NEW YORK - When it comes to feeding the world's poor, United States government policies favoring domestic suppliers and shippers mean each taxpayer dollar is feeding fewer hungry people, officials and independent experts are saying.

"It is time for the U.S. to make changes in its food aid policy," says Stephen Greene, spokesman for Oxfam America, one of the world's leading humanitarian aid groups. "Food aid should be aimed at helping local economies."

Oxfam and other groups are pushing U.S. lawmakers to consider making $300 million worth of food aid (about 25 percent of the overall allotment) available as cash instead of procuring food crops and commodities in the U.S., a demand fully supported by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) administrator Andrew Natsios.

Describing reform of U.S. aid as a "moral issue," Natsios told a recent gathering of experts in Washington, D.C. that the proposal to donate cash to hungry populations could save thousands of lives every year.

The USAID chief and others argue that the cash availability could contribute to local development because it would enable the poor to buy food from local farmers and markets, which would in turn support local economic growth and help stave off future crises.

But in the wake of opposition from agricultural lobbyists, the U.S. shipping industry, and some humanitarian non-governmental organizations (NGOs), it seems that Congress is not willing to embrace the proposal for reforms, at least for now.

According to Natsios, some influential senators initially told him they would endorse the reform proposal, but later backed down under pressure from groups that support the current policy, including some NGOs.

The current system demands that food aid be grown in the U.S. and shipped in U.S. vessels and by U.S.-based aid organizations, a requirement that Natsios believes mostly works against development.

Experts say the U.S. vessels often arrive too late to be helpful and the overwhelming presence of foreign aid workers sometimes leads to complicated cultural problems.

"Procuring supplies from thousands of miles away risks missing the narrow window of opportunity during disasters to reach those in need," says Peter Timmer, senior policy fellow at the Center for Global Development, a Washington D.C.-based think tank.

"It risks serious harm to the local economy," he adds.

Natsios agrees.

Last year, in Afghanistan, U.S. food shipments undercut the market for locally grown wheat on the eve of a bumper harvest that resulted from new seeds introduced with U.S. help, he said, adding that wheat rotted in the fields and the next year farmers turned to opium poppies instead.

And, according to a recent article published by the Wall Street Journal, the U.S. government brought corn to people in northern Uganda at $447 per ton when it could have purchased from farmers in the south of that country for just $180 dollars per ton.

"Of course, U.S. taxpayers lose," says Natsios. "Such U.S.-based food usually costs two to three times as much as sourcing it locally. Farmers and traders in the recipient countries lose, as supplies from food aid depress local prices."

But those opposing the reform argue that cash used to buy food is more likely to be misused or stolen than in-kind food donations, maintaining that the proposal should not be embraced at the expense of the program "upon which American producers, processors, and shipping companies rely."

That's an argument Timmer eyes with a great deal of skepticism.

"The economic argument on food aid is pretty clear and is easy to understand," he says. "Divide the world into food aid recipients, food aid delivery agents--mostly NGOs--and food aid donors."

In Timmer's view, the most efficient form of donor contribution is cash. "The worst these agents might do is to buy the food in the U.S., have it processed there, and shipped on U.S. bottoms." But cash, according to him, extends their purchase options all the way to buying in local markets for local delivery. "This latter option," he says, "of course maximizes the potential development aspect of a given dollar of donor assistance."

"Forcing the 'all-U.S. option' on delivery agents and recipients minimizes this impact," he adds.

Meanwhile, despite his decision to leave his post at USAID on January 12, Natsios has vowed to continue to push for reforms.

"If people think this issue is going away they are wrong," he said, amid hopes that his proposal will be included in the 2007 budget.

Copyright © 2006 OneWorld.net.

###