's programs. Given the jurisdiction of this Subcommittee, I will
start with our current procurement of title II commodities.
Procuring U.S. In-Kind Food Aid
Dozens of U.S. commodities are available for programs authorized
under title II, and we work with the U.S. Department of Agriculture
(USDA), agriculture organizations, and university researchers to
constantly improve them.
Once we assess and determine that a U.S. in-kind food assistance
program is appropriate, we engage with partners to do the work--either
Private Voluntary Organizations, such as Catholic Relief Services and
World Vision, or international organizations, such as the WFP. Partners
choose from the list of eligible commodities, based on local
assessments of markets and needs. We help them to identify the types
and amounts of U.S. commodities required, as well as a schedule for
their delivery. Once approved by DCHA/FFP, they place an order for the
commodities. Via USDA, we send a bid to U.S. producers, evaluate the
resulting offers, and purchase the commodities on the open market.
After we procure the commodities, we work closely with our partners
to ship them from a U.S. port to the recipient country. Upon arrival in
that country--typically 4 to 6 months from when we decide to respond--
the food is targeted to the hungriest people: children under age 5,
pregnant and lactating women, the elderly, and other vulnerable
populations.
Programmatic Oversight
USAID delivers emergency food assistance in accordance with the
core humanitarian principles of humanity, neutrality, impartiality, and
operational independence. In short, we intend and design our assistance
to reach the most vulnerable people. We take the responsibility of
investing U.S. taxpayer dollars seriously, work to ensure that we are
as effective and efficient as possible under current law, and target
and monitor our assistance so it gets to those who need it most.
We deliver our assistance under very difficult circumstances, often
in conflict environments, but we try to mitigate risks through
monitoring and regular reporting. DCHA/FFP uses a variety of approaches
to verify our aid is reaching its intended beneficiaries, including
third-party monitoring, geo-tagged photos and videos of distributions,
and feedback hotlines for beneficiaries. We also work closely with our
partners, other donors, and our Inspector General to identify risks and
take steps to protect our assistance.
Evolving To Meet Today's Crises
While our programs are stronger and more sophisticated than ever,
that does not mean there is not room for improvement. According to FEWS
NET, more than 88 million people will likely experience acute hunger
and need urgent emergency food assistance in 2020. Many of them are
among the 70 million people who are displaced. After they flee their
homes, many rely on humanitarian assistance in the places they settle.
Conflict is the largest driver of increased hunger and displacement.
Conflict-driven crises are happening more frequently, often compounded
by natural disasters like drought and can result in multiple
displacements of families. As a result, today's crises are bigger, last
longer, and are more complex. To meet the humanitarian needs of today,
and the future, our programs continue to evolve and improve.
2018 Farm Bill
With respect to title II, the 2018 Farm Bill, the House Agriculture
Committee made modest technical changes to the Food for Peace Act that
helps DCHA/FFP be more efficient and effective with U.S. taxpayer
dollars within the limits of the statute's constraints, which
ultimately means that we can save more lives. Some of the key changes
include the following:
Eliminating the requirement to monetize food aid, which will
help promote greater efficiency in the title II program;
Increasing funds for programmatic monitoring and oversight
of title II, from a cap of $17 million to 1.5 percent of the
annual title II appropriation, which also covers contracts for
studies to improve the quality of food aid, FEWS NET, and
others;
Attributing Community Development Funds from the State,
Foreign Operations appropriation for the Development Assistance
account towards the title II non-emergency directive; and,
Allowing more effective use of 202(e) funding by
streamlining categories of associated costs by clarifying what
are administrative costs and what are the costs of getting
commodities to the final distribution point, including
transportation, storage, and distribution.
USAID's Transformation
Through Transformation, USAID is positioning its structure,
workforce, programs, and processes to advance our national security
effectively and support host-country partners on their Journey to Self-
Reliance. These efforts include significant improvements in the way
USAID promotes food security and conducts humanitarian efforts.
Bureau for Humanitarian Assistance
We work extremely closely with the Office of U.S. Foreign Disaster
Assistance (OFDA) within DCHA to respond to humanitarian emergencies.
We tackle food insecurity, while OFDA addresses other sectors like
shelter, medical care, and hygiene. We work together to save lives,
reduce suffering, and help communities recover as quickly as possible.
The forthcoming Bureau for Humanitarian Assistance (BHA) will bring
together FFP and OFDA, the two USAID humanitarian offices now within
DCHA, by unifying and elevating our humanitarian assistance
capabilities and expertise, eliminating the artificial distinction
between emergency food and non-food response, and preventing
unnecessary duplication in the field. The new Bureau will advance
USAID's goal of creating a more strategic and seamless approach to
delivering food and non-food international disaster aid in humanitarian
crises. It will also manage certain programs that link humanitarian
assistance to the rest of the Agency's work, like ongoing DCHA/FFP's
development food security activities and DCHA/OFDA's programs to reduce
the risk of disasters. BHA creates a strong platform for unified USAID
humanitarian leadership and policy with respect to UN organizations,
other implementers, and donors so USAID's humanitarian programs are
effective, efficient and fully accountable.
Bureau for Resilience and Food Security
DCHA/FFP also coordinates closely with BFS to address the
underlying root causes of hunger and malnutrition, while building the
resilience of vulnerable populations. USAID's programs work with the
most vulnerable households and families to reduce the risk of disasters
and improve agriculture, livelihoods, maternal and child health, and
women's empowerment. In the same country, BFS works at a systems level
to improve agricultural productivity and supply-chain development to
benefit poor farmers and businesses--people slightly farther along on
the Journey to Self-Reliance than the populations DCHA/FFP typically
serves. We also collaborate with BFS by co-investing Community
Development Funds in places like Burkina Faso, Haiti, Kenya, Niger, and
Uganda.
After USAID's Transformation, BFS will become the Bureau for
Resilience and Food Security (RFS) and we will work together even more
closely. RFS and BHA will both fall under the Relief, Response, and
Resilience (R3) suite of Bureaus at the Agency. Together, the R3
Bureaus will form an even more robust and comprehensive link across the
development spectrum from mitigating to responding to crises through to
sustainable development, including food security.
Coordinating the U.S. Government's Food Assistance Efforts
DCHA/FFP is the U.S. Government's leader in food assistance, but we
do not do this work alone. As Administrator Green has said, ``Tackling
hunger requires an all-hands-on-deck approach.''
DCHA/FFP's ongoing development food security activities are part of
Feed the Future, led by BFS. Feed the Future brings together a broad
array of partners, including other U.S. Government departments and
agencies, to coordinate efforts to end global hunger.
At both the policy and programmatic levels, DCHA/FFP also works
with PRM at the State Department, which has the primary responsibility
for formulating policies on refugees. Together, we respond to assist
refugees in need: DCHA/FFP addresses food needs and PRM tackles non-
food needs.
We also work closely with USDA. In addition to USDA's role in
purchasing title II commodities in coordination with USAID, we
collaborate in other ways. For instance, USDA and USAID staff have the
opportunity to review applications for each other's development food-
security activities to increase coordination and alignment between our
programs.
Beyond the U.S. Government, we also coordinate with other donors
and private businesses to meet growing humanitarian needs more
sustainably. Over the last 5 years, governments and European Union
institutions have increased their humanitarian assistance by 30
percent. While we welcome the increased contributions many have already
made in the last few years, the U.S. Government is putting more
emphasis on working persistently and effectively to get other donors to
do their fair share. We applaud France, which recently ratified the
Food Assistance Convention, and as part of this commitment, announced a
plan to increase its annual commitment to food assistance.
With respect to title II, DCHA/FFP has a long history of working
alongside U.S. growers, commodity aggregators, logistics operators,
food manufacturers, packagers, and others, to purchase and transport
millions of tons of food commodities and nutrition products. For
example, we work with companies like Edesia based in Rhode Island that
produce a therapeutic, peanut-based paste we use to treat severely
malnourished children. We also meet twice a year--including yesterday--
with the Food Aid Consultative Group, comprised of members from the
agriculture industry, maritime, and non-governmental organizations, to
discuss U.S. Government international food assistance programs.
We are continually exploring mutually beneficial ways to bring new
private-sector partners into our work, as well as to tap into private-
sector technical expertise. For example, we are working with the
Humanitarian Supply Chain Lab at the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology to test new and improved packaging for commodities, which,
if successful, we would ultimately purchase from private-sector
packaging companies.
Conclusion
Before closing, I want to take this opportunity to thank the Food
for Peace team and our partners for delivering life-saving food
assistance on behalf of the American people. Thank you for the
opportunity to testify before you today, and I look forward to your
questions.
The Chairman. We thank you, Mr. Hicks, for your testimony.
And we are pleased this morning to have both the Chairman of
the full Committee and the Ranking Member of the full Committee
here, because they obviously put a great deal of effort in last
year's reauthorization of the farm bill and are very interested
in the implementation of these programs.
As such, I will defer to the Chairman of the Committee for
any questions that he may have at this time.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. COLLIN C. PETERSON, A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM MINNESOTA
Mr. Peterson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for
your leadership.
A question I have, I don't know which one of you can answer
this, if you can. Dry pea and lentil prices have dropped
between 40 and 50 percent since we have had these trade tariffs
put in place, and peas and lentils are a staple in a lot of
international food assistance programming, and they have been
since the 1980s because they are widely eaten in diets around
the world.
But in recent years, Food for Peace and the McGovern-Dole
Food for Education Programs have purchased between 150,000 and
170,000 metric tons, but according to the industry estimates
2019 purchases of dry peas and lentils dropped to 110,000
metric tons without a major shift in recipient countries. Can
you explain to me why there was such a drop in purchases on
these commodities when you have extremely low prices and high
stock levels?
Mr. Hicks. Sure. Currently, we purchase commodities using
basically a zero-based budgeting approach where every year we
assess what the needs are in all the different contexts where
we respond. We look at the availability of what is on the
market and we match the needs on the ground to what is
available for purchase. We don't have any kind of quotas or
like set parameters. Every year is new and we approach every
year based on whatever the needs are.
We are limited to how much is appropriated to us every year
for what we can go out and purchase with title II funding; but,
year to year things are going to look different depending on
the availability and kind of the context for each year. There
isn't a decision to increase or decrease based on pricing, but
it is more based on the context year to year based on need.
Mr. Peterson. It doesn't make any sense to me. I mean,
these countries have not reduced their demand for these
products and they actually cost less, I don't get it. It
doesn't make sense whatever you guys are up to.
Mr. Hicks. Well, the drivers are, is, the context, and so
for example, in Yemen, the most appropriate commodity for the
needs that are driven by the demand in the context is wheat, so
wheat tends to be one of our higher commodities that we use
because of the need in Yemen is so great and there aren't other
alternatives for other commodities to be used in those kind of
contexts.
Pulses and beans are our third-highest purchase right
behind wheat as well as the fortified corn-soy blends. While
there might be a greater availability on the market, we have to
look at each of the contexts and what the driving demand is for
our programs to determine which crops are appropriate for us,
or which commodities are appropriate for us to purchase.
Mr. Peterson. Well, as I understand it, there hasn't been a
big shift in these recipient countries in terms of what they
are asking for.
Mr. Hicks. There has been an uptick in the food insecurity
in Yemen, for example. We did a review an IBC review in
December of last year, and it did show a spike of increase of
need in Yemen, for example. And Yemen, again, is heavily
reliant on wheat commodities for the response there. Every year
the context does shift and change. We have sudden onsets that
appear, like the response in Mozambique or the response in the
Caribbean. And so the context is constantly shifting and
changing, so there is changes in context. And I am happy to
provide more information on----
Mr. Peterson. Well, my time has expired, so I would
appreciate that if you could get me some information.
Mr. Hicks. Sure.
[The information referred to is located on p. 45.]
Mr. Peterson. As I understand it, these purchases have been
kind of constant as a 150 to 170 metric ton ratio, so I don't
understand why it is different. Get me whatever information you
have, and I will see if I can make sense out of it.
Mr. Hicks. Sure. No problem.
Mr. Peterson. Thank you. I yield back.
The Chairman. We thank the gentleman from Minnesota.
And at this time, we would like to defer to the Ranking
Member of the full Committee, the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. Conaway. Well, thank you, Jim. I appreciate that.
Mr. Hicks, there was some conversation in the 2018 Farm
Bill process about how USAID distinguishes between the costs
that are considered ITS[H], Internal Transportation Storage and
Handling, and the funds that USDA is allowed to use to enhance
program delivery through authorities under Section 202(e) of
the Food for Peace Program. There have been concerns regarding
the claiming of costs for the uncapped ITS[H]'s purposes that
should more appropriately be considered under the capped
section 202(e) spending.
Please walk us through how those costs fall under each
account and how the funds are tracked in each country.
Mr. Hicks. Sure. The internal transportation storage and
handling cost is the cost that we have when food arrives in the
country where we are going to deliver the food, and it includes
the transportation to get to the warehouse as well as the
storage and the security for the warehouse. And then it also
covers things now because of the change such as milling, which
is extremely important in countries like Yemen where we are,
even right now today we have 150,000 metric tons of wheat on
the water on its way to Yemen, that if we weren't able to use
the change that you made to the ITSH cost to include milling,
we wouldn't have been able to use quite that large amount of
wheat and have it last as long as we need it to last to get to
all the people we need to send it to.
As far as like tracking, we require vigorous reporting and
monitoring at every stage of our response, so not just during
the transportation stage, but also when we are targeting
beneficiaries or actually delivering the food. We have various
stages where we ensure that the food is getting where it needs
to go and----
Mr. Conaway. Yes, sir, I am familiar with that, but I
didn't hear anything about the section 202(e) spending. What
costs go under that program?
Mr. Hicks. The section 202(e) funding, the majority of that
goes to the actual cost of administering the program, so it is
staff salaries, it is monitoring and oversight, it is the
programmatic overhead. Because of the changes that were made a
couple of times, a couple of farm bills ago, a portion of
section 202(e) does go to the flexibility of being able to use
things like local regional purchases. But that is only about
seven percent of the total 20 percent. But the large majority
of it goes to the actual administration of the program.
Mr. Conaway. A couple of times in your testimony, Mr.
Hicks, you used the phrase, ``the best or most appropriate tool
or modality.'' I have always been concerned that there is a
bias in your shop for cash and vouchers and that in-kind
purchases are going to get short-shifted. Somebody has to
decide best. There is no real definition of that. It comes to
the eye of the beholder, and like Mr. Peterson was getting at,
as we see actual food purchases drop in an era where the food
costs have gone down, that doesn't make any sense to us that
that would be the case.
And so I am worried that your shop will push the blend
which is pretty close to 50/50 now and which is a lot higher
than I thought it should be, but nevertheless, whatever we
decided on it, that using your judgment that you will push it
the other direction. How can you assure the Committee that
those commodities which come in big 100 pound, or big 50-kilo
sacks with an American flag on it, don't get pushed to the
side? Because, the American people support those programs more
so than they do necessarily cash or vouchers. How can you
assure us that those of us who prefer in-kind aren't getting
shut out in the decision making in your shop?
Mr. Hicks. Sure. Excellent question. I assure you, first
and foremost, that we don't favor any type of response over the
other. We sincerely look at every context individually to
determine what the best response is, and when it comes to title
II we use every dollar that you send us in the most efficient
way we can to buy as much commodities as we can, to feed as
many people as we can. But the increased cost is coming from,
largely from, security and access. We are increasingly using
title II in places like Yemen and South Sudan. We have to have
title II U.S. commodities or we can't respond in places like
Yemen and South Sudan, but there is also an increase in
security costs. But every single dollar that we receive from
you on title II, we are spending those dollars. We are not----
Mr. Conaway. I am really confident you are spending them.
It is just whether the blend is being spent how we want. I want
American farmers participating in this, and American people
support these programs in large part because they think it is
American-grown products that are being used over there. As you
make those decisions, just know that American support for these
programs lies in the fact that most folks think it is food that
can't be stolen as easily as a hundred dollar bill can be
stolen. I appreciate your efforts, but we are going to watch
because we sense a push in the wrong direction.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. Thank you for
allowing me to ask questions.
The Chairman. Thank you, Congressman Conaway. And the
sentiment that you expressed is a concern that is shared on a
bipartisan basis by this Committee, and I thank both you and
the Chairman for your participation this morning.
When you provide, Mr. Hicks, that information for the
Chairman that was referenced earlier, please provide it for the
entire Committee. I think that is something that we would all
like to be aware of and we will continue to provide oversight
as we are doing today on the efforts of these programs.
The farm bill, as a conferee, we all worked hard to ensure
that various aspects were implemented, and on a bipartisan
basis, the Ranking Member and I are carrying a resolution that
will reflect the success of the Food for Peace Program. And
obviously we welcome everyone's participation in that
resolution.
Given the effectiveness of the Food for Peace Program, I
believe, and the support from stakeholders, it is clear and
important that we maintain that bipartisan effort. I am a
little bit baffled, and I would like to ask this to both of you
why the Administration's repeated budget request to zero out
these programs, and it just doesn't make sense based upon both
of your testimonies and the support that you noted here by the
Subcommittee.
Mr. Hicks, would you like to respond, and then would you
like your counterpart to also respond as well?
Mr. Hicks. Sure. No problem. The current budget request
seeks to combine all humanitarian accounts, not just title II,
but also IDA as well as the Population Refugee Migration
account that the State Department manages. The request merges
all of those accounts into one new account, but this reflects
an effort that goes back two Administrations, back as far as
2008, where prior Administrations including the current
Administration are seeking greater flexibility in how they can
choose between the modalities of a response.
The Chairman. Mr. Isley, you can respond.
Mr. Isley. Yes, Mr. Chairman. It is a question of
efficiency in terms of the ability to effectively implement the
program. I have some context in my written testimony in terms
of the Administration's desire to consolidate these type
programs under USAID and implement them on a more bilateral
basis to improve efficiency, monitoring, evaluation.
The Chairman. How would the two of you work together then
if in fact that were to take place?
Mr. Hicks. What we currently do, we would continue to do,
we would continue to partner with USDA for purchasing of
commodities. They would continue to provide technical expertise
on such things as supply chain management, the improvements
that we are doing to the bulk bags that we are using to keep
pests out.
The Chairman. Well, my sense is when you zero it out,
though, that sends an entirely different message.
Mr. Isley, in your written testimony you specifically noted
that the President's 2020 budget does not seek funds for Food
for Progress or McGovern-Dole and instead prioritizes, as you
noted, the USAID bilateral assistance. Knowing that the
programs help open doors to better trading relationships, why
does the Administration want to diminish USDA and by proxy U.S.
farmers' and ranchers' role in this international food
assistance effort?
Mr. Isley. Well, we would continue that, Mr. Chairman, with
the coordination with USAID, U-S-A-I-D, in terms of the
implementation. In addition to the testimony from Mr. Hicks,
USDA would be able to continue to assist because of our
presence in the many Embassies and----
The Chairman. It seems that it is diminishing the role of
the USDA.
Mr. Isley. Well, it would still include our Agricultural
Marketing Service in terms of the procurement of the
commodities that would go into the programs, and we would
continue with our assistance with the expertise we have both in
D.C. and around the world.
The Chairman. Due to instability and food insecurity as a
result of conflict and climate change, what role do you think
these programs play in our national security? And I guess you
noted I heard in your testimony that you do consult with the
State Department. Do you consult with the Defense Department
when targeting and prioritizing? As I noted in my opening
comments, the civil war in Syria has resulted in displacement
of millions of people in refugee camps. How does that
coordination take place between yourselves and the State
Department and the Department of Defense based on
prioritization and need?
Mr. Hicks. Sure. At USAID we participate in multiple
interagency fora. We coordinate not only with ourselves but
also Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance, which is the other
half of Humanitarian Assistance. And we have humanitarian
advisers that are at all the----
The Chairman. You meet in real-time as these events take
place?
Mr. Hicks. Real-time.
The Chairman. Okay.
Mr. Hicks. In real-time. We have advisors at all the COCOMs
that help advise them.
The Chairman. And you meet periodically, and of course with
your 93 offices around the world, you----
Mr. Hicks. Yes, sir, we meet periodically. Sometimes we
have our staff in the field interfacing directly with DOD
personnel at AFRICOM, different theaters.
The Chairman. My final question. I will take the liberty of
the chair. I chair, another hat I wear, Transatlantic
Legislators' Dialogue. We work closely with the European Union.
How well do you coordinate with the EU and other countries in
different regions of the world?
Mr. Hicks. I actually hold regular bilateral meetings with
the EU as well as others, and in fact later this week I am
meeting with a representative from Germany that leads their
humanitarian effort. It is something that we regularly do
bilaterally. We also meet together at the World Food Programme
board meetings and other type of donor meetings throughout the
year.
The Chairman. So that is a regular occurrence? Because,
certainly, our partnership with our allies allows us to do more
where the need is the greatest.
Mr. Hicks. Absolutely. And we also coordinate with them in
each response in the field as well.
The Chairman. All right.
Mr. Hicks. There is a lot of coordination.
The Chairman. Well, thank you. My time has expired.
I would like to now recognize the Ranking Member of the
Subcommittee, Mr. Rouzer.
Mr. Rouzer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And I want to identify myself with Ranking Member Conaway
and his concerns about the split. That is in fact, as Chairman
Costa mentioned, a major point of concern that is very much
bipartisan, and I just want to stress that.
Let me focus in at a little broader level. I am quite
concerned with efforts by China and the EU in terms of their
efforts around the world, China in the case of putting in
infrastructure in a lot of different places, EU in their anti-
biotech bias, and the role that these programs play in helping
to maintain American influence in the world.
Mr. Isley and Mr. Hicks, can either one of you be willing
to respond to that?
Mr. Isley. Sure, Congressman Rouzer. The programs play an
important role in addressing and reacting to some of the
influences, and we share the concerns that you mentioned.
I would highlight in particular Food for Progress and some
of the objectives in terms of the agricultural production
regulations, the food safety regulations of some of the
countries where we are implementing. These projects
specifically address some of the influence of the EU around
adoption of technology, key technologies like biotechnology,
the responsible use of crop protection products in all. They
are critical in our ability to fund and to educate policy
makers, decision makers in these countries.
Also in terms of branding U.S. agriculture support for the
school feeding and the Food for Progress projects, it is
important to get recognition to the United States in terms of
all the money, humanitarian and otherwise, that we provide. But
it is real in the field, in the influence of the countries you
mentioned.
Mr. Rouzer. Mr. Hicks?
Mr. Hicks. I would just add that China really isn't a
donor, humanitarian donor. There are some places where there
might be claims that they are providing humanitarian
assistance, but it is not through humanitarian principles.
