مبادلات یا هم افزایی؟ ارزیابی تدارکات مواد کمک رسانی محلی و منطقه از طریق مطالعات موردی در بورکینافاسو و گواتمالا

We compare the impacts across a range of criteria of local and regional procurement (LRP) relative to transoceanic shipment of food aid in Burkina Faso and Guatemala. We find that neither instrument dominates the other across all criteria in either country, although LRP commonly performs at least as well as transoceanic shipment with respect to timeliness, cost, market price impacts, satisfying recipients’ preferences, food quality and safety, and in benefiting smallholder suppliers. LRP is plainly a valuable food assistance tool, but its advantages and disadvantages must be carefully weighed, compared, and prioritized depending on the context and program objectives.

Despite the increased use of local and regional procurement (LRP) of food aid, there remain notable gaps in rigorous evidence of their benefits and drawbacks relative to transoceanic food aid delivery. As discussed in Lentz, Passarelli, and Barrett (2013), new cross-country evidence suggests that LRP, whether in-kind or through cash or vouchers, routinely accelerates delivery and often reduces costs. Violette et al. (2013) confirm prior claims that recipients generally prefer foods procured locally over transoceanic food aid. In response to concerns that the demand stimulus of LRP may increase prices in procurement regions and thereby potentially harm local consumers, Garg, Barrett, Gómez, Lentz, and Violette (2013) find that in most cases LRP impacts on food price levels and volatility are statistically and/or economically insignificant. There nonetheless remain important and largely unaddressed issues regarding the use of LRP. In particular, the degree to which, and under what conditions, LRP can meet development objectives through improving productivity and market access for smallholder farmers is not well understood. Currently, there is little evidence that confirms or denies the feasibility of working with smallholders or assesses impacts on farmers’ behavior or profitability. Perhaps more importantly, the literature lacks a synthesis across the range of performance criteria and stated objectives of LRP relative to transoceanic food aid delivery. While each individual criterion—timeliness, cost savings, recipient satisfaction, or minimizing price impacts—is important, one must consider also the possibility of tradeoffs and/or synergies among criteria. In certain circumstances LRP may perform better with respect to one criterion but not to another— for example, providing food more quickly than transoceanic aid but at a higher cost—necessitating agencies to prioritize among objectives. On the other hand, some objectives might be synergistic, such as if lower cost local foods are preferred by recipients, and/or local purchase benefits smallholder farmers. This paper helps fill these gaps by evaluating the performance of two specific LRP programs, an emergency relief program in Guatemala and a non-emergency school feeding program in Burkina Faso. We first describe the context and programs in each country. We then very briefly review the relevant findings for those cases reported in more detail in Lentz et al., 2013, Violette et al., 2013 and Garg et al., 2013 regarding the programs’ timeliness and cost savings, recipient satisfaction, and price impacts, respectively, adding contextual nuance to those analyses. Finally, we discuss the benefits and drawbacks of working with smallholder LRP suppliers in each country. Overall, the two cases provide evidence not only that LRP offers a valuable tool for food assistance policy, but equally that whether or not LRP is good policy depends on the program objectives (e.g., cost savings, time to delivery, benefits for recipients or suppliers) and the country and context, as there may be tradeoffs and synergies among the multiple criteria. Consequently, there is no one-size-fits-all best approach to sourcing food aid.

Prior papers in this special section have demonstrated precisely how each criterion of evaluation depends on context. Even when and where LRP has distinct advantages relative to transoceanic shipment (such as in time savings), the degree of that advantage can vary dramatically across countries (from just a few weeks to several months). In turn, criteria by which LRP provides advantages in some contexts, such as cost, may be disadvantageous elsewhere. This study has demonstrated a second important point. Within any given context LRP may perform differently with respect to different criteria. This is true not just for LRP but for all food assistance instruments. Thus, whether LRP, cash, transoceanic food aid, and or vouchers are “good” or “the right” tools for a food assistance program requires prioritization among criteria based on program objectives. Careful ex ante analysis can assist in evaluating context-specific factors that may influence the ability of a food assistance instrument to meet its objectives, such as minimizing harm to markets, reaching people quickly, minimizing costs, or delivering specific nutrient bundles. In Guatemala, for example, our analysis suggests that LRP had advantages with respect to time savings and recipient preferences, but cost more than transoceanic shipment and the attempt to purchase from smallholder suppliers failed. In Burkina Faso, on the other hand, LRP had great advantages with both timeliness and cost, somewhat lesser advantages for recipient preferences, but also led to direct benefits for smallholder suppliers. Table 6 summarizes the LRP experience in these two countries across multiple criteria. Arguably the most important factors to consider in evaluating LRP are the program objectives, which allow weighting among the relative advantages or disadvantages across criteria for the program-specific context. The Guatemala case studied here was an emergency relief program. As such, while savings in time were small relative to Burkina Faso, whatever time savings were achieved had very important implications for recipients urgently in need of food. Given commercial markets’ crucial role as a source of food for most of the drought- and flood-affected target populations, ensuring food assistance did not disrupt those markets was also a high priority. While seeking development benefits for smallholder farmers was also desirable, that clearly had to take lower priority next to meeting recipients’ urgent food needs. In turn, while the local Incaparina cost more than US-sourced CSB, one could argue that the additional fortification of (and local preference for) Incaparina made it worth the extra cost. In other contexts, cost considerations might rather favor transoceanic shipment. The Burkina Faso case was, in contrast, a non-emergency school feeding program. While time savings in Burkina Faso were extreme and local procurement did have better success in meeting the agreed-upon deadline for schools, one could argue that timeliness mattered less, as school feeding is on a schedule that can be set months, even years in advance. In most cases, the delays associated with transoceanic foods can be taken into account and managed appropriately. On the other hand, the cost savings of local foods in this case could be vital—the MYAP ration cost 63% more, so given the program size the same funds could have potentially provided 3 months of daily rations for nearly 20,000 more children if commodities had been bought locally. Furthermore, given the ability to plan in advance and the feasibility of providing local foods where optimal, it may be possible to prioritize supporting smallholder suppliers. In the case of cowpeas in Burkina Faso, the PVO had time and skills to identify and build the trust of smallholder FBOs. Benefiting suppliers additionally generated multiplier effects for the program’s objectives, in that these suppliers were the parents and families of the same children receiving the foods. One such supplier, when asked for his thoughts on the program, quoted a local proverb: “It is the smart child who when at market buys his beignets from his own mother.” These cases taken together provide firm evidence that LRP offers many advantages that merit inclusion in the food assistance policy toolkit. But we reiterate that the specific context and priorities of each program shape the choice of whether LRP or other food assistance instruments are most appropriate. Local purchases may not be appropriate or feasible in all contexts, and there remain cautions concerning market price impacts, as well as food quality and safety. All of this comparative analysis confirms the need for careful ex-ante analysis and ongoing monitoring and evaluation (Barrett, Bell, Lentz, & Maxwell, 2009). The evidence clearly indicates all the same that there is potential for major timeliness and cost-savings gains as well as benefits to recipients who prefer locally sourced products and even for local suppliers. The prospective synergies and tradeoffs among these various criteria reinforce the need for greater donor flexibility in funding food assistance, as well as for donors, operational agencies, and intended beneficiaries to clearly articulate their priority objectives during the design phase of food assistance programs.