[House Hearing, 111 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
OVERSIGHT OF THE FEED THE FUTURE INITIATIVE
=======================================================================
JOINT HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS, HUMAN RIGHTS AND OVERSIGHT
AND THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON AFRICA AND GLOBAL HEALTH
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
JULY 20, 2010
__________
Serial No. 111-114
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
57-606 WASHINGTON : 2010
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202�09512�091800, or 866�09512�091800 (toll-free). E-mail, [email protected].
______
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
HOWARD L. BERMAN, California, Chairman
GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida
ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey
Samoa DAN BURTON, Indiana
DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey ELTON GALLEGLY, California
BRAD SHERMAN, California DANA ROHRABACHER, California
ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois
BILL DELAHUNT, Massachusetts EDWARD R. ROYCE, California
GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York RON PAUL, Texas
DIANE E. WATSON, California JEFF FLAKE, Arizona
RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri MIKE PENCE, Indiana
ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey JOE WILSON, South Carolina
GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
MICHAEL E. McMAHON, New York J. GRESHAM BARRETT, South Carolina
THEODORE E. DEUTCH, CONNIE MACK, Florida
FloridaAs of 5/6/ JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska
10 deg. MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas
JOHN S. TANNER, Tennessee TED POE, Texas
GENE GREEN, Texas BOB INGLIS, South Carolina
LYNN WOOLSEY, California GUS BILIRAKIS, Florida
SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
BARBARA LEE, California
SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada
JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York
MIKE ROSS, Arkansas
BRAD MILLER, North Carolina
DAVID SCOTT, Georgia
JIM COSTA, California
KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota
GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona
RON KLEIN, Florida
Richard J. Kessler, Staff Director
Yleem Poblete, Republican Staff Director
Subcommittee on International Organizations,
Human Rights and Oversight
RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri, Chairman
BILL DELAHUNT, Massachusetts DANA ROHRABACHER, California
KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota RON PAUL, Texas
DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey TED POE, Texas
THEODORE E. DEUTCH,
FloridaAs of 6/10/
10 deg.
------
Subcommittee on Africa and Global Health
DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey, Chairman
DIANE E. WATSON, California CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey
BARBARA LEE, California JEFF FLAKE, Arizona
BRAD MILLER, North Carolina JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska
SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
LYNN WOOLSEY, California
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
WITNESSES
The Honorable Patricia Haslach, Deputy Coordinator for Diplomacy,
Office of the Coordinator for the Global Hunger and Food
Security Initiative, U.S. Department of State.................. 13
The Honorable William Garvelink, Deputy Coordinator for
Development, Office of the Coordinator for the Global Hunger
and Food Security Initiative, U.S. Agency for International
Development.................................................... 19
William H. Danforth, Ph.D., Chairman, Board of Directors, Donald
Danforth Plant Science Center.................................. 39
Mr. Gerald A. Steiner, Executive Vice-President, Sustainability
and Corporate Affairs, Monsanto Corporation.................... 48
Hans Herren, Ph.D., President, Millennium Institute.............. 56
Ms. Evelyn Nassuna, Uganda Country Director, Lutheran World
Relief......................................................... 64
Ms. Jennifer Smith Nazaire, Country Representative, Catholic
Relief Services--Rwanda........................................ 71
LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING
The Honorable Russ Carnahan, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Missouri, and Chairman, Subcommittee on
International Organizations, Human Rights and Oversight:
Prepared statement............................................. 4
The Honorable Donald M. Payne, a Representative in Congress from
the State of New Jersey, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Africa
and Global Health: Prepared statement.......................... 9
The Honorable Patricia Haslach: Prepared statement............... 15
The Honorable William Garvelink: Prepared statement.............. 21
William H. Danforth, Ph.D.: Prepared statement................... 41
Mr. Gerald A. Steiner: Prepared statement........................ 50
Hans Herren, Ph.D.: Prepared statement........................... 58
Ms. Evelyn Nassuna: Prepared statement........................... 67
Ms. Jennifer Smith Nazaire: Prepared statement................... 73
APPENDIX
Hearing notice................................................... 94
Hearing minutes.................................................. 96
The Honorable Russ Carnahan: Material submitted for the record... 97
The Honorable Ted Poe, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Texas: Prepared statement............................. 99
Written responses from the Honorable William Garvelink to
questions submitted for the record by the Honorable Ted Poe.... 100
The Honorable William Garvelink: Feed the Future Guide: A Summary 102
OVERSIGHT OF THE FEED THE FUTURE INITIATIVE
----------
TUESDAY, JULY 20, 2010
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on International
Organizations, Human Rights and
Oversight and
Subcommittee on Africa and Global Health,
Committee on Foreign Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittees met, pursuant to notice, at 1:05 p.m., in
room 2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Russ Carnahan
(chairman of the Subcommittee on International Organizations,
Human Rights and Oversight) presiding.
Mr. Carnahan. Good afternoon. My name is Russ Carnahan. I
want to call this joint subcommittee hearing to order, the
joint meeting of the Subcommittee on International
Organizations, Human Rights and Oversight and the Subcommittee
on Africa and Global Health.
I appreciate our panels here today. The topic of this
hearing is Oversight of the Feed the Future Initiative. We are
likely, I want to say upfront, likely going to be interrupted
by votes we think around 2 o'clock or 2:30. We will try to get
as far as we can through the first panel so we can take up the
second one as well.
I want to start with opening statements from our chairs and
ranking members with us here today, and then we will hope to
get through our witnesses quickly.
I grew up on a farm in southern Missouri, and one of the
first lessons I learned was from loading hay on a farm wagon as
a teenager after the first load fell off because we didn't have
the foundation laid properly. I am pleased that today we are
able to talk about the strong foundation that we are building
to address global hunger and food security with the
administration's Feed the Future Initiative.
At the G-8 Summit in July, 2009, global leaders committed
to ``act with the scale and urgency needed to achieve
sustainable global food security.'' President Obama pledged at
least $3.5 billion for agriculture development and food
security over 3 years, which has helped to leverage $22 billion
in international funding.
It is a moral issue today that 1 billion people, nearly
one-sixth of the world's population, suffer from chronic
hunger. Each year, more than 3.5 children die from
undernutrition.
But fighting hunger is not only a moral issue. Fighting
hunger also creates jobs for people here at home. In my home
State of Missouri, agricultural exports support around 37,000
jobs, both on and off the farm, in food processing, storage,
and transportation. Through emergency food aid programs, U.S.
farmers have benefited economically from donating surplus U.S.
food.
Under the Feed the Future framework, the goal is to build
the capacity for poor economies to produce and purchase local
agricultural supplies as well as trade in international
markets. The talented employees of Missouri organizations such
as Monsanto, the Donald Danforth Plant Science Center, the
Missouri Botanical Garden, and our local universities are
working with farmers and research institutions to increase
yields and incomes in Africa, Latin America, and Asia. They
will have a long-term benefit to the U.S. economy as well,
growing middle classes in foreign countries to buy more U.S.
products, and that is good for all of our economy.
