For this review, we assessed the impact of title I assistance on (1) broad-based, sustainable development in recipient countries and (2) long-term market development for U.S. agricultural goods in those countries. Food security was defined in the 1990 act as “access by all people at all times to sufficient food and nutrition for a healthy and productive life.”
While the 1990 act emphasized food security—an economic development and food assistance issue—it also assigned title I program management responsibilities to USDA, whose international responsibilities are foreign market development for U.S. agricultural goods, rather than to the Agency for International Development (AID), which is an international economic development agency. Although U.S. agricultural products have been exported under the title I program for 40 years, none of the many studies we reviewed has established a link between food aid and long-term commercial market share for U.S. agricultural products. However, the link between title I, economic development, and subsequent market development is tenuous. 3.2). The act clarified program management responsibility by assigning title I to USDA and titles II and III to AID. 480 funds between the title I and title III programs. Competing Objectives Hinder Development of an Effective Program Strategy

The objectives of the P.L. We found that the primary way in which title I can contribute to sustainable economic development in recipient countries is by helping the country save foreign exchange to invest in projects that promote long-term economic development.
Why GAO Did This Study

Pursuant to a legislative requirement, GAO reviewed the impact of Title I assistance on: (1) sustainable economic development in recipient countries; and (2) long-term market development for U.S. agricultural goods in those countries.

What GAO Found

GAO found that: (1) U.S. agricultural exports and world food aid have decreased because there are other donor countries and new programs such as the Department of Agriculture's (USDA) market development program; (2) title I has had minimal effect on sustainable economic development in recipient countries; (3) the primary way in which title I food aid can contribute to broad-based sustainable development in the recipient country is to give the country the foreign exchange savings it needs to invest in long-term economic development projects; (4) the link between title I and market development is uncertain, since USDA and other agency studies have not shown a link between title I assistance and the establishment of a long-term commercial market share for U.S. agricultural products; (5) price-sensitive exports restrict title I market development opportunities; (6) Title I program management has been streamlined by assigning title I programs to USDA and titles II and III to the Agency for International Development (AID); and (7) while the objectives of P.L. 480 legislation can support U.S. foreign policy and trade interests, they can also impede the development of an effective program strategy.