Tag: DRC

New Food for Peace (FFP) Action by the U.S. Department of Agriculture

May 24, 2026    BACKGROUND: The primary way that the United States government, working with nonprofits, has fought hunger and malnutrition around the world has been through the U.S. Food for Peace program (originally Public Law 480, or PL 480), which began in 1954 and was expanded by President Kennedy in 1961, at which time it took on the name Food for Peace (FFP). Over seven decades, it has reached roughly 4 billion people in 150 countries through a mix of emergency relief and longer‑term development projects. Annual funding has typically ranged from $1.2–2 billion in recent years for the core Title II program (the main grant‑based humanitarian component), though overall international food assistance outlays have averaged $2–2.6 billion, fluctuating with global needs.

The structure and flow of resources for FFP begin with Congress, where appropriations come through agriculture and foreign operations bills. In its early history, most FFP aid went to “development,” but over time the balance has shifted toward emergencies. The main food commodities provided by the United States have been wheat, rice, sorghum, corn‑soy blends, beans, peas, lentils, vegetable oil, and ready‑to‑use supplemental foods. These are purchased competitively from U.S. farmers and producers and often bagged on ocean freighters bound for Africa, Asia, Latin America, and the Middle East.

RECENT ADMINISRATIVE SHIFTS:   After the Trump Administration dissolved USAID in 2025, FFP planning and administration moved temporarily to the State Department and then, in late 2025, to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, with a strong “America First” focus on buying American‑grown foods. In December 2025, USDA and the U.S. Department of State signed an interagency agreement for USDA to take over FFP. USDA has long supervised other in‑kind international food aid programs, including the school‑feeding‑focused McGovern‑Dole Food for Education and the development‑focused Food for Progress (FFPr) programs, each delivered via partnerships with NGOs and the U.N. World Food Programme.

For many months it had been unclear how USDA would redesign FFP, how it would work with other organizations to deliver aid, and where. Then, in early May 2026, USDA announced a $350 million allocation of foods to WFP. In response, U.S. Wheat Associates announced that it “welcomes the announcement of the award of 20,000 metric tons (MT) (735,000 bushels) for emergency feeding programs under the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) administration of the FFP program.”

NEW OFFERINGS

The new May 2026 Notice of Funding Opportunities published by USDA for NGO proposals sets out three reforms USDA has applied to the inherited portfolio:

  • *-100% U.S. origin for every commodity procured.
  • *-Strict traceability of every taxpayer dollar to guard against fraud, waste, and diversion.
  • *-“Offboarding and graduating” criteria, so that Title II funding “prioritizes emergency and in‑need geographies rather than forever‑aid countries.”

At present, the geographic scope has narrowed. NGO applications can only be submitted for seven countries: Democratic Republic of the Congo, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Guatemala, Haiti, Kenya, and Rwanda—a notable contraction from the broader Title II caseload USAID historically managed. Award sizes range from $20 million to $200 million, with USDA anticipating seven to fourteen awards out of $357 million in available federal funding, and a performance period of 18 to 24 months. The application submission deadline is June 12, 2026. Eligible applicants include public or private organizations, including intergovernmental organizations, language that explicitly keeps WFP and similar multilateral partners involved, while foreign governments are excluded.

With the large‑scale defunding of U.S. NGOs and other aid partners in 2025, intense competition for these new FFP program awards is expected.  NGOs such as CARE, CRS, World Vision, Mercy Corps, Save the Children and Action Against Hunger are expected to be seeking FFP grants.

At the same time, USDA is layering the program on top of its existing Food for Progress (FFPr) framework. Separate from Title II FFP, the new FY26 Food for Progress solicitation to NGOs—released last week, closing July 6, 2026, with awards expected by late September—makes up to $226 million available across seven countries: Bangladesh, Bolivia, Ecuador, Morocco, Philippines, Sri Lanka, and Thailand, with awards of $28–35 million over four‑to‑five‑year performance periods. Food for Progress operates on a monetization model authorized under the Food Security Act of 1985 (7 U.S.C. § 1736o) in which the USDA buys U.S. commodities domestically and ships them overseas, the NGO sells them in emerging markets, and the NGO uses the proceeds to fund agricultural development.  Monetization used to be standard as well for FFP programs particularly in the 1990s.

Both of these competitions for bids are concurrent with USDA funding opportunities for school feeding (McGovern‑Dole).

See also:  USDA:  https://www.fas.usda.gov/programs/food-peace

https://alliancetoendhunger.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/FINAL-FY27-ATEH-Senate-Agriculture-Appropriations-Letter-1.pdf

and:  https://www.devex.com/news/house-locks-food-for-peace-into-usda-with-50-commodity-requirement-112420

A primer from the Congressional Research Service here

Action Against Hunger 10 Global Hunger Hot Spots

May 6, 2026    This year, as in the past, the international aid agency “Action Against Hunger” (also known as ACF, or Action Contre la Faim) released their annual hunger report, titled “10 Global Hunger Hot Spots.”  This year the report describes a compound crisis model as causing hunger.  The compound crises are: conflict, displacement, climate shocks, inflation, market collapse, disease, and weak public institutions all stack on top of each other. Its real message is that famine is rarely just about food.  Rather, hunger is usually the endpoint of different social and economic crises.