There are a lot of strings attached.
I will also say that we at Food for Peace, we have no
problem with using technology such as GMO and other types of
technologies that maybe the EU is slow to take on. But Mr.
Isley and I yesterday were at the swearing in of Ambassador Kip
Tom, who is our Ambassador to Rome-based agencies for
agriculture and food assistance, and he is a very strong
supporter of pushing EU in the right direction to embrace
technologies that could help us feed more people more safely,
more efficiently.
Mr. Rouzer. Well, I just think it is important to
underscore the role that these programs play in terms of
maintaining and enhancing America's influence in the world when
we have a lot of actors out there that don't share the same
values that we have.
Mr. Hicks, moving on, you mentioned in your written
testimony with regard to Food for Peace, the variety of
approaches used to verify aid is reaching the intended
beneficiary. You listed out some of those methods. Can you
provide some examples of how those programs are monitored to
ensure the right aid is getting to the correct recipients? That
is obviously the key component.
Mr. Hicks. Yes, sir, I agree. We actually do monitoring and
oversight at every stage of our delivery. And the most
important stage is at the beginning when we actually identify
who the beneficiary is. We use an extensive amount of data
collection through our Famine Early Warning Systems Network
which many of you are familiar with. We have staff in the
field, our partners assist us and help us to identify exactly
who has the highest need of food insecurity, and we target
those people and those are our beneficiaries.
During the food distribution itself, we use things like
biometrics, either iris scans, thumbprints. We have many ways
that we go. We have onsite visits to make sure that during the
distribution the right people that we have targeted at the
beginning are getting the food when we are distributing the
food.
We also do re-verification of beneficiaries throughout the
program, so just because we started with a beneficiary list, we
then verify it throughout the course of the program to make
sure that there is no deviation in the targeting of the
beneficiary.
And then after the beneficiary, we also do constant
monitoring. We have hotlines in places like Yemen where it is
hard to get access, or people that our beneficiaries can call.
We do random calls to beneficiaries if they have phone lines.
We have the Inspector General that goes and does independent
assessments. And we have third-party monitoring. There is quite
a wide variety of tools that we have that we are constantly
making sure that our program is working the way it should be
working.
Mr. Rouzer. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
The Chairman. The gentleman yields back because time has
expired.
And the chair will now recognize the gentlewoman from
Connecticut.
Mrs. Hayes. Thank you for being here.
I have spoken on many occasions about my commitment to
ensuring that all children receive healthy meals, because I
have been on the other side of a classroom where a kid returned
on a Monday morning having not eaten, with their head on a
desk, and the one thing that I know for sure is that hungry
kids do not learn. That reality holds true across international
borders as well.
In 2016 I was the National Teacher of the Year and I
traveled with the USDA Department to many of the countries that
we are discussing today, and I saw firsthand how our aid
improves the safety and stability of nations across the globe,
and fosters goodwill. I also saw how those communities relied
on this aid.
Right now in many of those countries that I visited, I see
how drought has caused food shortages, jeopardizing school
meals for more than 800,000 children. McGovern-Dole is one of
the most effective tools to prevent against such threats and
ensure students across the globe are not distracted from
learning because they are wondering where their next meal will
come from.
Since the establishment of this program we have fed more
than 40 million children in 41 countries. The budget that was
proposed in March suggested cutting this program completely.
Mr. Isley, what would have happened to children in those--I
guess if we had cut this program as the budget suggested, can
you just tell us a little bit what that looks like and estimate
how many children in schools would have lost access to school
meals and nutrition programs?
Mr. Isley. Well, with--thank you, Congresswoman. And with
respect to the ongoing projects, we would have continued to
implement those and work with the host governments on
transitioning those programs.
One of the key goals of the Administration is to work very
closely with those host countries and to work with them
actually on the implementation of laws, the appropriation of
money to take over those programs, and for them to graduate
from U.S. assistance. We would have continued to implement the
programs existing but would not have put in place new programs
with respect to new countries or continued existing.
Mrs. Hayes. It is your belief that none of those children
would have lost access to meals if the funding had been cut?
Mr. Isley. Not the existing programs that have been already
awarded and implemented, but with respect to any future new
programs, correct, they would not have received new awards. Any
programs that would have required rollover, if they would have
been at their expiration, they obviously would have not
received U.S. funding. We would have worked very hard though to
see if there was an alternative with respect to our
implementing partner or with respect to the host government in
terms of taking over that responsibility.
Mrs. Hayes. They are very important programs. In the USDA's
latest International Food Assistance Report it noted that, and
I quote, ``USDA food assistance and capacity-building programs
are embedded with strategies intended to promote sustainability
so recipient countries could continue to benefit well beyond
the funding period.'' Much like what you just said.
And you mentioned that Kenya was a major success story in
those efforts. Can you please share some examples of these
strategies and your efforts in other nations to promote
sustainability of these programs and continued support from
those domestic governments?
Mr. Isley. Yes, Congresswoman. Another example besides
Kenya, and Kenya was implemented by USDA I believe starting in
2004, and this past year we celebrated the turnover of that
program to the Government of Kenya, which is a key graduation
success story.
Another one I would highlight is in Burkina Faso where we
are improving literacy, health, and dietary outcomes. Since
2011, a McGovern-Dole project has aimed at improving literacy,
health, dietary outcomes for preschool and primary school
students in north-central Burkina Faso. As of 2018, the project
covers nearly 1,000 schools and preschools, serving nearly 40
million meals to more than 265,000 children. The multifaceted
program has enabled a 17 percent rise in on-grade level
literacy rates. The Government of Burkina Faso has increased
its public spending on school feeding in the country,
allocating a budget of more than $36 million for 2018-2019
school year to cover 3 months of healthy meals for
schoolchildren in 43 out of the nation's 45 provinces. That
would be an example of us working with the Government of
Burkina Faso on school feeding and nutrition.
Mrs. Hayes. Thank you. My time has expired, but I would
just ask that as you look towards the next round of identifying
priority countries that you develop a system of feedback and
soliciting input so that we can make sure that we are
addressing the countries that are most in need.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
The Chairman. And I thank the gentlewoman for her line of
questioning, and it would be helpful for the Subcommittee, Mr.
Isley, if in fact you provided that feedback as we go forward
in your implementation of the programs you administer.
Mr. Isley. Very good, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. The next Member of the Subcommittee is Mr.
Hagedorn from Minnesota. The gentleman has 5 minutes.
Mr. Hagedorn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member
Rouzer. Pleasure to be with you today. Thanks for your
testimony.
I think that the programs that you are implementing are
kind of twofold; show the greatness of America. First, the
generosity of the American people, that we work so hard to try
to make sure that our own citizens have food and are in good
shape, but also millions of people around the world. And these
programs also demonstrate the wonderful system of agriculture
that we have, the expertise and the technology and in ag land
with our farmers' hard work and the work that is done by our
agribusinesses puts us in a position not just to trade with
other countries and help provide food, but to literally give it
away in many instances here to help people all around the
world.
So, those are two things that we should always keep in
mind. And that second one, I know the Committee works very hard
to make sure that we do everything to sustain our way of
agriculture and that we continue to do that on behalf of
literally everyone around the world.
With that having been said, I also want to associate myself
with the comments of the folks on the Committee. We are very
much interested in you taking products from our farmers and
sending them to other countries, and not necessarily distribute
cash payments. We think that that is very important.
With that, how do you select which commodities are
utilized, and how do you also make sure that when we send those
commodities around the world that they are not taken by some
foreign leader and used for other purposes. What types of steps
do you take to protect from that type of corruption?
I will leave it up to both of you.
Mr. Hicks. Sure. To answer the first question, we, like as
I said earlier, we do a basic zero-based budget approach. Every
year we don't start with any assumption. We just look out at
the world and see what the needs are and we do an assessment on
what the needs are. Each context is different, so in Yemen
there is no local market to really rely upon to provide food,
so we must provide food from U.S. farmers. And in this case, it
is wheat, and right now on the water we have 150,000 metric
tons of wheat on its way to Yemen, coming directly from U.S.
farmers. It is a very important part of our response there. We
can't respond without it.
Same thing goes in south Sudan. But if you look at a
different context, like in Lebanon or Jordan, most of the
refugees from Syria in those two countries are dispersed in
urban areas. They are not in a central location, so it would be
impossible to utilize a centralized food distribution program
with large bags of commodities to reach such a dispersed
population. It also has a very vibrant market, food market
system there, so in that context we wouldn't be able to meet
the refugees with U.S. commodities, but we can meet them using
debit cards at local markets.
And when it comes to the oversight, it again depends on the
commodity, but in places like Yemen we utilize third-party
monitoring. We have hotlines that are very successful and
people calling in to let us know if there are problems. In
places like Jordan and Lebanon, the debit cards use electronic
banking systems where we are immediately alerted if anyone is
trying to abuse those systems.
It depends on the context and the modality, but we have a
whole buffet of options that we can use to conduct very
rigorous oversight at every stage of the response.
Mr. Isley. Yes, and with respect to the two USDA programs,
both of those are implemented with in-kind commodities. From
McGovern-Dole we have a list of eligible commodities that are
appropriate to go into school meals based on nutrition. There
is a set of criteria if we want to add eligible commodities to
that list that is in the interagency process.
For Food for Progress it is a little more complicated
because it is a monetization program, so we purchase the U.S.
commodities, donate those in the local markets that are then
sold to generate the money to implement those programs. There
are several criteria for that in terms of rate-of-return at
least 70 percent. But also one that is very important and
impacts seasonality and other things, is we have to undergo a
study to ensure there is no disruption to the local
marketplace. It is a combination of those factors in terms of
which commodities we select, but we implement fully with
commodities we purchase.
Mr. Hagedorn. Do you account when certain ag sectors are
maybe at a little bit of a low point and there is excess
production? Would that be an area where you would go in and
especially try to utilize those?
Mr. Isley. Well, yes. That could be one of the criteria. It
is also the criteria in terms of impact on the ground where we
are implementing in terms of what the market reaction would be
to the sale of that size of commodity purchases. And often we
are working with host governments in that respect as well.
Mr. Hagedorn. Thanks. My time is up. I yield back.
The Chairman. The gentleman yields back.
And the chair will now recognize the gentlewoman from
Minnesota, Ms. Craig.
Ms. Craig. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. And thank you
both for being here this morning. It is always a pleasure to
talk about farm bill oversight and the need for international
food aid.
I am fiercely passionate about career skills and technical
education and finding ways to add opportunities for our young
people in agriculture in particular.
Section 3307 of the farm bill creates the International
Agricultural Education Fellowship Program to build capacity for
school-based ag education in developing countries. Our public
commitment to land-grant universities and school-based ag
education programs such as 4-H and FFA help prepare American
students for careers in agriculture.
Mr. Isley, what steps has the agency taken to develop this
fellowship program and ensure its focus remains on school-based
agricultural education capacity-building efforts?
Mr. Isley. Thank you, Congresswoman. I am equally
passionate about child education in agriculture. I was a member
of 4-H, I was a member of FFA growing up on a farm in Iowa, so
I understand the importance of those.
I have had meetings with people that are familiar with this
program. USDA stands ready, willing, and able to implement. Of
course, as you know, it was not appropriated money in the 2019
period. We are awaiting for, if that appropriation occurs, and
will rapidly implement and provide that assistance as laid out
in the farm bill. It is just a matter of receiving the
appropriation and we will swiftly put in place the program when
necessary to implement.
Ms. Craig. I look forward to hopefully seeing that happen
and to that swift implementation.
I would also just like to continue this dialogue and
continue working with the agency on this important issue. Thank
you again both for being here.
And, Mr. Chairman, I will yield the remainder of my time.
The Chairman. All right. The gentlewoman yields the
remainder of her time, and the chair will now recognize the
gentleman from Kansas, Mr. Marshall.
Mr. Marshall. Okay, thank you so much, Chairman Costa.
Kansas has a long, long reputation for working with Food
for Peace and McGovern-Dole. The Food for Peace actually
started in 1953 when a farmer from Cheyenne County, Kansas,
Peter O'Brien, had the concept of sharing our commodities with
people in need around the world. He went through his local
county farm bureau, the state farm bureau, the American Farm
Bureau Federation, and eventually a Senator from Kansas, Andy
Schoeppel, introduced it and it became legislation in 1954,
signed by then, another Kansan, President Dwight D. Eisenhower.
And of course the McGovern-Dole bill is a phenomenal
legislation that supports almost a billion dollars a year
helping millions of people.
With that in mind I would like to submit for the record,
Mr. Chairman, a letter from 26 nonprofit, non-governmental
organizations working to end hunger, poverty, and malnutrition
throughout the world in support of our House Resolution 189,
which recognizes the importance of sustaining United States
leadership to accelerating global progress against maternal and
child malnutrition.
[The letter referred to is located on p. 37.]
Mr. Marshall. As an obstetrician, those first thousand days
are so important, from the moment of conception being day
number one, the moment of conception when the neurological
systems in those babies are developing inside the woman's womb,
all the way to breastfeeding, making sure that mom has proper
nutrition in those first thousand days of life. I want to
submit these for the record, please.
My question is, always in Congress we are happy to help
other people out, want to make sure that we are doing this as
most efficiently as possible, and one of my concerns is that
indeed we are using agriculture products made here, and that is
obviously a theme going on around here. I am trying to go back
to the big picture. It looks like a lot of the cash is spent in
emergency situations. And my question is, do you all--I worked
with Rotary, something called a shelter box, and we didn't know
exactly where the emergency was going to happen, but you could
pretty much count on there was going to be one or two in
Africa, the Middle East, the Far East, Central America, the
Caribbean. We would have warehouses of these shelter boxes
ready and waiting. Do we have warehouses like that across the
world full of commodities ready to respond as opposed to always
just throwing dollars at it?
Mr. Hicks. Excellent question. We absolutely do preposition
commodities. There are different types of responses. They are
all emergency responses. Some of them are these long protracted
conflicts, like in Syria and Yemen, but some of them are sudden
onset that happen very quickly like hurricanes like we had in
the Caribbean with Dorian or the earthquake a few years ago in
Haiti. And so we have to be ready for everything. Again,
context matters. In certain circumstances we are going to need
a lot of commodities to respond and if we don't have them
already nearby we can glean into what we have----
Mr. Marshall. Could you get us a map of where those are
staged at?
Mr. Hicks. Of course. There is Djibouti, Durban, Malaysia
and Houston are where our warehouses are, but I can provide you
information on the numbers and kind of how we utilize those.
Mr. Marshall. If we had more warehouses, would we be able
to use more American commodities?
Mr. Hicks. If we needed more warehouses, we would procure
more warehouse space. Right now we are operating at the most
efficient capacity that we can have for prepositioning versus
actually using the commodity.
Mr. Marshall. Well, what else could we do to use more
American commodities as opposed to cash?
Mr. Hicks. The costs that go into using commodities, a lot
of it is security, a lot of it is transportation. In fact, half
of it is transportation, [storage] and handling plus the
administrative costs, so anything we can do to reduce those
costs. Having to rely more on U.S. flag vessels, for example.
They are twice as expensive as normal vessels from other
countries. That is a significant driver. Security is a
significant driver. It is the overhead costs that prevent us
from using more commodities in title II.
Mr. Marshall. Last question: Could you get us a graph of
since its conception in 1954, year-to-year basis, how much of
the budget is being spent on Kansas--no, Kansas--American
commodities versus cash. And I am just trying to get a feel for
where we are today compared to a decade ago.
Mr. Hicks. Sure, just real quickly, title II is only U.S.
commodities, so except for about one percent is used for the
flexibility, the only cash comes from the IDA account which is
a separate account, and that started probably around 2009 or
2010.
Mr. Marshall. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
The Chairman. The gentleman yields back. His time has
expired. And the chair will now recognize the gentleman from
Pennsylvania, Mr. Thompson.
Mr. Thompson. You skipped Ms. Plaskett.
Ms. Plaskett. No, that is okay.
The Chairman. Oh, I am sorry.
Ms. Plaskett. No, that is fine.
The Chairman. No, no, no, we are glad to have you here.
Excuse me. The chair recognizes the gentlewoman, please.
Ms. Plaskett. Yes. Good afternoon, gentlemen. Good morning,
gentlemen.
Mr. Isley. Good morning.
Ms. Plaskett. I wanted to ask a couple of questions about
Food for Progress, and I was hoping that some of you could tell
us, either of you could tell us, as individual food programs
conclude, how is the team working to bridge those efforts into
mutually productive training technology relationships?
Mr. Isley. Well, thank you, Congresswoman. And that is a
key objective is to ultimately bridge to trading relationships.
We have numerous examples in terms of the Food for Progress
Project's objectives that fit that objective. The sanitary and
phytosanitary objectives of some of the programs establish or
help establish regulations in country. This support trade
enables our farmers to utilize the technology that is approved
in the U.S. to be ultimately traded with those partners. We
have projects that are implementing spice, coffee, cacao, that
don't directly compete with U.S. agriculture that ultimately
are available for purchase from a lot of our U.S. companies to
utilize within the United States on their food processing and
ultimate sale. Those are a couple key examples.
The programs also that are extraordinarily important but
smaller are Cochran and Borlaug, the Fellowship Exchange
Programs where we are working with key thought leaders in
foreign countries around adoption of technologies and some of
the food safety production agriculture practices that we
implement in the U.S. They take those back to host countries,
implement those, and we continue to stay engaged with them
throughout their careers that build those relationships that
are critical ultimately to trade.
Ms. Plaskett. Do you do any of that in the Caribbean Basin?
Mr. Isley. Yes. We have projects, I believe, in the
Caribbean Basin.
Ms. Plaskett. I would love to get some information about
that, as well.
Mr. Isley. Okay. We will follow up on that.
[The information referred to is located on p. 44.]
Ms. Plaskett. Thank you. And then, Mr. Hicks, I wanted to
ask you if you could provide some examples in Food for Peace in
recent situations where in-kind food aid has been the most
effective source of aid to meet the demands of the region in
need.
Mr. Hicks. Sure. I have mentioned Yemen several times, but
Yemen is a great example of where we don't have other options,
but we have to use U.S. commodities. When it comes to
nutrition, our nutrition programs use U.S. peanut-based
products to do therapeutic foods for that first thousand days
that was mentioned earlier. And in a lot of contexts like in
Ethiopia and other places, we have a mixture and it really just
depends on if there are any other--if there aren't other
options, we have to use U.S. commodities.
Ms. Plaskett. Yes.
Mr. Hicks. And so it is context-specific, but a lot of the
countries where we do respond, we use a mixture of everything.
The needs are growing. They are not shrinking, and so we have
to use every single dollar that you give us. We have title II
which is for U.S. commodities. We have IDA which is market-
based responses. We are going to use every single dollar you
give us because the need is huge, but we have to look at the
responses to be able to use the, wherever the modality is going
to get us the farthest, what can we use to feed the most people
in each response.
Ms. Plaskett. Yes.
Mr. Hicks. That flexibility and efficiency that drives our
decision.
Ms. Plaskett. And if you could tell me, Mr. Isley, what are
the lasting impacts on the programs where they build technical
capacities for local innovation?
Mr. Isley. Well, there are many lasting impacts in terms of
the targeted objectives under Food for Progress. As indicated,
we specifically try to build with the foreign governments'
regulatory systems and processes that are very similar that
provide food safety, that provide standardization, that allow
trade among the U.S. with them and other countries. They also
develop agriculture sectors. They develop the capacity of those
agricultural sectors that provide stability for those local
farmers. I mentioned spices, coffee, cacao.
Ms. Plaskett. Yes.
Mr. Isley. Some of those displace alternatives that are
less palatable like drugs and other things and provide that
economic stability and local market opportunities for the
farmers there.
Ms. Plaskett. Thank you. Thanks for the time and thank you
for the work that you are doing.
I yield back.
The Chairman. Well, I thank the gentlewoman and her
question as it relates to the comments of your efforts in the
Caribbean. I think we are all interested in.
The Representative from the American Virgin Islands has
told us firsthand of the devastation that they have felt as a
result of the hurricane and still are recovering from. And so
it is other parts of the Caribbean that have also as well been
impacted, but we also need to take care of our own citizens and
we can and should do a better job, and we thank you for your
valued input in all of these areas.
The chair will now recognize the gentleman from
Pennsylvania, Mr. Thompson, for the second time.
Mr. Thompson. Mr. Chairman, thank you. Thank you, Ranking
Member, and thank you gentlemen for being here. Thank you for
your leadership with these programs. These are the programs
that you have been entrusted to assist in leading are
incredibly important, obviously. Important part of the farm
bill really deals with food insecurity.
I have had the opportunity to visit the warehouse in
Djibouti, Africa, and quite frankly, that food is pretty
effective diplomacy. And the way it is labeled, the American
flag, the nutrition, it is most important the nutrition that is
inside those packages, but how they are packaged as well and
labeled are incredibly important.
I have been to Yemen, and so, we know that how--I have seen
the, in countries such as Djibouti, Africa and Yemen, other
places, I have seen the end result of food insecurity and it is
not good. And I know that our mission is about dealing with
hunger, but I was curious to get just some quick responses from
each of you, your thoughts of in serving the greater good and
addressing hunger, what other positive outcomes are we seeing
in those countries? Because I believe there are some real
tangible deliverables that happen as a result of these programs
beyond making sure that individuals and families have access to
nutrition and have achieved food security.
Mr. Hicks. Sure. I would love to answer that question.
Thank you.
When people are trying to escape the conflicts and the
disasters, they are on the run and they are going to keep
running until they find shelter and food and a safe place away
from the conflict. And so if we are able to provide food closer
to where they are at, they are not going to keep running and
destabilize areas where we have very keen national security
interest, so we definitely have a stabilizing effect. But there
are other aspects of title II that have long-lasting change
effects on the population, and I want to talk a little bit
about the non-emergency side that you guys also authorize.
Mr. Thompson. Right.
Mr. Hicks. And have oversight of. This is where we are
spending development funding that you provide. We are spending
development funding to places where there is recurrent shocks
like drought, for example, and we are teaching those
communities how to adapt so they don't fall into humanitarian
need. And that is a very important piece of the program that
you all administer and provide for us. It is our way of
preventing future hunger and future problems. It is a
preventative measure and it is also our way to connect the
programs that you guys authorize into the greater development
piece. It is that resilience piece that links our programs into
the other development programs that get communities on their
journey to self-reliance, which is something Administrator
Green has made a very top priority.
The programs you have, yes, we are resolving the hunger
issue, but there is national security, there is stabilization,
we are creating markets, we are creating communities that are
resilient and able to withstand shock. It is having a very
significant impact in the world.
