COVID-19 and Global Food Security: Issues for Congress

COVID-19 and Global Food Security: Issues for Congress

June 15, 2020
COVID-19 and Global Food Security: Issues for Congress
Some Members of Congress have demonstrated an ongoing
economies. As incomes decline, remittances, a key source
interest in global food security, including how the
of income for many poor households in some countries, are
Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic may
also expected to fall. Increased health care and sanitation
affect global food security needs in 2020. Some
costs related to COVID-19 may further strain household
policymakers are examining whether existing U.S. global
food budgets. Displaced populations and populations in
food security programs are sufficient to meet potentially
conflict areas that were already struggling to access food
increased needs. They are also considering what legislative
before COVID-19 will be more vulnerable to supply chain
changes, if any, might help address the emerging global
disruptions and movement restrictions. Experts anticipate
food assistance challenges caused by COVID-19.
that these and other factors will negatively affect the ability
of many households to afford food, driving up acute food
Global Food Security Outlook
insecurity in 2020.
Food security generally refers to individuals’ ability to
access food that meets their food preferences and dietary
Country and Multilateral Responses
needs to lead a safe and healthy life. Global food security
Some foreign governments and multilateral institutions are
worsened in 2019, according to the Global Network
providing financial or other assistance to mitigate the food
Against Food Crises and Food Security Information
insecurity impacts of COVID-19. For example, some
Network’s Global Report on Food Crises 2020, which
governments, such as those of Ethiopia, Kyrgyzstan, and
relied on data collected prior to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Nigeria, have instituted cash transfer and food aid programs
The estimated number of acutely food-insecure people
for their citizens. In addition, the World Bank and WFP are
totaled 135 million in 2019, an increase of 22 million from
providing cash transfers and food aid to vulnerable
2018. (Acute food insecurity occurs when food deficits
populations. WFP has also transitioned many of its school
immediately endanger individuals’ lives or livelihoods.)
meal programs to provide take home rations, and it is
This deterioration reflects continued widespread conflict
reinforcing its stocks of pre-positioned food at storage hubs
and health crises, and an increase in severe natural disasters
around the world to prepare for a potential need to further
like drought, hurricanes, and pest infestations. In addition to
scale up food aid.
the acutely food insecure, the United Nations (U.N.) Food
and Agriculture Organization (FAO) estimated that millions
U.S. Policy
more experienced hunger, including chronic food
Congress funds a range of international food assistance
insecurity, undernutrition, and malnutrition (821 million
programs that may be used to address global food security
people experienced hunger in 2018; complete data for 2019
needs through annual Agriculture and Department of State,
are not yet available).
Foreign Operations, and Related Programs appropriations.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the U.S.
Effects of COVID-19
Agency for International Development (USAID) implement
Research suggests the COVID-19 pandemic is worsening
international food assistance programs. USAID provides
the lack of consistent access to enough food both in already
emergency food assistance through the Food for Peace Title
vulnerable populations and in previously food secure
II Program (Title II) and the Emergency Food Security
populations. The U.N. World Food Program (WFP)
Program (EFSP). USDA administers the Bill Emerson
estimates that up to 265 million people may face acute food
Humanitarian Trust (BEHT), a reserve of funds that can
insecurity by the end of 2020, a 96% increase from its 2019
supplement emergency assistance in years with
estimate. Research suggests that COVID-19 is constraining
unanticipated food assistance needs. USDA also
access to food for some populations, primarily through
administers nonemergency food assistance through the
supply chain disruptions and declining household
McGovern-Dole Food for Education and Child Nutrition
purchasing power. The FAO projects that global supplies of
(McGovern-Dole), and Food for Progress (FFPr) programs.
staple commodities, such as wheat and rice, will remain
In FY2020, Congress provided more than $4 billion for
stable. However, social distancing and movement
these and other related food assistance programs, compared
restrictions have resulted in supply chain disruptions, such
with $4.6 billion in FY2019. (For an overview of U.S.
as delays at ports and border crossings, and migrant
international food assistance programs, see CRS Report
workers being unable to travel for harvesting and food-
R45422, U.S. International Food Assistance: An Overview.)
processing work. Commodities such as fruits, vegetables,
Both USAID and USDA have sought to adapt their
and fish are more perishable and labor-intensive than staple
international food assistance programs in response to
commodities, and thus more susceptible to transportation
growing food insecurity amidst COVID-19. USAID has
and labor force disruptions.
targeted its emergency food assistance not only to countries
COVID-19 is also causing widespread job and income
already receiving food assistance that saw their needs
losses, largely due to movement restrictions and slowing
increase, but also countries that previously did not receive
https://crsreports.congress.gov

