February 19, 2013 (WASHINGTON) – This statement is delivered on behalf of the Modernizing Foreign Assistance Network (MFAN) by Co-Chairs David Beckmann, George Ingram and Jim Kolbe:
The Modernizing Foreign Assistance Network is intrigued by reports that the Obama Administration may propose changes to the U.S. approach to providing overseas food assistance, including reforms that could make this assistance more cost effective and allow us to reach more people around the world in need of help. While we don’t yet have details of these proposed changes, we believe strongly that improving the effectiveness and efficiency of U.S. food aid is long overdue and could provide millions more people with life-saving assistance—all without increasing the budget for these programs.
The current approach to delivering food aid is outdated and in need of reform. In an era of decreasing budgets, policymakers simply can’t afford not to consider any credible proposal to maximize the impact of taxpayer dollars. We urge the Administration to make its proposal public and include it in the Fiscal Year 2014 budget request, and we urge Congress to give it careful and complete consideration.
Tags: food aid
I find this among the oddest notices I’ve received. Given the historic harm US aid has caused, why would MFAN announced being “intrigued” without having “any details of the proposed changes.” Are you rallying support for them? Why? In any case, “maximizing the impact of US tax dollars” is a funny way to state the case. Shouldn’t the focus be on ending hunger? If it is, then how, given all the evidence that food aid undermines self-sufficiency, are you supporting more food aid? Watch the recent Aljazeera show “Counting the Cost” in which an activist in Kenya talks about that country’s dependence on food aid while it concurrent EXPORTS food! Food aid is a scandal. Doesn’t everyone know that?
@Nora – I think you are seriously misinterpreting this statement. Although MFAN would certainly be more diplomatic about it, I think they largely agree with much of your sentiment. That being said, this has historically been a political non-starter, so I think they are simply trying to widen any potential political opening for reform.