Feeding the future, the goal of this initiative, will be no
easy task. By 2050, the population is expected to reach 9
billion worldwide. To feed the growing population, farmers will
need to produce more food in the next 40 years than they have
in the past 10,000 years combined.
We must catalyze research and innovation to meet this
challenge. We will need to focus on breeding, biotechnology,
and agronomic practices. Some African producers are reluctant
to use biotechnologies due to concerns that some countries in
Europe--one of its primary export destinations--will not accept
genetically modified foods. We must use smart power through our
diplomatic and trade missions to end unfair trade restrictions.
The International Organizations, Human Rights and Oversight
Subcommittee hosted a hearing on ``Women as Agents of Change''
last month. Women farmers produce more than half of all food
that is grown in the world. It is often cited that women
farmers produce up to 80 percent of the food in Africa, 60
percent of the food in Asia, and women are far more likely than
men to spend their income improving their family's access to
health, education, and nutrition.
This initiative is unprecedented in its focus at lifting
the incomes of women, and I look forward to hearing more about
how the metrics will be disaggregated by gender.
As the administration prepares to invest $3.5 billion in
taxpayer resources over the next 3 years, I am also concerned
about the potential for waste, fraud, and abuse. I have seen
far too little contracting and grants managed and far too much
corruption and waste. I appreciate the ``whole of government''
approach of this initiative--State, USAID, and Department of
Agriculture, Treasury, U.S. Trade Representative, and the
Millennium Challenge Account, all working together.
However, based on previous oversight hearings and stories
of ``adhocracies'' out of control, I am skeptical about the
ability of these agencies to align resources, avoid
duplication, conduct international oversight, and successfully
manage taxpayer dollars. In order to get the most bang for our
buck, there is a need for strong monitoring and evaluation.
In a speech May 20, Administrator Shah said this initiative
will reach 40 million people over 10 years, increasing their
incomes by more than 10 percent a year; and the U.S. Government
expects to reach 25 million children directly with nutritional
interventions that will prevent stunting in 10 million
children. These are bold and worthy goals, but I look forward
to seeing how progress will be measured and reported. I applaud
the initiative of the administration on this critical issue.
After initial failure at my stacking hay on that wagon
years ago, I just wanted to make sure the foundation being laid
for the future of this program is sound.
I want to now recognize the chairman of the Africa and
Global Health Subcommittee, Chairman Don Payne of New Jersey,
for his opening remarks.
I stand corrected. We are going to recognize the ranking
member of that subcommittee, my good friend from New Jersey,
Congressman Chris Smith.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Carnahan follows:]
Mr. Smith. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman--both Mr.
Chairmen; and I want to welcome our two distinguished
ambassadors and look forward to your testimony.
This is a very important hearing to do the oversight that
is necessary on the Feed the Future, a very exciting initiative
that hopefully will help bring food and mitigate the global
problem, especially in the 20 target countries, where food
insecurity is absolutely rampant.
According to the U.N. Food and Agricultural Organization,
people are food insecure when they do not have enough physical,
social, or economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious
food to meet their dietary needs and food preferences for an
active and healthy life. The FAO's 2009 report, The State of
Food Insecurity in the World, noted that the decline in the
numbers of chronically hungry people that was occurring some 20
years ago has been reversed, largely due to less available
official developmental assistance devoted to agriculture.
That tragic trend, combined with the current global food
and economic crisis, has resulted in an estimated 1 billion
undernourished people around the world. The majority of those
who lack food security, an estimated 642 million, live in Asia
and the Pacific. Sub-Saharan Africa also has a large number, at
265 million, and has the highest prevalence, at one out of
every three persons undernourished.
It is disturbing to note that developed countries are not
immune from this deficiency. We have around 15 million people
living in our own midst who are food insecure.
It is shocking to hear that hunger and undernutrition kill
more people globally than HIV/AIDS, malaria, and tuberculosis
combined. Hunger and malnutrition are the underlying causes of
death of over 3.5 million children every year, or more than
10,000 children every day.
Poor households in developing countries currently are
facing a particularly devastating challenge to food insecurity
for two reasons. One is the global nature of the economic
crisis, which reduces the availability of coping mechanisms
such as currency devaluation, borrowing or increased use of
ODA, or migrant remittances that could otherwise be available
if only a certain region or regions were impacted.
Another is the food crisis that preceded the economic
crisis, which has already placed poor households in a very weak
position.
Several initiatives have been announced over the past few
months to galvanize international action to address this
crisis, The Global Partnership for Agriculture and Food
Security announced in Italy by the G-8 in which summit leaders
in other countries and organizations established the goal of
mobilizing more than $20 billion over the next 3 years, in
particular to promote sustainable production and world economic
growth. Additional countries have since pledged an additional
$2 billion to this effort.
Unfortunately, there are reports that up to one-half to
two-thirds of that commitment is actually existing aid that has
merely been repackaged; and I would ask our two distinguished
ambassadors if they could address that issue: How much of this
is brand new money from the United States' point of view and
from the other nation donors?
The G20 summit held in Pittsburgh in September endorsed the
initiative and also called for the establishment of a World
Bank Food Security Trust Fund. The purpose of this fund will be
to boost agricultural productivity and market access in low-
income countries by financing medium- and long-term
investments.
Later that month, the U.N. Secretary General and the
Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, issued a joint statement
in which they agreed to build on support for the global
partnership.
The Secretary of State also released a consultation
document at the end of September seeking the views of numerous
interested parties with respect to a proposed strategy to
address global hunger and food security. I commend the
Secretary for emphasizing the importance of input from small-
scale farmers and related agricultural producers in that
consultation process.
I would also ask her to be sure to include--and I am sure
our ambassadors can speak to this--as to whether or not the
faith-based organizations, the international nongovernmental
organizations, and, of course, always civil society at the
indigenous level are also contributing, particularly to the
formation of the plans at the country level.
Again, I want to thank the two chairmen for calling this
hearing and yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Carnahan. Thank you.
I next want to recognize Chairman Payne.
Mr. Payne. Thank you very much. Thank you for joining us
here, all of you in the audience, for this very critical and
important joint hearing, Oversight of the Feed the Future
Initiative.
Let me begin by thanking Chairman Carnahan of the
Subcommittee on International Organizations, Human
Rights, deg. and Oversight for initiating this
hearing. I also thank our distinguished witnesses, and I look
forward to a productive discussion.
The number of people, as we have heard, who go hungry each
day has climbed to over 1 billion over the last few years. The
United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon reported the
proportion of undernourished people has risen as well. This
flies directly in the face of the first Millennium Development
Goal to cut in half the proportion of hungry people by 2015.
Therefore, there is perhaps nothing more important we can be
discussing today than what the United States is doing to
address the food insecurity of nearly one-sixth of the world's
population.