COVID-19 and Global Food Security: Issues for Congress
U.S. food assistance but developed food security needs as a
202(e) costs risk exceeding the 20% cap, USAID may need
result of the pandemic. USAID is also modifying existing
to either reject the project modifications or decrease the
development programs to address longer-term food needs
overall amount of Title II assistance.
primarily through agricultural development and livelihood
To address this challenge, some in the food aid community
programs. For example, according to USAID, the agency’s
have advocated for Congress to lift the 20% cap on Section
Fish Right program in the Philippines, which predominantly
202(e). This has prompted considerable debate. Advocates
focuses on biodiversity and marine conservation, launched
of lifting the cap assert that the funds are necessary to
an online platform in an effort to safely connect fisherfolk
safely program Title II commodities during the pandemic;
with consumers during COVID-19 movement restrictions
opponents have expressed concern that lifting the caps
and to help “protect fisherfolk income and prevent a food
crisis.”
could reduce the portion of Title II funds used to purchase

commodities, to the detriment of U.S. farmers.
USDA has also sought to adapt its programming due to
Potential Increase in EFSP Funds
COVID-19. For example, in the wake of school closures
Some Members and stakeholders have advocated for
due to COVID-19, some McGovern-Dole projects have
increased funds for EFSP, arguing that its market-based
pivoted from providing school meals to providing take-
interventions offer more flexibility than in-kind aid through
home rations. FFPr provides in-kind food assistance—U.S.
Title II or BEHT and would be particularly helpful in
food shipped to the recipient country—and technical
adapting to COVID-19-related challenges (e.g., a mobile
assistance to local farmers. In April 2020, USDA published
cash transfer for food means that an individual would not
notices of supplemental funding opportunities for
need to interact with another to receive assistance). Others
McGovern-Dole and FFPr in response to reports of
suggest that there are situations in which in-kind food
increased transportation or distribution costs due to
assistance remains the most appropriate intervention,
COVID-19-related movement restrictions.
particularly in areas in which food is sparse. Further,
Selected Issues for Congress
International Disaster Assistance (IDA), the account
through which Congress funds EFSP, also provides for
Over the years, Congress has granted USDA and USAID
nonfood assistance, such as hygiene and medical supplies.
increased programming flexibilities in response to changing
Some assert that directing more funds toward EFSP would
global needs and to agencies’ advocacy for a “right tool,
right time”
reduce available IDA funding for necessary health supplies.
approach. These include the limited use of
market-based approaches (e.g., cash transfers for food, food
As of this writing, two COVID-19 supplemental acts, P.L.
vouchers, and locally and regionally procured food [LRP])
116-123 and P.L. 116-136, provided a combined $558
in Title II, the establishment and expansion of the market-
million for IDA. USAID has indicated that $100 million
based EFSP, and the use of LRP in McGovern-Dole.
will be used for EFSP and the remainder will fund nonfood
However, COVID-19 presents a unique set of challenges,
assistance, such as hygiene and medical supplies.
particularly those related to the distribution of food
Possible Use of Reserve Funds
assistance. For example, in-kind food aid requires
distribution sites, which can become overcrowded and
Some stakeholders have suggested using BEHT to bolster
potentially increase the risk of spreading COVID-19 among
U.S. international food assistance in the wake of COVID-
beneficiaries. As Congress considers increasing funds for
19. BEHT funds are subject to the same constraints on
food aid programs, Members may explore whether or not
associated costs as Title II. While BEHT would allow for
existing programs have the authorities to meet current needs
providing additional in-kind assistance, the program would
while addressing COVID-19-related challenges.
face the same associated cost challenges as Title II.
FFP Title II Funding Structure
Currently, Congress has authorized BEHT to finance only
To address the anticipated global food crisis, and to support
standalone in-kind assistance projects. BEHT funds cannot
U.S. farmers, some in Congress have considered providing
be used to cover increased associated costs for projects
supplemental funding for Title II. When programming Title
funded under other food assistance programs, such as Title
II commodities, USAID partly relies on funding for
II. However, some in Congress have considered amending
associated costs authorized in Section 202(e) of the Food
BEHT authorities to allow funds to be used for the
for Peace Act, as amended (7 U.S.C. §1722(e)). Section
associated costs of existing Title II projects. This could
202(e) states that not less than 7.5% and not more than 20%
allow USAID to cover additional Title II costs without
of Title II funds shall be made available for certain
requiring increased flexibilities in the Title II program (such
associated costs. Examples of these costs include staff
as increasing the Section 202(e) cap). The potential impact
salaries, milling or fortifying commodities, and distribution
of this change on the total amount of in-kind food
site maintenance.
assistance is difficult to estimate. Less BEHT funding
might be used to purchase commodities. However, using
The Section 202(e) statutory cap may present a challenge
BEHT to cover some Title II associated costs would allow
to, and possibly prevent, the purchase and programming of
USAID to purchase more commodities under Title II.
Title II commodities. Some organizations implementing
Title II projects have reported increased associated costs
Alyssa R. Casey, Analyst in Agricultural Policy
due to COVID-19-related project modifications (e.g.,
Emily M. Morgenstern, Analyst in Foreign Assistance and
additional food distribution sites to reduce crowding and/or
Foreign Policy
adding soap and other hygiene materials to food baskets).
These modifications, which would increase Section 202(e)
IF11575
costs, have presented a challenge to USAID. If Section
https://crsreports.congress.gov

COVID-19 and Global Food Security: Issues for Congress

Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan shared staff to
congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and under the direction of Congress.
Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public understanding of information that has
been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the
United States Government, are not subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be
reproduced and distributed in its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include
copyrighted images or material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you
wish to copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

https://crsreports.congress.gov | IF11575 · VERSION 1 · NEW