Mr. Thompson. Mr. Isley?
Mr. Isley. Yes, thank you very much. Going back to the Food
for Progress Program, one of the key stabilities is economic
stability and building capacity of agriculture industries in
some of these countries. Northern Triangle is an example.
Pakistan, we have an aquaculture project going where they are
developing a whole source of protein through aquaculture, which
ties directly to soybean meal coming from the United States. It
has expanded trade in soybeans. We are now up to $700 million
of exports of U.S. soybeans to Pakistan, and that is one just
example of how that can be developed and built.
But it is that economic stability of teaching those
practices, and also our technologies that we help implement,
provide environmental stability around preventing soil erosion,
water conservation and things of that nature; long-term lasting
effects that provide for the sustainability of agriculture in
those locations.
Mr. Thompson. My observation, having been in countries of
Iraq, Afghanistan, the two that I mentioned, Pakistan, where
you have food insecurity, you have civil unrest, you have not
just hunger but you wind up with infant mortality, with
illiteracy, and quite frankly, it creates conditions where
terrorism is fostered. Our investments that we proudly
authorize within the farm bill process are the return on
investment of that of working towards stability, preventing
terrorism which is something that we are going to have to live
with as a world for some time. We try to manage that and
mitigate it and the programs we have in the farm bill are to go
a long way.
Just one last question, just a yes or no. Just kind of
curiosity. Do either of the agencies partner with our Institute
for Peace, which is not authorized through the Agriculture
Committee, it is through the Education and Labor Committee? I
would recommend because of what you do you all need to be
talking, because Institute for Peace is about conflict
resolution and identifying the, sort of these variables, and
food security is obviously a part of that.
Thank you, Chairman.
The Chairman. Was that a nod that the two of you----
Mr. Hicks. USAID definitely partners with USIP on all kinds
of issues including conflict issues. Yes.
Mr. Isley. Not that I am aware of in terms of USDA's
programs.
The Chairman. All right. All right.
Ms. Plaskett. Mr. Costa, may I just say, just your
indulgence?
The Chairman. Yes.
Ms. Plaskett. Mr. Thompson talking about those ROIs was
really important to our nation in these food programs, and I
just want to also add that we just received a blessing by being
that for the rest of the world. Thank you for recognizing that.
The Chairman. We thank the gentlewoman for her comments.
The, I believe the last Member of the Subcommittee here,
although he didn't make it before 11 o'clock and it was kind of
a close call here by your colleagues as to whether or not you
should be given 5 minutes. But the chair is in a holiday
spirit, so I recognize the gentleman from Nebraska for 5
minutes.
Mr. Bacon. Well, Mr. Chairman, thank you, and I appreciate
your holiday spirit. We embrace it.
I was in an Afghanistan hearing from the Commander of
Afghan, our forces in Afghanistan, so, but this also important.
I will tell you that Nebraska is proud of being like the
lead exporter for beef, and go up and down the line and
agriculture is one of our nation's strengths and it is a source
of our nation's power and prosperity. And I just tell you, our
farmers and our agriculture sector in Nebraska are proud to
help feed the world, and we prefer not handing a check. We like
providing our surplus, which we have. And so I really
appreciate y'all's part in doing that. It is a blessing, as was
just mentioned, that we can help so many people out of hunger
and poverty and be a, just a real aid to millions of people
across this globe.
My first question is for Mr. Hicks. There is a crucial
coalition of American farmers, shippers, non-governmental, and
international organizations who work together to deliver food
aid. How does USAID coordinate and accept input from all these
stakeholders?
Mr. Hicks. That is a great question. Yesterday we actually
held, the way we coordinate, it is called the Food [Aid]
Consultative Group, where we bring in the maritime industry and
the commodity groups and USDA, as well as our implementing
partners. It is something we do [bi]annually where we have
various committees that look at different issues and we
exchange the best and latest data and information and
techniques that we do on a regular basis. And we just did it
yesterday. We just chaired it yesterday, Ken and I.
Mr. Bacon. Okay, thank you very much. And turning over to
our USAID leadership. Can you give some examples of typical
McGovern-Dole Food for Education Program and how these programs
help achieve U.S. assistant goals?
Mr. Isley. Yes, I would be happy to. We awarded eight
McGovern-Dole projects this past year based on the priority
countries. I gave an example earlier in terms of a project we
have going in Burkina Faso, and the number of children that are
impacted by that at 265,000. There was also mentioned earlier
in the hearing, the project in Kenya that World Food Programme,
who is one of our implementing partners on McGovern-Dole, has
implemented for many years before USDA assistance. We got
involved in 2004 and worked very closely with the Government of
Kenya to graduate that program and turn it over to them, and
that is continuing through funding through Kenya.
Numerous projects, numerous programs throughout the world
that we implement with World Food Programme, Catholic Relief
Services, many other implementing partners to deliver those
nutritious meals.
Mr. Bacon. Thank you very much. And I will just close again
with a statement. America has the ability to help so many in
need and so I appreciate you both for giving Nebraska farmers
and ranchers and our ag industry a chance to be a part of that,
and a force for good, and we have the ability to do it, so we
ought to.
Thank you.
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman from Nebraska, and I
was making light earlier. Obviously your meeting, getting with
Afghanistan, is important. I have been there multiple times and
it is a real challenge for our country as we try to assess
where we are in that difficult part of the world.
I will defer to the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee now
for a closing statement and then I will conclude the hearing.
Mr. Rouzer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I just want to
thank our witnesses for being here today.
This is a very important topic. These programs are
critically important to our maintaining and enhancing our
influence in the world, in addition to the humanitarian aspect
and the economic development aspect of them. We take this very,
very seriously, and as I stated and Ranking Member Conaway
addressed and Chairman Costa has too, there is strong, strong
bipartisan support for as much in-kind food aid as possible,
and I look forward to working with you to enhance that aspect
as we move forward.
And if I can add, Mr. Chairman, just a quick request from
both of you. If you can, for example, and to preface this and
give you an idea of what I am looking for, when a bank makes a
loan they know there is a two percent default, three percent
default, whatever it may be. I would be curious to get the
information from you all in terms of in-kind food aid, what
percentage has been abused or misused, and then also from a
cash standpoint or voucher standpoint, what percentage have you
identified has been abused or misused? I would like to know
those metrics and how they stack up over time.
With that, I yield back.
The Chairman. If you could provide that information to the
Subcommittee so that we can share that, the Ranking Member and
I, with the full membership of the Committee? Obviously, there
is an interest in that as well as some of the other information
that we have requested from you. If you can coordinate that.
[The information referred to is located on p. 44.]
The Chairman. I would like to make a close, but before I do
I would like to make a statement that probably everyone is
aware of at this point in time because it was released I
believe at about 10:30, but we reached an agreement, Chairman
Richie Neal from House Ways and Means Committee, with the
Administration on the United States-Mexico-Canada Trade
Agreement. There were important negotiations that took place
here over recent months to try to ensure that issues of
enforcement, production of American workers, a monitoring
system, accountability, and preserving Congress's power to
legislate in this area as we all work to ensure fair
competition was reached, and we are pleased it was reached. And
my understanding is that we will get a chance to vote on this
bipartisan agreement next week, which is a good sign as we see
the new year coming soon.
In closing, I would like to indicate to both witnesses
today, we thank you for your good work and for your efforts. We
will obviously continue to provide our oversight role as it
relates to USDA's efforts in the International Food Assistance
Program. Some of the points that we are talking about in terms
of the various types of assistance that we use, and which is
most effective, will be a continuing focus.
And we will also monitor the implementation of the new
flexibilities that we provided last year in the reauthorization
of the farm bill, which was part of our efforts to make our
efforts more effective in the totality of the food aid that we
provide, as I noted, almost $4 billion in the last fiscal year,
and how it relates to local regional procurement.
When we talk about all the various modes of assistance that
we provide, as I noted, as the Chair of the Transatlantic
Legislators' Dialogue, I am very interested in, we had this as
part of our conversation with our allies within the European
Union that we coordinate, because when we coordinate well we
are more effective at providing that assistance where it is
needed.
While it wasn't discussed here today, although it was noted
that transportation is another important question, and the cost
of that transportation obviously is important as we try to get
that food to where it is needed as efficiently and as
effectively as possible. And that is something that we need to
have a further discussion about.
Overall, we noted this morning that there is strong
bipartisan support as the Ranking Member stated in his close.
And we will look forward to continuing to find ways to promote
America's efforts as we put our best foot forward in terms of
our responsibility as the richest country in the world to
provide support where it is most needed for humanitarian
efforts, whether it be as a result of civil strife or natural
disasters or the impacts of climate change. All of the above
clearly are things that we have a role and a responsibility to
play, and American farmers, ranchers, dairymen and -women
throughout the country feel a great sense of pride when they
can not only produce enough of the finest food in the world for
America's dinner table, but also enough to provide for others
who are in hunger and who need it.
And so for all of those reasons, we are moving forward with
the resolution which is a bipartisan resolution as it relates
to our responsibility and role that we play, and we will
continue to work with all of you. Please provide that
information.
And we have, what is it, how many working days under the
Rules of the Committee for the record today's hearing? The
record will be open for 10 calendar days. We will receive any
additional material, supplementary written responses from
witnesses to any question posed by a Member.
This hearing of the Subcommittee on Livestock and Foreign
Agriculture is now adjourned.
Thank you for your testimony.
[Whereupon, at 11:32 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
Submitted Letter by Hon. Roger W. Marshall, a Representative in
Congress from Kansas
November 12, 2019
Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
Speaker,
U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, D.C.;
Hon. Steny H. Hoyer, Hon. Kevin McCarthy,
Majority Leader, Minority Leader,
U.S. House of Representatives, U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, D.C.; Washington, D.C.;
Hon. James E. Clyburn, Hon. Steve Scalise,
Majority Whip, Minority Whip,
U.S. House of Representatives, U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, D.C.; Washington, D.C.
Dear Speaker Pelosi, Majority Leader Hoyer, Minority Leader
McCarthy, Majority Whip Clyburn, and Minority Whip Scalise:
As nonprofit, non-governmental organizations working to end hunger,
poverty, and malnutrition throughout the world, we join together to
support House Resolution 189 (H. Res. 189), a resolution recognizing
the importance of sustained United States leadership to accelerating
global progress against maternal and child malnutrition and supporting
United States Agency for International Development's commitment to
global nutrition through its multi-sectoral nutrition strategy. This
resolution unanimously passed out of the House Foreign Affairs
Committee on Wednesday, October 30.
Maternal and child nutrition, especially in the 1,000 days between
a woman's pregnancy and her child's second birthday, is foundational to
our shared goals of prosperity and well-being for all people,
regardless of where they were born.
While child mortality has been cut in half over the last decades,
malnutrition continues to be responsible for nearly \1/2\ of child
deaths each year. Nearly one in four children around the world suffers
from stunting, a consequence of chronic childhood malnutrition. This
impairs a child's physical development as well as her brain development
during this critical time for growth. Wasting, or acute malnutrition,
continues to threaten the lives of 49 million children, yet only \1/4\
of malnourished children have access to treatment.
We urge you to take up and pass this strongly bipartisan global
nutrition resolution, which, as of this date, has 140 cosponsors.
Passage of this resolution would recognize the importance of continued
U.S. leadership in developing innovative nutrition solutions to save
and improve lives. Now is the time to build on America's legacy as a
leader in the fight against global hunger, disease and poverty.
Sincerely,
1. 1,000 Days 14. Helen Keller International
2. Action Against Hunger 15. Harvest Plus
3. American Academy of Pediatrics 16. Interaction
4. Bread for the World 17. John Snow, Inc.
5. CARE USA 18. Management Sciences for Health
6. Church World Service 19. RESULTS
7. Edesia Nutrition 20. RTI
8. Elizabeth Glaser Pediatric AIDS 21. Save the Children
Foundation
9. Farm Journal Foundation 22. The Hunger Project
10. Feed the Children 23. UNICEF USA
11. FHI 360 24. WFP USA
12. Food for the Hungry 25. Women of the Evangelical
Lutheran Church in America
13. Global Communities 26. World Vision
______
Submitted Legislation by Hon. Roger W. Marshall, a Representative in
Congress from Kansas
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
______
Supplementary Material Submitted by Ken Isley, Administrator, Foreign
Agricultural Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture
Insert 1
Ms. Plaskett. I wanted to ask a couple of questions about
Food for Progress, and I was hoping that some of you could tell
us, either of you could tell us, as individual food programs
conclude, how is the team working to bridge those efforts into
mutually productive training technology relationships?
Mr. Isley. Well, thank you, Congresswoman. And that is a key
objective is to ultimately bridge to trading relationships.
We have numerous examples in terms of the Food for Progress
Project's objectives that fit that objective. The sanitary and
phytosanitary objectives of some of the programs establish or
help establish regulations in country. This support trade
enables our farmers to utilize the technology that is approved
in the U.S. to be ultimately traded with those partners. We
have projects that are implementing spice, coffee, cacao, that
don't directly compete with U.S. agriculture that ultimately
are available for purchase from a lot of our U.S. companies to
utilize within the United States on their food processing and
ultimate sale. Those are a couple key examples.
The programs also that are extraordinarily important but
smaller are Cochran and Borlaug, the Fellowship Exchange
Programs where we are working with key thought leaders in
foreign countries around adoption of technologies and some of
the food safety production agriculture practices that we
implement in the U.S. They take those back to host countries,
implement those, and we continue to stay engaged with them
throughout their careers that build those relationships that
are critical ultimately to trade.
Ms. Plaskett. Do you do any of that in the Caribbean Basin?
Mr. Isley. Yes. We have projects, I believe, in the Caribbean
Basin.
Ms. Plaskett. I would love to get some information about
that, as well.
Mr. Isley. Okay. We will follow up on that.
A McGovern-Dole (MGD) program in Haiti that was awarded to the
World Food Program[me] in FY19 plans to utilize 7,600 metric tons of
U.S. commodities to provide school meals for more than 100,000 children
across more than 400 schools. The program, which follows a previous MGD
award in Haiti, is designed to improve the literacy of school age
children and the quality of instruction in classrooms through teacher
trainings and an early grade reading curriculum; promote good nutrition
and water, sanitation, and hygiene and school level interventions; and
strengthen national capacities and institutions with a view of enabling
a lasting school feeding program.
USDA currently administers two active Food for Progress (FFPr)
projects in the Dominican Republic: ``Export Quality'' (2015-2019) and
``Safe Agricultural Food Export'' (2015-2020). Together, these programs
are monetizing 47,390 MT of U.S. soybean meal, crude degummed soybean
oil and yellow grease tallow to fund activities. The Export Quality
program works to improve product quality, increase production
efficiency, increase the value of post-harvest products, and improve
marketing and market linkages in the strategic value chains of avocado,
cocoa, pineapple, and greenhouse and oriental vegetables. The Safe
Agricultural Food Export Program works with dairy and beef sector
across 11 provinces to improve agricultural productivity for livestock.
Insert 2
Mr. Rouzer. . . .
And if I can add, Mr. Chairman, just a quick request from
both of you. If you can, for example, and to preface this and
give you an idea of what I am looking for, when a bank makes a
loan they know there is a two percent default, three percent
default, whatever it may be. I would be curious to get the
information from you all in terms of in-kind food aid, what
percentage has been abused or misused, and then also from a
cash standpoint or voucher standpoint, what percentage have you
identified has been abused or misused? I would like to know
those metrics and how they stack up over time.
With that, I yield back.
The Chairman. If you could provide that information to the
Subcommittee so that we can share that, the Ranking Member and
I, with the full membership of the Committee? Obviously, there
is an interest in that as well as some of the other information
that we have requested from you. If you can coordinate that.
Each Food for Progress, McGovern-Dole, and Local and Regional
Procurement program includes a requirement for semi-annual performance
reports. These reports are reviewed by our professional monitoring and
evaluation staff. Further, USDA conducts regular site visits to ensure
compliance. Specifically, our compliance staff conducts headquarters-
based financial monitoring visits with our implementing partners; our
monitoring and evaluation staff conduct in-the-field, performance-based
monitoring visits; and our program team conducts program and
administrative-based monitoring visits to the projects in the field. As
a result of these compliance visits and the reviews of the semi-annual
reports, our programs have not incurred any direct defaults or clear
abuses of funds.
Our programs do, however, encounter periodic commodity losses that
can be attributed to various factors ranging from theft, to shipping
and handling issues, and other unforeseen circumstances or incidents.
On an annual basis, our programs' commodity losses average less than
two percent of the overall tonnage. If an implementing partner incurs a
commodity loss in excess of $1,000, they are required to report it
within 15 days. At that point, our program analysts will determine an
appropriate course of action. For damaged commodities, this will
require a plan from the implementing partner for destruction of said
commodities. For theft or other potentially preventable incidents, the
implementing partner will be required to develop a plan to mitigate the
likelihood of a similar event reoccurring. This entire process is also
included as part of the semi-annual reports.
______
Supplementary Material Submitted by Trey Hicks, Director, Office of
Food for Peace, Bureau for Democracy, Conflict, and Humanitarian
Assistance, U.S. Agency for International Development
Mr. Peterson. . . .
A question I have, I don't know which one of you can answer
this, if you can. Dry pea and lentil prices have dropped
between 40 and 50 percent since we have had these trade tariffs
put in place, and peas and lentils are a staple in a lot of
international food assistance programming, and they have been
since the 1980s because they are widely eaten in diets around
the world.
But in recent years, Food for Peace and the McGovern-Dole
Food for Education Programs have purchased between 150,000 and
170,000 metric tons, but according to the industry estimates
2019 purchases of dry peas and lentils dropped to 110,000
metric tons without a major shift in recipient countries. Can
you explain to me why there was such a drop in purchases on
these commodities when you have extremely low prices and high
stock levels?
* * * * *
Mr. Hicks. Well, the drivers are, is, the context, and so for
example, in Yemen, the most appropriate commodity for the needs
that are driven by the demand in the context is wheat, so wheat
tends to be one of our higher commodities that we use because
of the need in Yemen is so great and there aren't other
alternatives for other commodities to be used in those kind of
contexts.
Pulses and beans are our third-highest purchase right behind
wheat as well as the fortified corn-soy blends. While there
might be a greater availability on the market, we have to look
at each of the contexts and what the driving demand is for our
programs to determine which crops are appropriate for us, or
which commodities are appropriate for us to purchase.
Mr. Peterson. Well, as I understand it, there hasn't been a
big shift in these recipient countries in terms of what they
are asking for.
Mr. Hicks. There has been an uptick in the food insecurity in
Yemen, for example. We did a review an IBC review in December
of last year, and it did show a spike of increase of need in
Yemen, for example. And Yemen, again, is heavily reliant on
wheat commodities for the response there. Every year the
context does shift and change. We have sudden onsets that
appear, like the response in Mozambique or the response in the
Caribbean. And so the context is constantly shifting and
changing, so there is changes in context. And I am happy to
provide more information on----
Mr. Peterson. Well, my time has expired, so I would
appreciate that if you could get me some information.
USAID's Office of Food for Peace (FFP) purchased 103,900 metric
tons (MT) of peas and lentils in FY 2019 (89,600 MTs of peas and 14,300
MTs of lentils). The quantities of peas and lentils purchased since FY
2011 are provided below:
Title II Procurement of Peas and Lentils from FY 2011-2019
Peas and lentils are two of the twenty-five commodities eligible
for procurement under the title II program. Food for Peace implementing
partners select which commodities to use from these eligible items
based on country context and need. Decisions are not based on country
demand for a specific commodity. Food security needs assessments,
market assessments, and gender analyses help determine the composition
and quantity of the food assistance basket for each country.
Implementing partners ensure proposed food and nutrition assistance
aligns with cultural preferences and host government priorities and
programs.
USAID coordinates with USDA to monitor price and availability of
title II commodities. USAID receives quarterly price estimates from
USDA and shares these estimates with implementing partners. Final
commodity selections are made based on all of the factors mentioned
above, including estimated purchase price. The largest title II
response in FY 2019 was in Yemen, which relied heavily on wheat, mainly
procured in the United States.
______
Submitted Questions
Response from Ken Isley, Administrator, Foreign Agricultural Service,
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Questions Submitted by Hon. Jim Costa, a Representative in Congress
from California
Question 1. Food for Progress and McGovern Dole Food for Education
programs are currently being implemented in some fragile contexts like
Mali, Burkina Faso, and Niger. And Venezuela was also on the list of
countries that FAS was considering programming in over the last year.
Please describe how you work in these environments and to what extent
you coordinate with USAID's ongoing humanitarian and development
efforts in these more fragile contexts.
Answer. USDA works alongside our award recipients in difficult
environments to assist them in undertaking projects under USDA's food
assistance programs. Whether they are U.S.-based Private Voluntary
Organizations (PVOs) or International Organizations such as the World
Food Program[me], these award recipients are required to provide
updates as well as performance metrics throughout the life of
agreements. USDA's program staff also coordinate with the U.S. Embassy
representatives in each country where we maintain programs. USDA's
program staff and foreign service officers working in U.S. embassies
collaborate with host-country government officials to ensure the
programs receive governmental support. As part of our country
prioritization analysis and development of the Notice of Funding
Opportunity (NOFO), USDA consults directly with USAID's Office of Food
for Peace and the Bureau of Education to coordinate programmatic
efforts and leverage efficiencies to increase program impact.
During times of urgent or fragile security situations, USDA relies
on U.S. Embassy security, including the Regional Security Officer (RSO)
who is the principal security attache and advisor to the U.S.
Ambassador at American embassies and consulates. If security situations
warrant, USDA program activities can be modified depending on the RSO
assessment of safety concerns.
Question 2. Degraded lands and the impacts of desertification are
increasing, threatening the food security of farmers and communities
around the world. Please provide an explanation of the efforts your
offices are taking to proactively tackle this issue, especially to
promote good soil management.
Answer. Each year, Food for Progress (FFPr) Program projects train
over 100,000 farmers in improved farm production practices and good
soil management techniques such as intercropping, crop rotations,
maintaining soil cover, planting perennials, establishing live
barriers, and installing water catchments.
Our investment in the West African cashew sector provides one
example. The Benin Cashew Program established nurseries to promote
replanting and revival of old trees to maintain a live tree barrier
that slows erosion and desertification at the foot of the Sahel in
Benin. As part of this project, over 26,000 farmers and agricultural
extension agents were trained on soil fertility management, water
conservation, tillage practices, and other good soil management
techniques.