Food security is a critical component of development and
has always been a top priority of mine as chairman of the
Subcommittee on Africa and Global Health. The subcommittee has
held six hearings, including this one that we are doing
jointly, focused on food security since 2007. The last such
hearing was held last October. It also focused on the Obama
administration's Food Security Initiative, now, as we all know,
called Feed the Future, which Secretary of State Hillary
Clinton unveiled at the U.N. General Assembly last September.
In addition to the hearings that we have had, I traveled to
the Africa Growth and Opportunity Act Forum in August 2009 in
Nairobi, Kenya, and traveled with Secretary of State Hillary
Clinton and Secretary of Agriculture Vilsack. As we talked
about the importance of this program, we visited farms in rural
Kenya, visited research institutions in Kenya; and so we know
that this is really a true priority of this administration.
I have also requested six GAO reports in recent years to
evaluate how U.S. funds were be used to address food security
around the world, and particularly in Africa. I commend
President Obama for encouraging this bold initiative and
Secretary Clinton, who has taken this on as a major priority.
I am also pleased that Ambassador Garvelink and Ambassador
Haslach at the State Department have been appointed as deputy
coordinators for this initiative, both with outstanding
backgrounds; and so I certainly look forward to their
announcement of a coordinator but look forward to their
leadership in their new roles.
The Feed the Future Initiative builds upon the commitments
made at the July 8 G-8 summit in L'Aquila, Italy, where
countries agreed to $20 billion over a 3-year period. The
United States said up to $3.5 billion would go toward the
Global Partnership for Agriculture and Food Security.
Initiatives were to address the root causes of hunger that
limit the potential of millions of people and establish a
lasting foundation for change by leveraging our resources with
country owned plans and multiple stakeholder partnerships.
It will also have a strong emphasis on the role of women
and empowering them with the education, tools, and assistance
they need. Women, as we all know, make up a majority of
smallholder farmers; and they are the engine for development in
every society and in particular in rural societies in Africa
and the developing world.
According to the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of
the United Nations, it will take a 70 percent increase in
global food production to feed the world's population in 2050,
when it is expected to reach 9.1 billion due to both population
growth and rising incomes.
According to the FAO, 25,000 people die each day due to
hunger and related causes. In Africa alone, 265 million people,
or nearly one-third of the continent's entire population,
suffers from hunger. This is simply unconscionable,
particularly when the continent possess such vast, uncultivated
agriculture resources.
According to the U.N. Environment Programme, 21 percent of
Africa's land mass is suitable for cultivation. However, only 7
percent of this land is currently irrigated. As a result,
African countries spend billions of dollars on food imports in
addition to receiving food aid. Moreover, the proportion of the
Africa population living on less than $1 a day increased from
47.6 percent in 1985 to 59 percent in 2000, certainly going in
the wrong direction.
We can and we must do more to end hunger. Africa has both
the natural and human resources to dramatically increase
agricultural production. In fact, 203 million people in Africa,
or 56.6 percent of the labor force, are engaged in agriculture.
We must focus on leveraging our resources to ensure our food
security. I believe Feed the Future is an important step toward
achieving food security and, therefore, the uplifting of
millions of people in Africa and around the world. I look
forward to continuing to work with the administration to make
the dream of food security in the world a reality.
Again, let me thank the panel for coming and the chairman
for calling this hearing.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Payne follows:]
Mr. Carnahan. Thank you, Chairman Payne.
Now I want to recognize the ranking member of the
International Organizations, Human Rights, deg. and
Oversight Subcommittee, Mr. Rohrabacher of California.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I guess today we are talking about a proposal, Feed the
Future, that is proposing a $1.6 billion increase--I guess we
will find those details out--in current spending, which is a 40
percent increase in funds that are directed at aiming to
accomplish this goal of feeding people who are hungry.
Let us just note as we begin our discussion, as we should
begin every discussion in Congress, is that last year we spent
$1.5 trillion more than we took in in this government. And for
2 years in a row our deficit in this country will be $1.5
trillion, in which all these young people out there will spend
the rest of their lives paying interest on.
So as we discuss any issue we have to, especially when
there is a supposedly 40 percent plus-up, we need to discuss
whether or not we really should be borrowing more money from
China in order to give to the recipients of this program. And I
will be very interested in hearing whether or not that is a
justified expense.
I personally over the years have noted a relationship
between suffering and poverty and people who are hungry and
people who live in the worst kind of degradation that there is
a relationship between their suffering and the level of freedom
and integrity in their country. If they lack freedom and their
government has no integrity, they are much more likely to
suffer; and I do not fully appreciate or understand how
providing more money for a dictatorial regime is going to
change that. In fact, a strategy for the future may well be
that the United States should cut off relations with
dictatorships left and right and should require a certain level
of integrity in a government before we give any money to that
government or even involve ourselves in a program aimed at the
people who live in that society. Because, quite often, as we
know, funds that are going to make the lives easier on those
people who are suffering quite often is stolen from them by
their own government.
Honest government and enterprise, unfettered by corruption,
will dramatically change the plight of people who linger in
this type of suffering. I don't believe transfers of wealth
from our richer countries of the world to the poorer countries
of the world will change their plight at all.
So I am interested, for example, when we take a look at
many countries in which starvation is a factor, we can see that
a few years before certain government people took over that
there were surpluses of food. I guess Zaire is probably the
best example. That used to be the breadbasket of Africa and now
is rapidly becoming a poverty stricken country in which their
own people lack nutrition.
So with these factors it is very easy for us to want to get
together and express how concerned we are for the poor people
of the world. And we should be concerned about them. But using
that heartfelt expression as a means of plotting out a strategy
that requires a hard-headed approach to actually making things
better, I think that we are going to have to make sure we take
a look when people ask us to spend more money and borrow more
money from China in order to do it, whether or not there is
enough change in this program to say that it will be successful
compared to all the other programs I have seen in the last 22
years that have exactly the same purpose but have led to
nowhere.
So, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I will be listening.
Mr. Carnahan. Thank you.
We have two other members who have joined us who I want to
recognize each for up to 1 minute.
Congresswoman Woolsey.
Ms. Woolsey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Today's hearing is important. It is important because food
assistance is about so very much more than hunger. Food
security can derail, actually, our other foreign assistance
goals. Kids who are hungry don't learn. Pregnant mothers who
are hungry deliver babies who are ailing and who suffer. AIDS
patients who are hungry can't process the drugs to keep them
healthy. And hungry people in conflict zones see increased
rates of instability and warfare.
So ensuring that our food aid gets where it needs to be is
essential in meeting our foreign assistance outcome goals. So a
healthy and safer world for all would be the results of, I
hope, what we are going to learn from the witnesses today. I
look forward to hearing from all of you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Carnahan. Thank you.
Now I would like to recognize Congresswoman Watson of
California for 1 minute.
Ms. Watson. Thank you so much.
I also want to thank you and Chairman Payne for this
meeting that will look at the Feed the Future Initiative.
The Feed the Future Initiative, released this May, builds
on the principles for sustainable food security endorsed at the
2009 World Summit on Food Security, investing in country led
plans, a comprehensive approach to food security, strategic
coordination, leveraging multilateral institutes, and delivery
on sustained and accountable commitments; and I want to commend
our world's leaders for establishing these guiding principles.
