Posted:
July 12, 2013
A report from Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction John Sopko dated June 27 criticized the U.S. Agency for International Development's oversight of an overseas agricultural program. The report's findings reflect poorly upon the agency's ability to provide effective management of foreign assistance programs involving local and regional (foreign) purchasing and project work.
Separately, the Obama administration in its fiscal year 2014 budget proposal, is seeking to shift more than $1.4 billion away from the PL-480 Food for Peace program in the Department of Agriculture, and would reallocate the funding to the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). USAID has announced its intention to use up to 45 percent of the money for 'local and regional' purchasing of food aid from foreign interests, rather than American farmers and food producers, and to drastically expand the agency's cash-based assistance account. USAID has stated its intention to use only 55 percent of the Food for Peace funding to purchase food aid domestically for shipment overseas.
In August 2011, USAID awarded a nearly $70 million cooperative agreement to International Relief and Development, Inc. (IRD) to implement the Southern Regional Agricultural Development (S-RAD) program in Afghanistan, which is now concluded.
According to the report of the special inspector general, the examination of S-RAD was initiated based on a series of complaints alleging instances of fraud, waste and mismanagement associated with project activities. Following several pages of detailed findings, the report concluded: "In the absence of effective oversight from USAID, IRD made programmatic decisions that led to both waste and mismanagement of resources under the S-RAD program. Robust oversight by funding agencies - in this case USAID, is the first line of defense when U.S. government dollars are on the line. In environments such as Afghanistan, strong oversight is especially important. However, in the case of the S-RAD program, USAID did not exercise oversight as effectively as it could and should have. As a result, equipment was purchased that may be left unused or stolen; inflated prices for agricultural products were potentially paid; and unnecessary costs for storing, disassembling, and distributing unneeded pumps were incurred."
The report of the special inspector general highlights the significance of a statement made by American Maritime Officers National President Tom Bethel in a recent letter to the editor sent to The New York Times: "PL-480 works as intended by guaranteeing that hungry people the world over get the food they need so desperately. By contrast, the radical restructuring of food aid proposed by the President and the Times would guarantee only doubt - about the safety of food obtained from overseas sources, about the quality and consistency of delivery systems, and about transparency and accountability. It would also cede control of important U.S. spending to private charities that sometimes appear more interested in greater international political influence than in famine relief worldwide."
The report is available online.
Report indicates potential pitfalls of restructuring PL-480 Food for Peace
A report from Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction John Sopko dated June 27 criticized the U.S. Agency for International Development's oversight of an overseas agricultural program. The report's findings reflect poorly upon the agency's ability to provide effective management of foreign assistance programs involving local and regional (foreign) purchasing and project work.
Separately, the Obama administration in its fiscal year 2014 budget proposal, is seeking to shift more than $1.4 billion away from the PL-480 Food for Peace program in the Department of Agriculture, and would reallocate the funding to the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). USAID has announced its intention to use up to 45 percent of the money for 'local and regional' purchasing of food aid from foreign interests, rather than American farmers and food producers, and to drastically expand the agency's cash-based assistance account. USAID has stated its intention to use only 55 percent of the Food for Peace funding to purchase food aid domestically for shipment overseas.
In August 2011, USAID awarded a nearly $70 million cooperative agreement to International Relief and Development, Inc. (IRD) to implement the Southern Regional Agricultural Development (S-RAD) program in Afghanistan, which is now concluded.
According to the report of the special inspector general, the examination of S-RAD was initiated based on a series of complaints alleging instances of fraud, waste and mismanagement associated with project activities. Following several pages of detailed findings, the report concluded: "In the absence of effective oversight from USAID, IRD made programmatic decisions that led to both waste and mismanagement of resources under the S-RAD program. Robust oversight by funding agencies - in this case USAID, is the first line of defense when U.S. government dollars are on the line. In environments such as Afghanistan, strong oversight is especially important. However, in the case of the S-RAD program, USAID did not exercise oversight as effectively as it could and should have. As a result, equipment was purchased that may be left unused or stolen; inflated prices for agricultural products were potentially paid; and unnecessary costs for storing, disassembling, and distributing unneeded pumps were incurred."
The report of the special inspector general highlights the significance of a statement made by American Maritime Officers National President Tom Bethel in a recent letter to the editor sent to The New York Times: "PL-480 works as intended by guaranteeing that hungry people the world over get the food they need so desperately. By contrast, the radical restructuring of food aid proposed by the President and the Times would guarantee only doubt - about the safety of food obtained from overseas sources, about the quality and consistency of delivery systems, and about transparency and accountability. It would also cede control of important U.S. spending to private charities that sometimes appear more interested in greater international political influence than in famine relief worldwide."
The report is available online.