USAID, which is the interagency lead for the U.S. Government's
Global Food Security Strategy, is providing a separate response.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Mr. Hicks's Answer to Mr. Costa's Question 2, p. 52.
Question 3. With several countries around the world having been
declared a famine or on the verge of being declared a famine, please
share a detailed explanation on how you prioritize the limited
resources available.
Answer. USDA food assistance programs are authorized as development
programs and not targeted at countries on the verge of, or already in,
a famine environment. USAID programs, such as Food for Peace, are
designed to address these immediate humanitarian needs. USAID is
providing a separate response.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See Mr. Hicks's Answer to Mr. Costa's Question 3, p. 53.
Question 4. Please provide a detailed explanation as to how USAID,
USDA, and your implementing partners determine which modality is most
appropriate for each emergency response project, and how USAID, USDA,
and your implementing partners determine which commodity to use for in-
kind projects.
Answer. USAID is the lead agency on emergency responses and
deciding appropriate modalities. USDA programs promote non-emergency,
capacity building assistance. For McGovern-Dole and Food for Progress,
potential award recipients must justify commodities as appropriate in
their application. USAID is providing a separate response.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See Mr. Hicks's Answer to Mr. Costa's Question 4, p. 53.
Question 5. Given that USDA is in the process of streamlining the
proposal and award process for McGovern-Dole Food for Education
projects that use Local Regional Procurement instead of requiring
multiple proposals, how will these changes impact McGovern-Dole
projects that are already being implemented?
Answer. Previous awards will operate under the terms of existing
agreements without impact. Fiscal Year 2020 awards will be governed by
revised program regulations. These regulations, which implement the
authority for local and regional procurement that was added to the
McGovern-Dole Program by the 2018 Farm Bill, will facilitate a
streamlined process.
Question 6. Please provide an explanation for how USDA and USAID
obligate funding for multi-year projects, and what potential impacts
decreases in program funding could have on funding for multi-year
projects.
Answer. USDA obligates funding for its food assistance programs
through awards that enable recipients to implement projects with a
duration of 3-5 years. Our multi-year approach is critical for creating
sustainable investments in agriculture capacity building and school
feeding programs. Since our programs provide for multi-year funding of
projects, and the funding for a multi-year project is obligated in full
upon signature of the award agreement, a decrease in future year
funding generally will not impact USDA's ability to support a currently
active multi-year project. USAID is providing a separate response.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See Mr. Hicks's Answer to Mr. Costa's Question 5, p. 54.
Question 7. Please provide an outline of how USDA plans to solicit
and review stakeholder input in the selection of priority countries and
objectives for Food for Progress and McGovern-Dole Food for Education
Programs.
Answer. USDA will issue a Request for Information (RFI) for Fiscal
Year 2020, seeking stakeholder input on priority countries. USDA will
review the responses received from the RFI prior to finalizing the
Fiscal Year 2020 priority countries. USDA will hold a public meeting on
the selection of the priority countries and the feedback will be
considered in our evaluation based on program guidelines.
Question 8. Please provide an explanation of the guidance USDA
provides to implementers on closing out Food for Progress projects in
order to support continued success and capacity building, including
guidance specifically related to building trade capacity.
Answer. USDA requires award recipients to perform a final
evaluation to document overall project activity success and impact. The
evaluations include quantitative and qualitative data related to trade
capacity building. The evaluations are made available to the public and
uploaded to USAID's Development Experience Clearinghouse system for the
purposes of continued learning and providing future programs with
insight on how capacity building efforts can leverage past efforts and
existing resources. In the Notice of Funding Opportunity, applicants
are advised to leverage past, current, and planned capacity building
projects and to avoid duplication of efforts.
Question 9. As you noted in your testimony, the 2018 Farm Bill
expanded the list of Food for Progress implementing eligible entities
to include colleges and universities. Please share a detailed
accounting for what outreach you have conducted to make these entities
aware of their ability to participate.
Answer. At the end of Fiscal Year 2019, U.S. Land-Grant Colleges
and Universities (LGCUs) were visited to promote partnership
opportunities with FAS global programs. During these visits, USDA
highlighted LGCU eligibility to apply for Food for Progress (FFPr)
Program awards. USDA staff visited the University of Georgia; the
University of California, Berkley; the University of California, Davis;
and the University of Puerto Rico, Mayaguez. Each of the universities
have specialized programs that are relevant to FFPr thematic areas or
have previously collaborated on FFPr projects. In visiting these
institutions, USDA sought to understand their experiences and potential
challenges to LGCU participation. The FFPr Program objectives, Notice
of Funding Opportunity application process, proposal selection
criteria, and monetization details were presented and discussed. USDA
also provided the LGCUs with program area points of contact to reach
with any additional questions. The new LGCU eligibility to apply for
awards under the FFPr Program was highlighted in the FY 2019 NOFO. USDA
will continue to provide outreach to LGCUs throughout the U.S.,
including Historically Black Colleges and Universities.
Questions Submitted by Hon. Collin C. Peterson, a Representative in
Congress from Minnesota
Question 1. Please provide a detailed explanation on how
commodities are selected for donation in each local context and what
bearing commodity price and availability have on these considerations.
Answer. USDA includes specific requirements in the annual Notice of
Funding Opportunity (NOFO) for the McGovern-Dole Program to ensure the
appropriateness of the commodities selected. Applicants must offer a
combination of USDA-approved commodities to be utilized in a food
basket that includes at least three separate items. The requested
commodities and ration size must address the nutritional deficiencies
of the beneficiaries. The list of available commodities is maintained
by the Kansas City Commodity Office and USDA requires applicants to
provide a justification of the appropriateness of commodities selected
for projects.
As stated in the NOFO, each McGovern-Dole Program project is
required to meet \1/3\ of age-appropriate daily nutritional
requirements if one meal is provided or \1/4\ of the daily requirements
if a snack is provided. If a preferred commodity either becomes cost-
prohibitive or otherwise unavailable, USDA works with the award
recipient to identify a cost-effective alternative that provides the
requisite nutritional value.
USAID is providing the responses for Food for Peace programs
separately.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See Mr. Hicks's Answer to Mr. Peterson's Question 1, p. 55.
Question 2. Please provide a detailed accounting of the commodities
used in Food for Peace Emergency, Food for Peace Non-emergency, Food
for Progress, and McGovern-Dole Food for Education programs,
disaggregated by program and country, for each of the last 5 fiscal
years.
Answer. A detailed accounting of the commodities used in USDA's
Food for Progress and McGovern-Dole Food for Education programs is
provided in Attachment 1. No local-sourced commodities were sourced
under McGovern-Dole authority in the last 5 years. This authority
became available in the 2018 Farm Bill, and the first funding to be
used under this new authority will be made available in 2020.
USAID is providing the responses for Food for Peace programs
separately.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See Mr. Hicks's Answer to Mr. Peterson's Question 2, p. 55.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
attachment 1
McGovern-Dole Food for Education Program
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Country Commodities Metric Tons
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year 2015
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Africa:
Cameroon Milled Rice, Pinto Beans, 1,910
Vegetable Oil
Cote d'Ivoire Fortified Rice, Vegetable 22,350
Oil, Yellow Split Peas
Guinea-Bissau Milled Rice, Pinto Beans, 12,583
Vegetable Oil
Mali Fortified Rice, Vegetable 8,840
Oil, Green Split Peas,
Lentils
Mozambique Corn Soy Blend Plus 4,810
Mozambique Corn Soy Blend Plus 7,950
Rwanda Corn Soy Blend Plus, 5,195
Vegetable Oil
Sierra Leone Fortified Rice, Lentils, 3,400
Vegetable Oil
---------------
Subtotal Africa 67,038
---------------
Caribbean:
Haiti Bulgur, Green Whole Peas, 6,050
Roasted Peanuts, Vegetable
Oil
---------------
Subtotal Caribbean 6,050
---------------
Central America:
Honduras Corn Soy Blend, Corn Soy 13,380
Blend Plus, Milled Rice, Red
Beans, Vegetable Oil, Yellow
Corn
---------------
Subtotal Central 13,380
America
===============
Worldwide 86,468
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year 2016
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Africa:
Guinea Bissau Vegetable Oil, Pinto Beans, 1,258
Bagged Rice
Ethiopia Corn Soy Blend Plus, 19,635
Vegetable Oil
Kenya Bulgur, Green Split Peas, 23,220
Vegetable Oil
Malawi Corn Soy Blend Plus 10,570
Tanzania Pinto Beans, Sunflower Seed 6,200
Oil, Rice
---------------
Subtotal Africa 60,883
---------------
East Asia:
Cambodia Fortified Rice, Vegetable Oil 6,230
Laos Lentils, Rice, Vegetable Oil 6,390
---------------
Subtotal East Asia 12,620
---------------
Central America:
Guatemala Black Beans, Corn Soy Blend 19,880
Plus, Rice, Soybean Meal,
Textured Soy Protein,
Vegetable Oil
Guatemala Black Beans, Corn Soy Blend 6,230
Plus, Rice, Soybean Meal,
Vegetable Oil
---------------
Subtotal Central 26,110
America
---------------
Caribbean:
Haiti Vegetable Oil, Bulgur, Green 6,050
Peas, Peanuts
Haiti Bulgur, Whole Green Peas, 5,440
Vegetable Oil
---------------
Subtotal Caribbean 11,490
===============
Worldwide 111,103
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year 2017
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Africa:
Benin Fortified Rice, Green Split 6,610
Peas, Soy Fortified
Cornmeal, Lentils, Vegetable
Oil
Republic of Congo Fortified Milled Rice, Split 9,950
Yellow Peas, Vegetable Oil
Liberia Split Yellow Peas, Fortified 7,520
Milled Rice, Vegetable Oil
---------------
Subtotal Africa 24,080
---------------
Asia:
Bangladesh Soft White Wheat 4,900
Kyrgyz Republic Sunflower Seed Oil, Split 2,290
Green Peas, Fortified Milled
Rice, Flour
Laos Milled Rice, Vegetable Oil, 8,750
Lentils
Nepal Fortified Milled Rice, 15,640
Lentils, Vegetable Oil
---------------
Subtotal Asia 31,580
---------------
Central America:
Nicaragua Corn-Soy Blend Plus, 4,340
Fortified Milled Rice, Wheat
(HRW), Beans, Vegetable Oil
---------------
Subtotal Central 4,340
America
===============
Worldwide 60,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year 2018
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Africa:
Burkina Faso Cornmeal, Lentils, Soy 8,910
Fortified Bulgur, Vegetable
Oil
Cameroon Corn-Soy Blend Plus, 9,290
Fortified Milled Rice, Pinto
Beans, Vegetable Oil
Senegal Fortified Milled Rice, Green 3,380
Split Peas, Soy-Fortified
Cornmeal, Vegetable Oil
Sierra Leone Fortified Milled Rice, 6,940
Lentils, Vegetable Oil
Ethiopia Fortified Rice, Vegetable 15,570
Oil, Corn Soy Blend Plus
---------------
Subtotal Africa 44,090
---------------
Central America:
Guatemala Black Beans, Fortified Milled 7,740
Rice, Vegetable Oil
---------------
Subtotal Central 7,740
America
---------------
East Asia:
Sri Lanka Pink Salmon, Split Yellow 4,220
Peas
Timor-Leste Dark Red Kidney Beans, 3,240
Fortified Milled Rice,
Vegetable Oil
---------------
Subtotal East Asia 7,460
===============
Worldwide 59,290
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year 2019
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Africa:
Guinea-Bissau Fortified Rice, Lentils, 7,870
Yellow Peas, Vegetable Oil
Malawi Corn Soy Blend Plus, 5,130
Vegetable Oil, Fortified
Rice, Peanut Paste
Mauritania Fortified Rice, Vegetable 5,800
Oil, Corn Soy Blend Plus,
Yellow Peas, Lentils
Mozambique Corn Soy Blend Plus, 6,210
Vegetable Oil
Togo Soy Bulgur, Green Peas, 5,060
Lentils, Corn Soy Blend
Plus, Vegetable Oil,
Fortified Rice
---------------
Subtotal Africa 30,070
---------------
Caribbean:
Haiti Black Beans, Lentils, Soy 7,600
Bulgur, Fortified Rice,
Vegetable Oil
---------------
Subtotal Caribbean 7,600
---------------
Asia:
Uzbekistan Flour, Fortified Rice, Yellow 1,590
Peas, Sunflower Seed Oil
Cambodia Fortified Rice, Vegetable Oil 6,280
---------------
Subtotal Asia 7,870
===============
Worldwide 45,540
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question Submitted by Hon. Jahana Hayes, a Representative in Congress
from Connecticut
Question. Please submit a detailed plan for soliciting public input
and reviewing feedback to inform USDA's identification of priority
countries for Foreign Agricultural Service programs.
Answer. In late January, USDA issued a Request for Information
(RFI) seeking stakeholder input on country-specific opportunities and
challenges for McGovern-Dole. USDA is reviewing the responses received
from the RFI, prior to finalizing the Fiscal Year 2020 priority
countries. USDA intends to announce the finalized FY 2020 priority
country list in mid-March, via publication on the FAS website. Once
USDA releases the FY 2020 Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO), also
expected in mid-March, USDA will schedule a public meeting to allow for
public questions from stakeholders, including private voluntary
organizations, eligible universities, and interested stakeholders
regarding the NOFO. The meeting is scheduled to be held in early April,
approximately 2 weeks after publication of the NOFO. This meeting will
be publicized through the NIFA university listserv, the Food Aid
Consultative Group, and on the FAS and FAIS websites.
In 2019, as Food for Progress sought to develop multi-year thematic
areas around which to focus its programming, USDA published two
Requests for Information and then held two public sessions to deepen
the understanding around proposed themes. Additionally, USDA published
RFIs under FFPr in February 2019 and again in February 2020 to capture
stakeholder input into the NOFO process. USDA is reviewing the
responses received from the RFI, prior to finalizing the Fiscal Year
2020 priority countries. USDA intends to announce the finalized FY 2020
priority country list in mid-March, via publication on the FAS website.
Once USDA releases the FY 2020 Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO),
also expected in mid-March, USDA will schedule a public meeting to
allow for public questions from stakeholders, including private
voluntary organizations, eligible universities, and interested
stakeholders regarding the NOFO. The meeting is scheduled to be held in
early April, approximately 2 weeks after publication of the NOFO. This
meeting will be publicized through the NIFA university listserv, the
Food Aid Consultative Group, and on the FAS and FAIS websites.
Questions Submitted by Hon. Jimmy Panetta, a Representative in Congress
from California
School Meals in Protracted Crises
Question 1. Protracted crises--the result of armed conflict, forced
displacement, and natural disasters--are disrupting both the food
security and education of millions of children around the world. We are
seeing today in both Syria and Yemen, where the United Nations has
declared system-wide Level 3 Emergencies. In these contexts, missing
school meals has more than a physical impact on children. Chronic food
insecurity impacts a child's ability to learn and their overall well-
being. The United Nations World Food Programme administers the majority
of American emergency food aid.
I was pleased to learn that earlier this year, WFP announced a
partnership with an education nonprofit called Education Cannot Wait,
to address this very issue. Through this partnership, the two
organizations will work together to increase access to both quality
education and quality nutrition for vulnerable children in emergency
and crisis settings.
Mr. Isley, I know USDA's Food for Education program looks to
support similar goals. How does that program build on work done in
emergency settings and eventually `graduate' countries from needing
this level of fundamental assistance?
Answer. The McGovern-Dole Program, as a development program,
ensures that coordination with the local government and other agencies
is established to build upon work accomplished through humanitarian
efforts. This includes activities to support the local government in
developing a graduation strategy and sustained handover.
USDA Technical Assistance to Build Safety Net Systems
Question 2. U.S. policy with regard to international food
assistance has evolved over its long history. Today, food assistance is
linked to international stability, climate-smart agricultural
practices, market development, poverty reduction, nutritional
improvement, and even our own national security interests.
The broad array of missions at USDA include many that could be used
to address world hunger. Among them are the traditional safety net
systems that we all recognize throughout America such as school lunch
programs and other nutrition-based programs that meet the needs of all
our citizens. The expertise at USDA that has developed alongside these
programs is the best in the world. International agencies, humanitarian
organizations, academics, and other commentators today speak of the
importance that safety net systems can provide to make international
food security a reality and, equally important, a permanent part of
social and economic development throughout the world.
The Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 included section 3308 which
provides for the compilation and dissemination of USDA expertise on the
use of safety net systems as a way to promote international food
security through the provision of technical assistance to relevant
organizations.
Mr. Isley, can you explain what steps USDA is taking to implement
this provision and the date by which we should expect to see an
announcement by USDA on when the program will become effective?
Answer. USDA is aware of Section 3308 of the Agriculture
Improvement Act of 2018, which authorizes appropriations for this
purpose. In Fiscal Years 2019 and 2020, Congress did not appropriate
funding for Section 3308 activities.
Response from Trey Hicks, Director, Office of Food for Peace, Bureau
for Democracy, Conflict, and Humanitarian Assistance, U.S.
Agency for International Development
Questions Submitted by Hon. Jim Costa, a Representative in Congress
from California
Question 1. As you noted in your testimony, the 2018 Farm Bill
expanded the list of Food for Progress implementing eligible entities
to include colleges and universities. Please share a detailed
accounting for what outreach you have conducted to make these entities
aware of their ability to participate.
Answer. I defer to USDA to answer this question, as USDA implements
Food for Progress.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Mr. Isley's Answer to Mr. Costa's Question 1, p. 46.
Question 2. Degraded lands and the impacts of desertification are
increasing, threatening the food security of farmers and communities
around the world. Please provide an explanation of the efforts your
offices are taking to proactively tackle this issue, especially to
promote good soil management.
Answer. USAID's Office of Food for Peace (FFP) targets the most
vulnerable people and communities who typically live and farm in
degraded areas with a broad range of tools to address both the
immediate impacts and long-term solutions to degraded lands and
desertification.
USAID addresses the immediate impacts by supporting short-term
interventions to re-establish productive capacity to farmlands degraded
by disaster. For example, after Tropical Cyclone Idai destroyed farm
fields across Mozambique, USAID supported rapid restoration of communal
planting areas, recovery of erosion-prevention terraces, and
rehabilitation of soil and water management infrastructures. In
Somalia, food-insecure farmers participated in Cash-for-Assets (CFA)
programming to rehabilitate community rangelands which support food
production, and to implement improved grazing practices to promote soil
conservation. Quickly restoring productive capacity to those affected
by weather events is integral to restoring food security and preventing
further land degradation. In Niger and Burkina Faso, USAID supports
rehabilitation of degraded land, soil, and water management, as well as
land use planning to better manage resources and reduce conflict. This
work includes partnerships with the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA) and the United States Geological Survey (USGS) to
take advantage of U.S. Government (USG) expertise in satellite
information and mapping.
USAID addresses longer-term impacts through the Global Food
Security Strategy, including Development Food Security Activities
(DFSAs) that layer multiple objectives over a 5 year period, targeting
the roots of food insecurity (including mitigation of degraded lands),
and longer-term resilience programming aimed at areas of recurrent food
insecurity. USAID trains farmers to conserve soil, and improve
productivity and sustainability all around the world. In Malawi, for
example, crop rotations and mulching-enhanced crop production reduced
soil erosion, helped conserve soil moisture, and protected crops from
being washed away by storms. In Ethiopia, USAID supports large-scale,
whole watershed development. This holistic approach combines soil
conservation, water harvesting, tree planting, and community
infrastructure development with community-driven efforts to manage the
improved resources sustainably. Ethiopian communities have experienced
notable improvements including reduced flood hazards, improved soil
quality, increased ground water availability, and increased feed supply
for livestock that benefit everyone living in the watershed.
These longer-term efforts support the Global Food Security
Strategy, which is implemented through Feed the Future. Feed the Future
draws on the agricultural, trade, investment, development, and policy
resources and expertise of a number of USG [U.S. Government]
Departments and Agencies and their related programs (including USDA).
USAID's Bureau for Food Security is the interagency lead for these
long-term food security and resilience efforts, to which FFP's DFSAs
contribute.
Throughout its programming, FFP promotes interventions including
permagardens, hillsides restoration to prevent erosion, agroforestry,
farmer field schools (teaching soil and water conservation), rotational
grazing, rangeland management, terracing, mulching, intercropping, crop
rotations, and many more--all of which protect and/or regenerate soil.
Layering these interventions with those to improve health and economic
well-being helps promote the sustainability and impact of conservation
practices that address many of the underlying causes of land
degradation and desertification.
Question 3. With several countries around the world having been
declared a famine or on the verge of being declared a famine, please
share a detailed explanation on how you prioritize the limited
resources available.
Answer. There are currently no countries with famine declarations,
though the Famine Early Warning Systems Network notes that famine
threatens South Sudan, Yemen, and northeast Nigeria in 2020, should
conditions in those countries continue to deteriorate.
USAID's Office of Food for Peace continuously monitors food
insecurity levels worldwide and makes emergency funding decisions on a
monthly basis, often to meet anticipated emergency food needs several
months in the future. If agricultural, market, or political indicators
improve, future emergency contributions are reconsidered. Natural
disasters, such as hurricanes and earthquakes, and political crises
resulting in population displacements often require immediate
assistance to meet life-saving food needs. USAID balances these
changing needs, adjusting programming priorities and plans to ensure
that food assistance is reaching the most vulnerable populations
worldwide.
Recognizing that the United States will not and should not meet the
need for emergency food assistance alone, the United States engages
with fellow donors and actors in the international humanitarian
architecture in a variety of fora, including organized coordination
mechanisms and ad hoc gatherings. USAID is working closely with the
U.S. Department of State to develop and implement a robust global
burden-sharing strategy during FY 2020 that includes utilizing
bilateral and multilateral fora to encourage other countries and
stakeholders to take on a greater share of humanitarian assistance
funding. Among other fora, the United States holds permanent seats on
the executive boards of the World Food Programme (WFP) and the United
Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF), and participates in the Food
Assistance Convention, a 16-member donor group committed to promoting
food security. These positions provide ongoing opportunities for donor
engagement and coordinated evaluation of and response to needs
worldwide.
Question 4. Please provide a detailed explanation as to how USAID,
USDA, and your implementing partners determine which modality is most
appropriate for each emergency response project, and how USAID, USDA,
and your implementing partners determine which commodity to use for in-
kind projects.