Action Against Hunger estimates that 30 million children are acutely malnourished today, including about 8.5 million severely malnourished children, and at least 13 million pregnant or breastfeeding women are malnourished. That makes this as much a maternal-and-child survival crisis as a food-security crisis.

The report also makes an unusually strong argument that humanitarian access and humanitarian financing are now central determinants of mortality.

The report seeks to quantify the impact of global reducations in aid during the last year in various ways.  It highlights the 65% funding shortfall for hunger-related humanitarian programming and notes that the United States announced an 83% cut to humanitarian support, alongside cuts by several European donors. it explains the cascading effects of these cut-backs (e.g., 300+ nutrition centers closed in Afghanistan).  It cites the  Lancet-linked estimate that USAID-funded programs saved over 90 million lives over 20 years, warning that sustaining cuts through 2030 could lead to 14 million preventable deaths, including 4.5 million children under five. That is one of the report’s most consequential arguments.

It recommends:

  1.  Ensure full and safe humanitarian access of aid to needy people, and prevent the use of hunger as a weapon of war;
  2.  Integrate climate and food security: 3. Focus on women and children.
  3.  Donor funds should be addequate, flexible and multi-sectoral
  4.  Support local and inclusive solutions
  5.  Strengthen prevention: Every strategy should include nutrition, food security, and access to basic health services, aiming to prevent hunger rather than just manage it.
  6.  Uphold adequate nutrition as a fundamental human right,
    ensuring that the right to food is respected and protecte

According to ACF, the top ten countries today in terms of total numbers of  people in acute food insecurity (at risk of hunger) are:

    • → Nigeria: 31.8 million:  “The nutritional crises are exacerbated by prolonged conflicts in the northeast of the country (Boko Haram and ISWAP), which make large areas virtually inaccessible to relief and food supplies, creating a vicious cycle of food insecurity and malnutrition.”
    • →  Sudan: 25.6 million:  “Sudan is facing the world’s most severe food and displacement crisis, but the scale of the suffering remains underestimated and underfunded.”
    • → The DRC: 25.6 million:  “This is not just a matter of a lack of funds: it is a matter of life and death.”
    • → Bangladesh: 23.6 million:  “Bangladesh faces recurring extreme weather events, demographic pressures, economic instability, and vulnerability of urban and rural infrastructure.”
    • → Ethiopia: 22 million
    • → Yemen: 16.7 million
    • → Afghanistan: 15.8 million
    • → Myanmar: 14.4 million
    • → Pakistan: 11.8 million
    • → Syria: 9.2 million

The report includes the map at right showing the countries where ACF, seen here.:

To assist journalists and researchers, the report has chapters by country. The country-specific “Inside Look” sections (written by Action Against Hunger directors) provide expert analysis on barriers like bureaucratic delays (Sudan), siege conditions (Gaza), or climate adaptation (Bangladesh).

For example:  “South Sudan continues to experience levels of malnutrition that reach emergency thresholds, with a steady downward trend each year. Local communities face multiple and interconnected crises, including the collapse of basic services, recurrent displacement due to conflict and flooding, and widespread food insecurity caused by climate shocks and economic
instability. In this context, the difficulties for humanitarian organizations are
multiplying…”

These chapters combine direct stories from affected communities (e.g., Zuwaira in Nigeria, Yasir in Sudan, Fatima in Afghanistan) and operational insights from Action Against Hunger’s country directors. These add emotional depth and ground-level reality to the statistics.

At the same time, the chapters include technical indicators such as population estimates, HDI rank, internally displaced persons, refugees, people in need, Humanitarian Response Plan funding requirements, HRP funding gaps, health-facility functionality, WASH access, cholera cases, food-price inflation, currency depreciation, hectares/crop losses from floods, and ACF operational outputs such as children treated for severe malnutrition, water points rehabilitated, cash assistance, and psychosocial support beneficiaries.

ACF (Action Against Hunger) has published many important publications for many years, such as “the Justice of Eating” shown here.  “The Justice of Eating – the Struggle For Food and Dignity in Recent Humanitarian Crises” was a 2007-08 Hunger Watch Report by Action Against Hunger.  It positioned the right to food as an essential human right and a matter of justice, not charity, arguing that failing to address hunger is a violation of human dignity.  The report, edited by Samuel Hauenstein Swan and Bapu Vaitla, documents the struggles for food access during humanitarian crises and emphasizes that fighting hunger is about upholding human dignity.

see:  https://www.actionagainsthunger.org/app/uploads/2026/01/2025_GlobalEmergencies_Map_v3-compressed.pdf

and:  https://www.actioncontrelafaim.org/

https://accioncontraelhambre.org/en

New Global Survey of Food Resilience, by the Economist

Economist Impact’s inaugural Resilient Food Systems Index (RFSI), supported by Cargill, benchmarks food system resilience across 60 countries using 71 indicators organized into four pillars:   affordability, availability, quality and safety, and climate risk responsiveness.

