WASHINGTON, D.C. — A new report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) found the USDA and the U.S. Agency for International Developm ent (USAID) had not been consistentlytracking its food aid priorities regarding countries that receive U.S. commodities for Food for Peace (FFP) projects in fiscal years 2013 through 2016.

 

“The USDA’s documents do not consistently account for decisions to provide commodities to countries that did not meet its prioritization criteria for McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and School Nutrition (McGovern-Dole) and Food for Progress development projects,” said Thomas Melito,

 

GAO director of international affairs and trade, in the August 26 report. For example, analysis of the USDA documents showed countries that did not meet these criteria received 40 percent of Food for Progress funding in fiscal year 2015 – even though the documents do not provide the USDA’s reasons for these decisions.

However, Melito told Farm World, “The GAO made the decision not to specify which countries were not on the priority list but still received funding.”He said better documentation of such decisions would improve transparency and accountability.

“The USAID and the USDA did not consistently document that U.S. commodities would not negatively affect recipient countries’ production or markets, and that adequate storage was available before

providing the commodities,” said

Melito, who also directed the report. In 2015, the USAID and USDA provided an estimated $1.9 billion of U.S food aid overseas, including about 1.5 million metric tons of commodities. Under the Bellmon amendment to the Food for Peace Act, however, determining that  the distribution of commodities will notcause a substantial disincentive to a country’s domestic production and that adequate storage will be available is required before food aid is distributed.

“Agency guidance requires documenting Bellmon determinations before food aid agreements are signed, and promotes monitoring and evaluation to improve accountability and performance,” Melito explained. “The USAID and the USDA guidance requires documentation of such ‘Bellmon determinations’ before food aid agreements are signed.”

Despite the report finding the USAID and USDA following this guidance for the six FFP emergency projects and five of six Food for Progress projects GAO reviewed in fiscal years 2014 and 2015, the USAID documented determinations before signing agreements for only five of 8 FFP development projects, and the USDA for only two of 18 McGovern-Dole projects.

“As a result, the agencies did not consistently document compliance with a key control,” Melito said.

The GAO report also found lower- than-expected prices 12 percent of the time for key commodities in countries that received commodity-based U.S. food aid at some point in 2015 and 2016, although neither agency required implementing partners to monitor or evaluate markets during this period.

In December 2016, the USAID began requiring partners to monitor and evaluate emergency projects for negative market effects, such as unusual price changes. USAID does not require this for development projects, however, and the USDA does not require it for either Mc-Govern-Dole or Food for Progress.

 

Yet, both agencies require monitoring

of project performance and evaluation

of project outcomes to identify challenges,

ensure projects achieved intended

results and to improve future projects,

Melito said. “Monitoring and evaluation

for negative market impacts would help

identify any needed mid-course corrections

and inform future Bellmon determinations,”

he added.

He said USDA officials told him they

sometimes fund projects in countries not

previously selected as priorities through

a consultative process that may not be

officially documented.

“When they have documented it, it has

been for reasons such as continuing an

ongoing program that was taking important

steps toward sustainability,” he said.

Melito said the GAO’s criteria for justifying

the need for documenting the reasons

for selecting countries not on the

priority list was for federal internal control

standards.

Currently, he added, “There are not

any specified consequences that we are

aware of that result from a failure to adhere

to those standards, although failure

to consistently document those decisions

leads to a lack of transparency and

accountability on the USDA’s part.”

the GAO made the following recommendations

to strengthen the USDA’s and

USAID’s provision of U.S. commodities,

recommending the USAID administrator:

•Document all Bellmon determinations

before signing agreements with partners

and require monitoring and evaluation

for negative market effects

•Ensure Bellmon determinations are

documented for all food assistance projects

prior to the provision of commodities,

consistent with agency guidance

•Update guidance on Bellmon determinations

to reflect current policies and

procedures

•Monitor markets during implementation

of development projects, to identify

any potential negative effects, such as

unusual changes in prices

Both the USDA and USAID agreed with

the recommendations, Melito said.

To read the full report online, visit

www.gao.gov/products/GAO-17-640