Answer. USAID aims to use the right tools, in the right place, at
the right time. USAID's Office of Food for Peace (FFP) makes food
assistance decisions by using data and context from the field to
determine which combination of tools (in-kind commodities, cash, and
vouchers) will be most effective to combat acute food insecurity. When
deciding which tool to use, FFP applies the following criteria: (1)
whether the modality is appropriate, given market conditions; (2)
whether the proposed modality and delivery mechanism is likely to be
successful, considering the context, infrastructure, and programming
risks; (3) whether the modality is best-suited to meet programming
objectives; and (4) whether the modality is cost-efficient and/or cost-
effective, relative to others. Our implementing partners use these
criteria to determine which combination of modalities to use in each
response. The decision justification is detailed in Emergency Food
Security Program (EFSP) applications and award documentation. The
flexibility to use a combination of modalities allows us to spend U.S.
taxpayer dollars efficiently and responsibly, and target in-kind
assistance where it can be most effective.
Our implementing partners determine which commodities are
appropriate for in-kind programming. The implementing partners conduct
needs assessments, market assessments, and gender analyses to determine
the composition and quantity of the food assistance basket. They ensure
proposed food and nutrition assistance aligns with host government
priorities and programs and meet the demonstrated need.
I defer to USDA to respond to how they determine which modality is
most appropriate.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See Mr. Isley's Answer to Mr. Costa's Question 4, p. 47.
Question 5. Please provide an explanation for how USDA and USAID
obligate funding for multi-year projects, and what potential impacts
decreases in program funding could have on funding for multi-year
projects.
Answer. USAID's Office of Food for Peace (FFP) provides development
food assistance to help vulnerable communities address the root causes
of hunger and malnutrition so people are able to feed themselves in the
long-term. These activities aim to reduce chronic malnutrition among
children under 5 and pregnant or lactating women, increase and
diversify household income, provide opportunities for microfinance and
savings, and support agricultural programs that build resilience and
reduce vulnerability to shocks and stresses.
For multi-year development projects, USAID first selects countries
that meet three criteria: (1) align with the Global Food Security
Strategy and USAID's Resilience Strategy; (2) are defined as ``low-
income'' by the World Bank; and (3) have received recurrent FFP
emergency assistance in the past 5 years. For the countries that meet
these criteria, FFP undertakes a comprehensive review of the
operational context, staffing, and resource requirements associated
with potential activities, opportunities to positively and sustainably
influence the food security situation in-country, and the allowability
and appropriateness of FFP resources. This diligent review informs
country selection for multi-year development projects. Upon successful
application, awards are incrementally funded on an annual basis based
on the availability of funds. Awardees submit Pipeline and Resource
Estimate Proposals (PREPS) each year, which include updated
implementation plans and budgets for annual funding. Development
programming levels can be adjusted as necessary to prioritize emergency
needs. USAID also funds substantial multi-year food security and
resilience programming through Feed the Future with Development
Assistance funding using similar criteria.
I defer to USDA to respond to how they obligate funding for multi-
year projects.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See Mr. Isley's Answer to Mr. Costa's Question 6, p. 47.
Question 6. Given the pending reorganization of USAID, please share
how your office view its responsibility for Food for Peace non-
emergency programs and what role will those programs fill in the
future.
Answer. USAID is restructuring as an Agency and, as part of this,
is bringing together our two offices focused primarily on emergency
response--the Office of Food for Peace and the Office of U.S. Foreign
Disaster Assistance--into one elevated Bureau for Humanitarian
Assistance (BHA). BHA's mission is to save lives, alleviate human
suffering, and reduce the physical, social, and economic impact of
rapid and slow-onset disasters by supporting at-risk populations to
build stable foundations for their Journey to Self-Reliance. In
addition, USAID is standing up a sister bureau, the Bureau of
Resilience and Food Security, to address related longer-term
development.
Under USAID's reorganization, BHA remains responsible for all food
assistance programming, including title II non-emergency programs. As
BHA, we have access to remarkable technical expertise and capabilities,
as well as diverse acquisition and assistance mechanisms. This enables
a comprehensive and holistic approach linking relief and development
programming in partnership with USAID Missions, other field offices,
and other USAID bureaus. The proposed structure improves collaboration
within BHA and across bureaus on stabilization, resilience, and food
security. Our close collaboration with Missions will improve our
effectiveness in addressing crises, building resilience, and providing
more cohesive engagement on high-level policy and planning issues.
Questions Submitted by Hon. Collin C. Peterson, a Representative in
Congress from Minnesota
Question 1. Please provide a detailed explanation on how
commodities are selected for donation in each local context and what
bearing commodity price and availability have on these considerations.
Answer. Before providing in-kind assistance, USAID and its partners
undertake market analyses to ensure that our assistance will not have
adverse impacts on local markets. We look at a number of factors--
including commodity prices and food availability--to determine whether
it is appropriate to provide in-kind resources.
There are currently 25 items eligible for procurement under the
title II program. These food items range from wheat and sorghum to
therapeutic peanut-based products. Many products, programming, and
process updates are based on recommendations from the Food Aid Quality
Review (FAQR), an ongoing stakeholder consultation process that expands
the body of scientific and programmatic evidence and helps drive
continuous improvements in programming and procurement. The
implementing partners select which commodities to use from these
eligible items, based on country context and need. Food security needs
assessments, market assessments, and gender analyses help determine the
composition and quantity of the food assistance basket. Implementing
partners ensure proposed food and nutrition assistance aligns with
cultural preferences and host government priorities and programs.
Cooking times and the amount of water and fuel required for cooking are
also considerations.
USAID works in close coordination with USDA to monitor the price
and availability of title II commodities. USAID receives quarterly
price estimates from USDA and shares these estimates with implementing
partners. Final commodity selections are made based on all of the
factors mentioned above, including estimated purchase price.
Question 2. Please provide a detailed accounting of the commodities
used in Food for Peace Emergency, Food for Peace Non-emergency, Food
for Progress, and McGovern-Dole Food for Education programs,
disaggregated by program and country, for each of the last 5 fiscal
years.
Answer. Please see the [following] table on commodities used in
Food for Peace's emergency and non-emergency programming, disaggregated
by program and country, for the last 5 fiscal years.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Country
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY15 Programs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recipient Country Commodity Type Metric Tons Commodity Cost
Name
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Afghanistan 34,900 $11,594,819
Lentils Bag, 50 Kg 710 $532,535
Oil, Vegetable Can, 3,270 $3,833,649
6/4 L
Wheat, Soft White 30,920 $7,228,635
Burkina Faso 3,000 $1,972,523
Corn-Soy Blend Plus 150 $86,193
Bag--HP, 25 Kg
Oil, Vegetable Can, 440 $540,448
6/4 L
Peas, Yellow, Split 1,310 $709,354
Bag, 50 Kg
Rice 1,100 $636,528
Burundi 5,560 $3,066,106
Beans, Pinto Bag, 50 20 $12,029
Kg
Bulgur, Soy--Fort. 220 $88,888
Bag, 50 Kg
Cornmeal, Soy--Fort. 750 $277,675
Bag--HP, 25 Kg
Corn-Soy Blend Plus 4,080 $2,068,783
Bag--HP, 25 Kg
Emerg[e]ncy Fd., 50 $168,450
RUTF
Oil, Vegetable Can, 390 $422,708
6/4 L
Peas, Yellow, Split 50 $27,573
Bag, 50 Kg
Central African 4,260 $2,008,538
Republic
Cornmeal, Soy--Fort. 1,700 $609,074
Bag--HP, 25 Kg
Oil, Vegetable Can, 250 $309,578
6/4 L
Peas, Yellow, Split 610 $335,274
Bag, 50 Kg
Rice 1,700 $754,613
Cameroon 11,950 $7,700,363
Corn-Soy Blend Plus 240 $137,909
Bag--HP, 25 Kg
Oil, Vegetable Can, 490 $586,322
6/4 L
Peas, Yellow, Split 1,420 $757,371
Bag, 50 Kg
Rice 9,800 $6,218,762
Chad 11,340 $4,628,133
Corn-Soy Blend Plus 660 $392,080
Bag--HP, 25 Kg
Oil, Vegetable Can, 1,650 $2,006,553
6/4 L
Sorghum 9,030 $2,229,500
Colombia 1,200 $831,525
Oil, Vegetable Can, 200 $246,826
6/4 L
Rice 1,000 $584,699
Democratic Republic 20,710 $10,663,167
of Congo
Cornmeal, Soy--Fort. 16,120 $8,068,612
Bag--HP, 25 Kg
Corn-Soy Blend Plus 290 $158,236
Bag--HP, 25 Kg
Oil, Vegetable Can, 840 $1,026,298
6/4 L
Peas, Green, Split 300 $118,489
Bag, 50 Kg
Peas, Yellow, Split 1,660 $938,043
Bag, 50 Kg
Sorghum 1,500 $353,490
Djibouti 130 $89,990
Wheat-Soy Blend Bag, 130 $89,990
25 Kg
Ethiopia 311,390 $91,891,618
Bulgur bag, 50 Kg 610 $200,147
Corn-Soy Blend Plus 7,440 $4,108,371
Bag--HP, 25 Kg
Hard Red Wheat 169,340 $38,801,456
Oil, Vegetable Can, 5,070 $6,067,560
6/4 L
Peas, Yellow, Split 43,970 $22,714,798
Bag, 50 Kg
Rice 130 $67,210
Sorghum 84,830 $19,932,077
Guatemala 5,840 $3,605,361
Beans, Pinto Bag, 50 1,640 $1,039,593
Kg
Corn-Soy Blend Plus 1,460 $812,447
Bag--HP, 25 Kg
Oil, Vegetable Can, 630 $797,091
6/4 L
Rice 2,110 $956,229
Haiti 3,720 $1,989,180
Bulgur, Soy--Fort. 1,220 $407,204
Bag, 50 Kg
Corn-Soy Blend Plus 1,710 $883,701
Bag--HP, 25 Kg
Lentils Bag, 50 Kg 380 $250,801
Oil, Vegetable Can, 410 $447,474
6/4 L
Kenya 57,880 $21,064,387
Emerg[e]ncy Fd., 80 $269,520
RUTF
Flour, All Purpose 10,910 $5,145,810
Bag, 50 Kg
Flour, Bread 1,870 $854,129
Oil, Vegetable Can, 2,120 $2,364,296
6/4 L
Peas, Yellow, Split 7,810 $3,802,720
Bag, 50 Kg
Sorghum 35,090 $8,627,912
Liberia 3,170 $1,716,725
Oil, Vegetable Can, 320 $394,752
6/4 L
Rice 2,850 $1,321,973
Madagascar 7,090 $4,035,860
Beans, Great 70 $69,666
Northern Bag, 50 Kg
Corn-Soy Blend Plus 3,080 $1,617,121
Bag--HP, 25 Kg
Oil, Vegetable Can, 660 $771,462
6/4 L
Peas, Yellow, Split 450 $225,633
Bag, 50 Kg
Rice 2,830 $1,351,978
Malawi 4,450 $3,161,798
Beans, Pinto Bag, 50 860 $559,081
Kg
Corn-Soy Blend Plus 1,670 $882,958
Bag--HP, 25 Kg
Oil, Vegetable Can, 1,070 $1,272,401
6/4 L
Peas, Yellow, Split 850 $447,358
Bag, 50 Kg
Mali 3,620 $2,610,658
Corn-Soy Blend Plus 300 $178,218
Bag--HP, 25 Kg
Oil, Vegetable Can, 1,020 $1,238,494
6/4 L
Peas, Yellow, Split 2,300 $1,193,945
Bag, 50 Kg
Mauritania 4,300 $1,882,772
Corn-Soy Blend Plus 500 $233,920
Bag--HP, 25 Kg
Oil, Vegetable Can, 160 $194,028
6/4 L
Rice 1,600 $710,224
Wheat, Soft White 2,040 $744,600
Niger 19,000 $10,498,818
Bulgur, Soy--Fort. 710 $253,713
Bag, 50 Kg
Corn-Soy Blend Plus 10,360 $5,709,861
Bag--HP, 25 Kg
Lentils Bag, 50 Kg 50 $27,327
Oil, Vegetable Can, 880 $1,002,840
6/4 L
Peas, Yellow, Split 470 $270,284
Bag, 50 Kg
Rice 6,530 $3,234,793
Pakistan 530 $1,766,455
Emerg[e]ncy Fd., 530 $1,766,455
RUTF
Somalia 29,670 $10,166,288
Corn 5,330 $1,059,444
Corn-Soy Blend Plus 1,360 $768,464
Bag--HP, 25 Kg
Oil, Vegetable Can, 1,560 $1,849,480
6/4 L
Peas, Yellow, Split 4,180 $2,137,728
Bag, 50 Kg
Sorghum 17,240 $4,351,172
South Sudan 42,170 $11,559,078
Emerg[e]ncy Fd., 180 $448,800
RUSF
Oil, Vegetable Can, 540 $659,000
6/4 L
Peas, Yellow, Split 1,800 $917,329
Bag, 50 Kg
Sorghum 39,650 $9,533,950
Sudan 128,950 $38,623,872
Emerg[e]ncy Fd., 250 $835,230
RUTF
Lentils Bag, 50 Kg 13,950 $11,297,223
Oil, Vegetable Can, 1,040 $1,211,756
6/4 L
Peas, Yellow, Split 110 $57,674
Bag, 50 Kg
Sorghum 113,600 $25,221,990
Uganda 4,480 $2,029,304
Cornmeal Bag--HP, 25 1,510 $496,060
Kg
Cornmeal, Soy--Fort. 1,600 $542,449
Bag--HP, 25 Kg
Corn-Soy Blend Plus 520 $237,318
Bag--HP, 25 Kg
Lentils Bag, 50 Kg 510 $373,408
Oil, Vegetable Can, 340 $380,070
6/4 L
West Bank Gaza 4,740 $2,283,511
Beans, Garbanzo, 210 $145,285
Kabuli Bag-50 Kg
Flour, Bread 4,530 $2,138,225
Yemen 36,840 $8,364,144
Peas, Yellow, Split 1,040 $513,562
Bag, 50 Kg
Wheat, Soft White 35,800 $7,850,582
Zimbabwe 6,020 $2,914,592
Corn-Soy Blend Plus 2,280 $1,123,009
Bag--HP, 25 Kg
Oil, Vegetable Can, 630 $817,535
6/4 L
Peas, Yellow, Whole 800 $341,600
Bag, 50 Kg
Sorghum 2,310 $632,448
-----------------------------
Grand Total 766,910 $262,719,584
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY15 Prepo.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prepo. Location Commodity Type Metric Tons Commodity Cost
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Domestic Prepo. 21,560 $35,604,650
Corn-Soy Blend Plus 3,000 $1,701,409
Bag--HP, 25 Kg
CSB Super Cereal 3,000 $5,490,601
Plus Box, 10/1.5 Kg
Emerg[e]ncy Fd., 1,320 $3,762,565
RUSF
Emerg[e]ncy Fd., 4,500 $14,269,593
RUTF
Lentils Bag, 50 Kg 250 $192,333
Oil, Vegetable Can, 7,240 $9,053,084
6/4 L
Peas, Yellow, Split 2,250 $1,135,066
Bag, 50 Kg
Foreign Prepo. 113,790 $61,264,108
Corn-Soy Blend Plus 9,000 $4,534,942
Bag--HP, 25 Kg
Hard Red Wheat 4,530 $1,132,409
Lentils Bag, 50 Kg 5,000 $3,666,817
Oil, Vegetable Can, 21,000 $25,727,011
6/4 L
Peas, Yellow, Split 28,260 $14,633,289
Bag, 50 Kg
Rice, 5/20 Lg., W- 1,000 $477,190
MLD Bag, 50 Kg, F
Sorghum 45,000 $11,092,450
-----------------------------
Grand Total 135,350 $96,868,758
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY16 Programs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recipient Country Commodity Type Metric Tons Commodity Cost
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Afghanistan 13,870 $7,879,301
Oil, Vegetable Can, 4,090 $4,728,683
6/4 L
Peas, Yellow, Split 2,780 $1,784,918
Bag, 50 Kg
Wheat, Soft White 7,000 $1,365,700
Bangladesh 165,160 $35,671,509
Oil, Vegetable Can, 470 $541,843
6/4 L
Peas, Yellow, Split 710 $442,066
Bag, 50 Kg
Wheat, Soft White 163,980 $34,687,600
Burkina Faso 1,310 $737,200
Corn-Soy Blend Plus 120 $52,952
Bag--HP, 25 Kg
Oil, Vegetable Can, 100 $112,938
6/4 L
Peas, Yellow, Split 240 $192,405
Bag, 50 Kg
Rice 850 $378,905
Burundi 3,720 $2,012,894
Beans, Pinto Bag, 50 450 $276,390
Kg
Bulgur, Soy--Fort. 50 $14,453
Bag, 50 Kg
Cornmeal Bag--HP, 25 1,050 $311,546
Kg
Corn-Soy Blend Plus 1,880 $834,947
Bag--HP, 25 Kg
Emerg[e]ncy Fd., 150 $424,950
RUSF
Oil, Vegetable Can, 130 $146,713
6/4 L
Peas, Yellow, Split 10 $3,897
Bag, 50 Kg
Central African 8,270 $4,529,622
Republic
Cornmeal Bag--HP, 25 2,520 $848,184
Kg
Corn-Soy Blend Plus 1,200 $570,758
Bag--HP, 25 Kg
CSB Super Cereal 550 $878,094
Plus Box, 10/1.5 Kg
Oil, Vegetable Can, 300 $355,992
6/4 L
Peas, Yellow, Split 1,100 $740,332
Bag, 50 Kg
Rice 2,600 $1,136,262
Cameroon 14,740 $7,511,754
Corn-Soy Blend Plus 440 $209,194
Bag--HP, 25 Kg
CSB Super Cereal 120 $179,291
Plus Box, 10/1.5 Kg
Peas, Yellow, Split 2,740 $1,951,615
Bag, 50 Kg
Rice 11,440 $5,171,654
Chad 22,760 $6,709,713
Corn, Yellow Bag, 50 1,970 $561,194
Kg
Corn-Soy Blend Plus 2,290 $1,081,577
Bag--HP, 25 Kg
Oil, Vegetable Can, 320 $394,896
6/4 L
Peas, Yellow, Split 3,160 $2,103,207
Bag, 50 Kg
Sorghum 15,020 $2,568,840
Colombia 2,650 $1,314,809
Beans, Pinto Bag, 50 680 $380,537
Kg
Rice 1,970 $934,273
Democratic Republic 8,360 $3,689,390
of Congo
Cornmeal Bag--HP, 25 5,740 $1,983,750
Kg
Corn-Soy Blend Plus 640 $292,277
Bag--HP, 25 Kg
Emerg[e]ncy Fd., 170 $427,000
RUSF
Peas, Yellow, Split 1,410 $795,164
Bag, 50 Kg
Rice 400 $191,200
Congo (Republic of) 460 $248,424
Peas, Yellow, Split 120 $88,199
Bag, 50 Kg
Rice 340 $160,225
Djibouti 2,010 $888,846
Flour, All Purpose 1,300 $552,559
Bag, 50 Kg
Oil, Vegetable Can, 150 $180,311
6/4 L
Sorghum 560 $155,977
El Salvador 600 $257,670
Rice 600 $257,670
Ethiopia 602,750 $141,826,107
Corn-Soy Blend Plus 1,230 $539,942
Bag--HP, 25 Kg
Hard Red Wheat 448,390 $88,725,637
Oil, Vegetable Can, 4,680 $5,591,886
6/4 L
Peas, Yellow, Split 39,290 $27,337,318
Bag, 50 Kg
Sorghum 109,160 $19,631,323
Guatemala 710 $426,863