Food is a basic human necessity and human right. But
ensuring the world's poor are finally food secure will require
a multifaceted solution. This includes biotechnology that will
help crops grow in stressed environments. It also means
technical assistance in teaching farmers sustainable farming
practices. Food security also includes building roads so
farmers can get their foods to market before they rot. For the
millions of urban poor, it means ensuring access to reasonably
priced fresh produce.
It is very, very important that we take time out to find
out how we can capture the bodies and minds of people when you
feed them and they can be secure that they will have another
meal, rather than trying to do that with guns and bullets.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Carnahan. Thank you.
I would like to now introduce our administration witnesses.
For the first panel, Ambassador Patricia Haslach serves as
Deputy Coordinator for Diplomacy in the Office for Coordinator
for the Global Hunger and Food Security Initiative at the State
Department.
Prior to her current position, she served as Assistant
Chief of Mission for Assistance Transition at the U.S. Embassy
in Baghdad. From 2007-2009, she served as Ambassador to the
Asian-Pacific Economic Corporation Forum and headed the Friends
of the chair Group for Food Security. She also served as the
Director, Office for Afghanistan, from 2002 to 2004. She began
her career with the Federal Government at the U.S. Department
of Agriculture.
Joining her is Ambassador William Garvelink. He serves as
Deputy Coordinator for Development at the Office of Coordinator
for Global Hunger and Food Security Initiative at USAID. He is
a 31-year veteran of USAID, who most recently served as U.S.
Ambassador to the Democratic Republic of the Congo. He is a
member of the Senior Foreign Service, with the rank of Minister
Counselor. Before joining AID in 1979, he was a professional
staff member on the Subcommittee on International
Organizations--this committee. So welcome back.
I am pleased to recognize Ambassador Haslach to start.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE PATRICIA HASLACH, DEPUTY COORDINATOR
FOR DIPLOMACY, OFFICE OF THE COORDINATOR FOR THE GLOBAL HUNGER
AND FOOD SECURITY INITIATIVE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Ms. Haslach. Thank you, Chairmen Carnahan and Payne,
Ranking Members Rohrabacher and Smith, and members of the
committee. Thank you for this opportunity to speak with you
about the Feed the Future, the administration's global hunger
and food security initiative.
Ambassador Garvelink and I began our work as deputy
coordinators this past May. As the Deputy Coordinator for
Diplomacy, I oversee donor coordination as well as engagement
with bilateral and multilateral partners and international
organizations.
Let me begin by providing some background for Feed the
Future. President Obama, Secretary Clinton, and USAID
Administrator Shah have articulated a new vision for
development for the United States, one that embraces
development as a strategic, economic, and moral imperative that
is as central as diplomacy and defense to solving global
problems and advancing America's national security.
The strategy for Feed the Future exemplifies this new
vision for development. It starts with the recognition that
food security is not just about food but it is also about
security--national security, economic security, environmental
security, and human security.
In addition to alleviating instability fueled by hunger and
desperation, investing in farmers, especially women, can lead
to greater economic growth and prosperity for all. At the same
time, by creating vibrant markets, our efforts benefit American
companies and other enterprises seeking customers and
investment opportunities abroad.
My full written statement has been submitted for the
record. Here I would like to briefly review the diplomatic
components of Feed the Future covered in greater detail in my
written statement--donor accountability, donor coordination,
and whole of government action.
First, in the year since global leaders announced their
renewed commitment to agricultural development and food
security at L'Aquila's G-8-plus summit, we have made
significant progress in holding donors accountable. For
example, we participated in a G-8 accountability report, issued
a few weeks ago, which includes the description of the $22
billion in donor pledges spurred by L'Aquila. Countries,
including the United States, Australia, Spain, and Canada
submitted significant portions of additional resources to food
security.
The report also illustrates the limited capacity of some
countries to commit new resources, highlighting the critical
importance of strategic coordination to achieve greater
efficiency and greater impact.
Perhaps most importantly, our work around accountability
emphasizes that this is not just a U.S. initiative but rather a
global initiative. Other countries recognize that it is in our
collective interest to tackle the root causes of hunger and
poverty.
Beyond donor accountability, we have increased donor
coordination at country, regional, and global levels.
Developing countries have initiated inclusive multi-stakeholder
processes to develop comprehensive national agriculture and
food security investment plans. These plans improve
coordination efforts, maximize synergies among governments,
development partners, civil society, and the private sector. In
Africa, the comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development
program has played the leading role in the investment plan
process.
This past June, Ambassador Garvelink and I traveled to
participate in one of the high-level CAADP events where 12
African countries and the regional body Economic Community of
West African States presented their country investment plans.
The meeting at Dakar, Senegal, had high-level participation
from 13 developing partner nations, dozen of institutions,
including the Rome-based agencies, the multilateral development
banks, and representatives from civil society and the private
sector.
In Asia, the U.S. provided critical support to Bangladesh.
And I was recently in Manila, where I attended an Asian event
hosted by the Asian Development Bank, where they, too, are
starting to focus, like Africa, on the issue of food security.
At the global level, we have worked with the G20 countries
and the World Bank and other organizations to set up the Global
Agriculture and Food Security Initiative. The U.S. pledge of
$475 million has mobilized pledges and contributions to this.
We continue to seek further contributions.
Finally and most importantly, I would like to highlight how
whole of government action is integral to Feed the Future. We
have a working committee from State, USAID, USDA, the
Millennium Challenge Corporation, Treasury, Peace Corps, and
others in regular meetings. We are one team for Feed the
Future. The members of the interagency team bring their
expertise to bear on our shared task of sustainably reducing
poverty and hunger. For example, we are drawing on USDA's
experience and expertise in agriculture statistics to help
establish the baselines in order for us to be able to monitor
this. Finally, we are working with MCC to identify places where
our programs can build on their existing investments in
infrastructure and land tenure.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Haslach follows:]
Mr. Carnahan. Thank you.
Next, Ambassador Garvelink.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE WILLIAM GARVELINK, DEPUTY
COORDINATOR FOR DEVELOPMENT, OFFICE OF THE COORDINATOR FOR THE
GLOBAL HUNGER AND FOOD SECURITY INITIATIVE, U.S. AGENCY FOR
INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Garvelink. Thank you.
Chairman Carnahan, Chairman Payne, Ranking Member
Rohrabacher, Ranking Member Smith, and other members of the
subcommittee, thank you for holding this hearing on this
important challenge of feeding the world's population.
My full written statement has been submitted for the
record. However, I would briefly like to highlight a few
points.
A primary goal of the President's Feed the Future
Initiative is to accelerate progress toward the Millennium
Development Goal. I spent much of my career in the U.S.
Government working on humanitarian issues and know firsthand
the value of U.S. leadership in delivering food aid to
alleviate the most acute suffering, but addressing hunger over
the long term requires that we rebalance our efforts, with
greater emphasis on sustainable development solutions. We know
that assistance, while essential, cannot bring about
development in the absence of favorable domestic policies,
international trade flows, private as well as public
investment, and technology and innovation that create
opportunities for lasting economic growth.
