Comments on: High Food Prices: An Opportunity for the WFP http://www.planetd.org/2008/05/23/high-food-prices-opportunity-for-the-wfp/ Critiquing the Politics, Policy & Practice of Development Tue, 07 Feb 2012 20:08:50 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Revisiting WFP’s Purchase for Progress | The Discomfort Zone http://www.planetd.org/2008/05/23/high-food-prices-opportunity-for-the-wfp/comment-page-1/#comment-116087 Revisiting WFP’s Purchase for Progress | The Discomfort Zone Wed, 12 Nov 2008 10:52:39 +0000 http://www.planetd.org/?p=394#comment-116087 [...] the Purchase 4 Progress program was announced, I was excited. Yet, a recent post on CGDev forces me to temper my [...] [...] the Purchase 4 Progress program was announced, I was excited. Yet, a recent post on CGDev forces me to temper my [...]

]]> By: The Discomfort Zone | WFP’s Purchase for Progress: How Far Should It Go? http://www.planetd.org/2008/05/23/high-food-prices-opportunity-for-the-wfp/comment-page-1/#comment-115465 The Discomfort Zone | WFP’s Purchase for Progress: How Far Should It Go? Fri, 17 Oct 2008 13:59:44 +0000 http://www.planetd.org/?p=394#comment-115465 [...] had previously argued that this program, that bypasses traditionally inefficient and government controlled food markets, [...] [...] had previously argued that this program, that bypasses traditionally inefficient and government controlled food markets, [...]

]]> By: Natasha http://www.planetd.org/2008/05/23/high-food-prices-opportunity-for-the-wfp/comment-page-1/#comment-111290 Natasha Tue, 10 Jun 2008 11:54:23 +0000 http://www.planetd.org/?p=394#comment-111290 D, thanks for writing about this, - my comments: 1) "The WFP cannot address the problem by throwing more money at it " As of now, WFP is not exactly trying to address the problem of high food prices at a policy level. WFP appeals are saying: the food that we buy for hungry people costs us more now than before, therefore we are asking donors for more money to buy that food. In addition, more poor people can't afford food anymore and thus they fall under WFP's mandate - therefore we are asking donors for more money to buy the food for those additional people that previously did not need WFP assistance. Arguably, in the short term, giving more money to WFP will hopefully solve at least the immediate hunger problem -- regardless of which part of the value chain needs fixing, the people at the end of it are hungry and need food now. 2) The $1.2 billion WFP is criticized as holding (or withholding) is a normal cash balance that any organization, as a going concern, needs to have. Management of cash balances aside, the vast majority of donor funds are earmarked for specific projects or countries where they inevitably end up going, regardless of balance sheet accounting. 3) P4P is a great programme with long-term potential. Unfortunately, it also costs much more to set up and develop (in management costs) than a "normal" WFP operation. Capacity building is a long term process with management intensive inputs and mixed and often delayed outputs, the 7% overhead rate applied to WFP food projects is hardly sufficient to fund this effort. Donors need to be aware of this. D, thanks for writing about this, – my comments:

1) “The WFP cannot address the problem by throwing more money at it ” As of now, WFP is not exactly trying to address the problem of high food prices at a policy level. WFP appeals are saying: the food that we buy for hungry people costs us more now than before, therefore we are asking donors for more money to buy that food. In addition, more poor people can’t afford food anymore and thus they fall under WFP’s mandate – therefore we are asking donors for more money to buy the food for those additional people that previously did not need WFP assistance. Arguably, in the short term, giving more money to WFP will hopefully solve at least the immediate hunger problem — regardless of which part of the value chain needs fixing, the people at the end of it are hungry and need food now.

2) The $1.2 billion WFP is criticized as holding (or withholding) is a normal cash balance that any organization, as a going concern, needs to have. Management of cash balances aside, the vast majority of donor funds are earmarked for specific projects or countries where they inevitably end up going, regardless of balance sheet accounting.

3) P4P is a great programme with long-term potential. Unfortunately, it also costs much more to set up and develop (in management costs) than a “normal” WFP operation. Capacity building is a long term process with management intensive inputs and mixed and often delayed outputs, the 7% overhead rate applied to WFP food projects is hardly sufficient to fund this effort. Donors need to be aware of this.

]]>