Beans, Black Bag, 50 350 $249,340
Kg
Corn-Soy Blend Plus 360 $177,523
Bag--HP, 25 Kg
Haiti 1,820 $1,018,847
Bulgur bag, 50 Kg 1,200 $343,692
Lentils Bag, 50 Kg 180 $162,000
Oil, Vegetable Can, 200 $237,460
6/4 L
Oil, Vegetable 240 $275,695
Bottle, PLS, 6/4 L
670, F
Honduras 430 $212,286
Beans, Small Red 60 $48,985
Bag, 50 Kg
Corn-Soy Blend Plus 60 $27,459
Bag--HP, 25 Kg
Rice 310 $135,842
Kenya 41,670 $11,010,005
Flour, All Purpose 5,400 $2,372,738
Bag, 50 Kg
Oil, Vegetable Can, 1,200 $1,468,152
6/4 L
Peas, Yellow, Split 2,020 $1,197,661
Bag, 50 Kg
Sorghum 31,080 $5,492,666
Sorghum Bag, 50 Kg 1,970 $478,789
Madagascar 10,470 $5,438,305
Beans, Great 120 $108,939
Northern Bag, 50 Kg
Cornmeal Bag--HP, 25 510 $162,533
Kg
Corn-Soy Blend Plus 3,160 $1,430,327
Bag--HP, 25 Kg
Oil, Vegetable Can, 1,160 $1,398,273
6/4 L
Peas, Yellow, Split 630 $294,237
Bag, 50 Kg
Rice 4,890 $2,043,996
Malawi 19,900 $11,498,589
Beans, Pinto Bag, 50 4,030 $3,233,167
Kg
Cornmeal Bag--HP, 25 8,160 $2,564,891
Kg
Corn-Soy Blend Plus 2,530 $1,160,144
Bag--HP, 25 Kg
Oil, Vegetable Can, 2,130 $2,454,344
6/4 L
Peas, Yellow, Split 3,050 $2,086,044
Bag, 50 Kg
Mali 3,630 $2,118,687
Corn-Soy Blend Plus 1,500 $678,511
Bag--HP, 25 Kg
Oil, Vegetable Can, 370 $446,971
6/4 L
Peas, Yellow, Whole 1,760 $993,205
Bag, 50 Kg
Mauritania 2,100 $1,468,042
Corn-Soy Blend Plus 70 $30,889
Bag--HP, 25 Kg
Lentils Bag, 50 Kg 430 $619,328
Oil, Vegetable Can, 100 $139,586
6/4 L
Rice 1,500 $678,240
Mozambique 750 $651,135
Beans, Pinto Bag, 50 750 $651,135
Kg
Niger 21,920 $11,370,921
Bulgur, Soy--Fort. 670 $223,144
Bag, 50 Kg
Corn-Soy Blend Plus 3,710 $1,748,121
Bag--HP, 25 Kg
CSB Super Cereal 580 $919,027
Plus Box, 10/1.5 Kg
Oil, Vegetable Can, 160 $194,065
6/4 L
Peas, Yellow, Split 3,530 $2,364,075
Bag, 50 Kg
Rice 13,270 $5,922,490
Pakistan 1,150 $765,975
Wheat-Soy Blend Bag, 1,150 $765,975
25 Kg
Somalia 10,430 $3,522,022
Corn-Soy Blend Plus 390 $169,346
Bag--HP, 25 Kg
Oil, Vegetable Can, 720 $876,842
6/4 L
Sorghum 9,320 $2,475,834
South Sudan 111,690 $28,755,080
Lentils Bag, 50 Kg 2,250 $2,368,360
Oil, Vegetable Can, 4,170 $5,104,646
6/4 L
Peas, Yellow, Split 4,240 $2,625,172
Bag, 50 Kg
Peas, Yellow, Whole 2,310 $1,093,970
Bag, 50 Kg
Sorghum 98,720 $17,562,931
Sudan 121,250 $36,357,562
Lentils Bag, 50 Kg 10,840 $14,179,717
Oil, Vegetable Can, 2,910 $3,253,995
6/4 L
Sorghum 107,500 $18,923,850
Tanzania 8,250 $3,940,678
Cornmeal Bag--HP, 25 4,360 $1,502,428
Kg
CSB Super Cereal 200 $295,628
Plus Box, 10/1.5 Kg
Oil, Vegetable Can, 680 $821,460
6/4 L
Peas, Green, Whole 3,010 $1,321,161
Bag, 50 Kg
Uganda 9,270 $3,903,677
Beans, Pinto Bag, 50 1,300 $978,529
Kg
Cornmeal Bag--HP, 25 2,240 $688,330
Kg
Corn-Soy Blend Plus 1,100 $487,586
Bag--HP, 25 Kg
Oil, Vegetable Can, 630 $771,057
6/4 L
Sorghum 1,600 $394,880
Sorghum Bag, 50 Kg 2,400 $583,296
Yemen 167,040 $48,268,726
Hard Red Wheat 86,900 $17,820,113
Oil, Vegetable Can, 8,050 $9,493,664
6/4 L
Peas, Yellow, Split 12,480 $8,277,988
Bag, 50 Kg
Peas, Yellow, Whole 1,970 $704,236
Bag, 50 Kg
Zimbabwe 10,530 $4,301,952
Corn-Soy Blend Plus 320 $149,354
Bag--HP, 25 Kg
CSB Super Cereal 1,590 $2,295,363
Plus Box, 10/1.5 Kg
Oil, Vegetable Can, 200 $231,740
6/4 L
Sorghum 8,420 $1,625,495
-----------------------------
Grand Total 1,389,670 $388,306,590
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY16 Prepo.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prepo. Location Commodity Type Metric Tons Commodity Cost
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Domestic Prepo. 50,130 $27,264,954
Cornmeal Bag--HP, 25 6,880 $2,370,413
Kg
Corn-Soy Blend Plus 6,170 $2,938,078
Bag--HP, 25 Kg
CSB Super Cereal 200 $325,348
Plus Box, 10/1.5 Kg
Lentils Bag, 50 Kg 920 $1,142,447
Oil, Vegetable Can, 8,220 $10,122,203
6/4 L
Peas, Green, Split 740 $382,589
Bag, 50 Kg
Peas, Yellow, Split 10,000 $5,659,476
Bag, 50 Kg
Rice, 5/20 Lg., W- 2,000 $957,800
MLD Bag, 50 Kg
Sorghum Bag, 50 Kg 15,000 $3,366,600
Foreign Prepo. 318,650 $123,121,132
Beans, Great 400 $356,678
Northern Bag, 50 Kg
Beans, Pinto Bag, 50 8,000 $6,530,762
Kg
Cornmeal Bag--HP, 25 10,700 $3,472,728
Kg
Corn-Soy Blend Plus 12,480 $5,570,450
Bag--HP, 25 Kg
CSB Super Cereal 5,340 $7,921,799
Plus Box, 10/1.5 Kg
Hard Red Wheat 82,860 $14,969,471
Oil, Vegetable Can, 26,500 $30,838,371
6/4 L
Peas, Yellow, Split 56,300 $32,342,975
Bag, 50 Kg
Rice 1,000 $433,420
Rice, Fort. 1,000 $528,410
Sorghum 114,070 $20,156,068
-----------------------------
Grand Total 368,780 $150,386,086
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY17 Programs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recipient Country Commodity Type Metric Tons Commodity Cost
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bangladesh 73,140 $18,164,466
Oil, Vegetable Can, 360 $380,603
6/4 L
Peas, Yellow, Split 540 $253,087
Bag, 50 Kg
Wheat, Soft White 72,240 $17,530,776
Burkina Faso 200 $204,684
Corn-Soy Blend Plus 60 $36,832
Bag--HP, 25 Kg
Oil, Vegetable Can, 120 $159,991
6/4 L
Rice 20 $7,862
Burundi 10,400 $6,600,574
Bulgur, Soy--Fort. 210 $88,402
Bag, 50 Kg
Cornmeal Bag--HP, 25 1,540 $587,685
Kg
Corn-Soy Blend Plus 7,870 $5,000,267
Bag--HP, 25 Kg
CSB Super Cereal 220 $311,282
Plus Box, 10/1.5 Kg
Oil, Vegetable Can, 540 $602,587
6/4 L
Peas, Yellow, Split 20 $10,352
Bag, 50 Kg
Central African 5,420 $2,656,811
Republic
Cornmeal Bag--HP, 25 4,400 $1,827,313
Kg
Corn-Soy Blend Plus 400 $271,277
Bag--HP, 25 Kg
Oil, Vegetable Can, 120 $148,086
6/4 L
Peas, Yellow, Split 500 $410,135
Bag, 50 Kg
Cameroon 16,890 $7,132,075
Corn-Soy Blend Plus 1,470 $993,044
Bag--HP, 25 Kg
CSB Super Cereal 890 $1,384,186
Plus Box, 10/1.5 Kg
Oil, Vegetable Can, 980 $1,209,369
6/4 L
Peas, Green, Whole 2,850 $1,271,405
Bag, 50 Kg
Sorghum 10,700 $2,274,071
Chad 17,090 $6,704,934
Corn-Soy Blend Plus 1,960 $1,326,920
Bag--HP, 25 Kg
Oil, Vegetable Can, 1,060 $1,323,532
6/4 L
Peas, Yellow, Split 1,820 $1,420,006
Bag, 50 Kg
Rice, Fort. 150 $62,864
Sorghum 12,100 $2,571,613
Colombia 1,270 $675,838
Beans, Pinto Bag, 50 160 $130,160
Kg
Lentils Bag, 50 Kg 40 $31,715
Oil, Vegetable Can, 100 $132,676
6/4 L
Rice 970 $381,288
Democratic Republic 16,680 $8,477,052
of Congo
Cornmeal Bag--HP, 25 11,830 $4,632,953
Kg
Oil, Vegetable Can, 1,510 $1,813,927
6/4 L
Peas, Green, Split 240 $130,800
Bag, 50 Kg
Peas, Yellow, Split 3,100 $1,899,372
Bag, 50 Kg
Congo (Republic of) 540 $373,425
Corn-Soy Blend Plus 60 $37,652
Bag--HP, 25 Kg
CSB Super Cereal 10 $16,105
Plus Box, 10/1.5 Kg
Oil, Vegetable Can, 100 $129,123
6/4 L
Peas, Yellow, Split 70 $59,220
Bag, 50 Kg
Rice, Fort. 300 $131,325
Djibouti 2,960 $1,227,842
Flour, All Purpose 1,240 $517,350
Bag, 50 Kg
Oil, Vegetable Can, 260 $323,489
6/4 L
Peas, Yellow, Split 230 $122,236
Bag, 50 Kg
Sorghum 1,230 $264,767
Ethiopia 447,710 $103,504,130
Corn-Soy Blend Plus 1,630 $845,623
Bag--HP, 25 Kg
Lentils Bag, 50 Kg 500 $302,921
Oil, Vegetable Can, 9,820 $12,043,718
6/4 L
Peas, Yellow, Split 29,140 $16,958,196
Bag, 50 Kg
Sorghum 66,240 $11,293,395
Wheat, Soft Red 340,380 $62,060,276
Winter
Haiti 800 $445,961
Bulgur bag, 50 Kg 200 $57,118
Corn-Soy Blend Plus 400 $232,479
Bag--HP, 25 Kg
Lentils Bag, 50 Kg 150 $95,390
Oil, Vegetable Can, 50 $60,975
6/4 L
Kenya 54,030 $18,888,629
Oil, Vegetable Can, 5,200 $6,458,122
6/4 L
Peas, Yellow, Split 8,580 $5,041,664
Bag, 50 Kg
Sorghum 30,720 $5,309,715
Wheat, Soft Red 9,530 $2,079,128
Winter
Madagascar 8,810 $6,013,416
Beans, Great 60 $44,970
Northern Bag, 50 Kg
Corn-Soy Blend Plus 3,700 $2,134,216
Bag--HP, 25 Kg
Oil, Vegetable Can, 1,740 $2,151,136
6/4 L
Peas, Yellow, Split 1,470 $902,140
Bag, 50 Kg
Rice 1,840 $780,954
Malawi 4,110 $3,347,077
Beans, Pinto Bag, 50 860 $672,825
Kg
Corn-Soy Blend Plus 2,200 $1,408,157
Bag--HP, 25 Kg
Oil, Vegetable Can, 1,050 $1,266,096
6/4 L
Mali 4,960 $3,679,376
Corn-Soy Blend Plus 2,750 $1,685,787
Bag--HP, 25 Kg
Oil, Vegetable Can, 710 $943,484
6/4 L
Peas, Yellow, Split 1,500 $1,050,106
Bag, 50 Kg
Mauritania 2,010 $1,039,043
Corn-Soy Blend Plus 50 $24,584
Bag--HP, 25 Kg
CSB Super Cereal 50 $75,751
Plus Box, 10/1.5 Kg
Oil, Vegetable Can, 160 $212,616
6/4 L
Rice, Fort. 1,750 $726,093
Mozambique 3,810 $631,241
Sorghum 3,810 $631,241
Niger 24,360 $15,892,699
Corn-Soy Blend Plus 4,260 $2,596,188
Bag--HP, 25 Kg
CSB Super Cereal 910 $1,399,830
Plus Box, 10/1.5 Kg
Lentils Bag, 50 Kg 4,600 $4,039,796
Oil, Vegetable Can, 1,980 $2,604,389
6/4 L
Rice, Fort. 12,610 $5,252,497
Nigeria 5,600 $6,489,600
Corn-Soy Blend Plus 770 $483,198
Bag--HP, 25 Kg
Oil, Vegetable Can, 4,830 $6,006,402
6/4 L
Somalia 31,470 $12,788,425
Corn-Soy Blend Plus 7,990 $5,044,625
Bag--HP, 25 Kg
Oil, Vegetable Can, 1,700 $2,081,798
6/4 L
Peas, Yellow, Split 3,140 $1,834,423
Bag, 50 Kg
Sorghum 18,640 $3,827,578
South Sudan 109,420 $26,760,391
Oil, Vegetable Can, 4,170 $5,085,709
6/4 L
Peas, Yellow, Split 3,030 $1,856,787
Bag, 50 Kg
Peas, Yellow, Whole 5,250 $2,271,395
Bag, 50 Kg
Sorghum 96,970 $17,546,499
Sudan 89,470 $21,451,294
Lentils Bag, 50 Kg 7,870 $6,259,043
Oil, Vegetable Can, 1,670 $2,102,615
6/4 L
Sorghum 79,930 $13,089,636
Tanzania 5,430 $3,200,825
CSB Super Cereal 200 $281,102
Plus Box, 10/1.5 Kg
Oil, Vegetable Can, 510 $654,101
6/4 L
Peas, Green, Whole 4,720 $2,265,623
Bag, 50 Kg
Uganda 15,650 $9,928,317
Cornmeal Bag--HP, 25 4,360 $1,660,567
Kg
Corn-Soy Blend Plus 6,140 $3,820,810
Bag--HP, 25 Kg
Oil, Vegetable Can, 2,720 $3,356,616
6/4 L
Peas, Yellow, Whole 2,430 $1,090,324
Bag, 50 Kg
Yemen 319,580 $104,738,818
Oil, Vegetable Can, 27,080 $33,349,599
6/4 L
Peas, Green, Split 18,540 $11,507,013
Bag, 50 Kg
Peas, Yellow, Split 17,200 $9,904,734
Bag, 50 Kg
Wheat, Soft White 256,760 $49,977,472
Zimbabwe 7,590 $3,460,848
Corn-Soy Blend Plus 1,930 $1,216,356
Bag--HP, 25 Kg
Oil, Vegetable Can, 760 $916,539
6/4 L
Peas, Yellow, Split 700 $351,775
Bag, 50 Kg
Sorghum 4,200 $976,178
-----------------------------
Grand Total 1,279,400 $394,477,791
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY17 Prepo.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prepo. Location Commodity Type Metric Tons Commodity Cost
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Domestic Prepo. 14,500 $11,823,073
Corn-Soy Blend Plus 1,000 $634,110
Bag--HP, 25 Kg
Lentils Bag, 50 Kg 2,000 $1,611,200
Oil, Vegetable Can, 4,500 $5,929,579
6/4 L
Peas, Green, Whole 2,000 $837,532
Bag, 50 Kg
Peas, Yellow, Split 5,000 $2,810,652
Bag, 50 Kg
Foreign Prepo. 107,340 $54,514,976
Cornmeal Bag--HP, 25 1,000 $381,581
Kg
Corn-Soy Blend Plus 10,250 $6,397,692
Bag--HP, 25 Kg
CSB Super Cereal 230 $334,540
Plus Box, 10/1.5 Kg
Lentils Bag, 50 Kg 2,500 $2,063,668
Oil, Vegetable Can, 15,500 $19,009,085
6/4 L
Peas, Green, Whole 5,500 $2,400,708
Bag, 50 Kg
Peas, Yellow, Split 23,000 $14,441,092
Bag, 50 Kg
Rice 500 $195,220
Sorghum 40,000 $7,559,350
Wheat, Soft Red 8,860 $1,732,041
Winter
-----------------------------
Grand Total 121,840 $66,338,048
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY18 Programs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recipient Country Commodity Type Metric Tons Commodity Cost
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bangladesh 101,000 $23,531,067
Oil, Vegetable Can, 310 $341,569
6/4 L
Peas, Yellow, Split 460 $201,728
Bag, 50 Kg
Wheat, Soft White 2,030 $558,149
Bag, 50 Kg
Wheat, Soft White 98,200 $22,429,621
Bulk
Burkina Faso 810 $436,539
Oil, Vegetable Can, 60 $66,922
6/4 L
Peas, Yellow, Split 130 $61,868
Bag, 50 Kg
Rice, 5/20 Mg, W-MLD 620 $307,749
Bag, 50 Kg
Burundi 4,360 $2,391,593
Beans, Pinto Bag, 50 1,160 $732,099
Kg
Rice, 5/20 Lg., W- 3,200 $1,659,494
MLD, Fort. Bag, 50
Kg
Central African 5,400 $2,643,353
Republic
Cornmeal Bag--HP, 25 3,790 $1,806,107
Kg
Rice, 5/20 Lg., W- 1,610 $837,246
MLD, Fort. Bag, 50
Kg
Cameroon 8,840 $4,983,808
Corn-Soy Blend Plus 480 $303,065
Bag--HP, 25 Kg
CSB Super Cereal 1,540 $2,763,117
Plus Box, 10/1.5 Kg
Peas, Yellow, Whole 1,520 $618,013
Bag, 50 Kg
Sorghum Bag, 50 Kg 5,300 $1,299,613
Chad 5,800 $2,949,984
CSB Super Cereal 950 $1,840,839
Plus Box, 10/1.5 Kg
Sorghum Bag, 50 Kg 4,850 $1,109,145
Colombia 1,090 $572,122
Beans, Pinto Bag, 50 270 $165,099
Kg
Rice, 5/20 Mg, W-MLD 820 $407,023
Bag, 50 Kg
Congo, Dem. Repub. 23,220 $12,047,497
Cornmeal Bag--HP, 25 6,460 $3,083,244
Kg
Corn-Soy Blend Plus 2,060 $1,426,942
Bag--HP, 25 Kg
Oil, Vegetable Can, 50 $56,108
6/4 L
Oil, Vegetable 120 $125,353
Substitutable, 6/4
L
Peas, Green, Split 690 $296,887
Bag, 50 Kg
Rice, 5/20 Lg., W- 410 $194,516
MLD, Fort. Bag, 50
Kg
Rice, Milled Bulk 13,430 $6,864,447
Congo, Repub. of 340 $157,104
Rice, 5/20 Lg., W- 340 $157,104
MLD Bag, 50 Kg
Djibouti 900 $309,691
Flour, All Purpose 420 $191,990
Bag, 50 Kg
Sorghum Bag, 50 Kg 480 $117,701
Ethiopia 291,610 $82,585,491
Corn-Soy Blend Plus 3,800 $2,492,278
Bag--HP, 25 Kg
CSB Super Cereal 870 $1,708,428
Plus Box, 10/1.5 Kg
Oil, Vegetable Can, 11,050 $12,879,861
6/4 L
Oil, Vegetable 400 $427,374
Substitutable, 6/4
L
Peas, Yellow, Split 30,700 $13,848,907
Bag, 50 Kg
Sorghum Bulk 58,200 $10,889,220
Wheat, Hard Red 186,590 $40,339,423
Winter Bulk
Kenya 68,180 $16,367,916
Oil, Vegetable Can, 470 $570,028
6/4 L
Peas, Yellow, Split 7,460 $3,416,164
Bag, 50 Kg
Sorghum Bulk 46,800 $9,755,209
Wheat, Hard Red 13,450 $2,626,516
Winter Bulk
Madagascar 6,390 $1,739,189
Corn-Soy Blend Plus 200 $139,169
Bag--HP, 25 Kg
Oil, Vegetable Pail, 70 $92,752
20 L
Rice, 5/20 Lg., W- 290 $137,585
MLD, Fort. Bag, 50
Kg
Rice, 5/20 Mg, W-MLD 450 $261,189
Bag, 50 Kg
Sorghum Bag, 50 Kg 5,380 $1,108,495
Malawi 1,680 $1,345,296
Corn-Soy Blend Plus 1,270 $887,145
Bag--HP, 25 Kg
Oil, Vegetable Can, 410 $458,151
6/4 L
Mauritania 1,790 $1,309,310
Corn-Soy Blend Plus 40 $25,648
Bag--HP, 25 Kg
CSB Super Cereal 140 $285,154
Plus Box, 10/1.5 Kg
Oil, Vegetable Pail, 210 $304,808
20 L
Rice, 3/15 Lg., W- 1,400 $693,700
MLD Bag, 50 Kg
Mozambique 1,880 $932,068
Rice, 3/15 Lg., W- 1,880 $932,068
MLD Bag, 50 Kg
Niger 20,590 $13,473,440
Corn-Soy Blend Plus 3,520 $2,564,109
Bag--HP, 25 Kg
CSB Super Cereal 1,100 $2,155,262
Plus Box, 10/1.5 Kg
Lentils Bag, 50 Kg 3,660 $2,036,497
Oil, Vegetable Can, 1,350 $1,527,440
6/4 L
Rice, 5/20 Lg., W- 10,960 $5,190,133
MLD Bag, 50 Kg
Nigeria 6,260 $6,641,517
Corn-Soy Blend Plus 3,630 $2,521,235
Bag--HP, 25 Kg
CSB Super Cereal 1,300 $2,552,516
Plus Box, 10/1.5 Kg
Oil, Vegetable Can, 1,330 $1,567,766
6/4 L
Republic of South 51,460 $11,979,853
Sudan
Oil, Vegetable Can, 930 $1,061,292
6/4 L
Peas, Yellow, Split 5,090 $2,269,787
Bag, 50 Kg
Sorghum Bulk 45,440 $8,648,773
Somalia 42,570 $16,644,726
Corn-Soy Blend Plus 11,110 $7,621,786
Bag--HP, 25 Kg
Oil, Vegetable Can, 2,120 $2,388,986
6/4 L
Peas, Yellow, Split 3,780 $1,733,947
Bag, 50 Kg
Sorghum Bag, 50 Kg 6,720 $1,506,098
Sorghum Bulk 18,840 $3,393,910
Sudan 147,470 $45,505,515
Lentils Bag, 50 Kg 20,320 $10,882,627
Oil, Vegetable Can, 8,650 $10,410,213
6/4 L
Sorghum Bulk 118,500 $24,212,676
Tanzania 8,690 $4,653,829
Oil, Vegetable Can, 820 $914,866
6/4 L
Peas, Green, Whole 7,870 $3,738,963
Bag, 50 Kg
Uganda 16,020 $10,222,964
Cornmeal Bag--HP, 25 2,970 $1,369,408
Kg
Oil, Vegetable Can, 4,720 $5,506,903
6/4 L
Peas, Yellow, Whole 8,330 $3,346,654
Bag, 50 Kg
Yemen 315,550 $101,377,577
Oil, Vegetable Can, 28,320 $32,593,721
6/4 L
Peas, Green, Split 23,620 $12,448,801
Bag, 50 Kg
Wheat, Soft White 263,610 $56,335,055
Bulk
Zimbabwe 9,440 $4,023,432
Corn-Soy Blend Plus 1,970 $1,305,941
Bag--HP, 25 Kg
Oil, Vegetable Can, 840 $945,153
6/4 L
Peas, Yellow, Whole 1,180 $462,674
Bag, 50 Kg
Sorghum Bag, 50 Kg 5,450 $1,309,665
-----------------------------
Grand Total 1,141,340 $368,824,882
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY18 Prepo.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prepo. Location Commodity Type Metric Tons Commodity Cost
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Domestic Prepo. 47,650 $35,543,982
Corn-Soy Blend Plus 9,000 $6,150,759
Bag--HP, 25 Kg
CSB Super Cereal 1,650 $2,989,942
Plus Box, 10/1.5 Kg
Flour, All Purpose 5,000 $2,545,371
Bag, 50 Kg
Oil, Vegetable Can, 9,500 $11,973,592
6/4 L
Peas, Green, Split 8,000 $5,035,768
Bag, 50 Kg
Peas, Yellow, Split 14,000 $6,593,106
Bag, 50 Kg
Rice, 5/20 Lg., W- 500 $255,445
MLD, Fort. Bag, 50
Kg
Foreign Prepo. 83,900 $40,039,910
Cornmeal Bag--HP, 25 3,000 $1,300,587
Kg
Corn-Soy Blend Plus 9,000 $6,111,739
Bag--HP, 25 Kg
CSB Super Cereal 500 $986,125
Plus Box, 10/1.5 Kg
Flour, All Purpose 630 $296,024
Bag, 50 Kg
Oil, Vegetable Can, 13,770 $15,904,565
6/4 L
Peas, Yellow, Split 18,260 $8,081,590
Bag, 50 Kg
Sorghum Bag, 50 Kg 740 $170,970
Sorghum Bulk 38,000 $7,188,310
-----------------------------
Grand Total 131,550 $75,583,893
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY19 Programs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recipient Country Commodity Type Metric Tons Commodity Cost
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bangladesh 92,430 $18,912,495
