FAC members are divided over how much the treaty ought to be reformed, insiders say. The mix of trade and humanitarian officials at the negotiating table will highlight tensions over what form future aid commitments ought to take.
The European Union increasingly favours providing cash or vouchers for food aid instead of raw product, said Ed Clay, a senior researcher with the Overseas Development Institute, who has been advising the EU presidency on the treaty. Canada has also shown signs of supporting such a shift. This country’s food aid has been “un-tied” since 2008, meaning that the federal government does not insist on making donations in the form of surplus cereals purchased from Canadian farmers.
But the largest contributor to the FAC – the United States – approaches aid quite differently. Almost all of the food aid the United States donates is in the form of actual food grown in the country by U.S. farmers and shipped out. This model and the amount pledged is codified in the national Farm Bill, a piece of trade legislation under the purview of the Department of Agriculture. That department’s foremost concern is the health of U.S. farmers, not international humanitarian assistance. Fulfilling treaty requirements with a currency other than food would amount to significantly higher costs for the United States.
Insiders believe Canada’s chairmanship could help bridge the gulf between the United States and the EU. The precedent they cite is Canada’s successful diplomacy during the mid-decade World Trade Organization talks, which helped to unearth some common ground.
“Canada is well-placed to play that role providing they see that’s what they’re doing, playing the role of honest broker and not appearing to side with one or another party,” Mr. Clay said. “They’ve got to be very careful.”
Still, some experts caution that the shift to cash commitments could inadvertently harm recipient countries. Placing a dollar-value cap on donations would, in volatile markets, download risk to receiving countries who would stand to get less in tough times.
“Pulling away those kinds of interventions at crucial moments has a huge impact globally on development well-being, not to mention the compassionate arguments,” said Jennifer Clapp, a University of Waterloo food-security expert and chair of global environmental governance at the Centre for International Governance Innovation, a non-partisan think-tank.
FAC members set June, 2011, as their deadline for a new treaty. If further negotiations are required, the committee will reconvene in Ottawa next May.
FAC makeup
Who is in:
Canada, United States, the European Union and its member states, Japan, Norway, Switzerland, Australia and Argentina.
Who wants in:
Russia and South Africa; China, Brazil and India have also begun international food aid contributions. Membership in the FAC would give these emerging states a certain geopolitical cache and a bit more clout. Signatories are not likely to consider allowing new members until new terms have been negotiated between existing members.
Who can watch:
Observers occasionally allowed to FAC proceedings include the United Nations’ World Food Program, the largest distributor of international food aid; the United Nations’ Food and Agriculture Organization; the World Trade Organization, the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development and the UN Conference on Trade and Development. A coalition of the largest non-UN food-providing humanitarian organizations, including the Canadian Foodgrains Bank (the second-largest recipient of Canada’s food aid after the WFP), Oxfam and Save the Children has an increasingly healthy dialogue with treaty members outside of proceedings; called the Trans-Atlantic Food Assistance Dialogue, members have aired their wish list for a new treaty to signatories. But they won’t be sitting around the table to see if their suggestions won traction.
Jessica Leeder