Through Feed the Future we will be approaching the issue of
hunger and poverty in a comprehensive way consistent with the
United States' commitment to preserving and accelerating the
momentum toward the MDGs.
In lieu of getting too deep into the details, I would like
to offer for inclusion in the record the Feed the Future Guide,
which outlines the strategic approach and implementation
structures of the initiative. Let me outline, however, three
key aspects that are truly transforming our approach.
First, as Ambassador Haslach mentioned, is the coordination
and country led planning process. These reviews represent a big
step forward in the leadership and accountability of both
developing countries and donors alike. We are looking to invest
in areas where the United States has a comparative advantage
and to collaborate and not duplicate efforts. The result is a
roadmap that leverages international investment, mobilizes
partner country resources, and helps ensure that food security
resources are managed transparently and responsibly.
In Rwanda, for example, this coordinated and country led
process already has mobilized 90 percent of the investments
outlined in the government's country investment plan, a plan
for agricultural development that made hard choices about
priorities, given scarce resources, and will now link those
choices to results.
The second area critical to the new approach within Feed
the Future is combating child and maternal undernutrition. Each
year, more than 3.5 million children and tens of thousands of
mothers die from undernutrition, which costs developing
countries up to 3 percent of their annual Gross Domestic
Product.
Women are a pivotal force behind achieving a food-secure
world. In most developing countries they produce between 60 and
80 percent of the food; and when gains in income are controlled
by women, they are more likely to be spent on food and
children's needs. By investing more in women and addressing
undernutrition holistically, we can amplify benefits across
families and generations.
The third area is innovation. Drawing on America's long
tradition of development through innovation, we are making
significant progress in agricultural research. We know that
investing in agricultural research today contributes to the
growth and resilience of the food supply tomorrow. We will
focus globally, addressing some of the gaps in the
international research system, and nationally on constrained
country systems to strengthen research and extension to allow
science, technology, and innovation to better address local
needs and to adapt and deliver new advances to the hands of
small farmer producers.
Our commitment to sustainability and innovation will be
underpinned by a relentless commitment to measuring results. To
this end, we will upgrade our institutional capacity to monitor
and measure development outcomes as well as support and learn
from best practices and evaluation.
Finally, I will mention that U.S. Agriculture, through a
rich history of sharing expertise and investing in development,
has a significant opportunity to expand partnership with the
developing world as we move forward with this exciting
initiative. The health and prosperity of the world's poor and
vulnerable and, by extension, our own security and prosperity
will ultimately be determined not by the promises we make but
by the results we generate together.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Garvelink follows:]
Mr. Carnahan. Thank you both.
I want to start off the questions with Chairman Payne. I
want to yield 5 minutes to Chairman Payne.
Mr. Payne. Thank you very much.
I certainly look forward to be working with you as you move
forward on the new initiative.
Let me just ask this. The Feed the Future Initiative is
taking a ``whole of government'' approach. How will the State
Department coordinate with other agencies responsible for
programs and activities related to international agriculture
development, nutrition, and food security, such as USDA, MCC,
Department of Treasury, and USAID? And, specifically, what will
be the mechanism for interagency coordination and
implementation of projects on the ground, which is also
important to get an organization here, but then how do we
translate that in individual countries? And what, if any, are
the funding implications for a whole government strategy?
I will ask either one of you or both of you to comment.
Ms. Haslach. I would like to concentrate on the overall
U.S. whole of government approach, and I would like to ask if
Ambassador Garvelink could address the country led process.
Feed the Future will be led by the U.S. Global and Food
Security Coordinator. The Coordinator will provide strategic
policy and budget direction that spans the whole of U.S.
Government and resources for Feed the Future.
The goal is to have this Coordinator in place at some
point, but, in the meantime, Ambassador Garvelink and I are
moving forward on setting up a one team for Feed the Future
that includes colleagues from--expertise from the U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Treasury, from the Peace Corps, from
the Millennium Challenge Corporation, and others.
We meet regularly, and we have staff that coordinate
regularly on the Feed the Future Initiative. We do not see
ourselves in fact as separate agencies any longer. We see
ourselves as part of one team, the Feed the Future team.
Thank you.
Mr. Garvelink.
Thank you.
If I could just add a couple of comments about how this
program operates on the ground.
The countries where we are going to provide assistance
under Feed the Future develop a country investment plan, and
that is a plan that is put together by the government with
participation of all stakeholders, civil society, NGOs, other
organizations that explains how they will address agricultural
food needs in their country. That plan is evaluated by the U.S.
Government in the particular country.
In each country where we are going to provide assistance,
we have a country coordinator; and that country coordinator
represents all of the United States Government agencies that
would be involved in responding in that country. Some countries
have the Millennium Challenge Corporation; some don't. But the
country coordinator in the countries we are interested right
now is the USAID Mission Director for the time being. That
individual will coordinate with Department of Agriculture, with
Treasury, with USDA, and any other U.S. Government agencies
that are operating in that country and design a plan that is
supported by the entire U.S. Government to help meet the needs
identified in the country investment plan.
Mr. Payne. One last question, since the time is running
out.
USAID, as you know, over the recent past, last 10 years or
so or more, has relied heavily on contractors. The offices have
shrunk. Is there a goal to go back to trying to have staff
persons from USAID, U.S. Department of State that can do the
jobs, rather than contracting out, which we find is just done
whether it is in developing countries and even in the Middle
East or Afghanistan or Iraq. It is the contractors we hear
about. I wonder, do we have any expertise or are we going to
develop this?
Mr. Garvelink. As you may know, the expertise in
agriculture has declined over the past 20 or 30 years in USAID
and in other development agencies. I think it was the shock to
the international community of the dramatic increase in food
prices in 2007 and 2008 that made us all realize that we may
have made a mistake by not continuing to emphasize agricultural
development. So, as a result of that, we are working very hard
right now to expand the U.S. Government's expertise in
agriculture.
So, to meet the demands of this new initiative, we are
turning to AID for their agricultural experts, and we are
recruiting more through their new entry program. We are working
very closely with the USDA and their experts. And we are
working with personal services contractors to fill gaps as
well. We are working very hard to increase the number of
agricultural specialists so we will have sufficient numbers
over the years to reestablish ourselves as a leader--the U.S.
Government as a leader in agricultural development.
Mr. Carnahan. Thank you. The gentleman's time has expired.
I now want to recognize the gentleman from California, Mr.
Rohrabacher, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Rohrabacher. So is this $1.6 billion of new money that
you are looking for for the program?
Ms. Haslach. President Obama was seeking $3.5 billion over
3 years. So this is part of that pledge and commitment that we
made at L'Aquila a year ago.
Mr. Rohrabacher. That is $3.5 billion of new money?
Ms. Haslach. Correct.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Taking the money we have already allocated
year after year after year after year for helping people in
poor countries. This is new money on top of that.
