Food-Aid Commodity Loss-and-Liability Board Examiner — Relief Supply

The mandate

Board papers aggregate marine loss, port shortage, infestation, bag damage, inland diversion and partner distribution variance into one programme loss percentage. Procurement title terms, survey evidence, warehouse receipt and donor reporting use different boundaries, so accountability can move from supplier to carrier to programme without a corresponding physical handover. The committee needs to know which losses are preventable, recoverable, accepted by design or simply unlocated.

Three port observations and four corridor-file challenges feed six committee meetings across the donor-assurance cycle. Four advisory days in a month are used to reconcile commodity, title and route evidence, confront logistics, Quality, insurance and programme owners together, and prepare the chair’s liability questions. Spoilage or diversion can trigger an accelerated written challenge, but never participation in the investigation or emergency allocation command.

Two procurement cycles and annual donor assurance set a ten-month finish. Unresolved claims and management delay remain on the closing register rather than extending the adviser. If access restrictions alone prevent the agreed physical observations, the committee may grant one two-month renewal after reviewing protected-information arrangements and updating conflicts; no other carry-over is permitted.

The adviser has no line authority or executive responsibility for buying food, accepting quality, booking vessels, releasing warehouses, allocating beneficiaries, investigating diversion, lodging claims or signing donor reports. Management and partners operate the chain; inspectors and authorities decide within their competence; directors own tolerance. The adviser tests whether the evidence and liability boundaries are coherent.

Conflicts involving commodity suppliers, traders, ocean carriers, ports, surveyors, fumigators, warehouse firms, implementing partners, insurers, donors or investigators must be disclosed. The remit excludes legal opinion, food-safety certification, sanctions advice, beneficiary targeting, claim negotiation, supplier scoring, investigative findings, public advocacy and review of named staff conduct.

Why the board wants this voice

Programme and finance assurance begins after operational categories have already been assigned, while supply owners rarely compare title, custody and donor accountability in one movement. A former commodity-logistics executive can challenge those joins independently without directing scarce-food allocation or duplicating inspectors and investigators.

What you will own

• Trace selected commodities from supplier acceptance through load, voyage, discharge, survey, bagging, inland transport, storage, partner issue and distribution evidence.
• Challenge when legal title, physical custody, quality responsibility, insurance risk, donor accountability and practical control transfer or diverge.
• Test loss categories against weight, condition, seal, survey, stack, fumigation, release, waybill and partner-receipt evidence.
• Examine whether claims and recovery rights remain actionable when operational teams prioritise onward movement or rebagging during congestion.
• Compare corridor loss using consistent commodity, moisture, packaging, handling, dwell, security and inaccessible-destination definitions.
• Probe four files involving wet damage, port shortage, infestation, inland diversion and partner variance without conducting an investigation.
• Maintain a board ledger of unexplained quantity, liability gap, expiring recovery right, management action and accepted residual risk.

Candidate qualifications

• Held senior food-commodity logistics authority across ocean, port, inland warehouse and implementing-partner handoffs in relief or public supply.
• Managed bulk or bagged cargo loss, condition, survey, fumigation, rebagging, claims evidence and controlled onward release.
• Distinguished title, custody, quality, insurance and donor-accountability boundaries without presenting challenge as legal or audit conclusion.
• Worked across insecure or access-constrained corridors while respecting beneficiary allocation, investigation and public-authority roles.
• Advised boards using shipment and stack-level evidence rather than relying solely on aggregate programme-loss percentages.
• Maintained independence from suppliers, traders, carriers, ports, surveyors, warehouses, partners, insurers and donors.

Non-negotiables

• Available for four days monthly, six Rome meetings, three port observations and secure remote file review.
• Direct food-commodity logistics accountability is required; humanitarian policy or financial assurance alone is insufficient.
• Will disclose every supplier, trader, carrier, surveyor, warehouse, partner, insurer, donor and investigation interest.
• Will not certify food, investigate people, allocate beneficiaries, negotiate claims, score suppliers or direct emergency movements.

1. 49 words maximum. Describe a commodity loss that remained unowned because title and custody boundaries diverged.
2. 49 words maximum. Which evidence distinguishes port shortage from later inland or warehouse loss?
3. 49 words maximum. List relevant supplier, carrier, surveyor, partner, insurer or donor conflicts requiring management.