STATEMENT OF

ELLEN S. LEVINSON

Government Relations Advisor, Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft

Before the

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY

U.S. SENATE

July 27, 2000

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to testify before the Committee regarding the proposal by His Excellency George McGovern and The Honorable Robert Dole for a universal school feeding program. Based on this proposal, on July 23, President Clinton announced a Global Food for Education Initiative (the "Initiative") to establish a new $300 million US Department of Agriculture (USDA) international school nutrition pilot program in poor countries in FY 2001.

In addition to serving as Government Relations Advisor to Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft, I am Executive Director of the Coalition for Food Aid. The Coalition was established in 1985 and is comprised of US private voluntary organizations and cooperatives (jointly referred to as "PVOs") that conduct development and humanitarian programs overseas.^{(1) Recognizing that over 800 million people suffer from chronic hunger and many others are threatened with starvation due to crises, US food aid donations are a vital component of these PVOs' international assistance efforts.}

The members of the Coalition are very grateful that Ambassador McGovern and Senator Dole have brought attention to the needs of children in less-developed countries. Each child should have a basic right to quality education and adequate nutrition. Too many times and in too many places, poverty prevails and these rights are but dreams. The school feeding and child development initiative should tackle these difficult cases - committing food and assistance to make these dreams a reality.

The US is blessed with a productive agricultural sector and there is widespread support for food aid in our country. The US constituency is broad and deep - producers, processors, packaging companies, railways, ports, shipping companies and charitable groups, such as PVOs. Food aid programs that focus on improving the health, living conditions and livelihoods of vulnerable population groups represent the best intentions and goodwill of the American people.

The Food for Education Initiative is built on these best intentions. As a multi-year effort, this Initiative could have a powerful impact on children's health, education and long-term productivity.

PVOs would be pleased to partner with the US Government to implement additional food aid programs that target child development and education. Currently, the US Government is primarily funding pre-school and primary school food aid programs through P.L. 480 Title II. These programs are conducted by PVOs under 5-year agreements with the US Agency for International Development (USAID). Some additional programs are being funded through USDA food aid programs.

PVOs, including Adventist Development and Relief Agency International, CARE, Catholic Relief Services, Save the Children and World Vision International, have extensive experience in developing and implementing pre-school and school feeding programs, and enhancing the impact of these programs through improved quality of education and community participation.

PVOs have worked diligently to develop new methodologies to make school feeding programs more effective. For example, in 1994, USAID informed PVOs that school feeding was being eliminated from the Title II portfolio because such programs cannot show a measurable impact on children's nutrition and it is difficult to develop "exit strategies." Instead of just letting these programs retire, over the past five years PVOs revamped school feeding to create "Food for Education" programs which focus on attendance, quality of education, improving incomes of the family and community and parent participation. PVOs also have in place pre-school programs, similar to US Head Start, which include educational components, health and sanitation training for mothers and caretakers and meals prepared by teachers' aides or parents, using US commodities combined with local produce.

PVOs are ready and able to partner with the US Government to establish additional innovative and effective programs for pre-school and primary school that can meet the objectives stated by the President "to improve strident enrollment, attendance and performance." Their focus would be communities and regions that need the basics - such as better curricula and more schools; books, chalk boards and other educational materials; training and financial support for teachers; involvement of parents so they can understand the benefits of sending children to school; and work opportunities for adults so they may have sufficient incomes and do not feel the need to have their children work.

In order for PVOs to participate in a timely and efficient manner in the pilot Initiative announced by the President, it is necessary for the US Government to enter into standard, global agreements with eligible PVOs as soon as possible, authorizing the provision of donated commodities to such PVOs for the Initiative and providing flexibility to pilot a variety of school feeding programs along with improvements in educational quality and building local capacity to support schools. Eligible PVOs would be those that have demonstrated capabilities to implement food aid programs and that have effective systems for administration and oversight. Each PVO would identify where it would like to pilot the program and what methods it will use, based on assessments by the PVO of local needs and capacities.

Today, I would like to review elements of food aid programming that PVOs have found very successful and to offer several recommendations to make the school feeding and education initiative (the "Initiative") most effective.

PVO APPROACH TO FOOD AID: PEOPLE-TO-PEOPLE

PVOs are very thorough when planning programs - conducting needs assessments to identify target population groups; analyzing food habits, local markets and consulting with agricultural experts to choose appropriate commodities; working closely with local governments, businesses and community groups to develop program objectives, procedures and evaluation plans; establishing management, distribution, sales and monitoring systems; and assuring personnel and systems are in place for oversight and accountability.