Ms. Haslach. This is a budget request for a new initiative
that hopes to bolster contributions from other contractors as
well. It is not just a U.S. initiative or commitment.
Mr. Rohrabacher. I got you. Again, what countries have been
targeted for this?
Mr. Garvelink. Well, the initial set of countries where we
are looking at--and there is a system that was undertaken to
identify these countries in terms of the need, the poverty
level, the commitment of the government, involving the
stakeholders and these sort of things. There are 20 countries
that have been identified initially. Twelve of them are in
Africa. Four of them are in Asia.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Maybe you can read them off right now.
Mr. Garvelink. It is Ethiopia, it is Kenya, it is Liberia,
it is Rwanda, it is Tanzania, it is Mali, Malawi, Mozambique,
Zambia, Ghana, and Senegal. And I think those are the 12. Those
are the ones in Africa. Uganda is another one.
And in Latin America it is Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua
and Haiti.
Then in Asia it is Bangladesh, Nepal, Cambodia, and
Tajikistan.
Mr. Rohrabacher. What was the one before Tajikistan?
Nepal. Didn't quite catch that.
So countries like Ethiopia, which is first on your list, I
know there are several members of this committee who worked
with me on Ethiopia and found that government to be totally
unacceptable to democratic standards. They used aid that we
gave them, especially some foreign aid with Jeeps and guns, not
to defend their society but instead to overthrow the results of
an election and put all the people who won the election in
jail. Now why do we think that a country like Ethiopia, which
obviously has a lot of problems with oppression--or I don't
know what rank they rank with the State Department, but it
seems at least unacceptable to the two of us on this
committee--what makes you think that they are going to do good
by their own people?
Ms. Haslach. Congressman, this is a country led initiative,
but it is not just the country that is involved in this
process. It is a consultative process that involves all
stakeholders, civil society, woman farmers, as well as other
partners in international organizations; and good governance is
something that is also taken in consideration before financial
commitments are made.
Mr. Rohrabacher. I would suggest that without good
government all of the rest of it is meaningless. So all of the
great words that we have heard today, and very inspiring words
about this new project, if it is not based on something we are
going to work with good government--because bad government will
undo everything you are saying.
Now, again, is this $3.5 billion that we are going to give
a portion of it to the people of Ethiopia, who are being
oppressed by their own government, I might say a corrupt
government that has taken property from its own people in an
unlawful way--is that worth--the results, you think, are going
to be worth borrowing that money from China in order to give to
the Government of Ethiopia so that these young people here will
be paying for the rest of their life on the interest on what we
are borrowing?
Ms. Haslach. Ethiopia has been identified as one of the
possible focus countries, but there are a number of steps that
the country will need to take in order to get to the point.
They, first of all, have to have a country investment plan,
which they do not have yet. But we do have some successful
examples of countries that have moved forward with a country
investment plan, and a good example of that would be Ghana.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would just like to note again that my own trepidation is
about borrowing more money in order to provide direct food aid
to countries in which are run by questionable governments. And
almost all the people who are in real abject poverty find
themselves under the rule of a government that is corrupt and
nondemocratic. So I am skeptical that this would be a program
that would be worth borrowing more money from China in order to
finance.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Carnahan. Thank you.
I now recognize myself for 5 minutes.
I guess I want to thank the witnesses for their overview
and really making the point that this is more than just about
food. It is about security in so many aspects--national
security, economic security, human security, environmental
security.
But I do want to follow up on my colleague Mr.
Rohrabacher's question. And that is, we do have a
responsibility in these economic times, but especially to be
sure that we are getting value for these investments, and
certainly we have listed a number of values that are important
to us. But I would like you both to describe metrics that can
be in place to measure how well we are making progress in these
goals and oversight mechanisms to be sure we are watching that
this is being done in an effective way.
Ms. Haslach. Thank you.
The results framework and the monitoring and evaluation
components events of this program are critical. We couldn't
agree with you more. We are working very closely with people
who have worked for the Millennium Challenge Corporation and
other such initiatives to set up a very tight monitoring and
evaluation system based on--first of all, based on good data.
And we are getting a lot of assistance from the interagency on
this. In fact, the U.S. Department of Agriculture and
institutes like IFPRI and others are providing us with good
baseline data so we can be able to evaluate this.
We are building teams both at the country level and as well
in Washington to do this, and this will be part of our Feed the
Future guidelines. If you go on our Feed the Future Web site,
feedthefuture.gov, we will be adding to that a comprehensive
assessment of how we will be doing monitoring and evaluation.
Let me also point out that we have turned to our partners
in the field, civil society and nongovernmental organizations
who have been working at the country level and can provide us
with a lot of guidance and insight. When we published the Feed
the Future guide, it was a consultative process; and in fact we
have been getting very, very good feedback from interaction in
all the members of the nongovernmental organizations. They have
actually been assisting us in helping to set this up.
Gender is important. There are a number of different
crosscutting issues that we are going to need to measure, and
so we are committed to do doing that. We couldn't agree with
you more that we want to see the resources spent properly.
And this is not an entitlement program. Just because a
country may be listed as a potential to receive funding under
this initiative, there are a number of steps that the country
has to take in order to get the resources. And if the resources
are being misspent, they will be redirected to a country that
is deserving and is part of this process.
Thank you.
Mr. Carnahan. Certainly, there is a case to be made that
this could help leverage better results at the country level
and leverage better collaboration and resources.
But I guess the other question I had was with regard to
measures to hold the other participating countries involved to
that $22 billion commitment that has been made. Certainly that
is important based on the U.S. commitment. But what efforts are
under way to be sure that those other countries are held to
their commitments?
Ms. Haslach. Well, I am sure you saw that there was a
recommitment at this year's G-8 that in fact the donors would
live up to their pledge made last year for the full $22
billion. But we see that just as the starting contribution. In
fact, we have been seeking contributions to the Global
Agriculture and Food Security Trust Fund that is being managed
by the World Bank; and we very happy that a number of
countries--Canada and Spain and others--and South Korea--have
joined us in this multilateral trust fund. So every time we
meet with the donors, every time we attend a function, we press
them to live up to their commitments. And we mean new
commitments, not recycled monies.
Mr. Carnahan. If I could real quickly, because my time is
running out, but very quickly, on the question of being sure
that we are using the latest in innovations and technology to
incorporate into these efforts, I would like you to elaborate
on that.
Mr. Garvelink. Well, it is our view that to expand
agricultural production, as you have mentioned with the growing
population, one of the ways not to do this is to tear down the
rain forest in other parts of--places in Africa, which they
tend to do to expand agriculture, but to increase innovation
and use science and technology to expand the productivity of
the land already under cultivation.
So we are working very closely with the Department of
Agriculture and their various research institutes to draw on
the expertise that U.S. scientists have--the discoveries and
innovations that U.S. Scientists have developed for the United
States. And there are a lot of those innovations that can be
transferred to developing countries in the developing world.