The accompanying new report, Resilient Food Systems Index: Global Report (Economist Impact, 2026)  delves deeper.

Portugal tops the rankings (76.83/100) as the most resilient country, with France and the UK close behind, while the Democratic Republic of Congo sits last at 34.86 — a 42-point gap that illustrates how unevenly resilience is distributed globally.  Critically, no country scores 80 or above, meaning even the most advanced food systems remain meaningfully exposed. Climate risk responsiveness is the weakest pillar overall, averaging just 56.43, and political commitment to mitigation and adaptation scores a dismal 34.03 globally. The affordability pillar looks deceptively healthy at 71.83, but masks the fact that in 62% of countries, the cheapest nutritious diet consumes roughly two-thirds of the poorest households’ income.

Income Shock Vulnerability.  In low and lower-middle-income countries, food constitutes a massive share of household spending.  The report states that prices in these nations have risen by 23.09% over the past five years. Unlike wealthier nations that can absorb price spikes or subsidize costs, households in countries like the DRC or Nigeria have no buffer. When resilience fails (due to climate or trade shocks), prices skyrocket, pushing basic staples out of reach and directly causing acute hunger.

The “Unaffordable” Healthy Diet.  The report introduces a critical metric: the cost of a healthy diet. In Sub-Saharan Africa, a healthy diet absorbs more than one-third of average income. For the worst-off countries, this figure is catastrophic. The report specifies that in 37 RFSI countries, the cheapest healthy diet costs about two-thirds of the average per capita income. This means that even when calories are available (staving off  starvation), malnutrition persists because nutrient-dense foods (fruits, vegetables, protein) are financially inaccessible.

The worst-off countries score lowest on the “Climate Risk Responsiveness” pillar, which has a global average of just 56.43.  Lack of Early Warning: These countries lack the mechanisms (early-warning systems, disaster reduction strategies) to anticipate shocks. When a drought or flood hits, it becomes a food availability crisis because there is no time to react.  Pests and Pathogens: With weak pest management (only a third of RFSI countries score high here), biological risks like disease and infestations decimate local yields. In countries like Uganda or Kenya, this directly reduces the food available for subsistence and local markets, eroding the availability pillar of food security.

Just 15 countries produce 70% of global food, and 11 of them are also top exporters. Yet none of these “anchor” countries score above 80.   Even the US, Brazil, China, and Australia—collectively producing 37.6% of global food—show weaknesses in climate risk, water stress, and infrastructure.

“The US… ranks 51st out of 60 countries on dietary diversity.”

Despite widespread market‑access support, farmers’ incomes are not rising.  “Annual growth in producer prices remains weak (averaging just 42.05).”  This suggests that productivity gains are not translating into livelihoods, especially for smallholders.  Farmers in countries like the DRC or Ethiopia struggle to get goods to market due to high transport costs and poor connectivity. Without income from their harvest, they cannot afford to buy food during the lean season, leading to seasonal hunger.  Financial Exclusion: Access to basic financial services scores just 51.53. Without savings or credit, a smallholder farmer in Tanzania or Rwanda cannot buy seeds or fertilizer after a bad harvest, perpetuating a cycle of low productivity and food insecurity.

While nearly all countries (97%) have policies for “agritech,” more than half under-invest in the cold-chain capacity needed to prevent food from spoiling before it reaches consumers.

Foundational Needs:  Digital tools are useless without basic enablers. For example, rural internet access and basic financial services (like savings accounts) remain “binding constraints” for smallholder farmers.

The timing is pointed.  The report lands as geopolitical fragmentation, climate volatility and inflationary pressures are simultaneously straining global supply chains.   The report also arrives as countries are submitting updated Nationally Determined Contributions under the Paris Agreement framework, making its finding that agriculture-specific climate targets are nearly absent particularly timely and actionable. It reframes the conversation usefully: the problem is not a lack of innovation or ambition, but a failure to scale what already works. That framing matters because it points toward tractable policy levers rather than distant technological fixes.

About the author:  Economist Impact is a division of The Economist Group that combines evidence-based research  with the creativity of a media brand to inform, engage, and catalyze action on global issues. It partners with  NGOs, and governments, providing expertise in policy research, events, and data visualization, with a focus on sustainability, healthcare, and new globalization.

                                                                                  – S Hansch, WHES Board of Directors