Oil, Vegetable 50 $49,711
Bottle, PLS, 6/4 L
Peas, Yellow, Split 20 $9,500
Bag, 50 Kg
Wheat, Hard Red 92,360 $18,853,285
Winter Bulk
Burkina Faso 3,160 $1,764,285
Oil, Vegetable Can, 160 $212,403
6/4 L
Peas, Yellow, Split 480 $181,620
Bag, 50 Kg
Rice, 5/20 Mg, W-MLD 2,520 $1,370,262
Bag, 50 Kg
Burundi 1,070 $629,757
Beans, Pinto Bag, 50 1,070 $629,757
Kg
Cameroon 17,060 $6,248,298
Oil, Vegetable Can, 160 $207,643
6/4 L
Peas, Yellow, Split 740 $300,067
Bag, 50 Kg
Peas, Yellow, Whole 2,340 $911,984
Bag, 50 Kg
Rice, 5/20 Lg., W- 5,370 $2,856,896
MLD Bag, 50 Kg
Sorghum Bag, 50 Kg 8,450 $1,971,707
Central African 12,950 $5,440,082
Republic
Cornmeal Bag--HP, 25 10,850 $4,544,514
Kg
Peas, Yellow, Split 2,100 $895,569
Bag, 50 Kg
Chad 17,400 $5,641,369
Oil, Vegetable Can, 1,670 $2,017,410
6/4 L
Peas, Yellow, Split 3,500 $1,327,654
Bag, 50 Kg
Sorghum Bulk 12,230 $2,296,305
Colombia 880 $485,381
Beans, Pinto Bag, 50 180 $115,409
Kg
Lentils Bag, 50 Kg 80 $33,337
Oil, Vegetable Can, 90 $108,783
6/4 L
Rice, 5/20 Lg., W- 530 $227,852
MLD Bag, 50 Kg
Democratic Republic 37,140 $17,023,473
of Congo
Cornmeal Bag--HP, 25 32,040 $14,854,297
Kg
Oil, Vegetable Can, 30 $34,133
6/4 L
Oil, Vegetable 120 $140,094
Substitutable, 6/4
L
Peas, Green, Split 600 $282,317
Bag, 50 Kg
Peas, Yellow, Split 4,020 $1,593,770
Bag, 50 Kg
Rice, 5/20 Lg., W- 330 $118,863
MLD Bag, 50 Kg
Djibouti 2,270 $1,108,486
Flour, All Purpose 2,270 $1,108,486
Bag, 25 Kg
Ethiopia 437,230 $103,023,369
Oil, Vegetable Can, 5,650 $7,023,367
6/4 L
Oil, Vegetable 440 $513,137
Substitutable, 6/4
L
Peas, Yellow, Split 27,230 $11,052,335
Bag, 50 Kg
Sorghum Bulk 82,170 $18,204,701
Wheat, Hard Red 321,740 $66,229,829
Winter Bulk
Haiti 2,560 $1,310,896
Oil, Vegetable Can, 290 $328,590
6/4 L
Peas, Green, Whole 770 $356,641
Bag, 50 Kg
Rice, 5/20 Lg., W- 1,500 $625,665
MLD Bag, 50 Kg
Kenya 47,530 $16,129,915
Oil, Vegetable Can, 4,930 $5,959,537
6/4 L
Peas, Yellow, Split 9,470 $4,022,083
Bag, 50 Kg
Sorghum Bulk 27,300 $4,808,036
Wheat, Hard Red 5,830 $1,340,259
Winter Bulk
Madagascar 14,690 $5,108,804
Corn-Soy Blend Plus 1,680 $1,002,006
Bag--HP, 25 Kg
Oil, Vegetable 210 $223,803
Bottle, PLS, 6/4 L
Oil, Vegetable Can, 520 $603,642
6/4 L
Oil, Vegetable 210 $244,906
Substitutable, 6/4
L
Peas, Yellow, Split 1,390 $499,164
Bag, 50 Kg
Rice, 5/20 Lg., W- 660 $319,229
MLD, Fort. Bag, 50
Kg
Sorghum Bag, 50 Kg 10,020 $2,216,053
Niger 18,750 $11,072,155
Beans, Small Red 2,400 $2,125,998
Bag, 50 Kg
Corn-Soy Blend Plus 3,070 $1,707,655
Bag--HP, 25 Kg
Oil, Vegetable Can, 1,490 $1,853,451
6/4 L
Oil, Vegetable 80 $92,044
Substitutable, 6/4
L
Rice, 5/20 Lg., W- 11,710 $5,293,008
MLD Bag, 50 Kg
Nigeria 11,860 $9,569,395
Corn-Soy Blend Plus 8,030 $4,993,084
Bag--HP, 25 Kg
Oil, Vegetable Can, 3,830 $4,576,311
6/4 L
Republic of Congo 840 $671,950
Rice, 5/20 Mg, W- 840 $671,950
MLD., Prbl. Bag, 50
Kg
Republic of South 29,890 $9,835,330
Sudan
Oil, Vegetable Can, 3,630 $4,218,731
6/4 L
Peas, Yellow, Split 650 $250,634
Bag, 50 Kg
Sorghum Bulk 25,610 $5,365,965
Somalia 72,200 $23,393,536
Corn-Soy Blend Plus 4,400 $3,074,192
Bag--HP, 25 Kg
Oil, Vegetable Can, 5,640 $6,844,341
6/4 L
Peas, Yellow, Split 7,720 $3,198,758
Bag, 50 Kg
Sorghum Bag, 50 Kg 600 $139,878
Sorghum Bulk 53,840 $10,136,367
Sudan 148,320 $41,006,668
Lentils Bag, 50 Kg 14,220 $6,572,104
Oil, Vegetable Can, 6,940 $8,019,013
6/4 L
Sorghum Bulk 127,160 $26,415,551
Tanzania 1,930 $720,449
Peas, Yellow, Split 1,930 $720,449
Bag, 50 Kg
Uganda 2,940 $1,778,245
Oil, Vegetable Can, 1,020 $1,179,905
6/4 L
Peas, Yellow, Whole 1,920 $598,340
Bag, 50 Kg
Yemen 585,020 $195,362,942
Beans, Great 12,370 $12,147,093
Northern Bag, 50 Kg
Beans, Kidney, Light 620 $847,341
Red Bag, 50 Kg
Beans, Pea Bag, 50 5,520 $4,835,596
Kg
Beans, Small White 60 $36,062
Bag, 50 Kg
Beans, Substitutable 7,090 $6,335,800
Bag, 50 Kg (Pea
Bag)
Oil, Vegetable Can, 48,480 $57,619,899
6/4 L
Wheat, Soft White 510,880 $113,541,150
Bulk
Zimbabwe 18,040 $4,676,991
Oil, Vegetable Can, 600 $692,433
6/4 L
Peas, Yellow, Split 2,420 $951,579
Bag, 50 Kg
Sorghum Bag, 50 Kg 4,020 $932,640
Sorghum Bulk 11,000 $2,100,340
-----------------------------
Grand Total 1,576,160 $480,914,271
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY19 Prepo.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prepo. Location Commodity Type Metric Tons Commodity Cost
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Domestic Prepo. 30,780 $20,372,300
Beans, Pinto Bag, 50 2,100 $1,497,817
Kg
Cornmeal Bag--HP, 25 2,200 $1,140,570
Kg
Corn-Soy Blend Plus 2,350 $1,816,756
Bag--HP, 25 Kg
Oil, Vegetable Can, 6,100 $7,535,233
6/4 L
Peas, Yellow, Split 7,500 $3,291,944
Bag, 50 Kg
Rice, 5/20 Lg., W- 3,530 $1,749,550
MLD Bag, 50 Kg
Rice, 5/20 Lg., W- 7,000 $3,340,431
MLD, Fort. Bag, 50
Kg
Foreign Prepo. 94,792 $53,935,982
Corn-Soy Blend Plus 8,500 $5,923,361
Bag--HP, 25 Kg
CSB Super Cereal 11,992 $21,983,653
Plus Box, 10/1.5 Kg
Oil, Vegetable Can, 9,500 $10,901,429
6/4 L
Peas, Yellow, Split 14,800 $6,012,940
Bag, 50 Kg
Sorghum Bulk 50,000 $9,114,600
-----------------------------
Grand Total 125,572 $74,308,283
------------------------------------------------------------------------
By RUTF & RUSF Purchases **
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year Commodity Type Metric Tons Commodity Cost
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2016 5,318 $24,598,936
RUSF 3,090 $20,043,068
RUTF 2,228 $4,555,868
FY 2017 11,850 $32,176,169
RUSF 4,375 $11,396,245
RUTF 7,475 $20,779,924
FY 2018 11,291 $30,513,644
RUSF 1,670 $4,073,215
RUTF 9,621 $26,440,429
FY 2019 18,504 $49,879,132
RUSF 9,082 $23,522,453
RUTF 9,421 $26,356,679
------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Partner
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY15 Programs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Partner Commodity Type Metric Tons Commodity Cost
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ACDI/VOCA 2,860 $1,761,103
Cornmeal Bag--HP--25 780 $264,139
Kg
Corn-Soy Blend Plus 300 $136,914
Bag--HP--25 Kg
Lentils Bag--50 Kg 250 $182,018
Oil, Vegetable Can-- 520 $625,899
6/4 L
Peas, Yellow, Split 1,010 $552,133
Bag--50 Kg
ADRA 1,690 $1,061,838
Beans, Great 70 $69,666
Northern Bag--50 Kg
Cornmeal, Soy-Fort. 70 $20,860
Bag--HP--25 Kg
Corn-Soy Blend Plus 660 $362,328
Bag--HP--25 Kg
Oil, Vegetable Can-- 190 $255,372
6/4 L
Rice 700 $353,611
CRS 152,460 $50,162,226
Beans, Pinto Bag--50 750 $471,169
Kg
Bulgur bag--50 Kg 610 $200,147
Bulgur, Soy--Fort. 400 $151,931
Bag--50 Kg
Corn-Soy Blend Plus 12,220 $6,315,443
Bag--HP--25 Kg
Hard Red Wheat 88,670 $21,277,336
Oil, Vegetable Can-- 5,190 $6,164,555
6/4 L
Peas, Yellow, Split 15,930 $8,196,410
Bag--50 Kg
Rice 3,110 $1,453,370
Sorghum 25,580 $5,931,866
CNFA 1,000 $658,769
Corn-Soy Blend Plus 810 $395,021
Bag--HP--25 Kg
Oil, Vegetable Can-- 190 $263,749
6/4 L
CARE 3,720 $1,989,180
Bulgur, Soy--Fort. 1,220 $407,204
Bag--50 Kg
Corn-Soy Blend Plus 1,710 $883,701
Bag--HP--25 Kg
Lentils Bag--50 Kg 380 $250,801
Oil, Vegetable Can-- 410 $447,474
6/4 L
FHI 29,580 $8,621,004
Cornmeal, Soy--Fort. 2,050 $731,916
Bag--HP--25 Kg
Hard Red Wheat 21,350 $4,519,178
Oil, Vegetable Can-- 150 $178,923
6/4 L
Peas, Green, Split 300 $118,489
Bag--50 Kg
Peas, Yellow, Split 5,730 $3,072,498
Bag--50 Kg
Mercy Corps 3,230 $1,488,341
Bulgur, Soy--Fort. 130 $50,574
Bag--50 Kg
Cornmeal Bag--HP--25 730 $231,921
Kg
Cornmeal, Soy--Fort. 970 $344,740
Bag--HP--25 Kg
Corn-Soy Blend Plus 600 $277,517
Bag--HP--25 Kg
Lentils Bag--50
Kg310$218,717
Oil, Vegetable Can-- 200 $218,327
6/4 L
Peas, Yellow, Split 290 $146,546
Bag--50 Kg
PCI 1,530 $1,142,039
Beans, Pinto Bag--50 860 $559,081
Kg
Corn-Soy Blend Plus 320 $175,117
Bag--HP--25 Kg
Oil, Vegetable Can-- 350 $407,841
6/4 L
REST 55,680 $15,785,288
Hard Red Wheat 44,910 $9,779,756
Peas, Yellow, Split 10,770 $6,005,532
Bag--50 Kg
Save The Children 31,510 $9,876,054
Beans, Pinto Bag--50 890 $568,425
Kg
Bulgur, Soy--Fort. 400 $140,096
Bag--50 Kg
Corn-Soy Blend Plus 1,350 $712,722
Bag--HP--25 Kg
Hard Red Wheat 14,410 $3,225,186
Oil, Vegetable Can-- 480 $546,062
6/4 L
Peas, Yellow, Split 5,410 $2,574,764
Bag--50 Kg
Rice 1,260 $568,436
Sorghum 7,310 $1,540,363
UNICEF 910 $3,039,655
Emerg[e]ncy Fd., 910 $3,039,655
RUTF
WFP 477,970 $165,090,251
Beans, Garbanzo, 210 $145,285
Kabuli Bag--50 Kg
Beans, Pinto Bag--50 20 $12,029
Kg
Corn 5,330 $1,059,444
Cornmeal, Soy--Fort. 17,080 $8,400,293
Bag--HP--25 Kg
Corn-Soy Blend Plus 16,660 $9,411,836
Bag--HP--25 Kg
Emerg[e]ncy Fd., 180 $448,800
RUSF
Flour, All Purpose 10,910 $5,145,810
Bag--50 Kg
Flour, Bread 6,400 $2,992,355
Lentils Bag--50 Kg 14,660 $11,829,757
Oil, Vegetable Can-- 15,860 $18,778,633
6/4 L
Peas, Yellow, Split 28,890 $14,500,764
Bag--50 Kg
Peas, Yellow, Whole 800 $341,600
Bag--50 Kg
Rice 24,580 $13,461,591
Sorghum 267,500 $62,648,247
Wheat, Soft White 68,760 $15,823,817
Wheat-Soy Blend Bag-- 130 $89,990
25 Kg
World Vision 4,770 $2,043,836
Corn-Soy Blend Plus 1,470 $727,988
Bag--HP--25 Kg
Oil, Vegetable Can-- 440 $553,786
6/4 L
Sorghum 2,860 $762,061
-----------------------------
Grand Total 766,910 $262,719,584
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY15 Prepo.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prepo. Location Commodity Type Metric Tons Commodity Cost
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Domestic Prepo. 21,560 $35,604,650
Corn-Soy Blend Plus 3,000 $1,701,409
Bag--HP--25 Kg
CSB Super Cereal 3,000 $5,490,601
Plus Box--10/1.5 Kg
Emerg[e]ncy Fd., 1,320 $3,762,565
RUSF
Emerg[e]ncy Fd., 4,500 $14,269,593
RUTF
Lentils Bag--50 Kg 250 $192,333
Oil, Vegetable Can-- 7,240 $9,053,084
6/4 L
Peas, Yellow, Split 2,250 $1,135,066
Bag--50 Kg
Foreign Prepo. 113,790 $61,264,108
Corn-Soy Blend Plus 9,000 $4,534,942
Bag--HP--25 Kg
Hard Red Wheat 4,530 $1,132,409
Lentils Bag--50 Kg 5,000 $3,666,817
Oil, Vegetable Can-- 21,000 $25,727,011
6/4 L
Peas, Yellow, Split 28,260 $14,633,289
Bag--50 Kg
Rice, 5/20 Lg., W- 1,000 $477,190
MLD Bag--50 Kg--F
Sorghum 45,000 $11,092,450
-----------------------------
Grand Total 135,350 $96,868,758
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY16 Programs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Partner Commodity Type Metric Tons Commodity Cost
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ADRA 3,140 $1,682,854
Beans, Great 120 $108,939
Northern Bag--50 Kg
Corn-Soy Blend Plus 1,770 $806,958
Bag--HP--25 Kg
Oil, Vegetable Can-- 240 $343,340
6/4 L
Rice 1,010 $423,617
CRS 522,190 $131,484,473
Bulgur, Soy--Fort. 50 $14,453
Bag--50 Kg
Corn-Soy Blend Plus 7,060 $3,185,691
Bag--HP--25 Kg
Hard Red Wheat 448,390 $88,725,637
Oil, Vegetable Can-- 6,620 $7,860,991
6/4 L
Peas, Yellow, Split 39,770 $27,184,506
Bag--50 Kg
Rice 3,880 $1,620,379
Sorghum 16,420 $2,892,816
CNFA 520 $381,094
Corn-Soy Blend Plus 320 $149,354
Bag--HP--25 Kg
Oil, Vegetable Can-- 200 $231,740
6/4 L
CARE 81,500 $18,808,036
Bulgur Bag--50 Kg 1,200 $343,692
Lentils Bag--50 Kg 180 $162,000
Oil, Vegetable Can-- 670 $779,303
6/4 L
Oil, Vegetable 240 $275,695
Bottle, PLS--6/4 L
670--F
Peas, Yellow, Split 710 $442,066
Bag--50 Kg
Wheat, Soft White 78,500 $16,805,280
HK 11,000 $2,310,000
Wheat, Soft White 11,000 $2,310,000
Mercy Corps 900 $416,664
Bulgur, Soy--Fort. 490 $159,021
Bag--50 Kg
Corn-Soy Blend Plus 30 $14,002
Bag--HP--25 Kg
Oil, Vegetable Can-- 30 $37,022
6/4 L
Peas, Yellow, Split 350 $206,620
Bag--50 Kg
PCI 1,550 $1,148,672
Beans, Pinto Bag--50 860 $565,666
Kg
Corn-Soy Blend Plus 330 $144,385
Bag--HP--25 Kg
Oil, Vegetable Can-- 360 $438,620
6/4 L
Save The Children 530 $278,232
Bulgur, Soy--Fort. 180 $64,123
Bag--50 Kg
Corn-Soy Blend Plus 250 $115,928
Bag--HP--25 Kg
Oil, Vegetable Can-- 40 $48,321
6/4 L
Peas, Yellow, Split 60 $49,860
Bag--50 Kg
WFP 693,860 $216,224,246
Beans, Black Bag--50 350 $249,340
Kg
Beans, Pinto Bag--50 6,350 $4,954,091
Kg
Beans, Small Red 60 $48,985
Bag--50 Kg
Corn, Yellow Bag--50 1,970 $561,194
Kg
Cornmeal Bag--HP--25 24,580 $8,061,661
Kg
Corn-Soy Blend Plus 11,240 $5,224,587
Bag--HP--25 Kg
CSB Super Cereal 3,040 $4,567,403
Plus Box--10/1.5 Kg
Emerg[e]ncy Fd., 320 $851,950
RUSF
Flour, All Purpose 6,700 $2,925,297
Bag--50 Kg
Hard Red Wheat 86,900 $17,820,113
Lentils Bag--50 Kg 13,520 $17,167,405
Oil, Vegetable Can-- 24,760 $29,206,179
6/4 L
Peas, Green, Whole 3,010 $1,321,161
Bag--50 Kg
Peas, Yellow, Split 36,620 $24,401,245
Bag--50 Kg
Peas, Yellow, Whole 6,040 $2,791,411
Bag--50 Kg
Rice 33,280 $14,966,759
Sorghum 364,960 $65,938,980
Sorghum Bag--50 Kg 4,370 $1,062,085
Wheat, Soft White 64,640 $13,338,426
Wheat-Soy Blend Bag-- 1,150 $765,975
25 Kg
World Vision 74,480 $15,572,320
Wheat, Soft White 74,480 $15,572,320
-----------------------------
Grand Total 1,389,670 $388,306,591
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY16 Prepo.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prepo. Location Commodity Type Metric Tons Commodity Cost
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Domestic Prepo. 50,130 $27,264,954
Cornmeal Bag--HP--25 6,880 $2,370,413
Kg
Corn-Soy Blend Plus 6,170 $2,938,078
Bag--HP--25 Kg
CSB Super Cereal 200 $325,348
Plus Box--10/1.5 Kg
Lentils Bag--50 Kg 920 $1,142,447
Oil, Vegetable Can-- 8,220 $10,122,203
6/4 L
Peas, Green, Split 740 $382,589
Bag--50 Kg
Peas, Yellow, Split 10,000 $5,659,476
Bag--50 Kg
Rice, 5/20 Lg., W- 2,000 $957,800
MLD Bag--50 Kg
Sorghum Bag--50 Kg 15,000 $3,366,600
Foreign Prepo. 318,650 $123,121,132
Beans, Great 400 $356,678
Northern Bag--50 Kg
Beans, Pinto Bag--50 8,000 $6,530,762
Kg
Cornmeal Bag--HP--25 10,700 $3,472,728
Kg
Corn-Soy Blend Plus 12,480 $5,570,450
Bag--HP--25 Kg
CSB Super Cereal 5,340 $7,921,799
Plus Box--10/1.5 Kg
Hard Red Wheat 82,860 $14,969,471
Oil, Vegetable Can-- 26,500 $30,838,371
6/4 L
Peas, Yellow, Split 56,300 $32,342,975
Bag--50 Kg
Rice 1,000 $433,420
Rice, Fortified 1,000 $528,410
Sorghum 114,070 $20,156,068
-----------------------------
Grand Total 368,780 $150,386,086
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY17 Programs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Partner Commodity Type Metric Tons Commodity Cost
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ADRA 1,300 $899,037
Beans, Great 60 $44,970
Northern Bag--50 Kg
Corn-Soy Blend Plus 430 $274,416
Bag--HP--25 Kg
Oil, Vegetable Can-- 200 $307,371
6/4 L
Rice 610 $272,280
CRS 294,260 $73,059,614
Bulgur, Soy--Fort. 210 $88,402
Bag--50 Kg
Corn-Soy Blend Plus 12,370 $7,789,679
Bag--HP--25 Kg
Lentils Bag--50 Kg 500 $302,921
Oil, Vegetable Can-- 6,130 $7,421,039
6/4 L
Peas, Yellow, Split 18,030 $10,891,022
Bag--50 Kg
Rice 1,230 $508,673
Sorghum 6,060 $1,175,481
Wheat, Soft Red 249,730 $44,882,396
Winter
CNFA 780 $584,505
Corn-Soy Blend Plus 630 $403,664
Bag--HP--25 Kg
Oil, Vegetable Can-- 150 $180,842
6/4 L
CARE 23,710 $6,514,390
Bulgur Bag--50 Kg 200 $57,118
Corn-Soy Blend Plus 400 $232,479
Bag--HP--25 Kg
Lentils Bag--50 Kg 150 $95,390
Oil, Vegetable Can-- 410 $441,577
6/4 L
Peas, Yellow, Split 540 $253,087
Bag--50 Kg
Wheat, Soft White 22,010 $5,434,739
FHI 22,480 $5,489,510
Cornmeal Bag--HP--25 720 $275,365
Kg
Oil, Vegetable Can-- 590 $678,943
6/4 L
Peas, Green, Split 160 $87,200
Bag--50 Kg
Peas, Yellow, Split 1,560 $775,064
Bag--50 Kg
Wheat, Soft Red 19,450 $3,672,938
Winter
HK 11,430 $2,750,858
Wheat, Soft White 11,430 $2,750,858
Mercy Corps 470 $227,769
Cornmeal Bag--HP--25 360 $147,961
Kg
Oil, Vegetable Can-- 30 $36,208
6/4 L
Peas, Green, Split 80 $43,600
Bag--50 Kg
PCI 1,210 $1,093,445
Beans, Pinto Bag--50 860 $672,825
Kg
Oil, Vegetable Can-- 350 $420,621
6/4 L
REST 50,470 $11,982,546
Oil, Vegetable Can-- 1,180 $1,465,023
6/4 L
Peas, Yellow, Split 3,930 $1,892,206
Bag--50 Kg
Wheat, Soft Red 45,360 $8,625,316
Winter
WFP 802,990 $273,994,342
Beans, Pinto Bag--50 160 $130,160
Kg
Cornmeal Bag--HP--25 21,050 $8,285,192
Kg
Corn-Soy Blend Plus 28,510 $17,645,085
Bag--HP--25 Kg
CSB Super Cereal 2,280 $3,468,255
Plus Box--10/1.5 Kg
Flour, All Purpose 1,240 $517,350
Bag--50 Kg
Lentils Bag--50 Kg 12,510 $10,330,554
Oil, Vegetable Can-- 59,080 $73,142,237
6/4 L
Peas, Green, Split 18,540 $11,507,013
Bag--50 Kg
Peas, Green, Whole 7,570 $3,537,028
Bag--50 Kg
Peas, Yellow, Split 44,400 $26,971,712
Bag--50 Kg
Peas, Yellow, Whole 7,680 $3,361,719
Bag--50 Kg
Rice 990 $389,149
Rice, Fortified 14,810 $6,172,778
Sorghum 317,880 $56,479,511
Wheat, Soft Red 9,530 $2,079,128
Winter
Wheat, Soft White 256,760 $49,977,472
World Vision 70,300 $17,881,777
Corn-Soy Blend Plus 1,300 $812,692
Bag--HP--25 Kg
Oil, Vegetable Can-- 1,180 $1,423,436
6/4 L
Peas, Yellow, Split 2,580 $1,291,141
Bag--50 Kg
Sorghum 600 $129,702
Wheat, Soft Red 25,840 $4,879,626
Winter
Wheat, Soft White 38,800 $9,345,179
-----------------------------
Grand Total 1,279,400 $394,477,791