There are programs that have been undertaken with Monsanto,
with General Mills, with the Soybean Association, and other
organizations to promote agricultural development and
innovations in seed and other techniques that are being used
throughout this initiative and will be highlighted whenever
possible and relied on, largely from the Department of
Agriculture and their experts.
Mr. Carnahan. Thank you.
I am going to next yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
New Jersey, Mr. Smith.
Mr. Smith. Thank you, Ambassadors, for your testimony.
Jennifer Nazaire, the country rep for Catholic Relief
Services, points out in her testimony that CRS has had a 50-
year commitment to food security and other important issues in
Rwanda and, I would note parenthetically, just about anywhere
else where CRS is involved, where people are suffering. And she
points out there is a key role for faith-based organizations
and international NGOs to play.
She points out as well--and I hope you don't hold it
against her--when we find out there are cuts to the funding,
she points out with regard to Rwanda, she was at the first
signing of the Feed the Future ceremony on December 7th and 8th
in '09 and there were no specifics on how we or even the local
civil society partners would be involved in the government's
plan for ag transformation to improve food security.
She stated,
``The only interaction I had with the U.S. Government
delegation at this meeting was at coffee breaks during
which I approached them and introduced myself. I asked
whether there was an opportunity for international NGOs
to meet with some of the delegation outside of meeting
hours, but there was no follow up.''
She points out that, in her view, USAID and other donors
tend to see CRS and other international NGOs as mostly focused
on subsistence and safety net ag and not cutting-edge leaders
in integrated food security programing. However, international
NGOs are doing significant amounts of these programs and have
been doing it for decades.
My first question would be: What role do you see? Why were
they seemingly excluded from this country led planning process?
And if you can provide either now or for the record exactly how
are international NGOs, faith-based organizations, civil
society CSOs, and the private sector being included in the
country-led planning process in the 20 targeted countries. If
you could provide for the committee how each of those are being
integrated, it would help us in our oversight.
Secondly, with regard to the 20 targeted countries, I am
fully aware of the four criteria. I think they are good
criteria that you have laid out. But could you provide to the
committee a detailed country by country analysis as to exactly
how the 20 were selected and how this integrated analysis is
done so we can really look and say, okay, pick out a country.
This is the process they went through. It helps us, again, to
do our oversight.
And then, what countries are or were on the bubble, like
number 21, 22, 23, given more money or maybe a different set of
circumstances, they too might get the additional benefits of
the Feed the Future.
And, finally, with regards to the Food for Peace initiative
for which the administration requested $1.69 billion for Fiscal
Year 2011, how is that going to be integrated, or coordinated
is probably a better word, with Feed the Future in the 20
targeted countries? Will it be working in a side-bar way? Will
it be part of the country-led planning process? How does that
all mesh together so we don't have a stovepipe type operation?
Mr. Garvelink. Well, first of all, we will be glad to
provide all of that information and we should be able to do
that for you very quickly. I cannot comment specifically on the
situation in Rwanda because I wasn't there. But a very
important element of this process is the role of NGOs and civil
society throughout all these planning stages and in
coordination with our people on the ground and with our people
here.
As a matter of fact, at 10 o'clock this morning I was
meeting with Interaction on these very issues of how we involve
NGOs more deeply in our programs back here, in our activities
back here, and with our missions on the ground with the country
team in the various embassies and U.S. missions. So it is a
very critical element to what we are doing, and we are
insisting on that as we move through the approval process for
these countries to receive higher amounts of resources from the
U.S. Government, a critical element of this is to involve all
stakeholders, and that is the private sector, that is civil
society, that is NGOs, that is faith-based organizations, all
these organizations together. So I can't comment exactly on
what happened in Rwanda, but it is a very high priority and
integral part of this whole process.
Mr. Smith. I would respectfully ask you to look into the
Rwanda situation, if you could, and get back to us. I would
appreciate it.
Ms. Haslach. I was actually the attache in India, so I very
much value their contributions. So we will definitely get an
answer to you. With regard--and we will get you more specifics
about this, Congressman. But let me just say very briefly how
countries were selected, and it is a combination of things. It
is an art maybe, not a science, but it is based on, first of
all, the level of need, the opportunity for partnership, that
is very key, potential for agricultural-led growth, opportunity
for regional synergies. That is one area we didn't discuss
today, but the regional component is important. Resource
availability. So those are the key areas, and we will get back
to you on that.
But I also want to stress, just because we have identified
20 potential countries doesn't mean that every one of those
countries is going to actually be able to meet the bar. This is
a pretty high bar for countries to achieve. There is phase 1
and phase 2. Phase 1 is sort of the capacity-building level
where we are trying to help them get to phase 2. But unless
they commit to the process themselves and unless it is a
consultative process, they will not get to phase 2. So this is
important. It is a little bit different than assistance
programs where you commit the resources and they are there for
life.
I would also like to say that we are continuing to support
for additional agriculture development and nutrition programs
in up to 38 other countries. So what we are really talking
about is having some kind of an impact in 60 countries. And I
mentioned the strategic partners. We are also focusing on
regional organizations such as ECOWAS and ones in Latin
Americans and Asia as well. Thank you.
Mr. Smith. Just a very quick follow-up on Mr. Rohrabacher's
comment on Ethiopia. And I would hope, both Mr. Payne and I,
Chairman Payne, when he was chairman and when I chaired the
African committee, I introduced the Human Rights in Ethiopia
Act. We are very concerned, and I think I speak for many
members of the panel. President Meles certainly has crushed or
tried to crush opposition opponents. He has thrown them into
jail. We have never got an accounting for the killings that
took place in Addis after the elections which were far less
than free and fair. But I would be very interested, the NGOs
that don't get funded in a country-led plan unless we put
maximum pressure to make sure that certain faith-based as well
as politically disenfranchised NGOs are included. Because,
otherwise, if left up to him, they will be excluded. Thank you.
Ms. Haslach. Thank you, Congressman. Perhaps, I would like
to point out that the countries right now that we are working
the closest with are Haiti, Bangladesh, Ghana, Rwanda, and
Tanzania. Thank you.
Mr. Carnahan. Thank you. And next I would like to recognize
Congresswoman Woolsey for 5 minutes.
Ms. Woolsey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to dig
just a little bit deeper on the sentiments of the questions
that the last two members have asked.
Just in general, how are you going to implement this so
that we can ensure that Feed the Future just doesn't add
another layer of bureaucracy to this need? I guess, with the
Washington Post showing us what has happened to our
intelligence overhead, we have to be so careful that we make
sure.
And in answering that, this is kind of a two-part question.
You talked, you mentioned over and over about the NGOs being
included in how the programs will be set up and what this will
mean. How about the women that are the real deliverers of
agriculture, the farmers themselves, and the people? I mean,
tell us--give us an example of sitting down with women and
talking to them about how this is all going to come about
together.
Ms. Haslach. Congresswoman, first of all, we really
appreciate your support here on this.
