According to a new report by the Overseas Development Institute (ODI), the long-term fate of the Food Aid Convention (FAC), could finally be decided in the coming months – and it may involve a radical transformation.
The FAC is the only global treaty that requires donor states to provide definite amounts of humanitarian aid and to respect certain standards of quality. Originally adopted in 1967, it has led a fitful life for the last decade. An amendment in 1999 added substantial provisions on the programmatic quality of humanitarian aid, but also inserted a limit to its effective life of 3 years. Since then, there have been numerous extensions (most recently for only one year at a time). The most recent extension is valid through June 2011.
One major reason for this tentative approach in recent years has been the potential for negotiations on agriculture at the WTO “Doha Development Round” to supplant or impact upon the relevance of the FAC. In light of what appears to be a substantial (if not permanent) blockage in the Doha negotiations, FAC member states are now reconsidering whether to come back to the discussion about what to do with the FAC on its own merits.
Another reason has to do with changing times and perceptions of how best to help those at risk of hunger. Mr. Kiflemariam Amdemariam, Senior Officer for Food Security at the IFRC, observed that, “in the context of the recent food crisis, the need for change in how to address food insecurity situations is becoming much clearer. There is a growing appreciation of the appropriateness of other emergency response approaches such as vouchers and cash transfers. In-kind food aid will no longer be the only means to respond to emergency situations as it used to be in the past.”
The current version of the FAC has come in for a good deal of criticism on this score. Its emphasis on the provision of mimimum tonnage of grains has been called anachronistic. Its lack of integration within the wider food security architecture, its narrow membership and the lack of transparency of its monitoring body have also been decried. On the other hand, some analysts have warned that substantial changes to the FAC – in particular the minimum donation targets -- could lead to a reduction in overall assistance to those in need. A significant divide between the U.S. and European donor states linked to wider questions of agricultural and trade policy have also complicated the adoption of a new approach.
According to the ODI report, Food aid and food assistance in emergency and transitional contexts: a review of current thinking, the results of negotiations over the next few months could lead to the FAC being simply terminated or “alternatively, it could be radically revised as part of efforts to create a global food security architecture with a role in addressing different and rapidly changing physical environmental, political and economic circumstances”.
In a separate paper, the ODI sets out some of its own proposals, including bringing the FAC more closely into the mainstream “development assistance architecture” as a potential “step towards a Humanitarian Aid Convention as part of wider ODA and humanitarian architecture.”
As major donors increasingly review their policies and strategies, Mr. Kiflemariam Amdemariam agreed that a re-examination of the FAC is inevitable. He also appealed for a more holistic approach. “In-kind food aid should be permitted only in exceptional emergency situations under agreed criteria. The practice and current trend among the humanitarian agencies and developing countries indicate that there should be a shift from a stand-alone relief approach to more integrated relief, recovery and development approach.”