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY17 Prepo.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prepo. Location Commodity Type Metric Tons Commodity Cost
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Domestic Prepo. 14,500 $11,823,073
Corn-Soy Blend Plus 1,000 $634,110
Bag--HP--25 Kg
Lentils Bag--50 Kg 2,000 $1,611,200
Oil, Vegetable Can-- 4,500 $5,929,579
6/4 L
Peas, Green, Whole 2,000 $837,532
Bag--50 Kg
Peas, Yellow, Split 5,000 $2,810,652
Bag--50 Kg
Foreign Prepo. 107,340 $54,514,976
Cornmeal Bag--HP--25 1,000 $381,581
Kg
Corn-Soy Blend Plus 10,250 $6,397,692
Bag--HP--25 Kg
CSB Super Cereal 230 $334,540
Plus Box--10/1.5 Kg
Lentils Bag--50 Kg 2,500 $2,063,668
Oil, Vegetable Can-- 15,500 $19,009,085
6/4 L
Peas, Green, Whole 5,500 $2,400,708
Bag--50 Kg
Peas, Yellow, Split 23,000 $14,441,092
Bag--50 Kg
Rice 500 $195,220
Sorghum 40,000 $7,559,350
Wheat, Soft Red 8,860 $1,732,041
Winter
-----------------------------
Grand Total 121,840 $66,338,048
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY18 Programs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Partner Commodity Type Metric Tons Commodity Cost
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ADRA 720 $493,109
Corn-Soy Blend Plus 200 $139,169
Bag--HP--25 Kg
Oil, Vegetable Pail-- 70 $92,752
20 L
Rice, 5/20 Mg, W-MLD 450 $261,189
Bag--50 Kg
CRS 161,200 $49,571,544
Corn-Soy Blend Plus 2,910 $1,942,485
Bag--HP--25 Kg
CSB Super Cereal 870 $1,708,428
Plus Box--10/1.5 Kg
Oil, Vegetable Can-- 7,780 $8,949,758
6/4 L
Peas, Yellow, Split 21,630 $9,818,553
Bag--50 Kg
Sorghum Bag--50 Kg 2,490 $513,040
Sorghum Bulk 7,060 $1,226,463
Wheat, Hard Red 118,460 $25,412,818
Winter Bulk
CNFA 1,590 $1,203,501
Corn-Soy Blend Plus 1,240 $809,533
Bag--HP--25 Kg
Oil, Vegetable Can-- 350 $393,969
6/4 L
CARE 46,300 $10,233,483
Oil, Vegetable Can-- 310 $341,569
6/4 L
Peas, Yellow, Split 460 $201,728
Bag--50 Kg
Wheat, Soft White 2,030 $558,149
Bag--50 Kg
Wheat, Soft White 43,500 $9,132,037
Bulk
FHI 3,970 $2,001,291
Cornmeal Bag--HP--25 1,630 $675,878
Kg
Oil, Vegetable 520 $552,727
Substitutable--6/4
L
Peas, Green, Split 480 $197,703
Bag--50 Kg
Peas, Yellow, Split 1,340 $574,983
Bag--50 Kg
HK 18,660 $4,417,259
Wheat, Soft White 18,660 $4,417,259
Bulk
Mercy Corps 670 $349,808
Oil, Vegetable Can-- 50 $56,108
6/4 L
Peas, Green, Split 210 $99,184
Bag--50 Kg
Rice, 5/20 Lg., W- 410 $194,516
MLD, Fort. Bag--50
Kg
REST 38,560 $10,613,902
Oil, Vegetable Can-- 1,020 $1,257,374
6/4 L
Peas, Yellow, Split 3,410 $1,431,883
Bag--50 Kg
Wheat, Hard Red 34,130 $7,924,645
Winter Bulk
WFP 792,080 $270,359,678
Beans, Pinto Bag--50 1,430 $897,198
Kg
Cornmeal Bag--HP--25 11,590 $5,582,881
Kg
Corn-Soy Blend Plus 23,000 $15,899,722
Bag--HP--25 Kg
CSB Super Cereal 5,030 $9,596,888
Plus Box--10/1.5 Kg
Flour, All Purpose 420 $191,990
Bag--50 Kg
Lentils Bag--50 Kg 23,980 $12,919,123
Oil, Vegetable Can-- 51,200 $59,407,796
6/4 L
Oil, Vegetable Pail-- 210 $304,808
20 L
Peas, Green, Split 23,620 $12,448,801
Bag--50 Kg
Peas, Green, Whole 7,870 $3,738,963
Bag--50 Kg
Peas, Yellow, Split 18,650 $8,534,143
Bag--50 Kg
Peas, Yellow, Whole 11,030 $4,427,341
Bag--50 Kg
Rice, 3/15 Lg., W- 3,280 $1,625,768
MLD Bag--50 Kg
Rice, 5/20 Lg., W- 11,300 $5,347,236
MLD Bag--50 Kg
Rice, 5/20 Lg., W- 5,100 $2,634,325
MLD, Fort. Bag--50
Kg
Rice, 5/20 Mg, W-MLD 1,440 $714,773
Bag--50 Kg
Rice, Milled Bulk 13,430 $6,864,447
Sorghum Bag--50 Kg 25,690 $5,937,677
Sorghum Bulk 285,720 $56,563,825
Wheat, Hard Red 47,450 $9,628,476
Winter Bulk
Wheat, Soft White 263,610 $56,335,055
Bulk
World Vision 39,620 $11,230,248
Corn-Soy Blend Plus 730 $496,408
Bag--HP--25 Kg
Oil, Vegetable Can-- 720 $882,404
6/4 L
Peas, Yellow, Split 2,130 $971,112
Bag--50 Kg
Wheat, Soft White 36,040 $8,880,324
Bulk
-----------------------------
Grand Total 1,103,370 $360,473,824
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY18 Prepo.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prepo. Location Commodity Type Metric Tons Commodity Cost
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Domestic Prepo. 47,650 $35,543,982
Corn-Soy Blend Plus 9,000 $6,150,759
Bag--HP--25 Kg
CSB Super Cereal 1,650 $2,989,942
Plus Box--10/1.5 Kg
Flour, All Purpose 5,000 $2,545,371
Bag--50 Kg
Oil, Vegetable Can-- 9,500 $11,973,592
6/4 L
Peas, Green, Split 8,000 $5,035,768
Bag--50 Kg
Peas, Yellow, Split 14,000 $6,593,106
Bag--50 Kg
Rice, 5/20 Lg., W- 500 $255,445
MLD, Fort. Bag--50
Kg
Foreign Prepo. 78,900 $39,149,410
Cornmeal Bag--HP--25 3,000 $1,300,587
Kg
Corn-Soy Blend Plus 9,000 $6,111,739
Bag--HP--25 Kg
CSB Super Cereal 500 $986,125
Plus Box--10/1.5 Kg
Flour, All Purpose 630 $296,024
Bag--50 Kg
Oil, Vegetable Can-- 13,770 $15,904,565
6/4 L
Peas, Yellow, Split 18,260 $8,081,590
Bag--50 Kg
Sorghum Bag--50 Kg 740 $170,970
Sorghum Bulk 33,000 $6,297,810
-----------------------------
Grand Total 126,550 $74,693,393
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY19 Programs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Partner Commodity Type Metric Tons Commodity Cost
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CRS 241,080 $56,384,907
Corn-Soy Blend Plus 1,310 $800,572
Bag--HP--25 Kg
Oil, Vegetable 210 $223,803
Bottle, PLS--6/4 L
Oil, Vegetable Can-- 2,610 $3,205,957
6/4 L
Oil, Vegetable 210 $244,906
Substitutable--6/4
L
Peas, Yellow, Split 13,770 $5,621,220
Bag--50 Kg
Sorghum Bag--50 Kg 4,110 $936,538
Sorghum Bulk 6,490 $1,392,607
Wheat, Hard Red 212,370 $43,959,303
Winter Bulk
CARE 54,420 $11,024,380
Corn-Soy Blend Plus 130 $72,024
Bag--HP--25 Kg
Oil, Vegetable 50 $49,711
Bottle, PLS--6/4 L
Oil, Vegetable 30 $35,024
Substitutable--6/4
L
Peas, Yellow, Split 20 $9,500
Bag--50 Kg
Wheat, Hard Red 54,190 $10,858,122
Winter Bulk
FHI 31,930 $8,024,139
Cornmeal Bag--HP--25 1,600 $760,910
Kg
Oil, Vegetable 560 $653,231
Substitutable--6/4
L
Peas, Green, Split 510 $235,008
Bag--50 Kg
Peas, Yellow, Split 1,440 $562,122
Bag--50 Kg
Wheat, Hard Red 27,820 $5,812,868
Winter Bulk
Mercy Corps 450 $200,305
Oil, Vegetable Can-- 30 $34,133
6/4 L
Peas, Green, Split 90 $47,309
Bag--50 Kg
Rice, 5/20 Lg., W- 330 $118,863
MLD Bag--50 Kg
REST 39,870 $9,435,918
Oil, Vegetable Can-- 1,060 $1,272,360
6/4 L
Peas, Yellow, Split 3,530 $1,381,756
Bag--50 Kg
Wheat, Hard Red 35,280 $6,781,802
Winter Bulk
Save The Children 1,150 $701,419
Corn-Soy Blend Plus 1,070 $609,696
Bag--HP--25 Kg
Oil, Vegetable Can-- 30 $34,704
6/4 L
Oil, Vegetable 50 $57,019
Substitutable--6/4
L
WFP 1,119,680 $375,576,866
Beans, Great 12,370 $12,147,093
Northern Bag--50 Kg
Beans, Kidney, Light 620 $847,341
Red Bag--50 Kg
Beans, Pea Bag--50 5,520 $4,835,596
Kg
Beans, Pinto Bag--50 1,250 $745,166
Kg
Beans, Small Red 2,400 $2,125,998
Bag--50 Kg
Beans, Small White 60 $36,062
Bag--50 Kg
Beans, Substitutable 7,090 $6,335,800
Bag--50 Kg (Pea
Bag)
Cornmeal Bag--HP--25 41,290 $18,637,900
Kg
Corn-Soy Blend Plus 14,670 $9,294,646
Bag--HP--25 Kg
Flour, All Purpose 2,270 $1,108,486
Bag--25 Kg
Lentils Bag--50 Kg 14,300 $6,605,441
Oil, Vegetable Can-- 80,650 $95,987,561
6/4 L
Peas, Green, Whole 770 $356,641
Bag--50 Kg
Peas, Yellow, Split 40,520 $16,498,142
Bag--50 Kg
Peas, Yellow, Whole 4,260 $1,510,324
Bag--50 Kg
Rice, 5/20 Lg., W- 19,110 $9,003,421
MLD Bag--50 Kg
Rice, 5/20 Lg., W- 660 $319,229
MLD, Fort. Bag--50
Kg
Rice, 5/20 Mg, W-MLD 2,520 $1,370,262
Bag--50 Kg
Rice, 5/20 Mg, W- 840 $671,950
MLD, Prbl Bag--50
Kg
Sorghum Bag--50 Kg 18,980 $4,323,740
Sorghum Bulk 332,820 $67,934,658
Wheat, Hard Red 5,830 $1,340,259
Winter Bulk
Wheat, Soft White 510,880 $113,541,150
Bulk
World Vision 87,580 $19,566,338
Oil, Vegetable Can-- 750 $964,878
6/4 L
Peas, Yellow, Split 2,390 $930,441
Bag--50 Kg
Wheat, Hard Red 84,440 $17,671,019
Winter Bulk
-----------------------------
Grand Total 1,576,160 $480,914,271
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY19 Prepo.*
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prepo. Location Commodity Type Metric Tons Commodity Cost
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Domestic Prepo. 30,780 $20,372,300
Beans, Pinto Bag--50 2,100 $1,497,817
Kg
Cornmeal Bag--HP--25 2,200 $1,140,570
Kg
Corn-Soy Blend Plus 2,350 $1,816,756
Bag--HP--25 Kg
Oil, Vegetable Can-- 6,100 $7,535,233
6/4 L
Peas, Yellow, Split 7,500 $3,291,944
Bag--50 Kg
Rice, 5/20 Lg., W- 3,530 $1,749,550
MLD Bag--50 Kg
Rice, 5/20 Lg., W- 7,000 $3,340,431
MLD, Fort. Bag--50
Kg
Foreign Prepo. 94,792 $53,935,982
Corn-Soy Blend Plus 8,500 $5,923,361
Bag--HP--25 Kg
CSB Super Cereal 11,992 $21,983,653
Plus Box--10/1.5 Kg
Oil, Vegetable Can-- 9,500 $10,901,429
6/4 L
Peas, Yellow, Split 14,800 $6,012,940
Bag--50 Kg
Sorghum Bulk 50,000 $9,114,600
-----------------------------
Grand Total 25,572 $74,308,283
------------------------------------------------------------------------
By RUTF & RUSF Purchases **
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year Commodity Type Metric Tons Commodity Cost
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2016 5,318 $24,598,936
RUSF 3,090 $20,043,068
RUTF 2,228 $4,555,868
FY 2017 11,850 $32,176,169
RUSF 4,375 $11,396,245
RUTF 7,475 $20,779,924
FY 2018 11,291 $30,513,644
RUSF 1,670 $4,073,215
RUTF 9,621 $26,440,429
FY 2019 18,504 $49,879,132
RUSF 9,082 $23,522,453
RUTF 9,421 $26,356,679
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: total costs and metric tons may differ from those listed in the
International Food Assistance Reports (IFAR), as commodities may be
purchased in fiscal years different than awards.
In addition, USDA tracking of individual commodity purchases does not
differentiate between emergency and development programs.
* Note: FY 19 numbers are estimates and will change as actuals are
reconciled.
** Note: Starting in FY16, the majority of ready-to-use therapeutic and
supplementary food (RUTF & RUSF) were purchased by OAA/T under BPAs
(Blanket Purchase Agreements). USDA no longer purchases RUSF or RUTF.
Question 3. Given that U.S. dollars cannot be used to purchase
commodities where sanctions have been imposed by the U.S. Government,
please describe how USAID is monitoring cash purchases to ensure that
commodities from these sanctioned countries are not being transshipped
through eligible countries.
Answer. USAID partners are required to buy from a specified list of
developing countries near crises and to provide detailed information on
planned procurement locations, quantities, and other details when
applying for assistance. Both the source (where the commodity is being
purchased) and origin (where the commodity was produced) of any
procured commodities are incorporated into the actual award agreement.
Deviations from the agreed-upon terms would require USAID approval. By
requiring this information, USAID ensures the Office of Food for Peace
(FFP) is not inadvertently purchasing food from sanctioned countries.
When procuring food locally, regionally, or internationally, FFP
has a preference for supporting markets impacted by the crisis, and
second for commodities produced in countries near the crisis-affected
area and on the Organization for Economic Co-operation and
Development--Development Assistance Committee (OECD-DAC) list for Least
Developed, Other Lower Income, and Lower-Middle Income countries.
Procurement from a non-OECD DAC Least Developed, Other Lower Income, or
Lower-Middle Income country requires a waiver. FFP Information Bulletin
19-03 further states that partners must procure from countries that are
not on the U.S. government's list of foreign policy restricted
countries.
Questions Submitted by Hon. Jimmy Panetta, a Representative in Congress
from California
School Meals in Protracted Crises
Question 1. Protracted crises--the result of armed conflict, forced
displacement, and natural disasters--are disrupting both the food
security and education of millions of children around the world. We are
seeing today in both Syria and Yemen, where the United Nations has
declared system-wide Level 3 Emergencies. In these contexts, missing
school meals has more than a physical impact on children. Chronic food
insecurity impacts a child's ability to learn and their overall well-
being. The United Nations World Food Programme administers the majority
of American emergency food aid.
I was pleased to learn that earlier this year, WFP announced a
partnership with an education nonprofit called Education Cannot Wait,
to address this very issue. Through this partnership, the two
organizations will work together to increase access to both quality
education and quality nutrition for vulnerable children in emergency
and crisis settings.
Mr. Hicks, how is USAID and the Office of Food for Peace supporting
innovative partnerships like this to better address the nexus of child
nutrition and education in emergency contexts?
Answer. In line with the USAID Multi-Sectoral Nutrition Strategy,
the Office of Food for Peace (FFP) nutrition programming prioritizes
the 1,000-day period from pregnancy to age 2, as well as children under
5. These groups remain most vulnerable in emergencies, with children
under 2 having a much higher risk of mortality than other population
groups. In addition, USAID recognizes that good nutrition in the first
1,000 days is critical to the cognitive development needed for
successful educational outcomes.
As outreach through traditional education does not reach the
youngest children, FFP has supported a number of innovative
partnerships with international NGOs, such as Save the Children, World
Vision, and Catholic Relief Services, to assure that these groups are
reached either through maternal and child health programs and/or Early
Child Development (ECD) programs. For many years, USAID has utilized
schools as an entry point for reaching displaced and/or refugee
families in emergencies.
FFP is currently exploring how ECD programs can be more explicitly
incorporated into emergency response, and is reaching out to the U.S.
Government (USG) Children in Adversity coordination group as well as to
counterparts at the World Bank to look at best practices in supporting
growth and development for this vulnerable age group even during
emergencies. The transition to the new Bureau for Humanitarian
Assistance will unlock additional opportunities for innovative, multi-
sectoral programming in emergencies.
Benefits of Both Commodity and Cash-Based Food Assistance
Question 2. Since 2010, USAID has deployed both commodity and cash-
based assistance to address food security crises in developing nations.
Mr. Hicks, can you speak to the value of having both of these tools
available to fight global hunger?
Question 2a. Additionally, if there is value in having a mixed
toolkit of commodity and cash-based assistance, why does this
Administration continue to eliminate funding for title II in their
budget submission to Congress?
Question 2b. How do these proposed title II cuts affect the way the
Office of Food for Peace administers its programs?
Question 2c. Without the threat of program elimination, would your
office program funds differently?
Answer 2-2c. Given the growing complexity and number of global
humanitarian crises, flexibility to use both commodity and market-based
assistance to address food security crises allows USAID to respond with
the most appropriate tool to meet emergency needs around the world.
Where markets are functioning, food vouchers or cash transfers for food
can be quicker, highly effective, and more efficient, while bolstering
local markets. Where markets are not functioning and providing cash may
drive up local food prices, in-kind commodities may be more appropriate
and can help stabilize markets. Flexibility is critical for USAID to be
able to use the right tools, in the right place, at the right time,
based on the conditions on the ground.
The FY 2020 budget request consolidates the Food for Peace title II
account, the International Disaster Assistance account (IDA), and
overseas humanitarian assistance portion of the Migration and Refugee
Assistance account (MRA) into a new International Humanitarian
Assistance (IHA) account, from which food assistance will be provided.
This request reflects USAID's transformation plans to merge the Office
of Food for Peace and the Office of U.S. Foreign Disaster Assistance
(OFDA) into the Bureau for Humanitarian Assistance (BHA), and optimize
U.S. humanitarian assistance responses. The IHA account would provide
maximum flexibility and allow for the most appropriate tool depending
on the context, maintaining the flexibility to use both commodity and
cash-based assistance to reach as many people in need as possible.
USAID will continue to program all available resources to use the
most appropriate modality to meet emergency food needs--including
commodities from U.S. farmers. Humanitarian resources are programmed on
a contingency basis to meet the most urgent needs around the world.