The future role of food aid is controversial. The G8 summit in 2005 committed the world’s most developed nations to doubling financial aid, but there is no similar consensus about food aid.

Some agencies and experts advocate increasing developmental food aid because of continuing high levels of poverty-related malnutrition (the Food and Agriculture Organization reports that over 850 million people suffer globally). Some also see a growing need for emergency food aid because of the increasing frequency and scale of natural disasters and conflict situations.

However, many argue that food aid distorts local markets by discouraging agricultural development and displacing trade. It can even contribute to long-term food insecurity. Untimely and excessive food imports cause prices to fall and, whilst benefiting those buying food, this hurts poor farmers and limits links to and growth of the wider agricultural sector. Food aid can also create dependency amongst recipient populations and governments. Evidence-based research, for example by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, helps to narrow the areas of disagreement and indicate where there is scope for better practice.

Any assessment of the impact of food aid must consider the different types of food aid and donor practices:

• Emergency food aid saves lives and limits nutritional stress in crises caused by conflict or natural disasters. However, tying aid can restrict what foods are available. Late arrival frequently hampers post-crisis agricultural recovery.
• Food-based longer-term programmes, including so-called ‘protracted’ relief and developmental projects to reduce the impact of shocks are overlapping categories and therefore an area of ambiguity. The decision to fund local purchases or imported food depends on risks of distorting the local economy, whether the transfer of food is efficient and whether other poverty reduction objectives are addressed.
• Monetisation, where tied imports are sold to finance development projects, is seen as a useful additional resource by some USA–based non-governmental organisations, but is controversial because of the high risk of distorting local and regional markets.
• Programme food aid for budgetary support to governments has declined with the reduction in stored surpluses, especially from the USA. Assessments have highlighted ineffectiveness, especially in promoting national economic development, poor transfer efficiency and likely trade displacement.

Food aid is becoming more volatile and pro-cyclical (least available when international prices are high). The increasing priority given to humanitarian crises means that some countries are excluded or marginalised. How can food aid provide effective support to long-term poverty reduction and other development objectives?

• Financial aid or cash is almost always the most effective and efficient way of funding either food distribution or providing budgetary support. A context-specific justification should always be provided for using food aid in preference to financial aid.
• Food-based interventions are more likely to succeed as part of a wider properly-resourced sectoral programme, for example in health or education.
• There is a need to address the underlying causes of hunger and vulnerability to shocks and emergencies.

Source(s):
‘The Development Effectiveness of Food Aid:  Does Tying Matter?’ Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development: Paris, by Edward J. Clay, Barry Riley and Ian Urey, 2005
‘Food aid: Doing Well by Doing Good’, Centre for Global Development: Washington, D.C, by Peter Timmer, December 2005 Full document.

id21 Research Highlight: 16 March 2006

Further Information:
Edward Clay
Overseas Development Institute
111 Westminster Bridge Road
London, SE1 7JD
UK

Tel: +44 (0)207 922 0300
Contact the contributor: e.clay@odi.org.uk

Overseas Development Institute, UK

Other related links:
'Does tying matter?'

'The southern Africa crisis: food insecurity, HIV/AIDS and the international response'

'Improving food aid in the Great Lakes region of Africa'

'Problems in measuring the impact of humanitarian interventions'

'Cash relief in Somalia: an alternative emergency response'