The great benefit of food aid is that it can be used to address a variety of problems. For example, nutritious foods along with immunization and health care are provided during critical growth periods for mothers and children. A nutritious meal served in classrooms combined with the establishment of PTAs, teacher training and improved lessons provides an incentive for poor families to send their children to school. Infrastructure and sanitation in poor communities are improved by giving food as payment for work on sewage and water systems. Land use and conservation are enhanced when food is provided as an incentive for community participation in reforestation and land conservation projects. Agricultural productivity and incomes are improved by selling donated food and then using the sales proceeds to invest in agricultural and small business projects. Currently, PVOs are exploring ways to use food aid as part of their assistance to HIV/AIDS-effected communities.

American donors contribute to PVOs to support their humanitarian and development work overseas. When we think of the people-to-people aspect of food aid, it is the PVO that provides this essential touch. PVOs leverage funds from recipient country governments, US donors, foundations, donor country governments and international organizations to bolster the impact of their food aid programs. Their administrative costs are modest, so more food and funds can be dedicated to programs. PVOs also work in alliance with US agricultural producers and processors and maritime interests to build a strong US food aid program.

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK FOR A

GLOBAL FOOD FOR EDUCATION INITIATIVE

Initiative Objectives

To be most effective the Initiative should focus on an integrated approach for physical and cognitive child development - and not just on the provision of a meal or food ration. Food is a basic human need and providing one meal a day to poor, undernourished children is a laudable goal. Yet, this meal alone cannot have a lasting impact on children's education and development. It must be blended with other programmatic features to provide quality education and to expand access to schools. Moreover, local participation in program planning and implementation is essential to sustaining the effort even when outside assistance is no longer available. PVOs are able to develop and implement such integrated programs.

An integrated approach should also be more attractive to other potential donors, since school feeding alone is not considered a sustainable or particularly effective intervention to improve nutrition or the quality of education that a poor child receives.

Initiative commitments must be in addition to donors' commitments under the Food Aid Convention (FAC). For the US, the Initiative must also be in addition to current commitments under PL 480 and Food for Progress, and must not take away from current programs under these authorities.

Another type of additionality is making sure that the commodities do not interfere with commercial imports or local production and marketing in the recipient country. US food aid programs require analyses to prevent such problems and the FAC incorporates these concepts.

In order to help poor communities, a commitment of five years is necessary, with potential to extend the assistance. Over the five-year period, benchmarks for progress would be set and if the program is working well but additional time is needed due to the level of poverty, it should be extended.

Target Countries and Populations

The Initiative should target lower income countries and poor communities in lower middle income countries. Depending on the particular needs of the country, two critical age periods should be targeted through two types of programs:

Early Childhood Development: 3-6 year olds. Similar to the US "Head Start" program.

Food for Education: Primary school age children.

The methodologies for these programs have already been developed and are currently being implemented by PVOs. The key to success is building the program in-country from the bottom up. Essential elements of successful programs include consultations with and continual involvement of local administrators and civic groups and coordination with various donors and nongovernmental organizations that are already working in the field.

Accountability: Monitoring, Evaluations and Audits

To implement Initiative programs that target poor communities, USDA should enter into standard, global agreements with PVOs that have demonstrated ability to mange food aid programs. This will allow PVOs to develop and to implement Initiative programs based on local needs assessments, in coordination with local communities and administrators, and to provide food as well as improvements in the school environment and education.

Accountability for resources and for program implementation is a vital component of any food aid program. The monitoring systems for PVO programs are well established and highly effective. Special computer programs are used for tracking and reporting on food distribution, and PVO losses are extremely low. Monitoring program performance is also important and must be tailored for each particular program to show whether the original objectives are being met. Benchmarks are set over the life of the program for measuring program progress and to help determine whether certain elements of the program should be modified. At the end of the program, in addition to PVO reports, independent evaluations can be conducted by the US Government to determine which methods seem to be working well.

In addition, PVO programs are audited according to US Government standards, as required by OMB Circular A-133. Among other things, this audit uses generally accepted auditing practices and requires appropriate oversight of sub-recipients in the target country.

Types of Resources Needed

A school feeding program may require distribution, monetization or a mixture of both. In any case, all programs would require more than just direct distribution of food. Cash will be needed for complementary inputs such as logistics, school supplies, PTA development, health monitoring, teacher training, upgrading schools and teaching materials, medicines and administration. Monetization can pay for some of these things, particularly for the pilot program. However, if the program is extended, additional funding sources would have to be found. Sources may include UN agencies (such as UNICEF for education programs), cash assistance from donor countries, foundations and charitable organizations. PVOs are well positioned to help leverage such assistance.

Potential for Multilateral Cooperation

The structure for multilateral commitments to and cooperation in food aid is the FAC. The objectives of the FAC are to contribute to world food security by making appropriate levels of food aid available on a predictable basis and providing a framework for coordination among member countries, as well as a reporting mechanism to track food aid donations. If the U.S. pilot is successful, the U.S. could seek commitments by other countries through the FAC. An addendum to the FAC could be developed for the Initiative, describing the framework and commitments by each country. Besides a dollar and/or tonnage commitment, each donor could identify the recipient country or countries that it will target.

