U.S. Vs. Canadian Food Aid: Which Does Better?

by Te-Ping Chen · 2010-03-10 14:18:00 UTC
Topics:

When it comes to foreign aid, the U.S. and Canada have long indulged in a degree of neighborly competition over who's more generous. It all depends on what you measure, of course, but at least on one metric -- flexibility of aid -- Canucks are racing determinedly ahead.

To me, it's always been one of the more astounding aid-related statistics out there: Out of the $2 billion the U.S. annually spends on food aid, only one-third of it actually goes to buy food. That's because the U.S. government not only requires that almost all of its food aid be purchased principally from U.S. farmers -- it also requires that 75% of donations get transported on U.S.-registered ships, a stipulation that sends transport costs flying.

The grinding inefficiencies in the system make it a total farce -- which is why in 2007, the massive charity group CARE decided to turn down a whopping $45 million in food aid from the U.S. government. The agency didn't want to take part in an exchange designed to boost U.S. producers' profits at the expense of local farmers, whose are in turn undermined by the influx of heavily subsidized U.S. crops (see also under "H," Haiti).

The U.S. is virtually alone in its stubborn insistence on diverting most of its food aid funding through domestic producers. The World Food Program, for example, purchases its food aid locally or regionally. (Not surprisingly, in-kind U.S. food aid costs, on average, 34% more than that sourced by the WFP.) Likewise in the EU, the amount of budgeted food aid reserved for the purchase of EU-grown crops is limited to some 10%.

During the last round of the Farm Bill's reauthorization, Congress swung and missed a chance to amend the system, freeing up a scant $60 million for more flexible purchases. Disappointingly during the 2008 primary, both Clinton and Obama -- loath to alienate voters in corn states like Iowa -- demurred on the need for further reform. (By contrast, Bush explicitly advocated the case.) Meanwhile at the same time, Canada was announcing its plans to untie all aid from Canadian producers, pledging to make that transition complete by 2012-2013.

Congrats to Canadian NGOs who lobbied for -- and secured -- the change, and this week received a well-deserved honorable mention in AidWatch's roundup of the best and worst in development aid. Meanwhile, the U.S. has plenty to learn: not only from its Canadian neighbor, but from most of the developed, aid-giving world.

Photo Credit: Rodrigo Linfati

Te-Ping Chen Te-Ping Chen is a freelance writer and U.S. Truman Scholar whose writing has appeared in the Nation Magazine, the South China Morning Post magazine, Le Soir, and Slate.com.
PREVIOUS STORY:
Missile Shields are Going Up Behind Our Back(yard)
NEXT STORY:
Campaign about Apple Factories in China Gains Wide and Diverse Support

COMMENTS (4)

    Comment Policy

    · All fields are required to comment.

    [X]

    Comments on Change.org are meant for further exploration and evaluation of the campaign on Change.org. To that end, we welcome constructive comments. However, we reserve the right to delete comments which, as determined solely in our discretion: (1) are offensive, abusive, or off-topic; (2) include content solely intended to personally attack the campaign creator, (3) are designed to subvert or hijack comment threads rather than contribute to them; and/or (4) violate our terms of service and/or privacy policy. Repeat offenders may be permanently removed from the site at our discretion. Please also be advised that: (A) we do not actively curate and/or monitor in any manner whatsoever the comments made on the Change.org platform, and (B) the creator of each campaign on Change.org may remove any comment at her/his/its discretion.