This file is part of IDEAS, which uses RePEc data


[ Papers | Articles | Software | Books | Chapters | Authors | Institutions | JEL Classification | NEP reports | Search | New papers by email | Author registration | Rankings | Volunteers | FAQ | Blog | Help! ]

Renegotiating the Food Aid Convention: Background, context, and issues

Author info | Abstract | Publisher info | Download info | Related research | Statistics
Author Info
Hoddinott, John
Cohen, Marc J.
Abstract

"The current global agreement governing food aid—the Food Aid Convention (FAC)—will expire in 2007. It has come under heavy criticism as has the diffuse set of broader food aid governance institutions that has emerged in the last 50 years. These institutions are characterized by overlapping mandates, differing degrees of authority and legitimacy, varied levels of transparency in decisionmaking, and problematic representation of the major stakeholders. A number of issues are likely to arise during the course of negotiations over a new FAC. These include its objectives; the nature of commitments—whether to express them in tonnage, value, or nutritional terms; the level of commitments and their distribution among donor countries; monitoring and enforcement of commitments; representation on the FAC governing body among food aid donor- and recipient-country governments and civil society organizations; and the institutional “home” of the FAC. More specifically, there is debate over such questions as whether the new FAC should have an “instrument focus”—food aid—or a “problem focus” such as “food security” or “hunger.” If the focus is on addressing hunger, should food aid under the FAC be restricted to emergencies only or should it pertain to broader food security issues? Should the FAC be a low-key forum for exchange of information or should it have some meaningful ways of monitoring commitments and encouraging compliance by both donors and recipients? Debates such as these will reflect views on the purposes of food aid itself. Conversely, debates regarding these broader questions carry consequences for the formation of views on the issues involved in the FAC negotiations. This paper's purpose is solely to outline issues and options; hence it does not advocate for particular positions." Authors' Abstract

Download Info
To download:

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. Information about this may be contained in the File-Format links below. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help file. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL: http://www.ifpri.org/pubs/dp/IFPRIDP00690.pdf
File Format: application/pdf
File Function:
Download Restriction: no

Publisher Info
Paper provided by International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) in its series IFPRI Discussion Papers with number 690.

Download reference. The following formats are available: HTML, plain text, BibTeX, RIS (EndNote), ReDIF
Length:
Date of creation: 2007
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:fpr:ifprid:690

Contact details of provider:
Postal: 2033 K Street, NW, Washington, DC 20006
Phone: 202-862-5600
Fax: 202-467-4439
Email:
Web page: http://www.ifpri.org/
More information through EDIRC

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its listing, contact: ().

Related research
Keywords: Food aid International agreements International organizations Humanitarian assistance Human rights Local purchase Triangular transaction Development assistance Trade agreements Grain trade Code of conduct Needs assessment

This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

Statistics
Access and download statistics

Did you know? IDEAS was sponsored from 1997 to 2002 by the Université du Québec à Montréal.

This page was last updated on 2008-8-18.


This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Department of Economics, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, University of Connecticut using RePEc data on a server sponsored by the Society for Economic Dynamics.