The FAC is the natural and cost effective choice -

It is cited under the WTO and is internationally recognized as the mechanism for multilateral cooperation in food aid.

It does not require a large bureaucracy and would need only minimal additional outlays for administration, allowing nearly all of the food and funds to go directly to programs.

Each donor country would retain its right to implement the programs under its own laws and may provide food aid bilaterally, through nongovernmental organizations or through international organizations.

It would help make the initiative cost effective, since it does not require setting up a new administrative apparatus.

THE PRESIDENT'S FY 2001 INITIATIVE

The June 23, 2000 White House press release states that $300 million in would be made available through USDA to purchase surplus commodities and to donate them through the Section 416 program for use in school feeding and pre-school programs in poor countries that have or are developing action plans for expanded access to and improved quality of basic education. This is a positive approach, since quality education is essential for improving attendance and learning. It is also appropriate that assistance should target poor communities, since they need outside support in order to organize and to finance schools and school feeding programs.

It will take time for poor countries to take responsibility for operating and financing the program on their own, and for the program's impact to be seen. The time frame will vary country-to-country and is difficult to predict, particularly since there may be setbacks, such as a poor harvest or other crises that make it difficult for the local community or national government to assume responsibility for the program. In poorer communities, it may be necessary to continue assistance for a longer period of time, perhaps 7-10 years, compared to communities that have higher incomes or where the tax base or local charitable giving can support lower-income neighborhoods.

Section 416 is only available when CCC holds surplus stocks. Even though USDA is projecting continued surpluses for the next few years, this does not give assurance that such surpluses will be purchased by USDA and donated under Section 416 after FY 2001. Thus, the FY 2001 program cannot be used to make multi-year commitments to a school feeding initiative and all food must be shipped from the US by December 2001. Great care must be taken so that any distribution of food that occurs through the FY 2001 program is clearly identified as a pilot. Otherwise, the program could unfairly build expectations of continued distributions. Monetization of Section 416 food aid would help, since the generated funds can be used effectively over several years to support improved education.

Monetization - which is the sale of commodities in the recipient or nearby country and the use of the proceeds for local costs - is often used to make food aid programs more effective. The process of determining whether to monetize and then how to monetize is well established by PVOs. The target country is usually a low-income, food-importing country or may be a country facing temporary food shortages and financing problems. Because of hard currency limitations and limited incomes, these countries must make tough decisions about which imports to finance and which domestic programs to support.

Low-income countries have varied and extensive needs, including potable water, sewage systems, irrigation for crops, improved seeds and cultivation, efficient production and marketing for agriculture, schools, teachers and learning resources, health care facilities, medicines and medical equipment, doctors and nurses, telecommunications, basic transportation infrastructure and access to financing for business development. Selling the donated food in the local market helps reduce one of the financial burdens of the country, and produces funds that can be used to support a variety of interventions. In the case of food for education and pre-school child development programs, this would include such things as training teachers, supporting local parent groups, purchasing educational materials and building schools and facilities for meal preparation. Monetized proceeds would also be used to support local transportation, storage, distribution, handling, administrative and monitoring costs.

Before a commodity can be monetized, the PVO analyzes the market and must determine that the sale will not interfere with local production and marketing or commercial imports. A PVO consults with US agricultural groups and USDA during this process, and sometimes a US commodity group provides technical assistance to the PVO in the market analysis and monetization. The commodity chosen is usually one that has limited production in the country and must be imported, and the current import levels of the commodity are insufficient to meet food needs, which can be shown by reviewing the history of imports and use, population growth, nutritional intake data for the country and recent economic changes (such as a drop in hard currency earnings, drought or flooding).

The sales process can be conducted in several ways. One example, which may be best when there are few buyers, is through negotiated sales with potential purchasers. When there are more potential purchasers, an open tender and review of bids can be used. In some cases, PVOs use the monetization process itself to promote private marketing and entrepreneurship, for example, by extending technical assistance to smaller traders so they may participate in the bid process.

FUTURE CONSIDERATIONS

The one-year pilot program announced by the President can be used to implement several different school feeding approaches in a variety of countries. One year is not sufficient for having a long-term impact, but through monetization program proceeds can be used over several years to expand and to enhance educational and community participation elements of the program.

We would encourage continued commitments of Section 416 commodities to these programs as long as feasible. However, surpluses are not a reliable source of commodities. Long-term commitments will be necessary to be sure school feeding programs take root and show results. Therefore, when Congress considers legislation reauthorizing food aid programs, expanding commitments under P.L. 480 Title II and Food for Progress programs could be one way to expand multi-year child development programs.

Mr. Chairman, thank you for this opportunity to testify. I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have.

1. ¹ The members are Adventist Development & Relief Agency International, Africare, ACDI/VOCA, CARE, Catholic Relief Services, Food for the Hungry International, International Relief & Development, OIC International, Save the Children, TechnoServe and World Vision, Inc.