Maybe take the first question. I just finished a year in
Iraq, and one of the most successful programs we had at a
provincial reconstruction team up in the Kurdistan region was
actually a project that we ran with women where we provided--
AID provided micro-finance loans, and they set up a dairy, a
small dairy operation and used the milk products and sold the
yogurt and made cheese. And these were widows; these were women
that didn't have any other form of support. So I think these
are the types of programs that we are aiming at.
And I share your concern that we are creating yet another
bureaucracy. In fact, when we come to meetings we tell everyone
to check their agency and their cell phones at the door,
because the stovepiping is what contributes, I think, to a lot
of the duplication. I saw it in Iraq when I was sent there
basically to try to get everyone to work together as one team,
as opposed to having one group over here working on a democracy
in governance program and another group in another part of the
embassy working on a democracy in governance program. So our
aim is to work together as one Feed the Future team. Thank you.
Mr. Garvelink. If I could just add a comment or two about
what is going on or will go on, on the ground, in the various
countries. Our country team at the U.S. mission will manage
this process, and the lead person is our Feed the Future
coordinator, at this point in time USAID directors. And they
will make sure that everybody, like we are trying to do here,
is working together and not duplicating or leaving any gaps in
the programs that are being put together. And they will work
very closely with the host government, but they also work with
the civil society that is on the ground there. They meet
regularly with those individuals and work very closely with
them, whether it is CRS or World Vision or some of the--
Lutheran World Relief or some of the other organizations.
There is regular meetings between the U.S. country team
there and those operations. And so they will be watching these
programs very closely and monitoring them, and the Feed the
Future initiative will be part of the larger U.S. Government
assistance program in that country. It is not a parallel
activity, or it is--it will be integrated into the ongoing
activities that we have in the country. So on the ground it
will not really be an additional layer; it will be an
additional facet to our assistance program.
Ms. Woolsey. So how are you hearing from the people? I
mean, that is not their representatives. The people themselves,
how are they bringing them into, whatever situation, sit down
and talk about it this?
Mr. Garvelink. Well, again, that works--the country team
that is out there, the USAID mission, the U.S. Department of
Agriculture, the Millennium Challenge Corporations, in addition
to meeting with the government officials, they meet at the
local level and community level. Having been an aid mission
director myself a few years ago, you actually go to the
communities, talk to the people under--if you are going to
design your programs right, you want to know what they need and
you want to hear it from them, not what you think officials in
the capital city would like but you have got to talk to the
people on the ground, in the villages who you will be providing
assistance to, to get it right.
So our teams do in fact meet with the women on the ground
and talk about, in Africa where they don't own land and they
don't have access to credit and they don't have access to
extension agents and women are not trained regularly as
extension agents and that is something we want to change. So
you have got to hear directly from them what their needs and
concerns are. And that is going on through our U.S. missions in
the countries where we are designing these programs.
Ms. Woolsey. Thank you.
Mr. Carnahan. Thank you. Next, I want to recognize
Congresswoman Watson from California for 5 minutes.
Ms. Watson. Thank you very much. I just want to spread some
good news about something my dear friend said referring to
Ethiopia.
We just came back several months ago, and we worked on the
ground with civil society with an organization called IP, Light
Years IP (Intellectual Property). And as you know, they have
four different levels of coffee beans there. We didn't go
through government, but government officials came to visit our
conference for 3 days. And what we did with the farmers, we
trained them how to brand, how to copyright, how to negotiate,
you know, how to get their product out there and receive the
benefit back. They were getting something like $2 per bushel.
But I say that if you work with civil society, you work
with the NGOs, I think our resources go further, because they
are, in many cases, native people or people who have worked
with the native people and they understand best how to serve
their own communities and they know how to train and teach. And
working with them I find has been very helpful.
As I understand, the initiative is divided into two parts.
Is that correct? The food initiative for each of the host
countries? Phases.
Ms. Haslach. Yes.
Ms. Watson. And there is a planning phase and there is an
implementation phase. Am I following the instructions, from my
staff in the back, correctly? And I think the administration
budget justified included the funding required for each host
country and each phase. The $1.6 billion request for the Feed
the Future for Fiscal Year 2011, however, does not include
additional funding for food aid through global health and child
survival programs or Food for Peace nor food aid earmarked for
the NGOs.
So can you give us some kind of timeline how that is
moving? And how does phase 1 take into account the food from
each of the different funding streams? And how long are the
phases, say, phase 2? And how do you tend to implement?
Ms. Haslach. The overall budget request is not just
specifically for the 20 countries. It also includes our
strategic partners. It is also for regional organizations. It
is also for research, and it is also our contribution for the
Global Agriculture and Food Security Trust Fund. So it is not
specifically just for the 20 countries.
Also, phase 1----
Ms. Watson. Would you be able to add countries as per need?
Ms. Haslach. Yes. Or subtract if we don't see--if countries
don't submit a country investment plan.
With regard to phase 1 and phase 2, we can get you much
more detail about this. But, basically, phase 1 is looking at
the foundation, is looking at the capacity building, looking at
policy reforms, looking at sort of the nonphysical
infrastructure aspects of it.
In order to graduate to phase 2 with the full country
investment plan, that is when the price year projects kick in,
roads, irrigation systems, these types of things. And we want
to leverage our other programs with a country as an MCC
program, for example, we want to make sure that we are not
building the same road or other donors or the trust fund isn't
financing a project. So it requires very, very close
coordination on the ground. And we on the ground and depending
on the country they will call them an agricultural working
group, a donor working group. They work with the government.
But, again, that is where the consultation process is
taking place. That is where civil society, women, farm groups,
private sector are supposed to be included in that process. And
when we were in Ghana--sorry. When we were in Senegal for this
recent meeting that was co-hosted by ECOWAS and Spain, 12
countries submitted their country investment plans and some
were in various stages of development.
Ms. Watson. Was Liberia?
Ms. Haslach. Liberia was there. So what is important is the
country submits this country investment plan that is part of
this consultative process. But then, afterwards, once the plan
was submitted then these groups got up, and each one had a long
period of time in order to critique the country investment
plan. So this is all part of the process.
Ms. Watson. Well, I just want to give you a big, shall I
say, a shout out for support with what you are doing. We just
left a conference where President Johnson Sirleaf was, and my
organization just gave $0.5 million to build a women's
cooperative. You know the women that sit by the side of the
road and they bring in the produce and so on? We want to build
a infrastructure and we want to them bring all their
intellectual property in and we want to assist them. And I tell
you, she is doing a fantastic job.
So there, it is the NGOs, it is all civil society working
with the government. And I do take heed that, if the government
is corrupt, we could run into some problems. But what I am
experiencing is that some of the countries are starting at the
top and giving a green light, so to speak. And so I would be
really interested in giving the information back that was asked
for.
I see my time is up, but I am very interested in this
program. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for having this hearing
today, and we are going to track it very closely.
Mr. Garvelink. If I could take a minute and add one
comment.
Mr. Carnahan. The gentleman is recognized.
Mr. Garvelink. Thank you. You mentioned that the account
for Feed the Future was separate from the Food for Peace and
emergency food aid budget, and I just want to emphasize that
that is true. The Feed the Future is not a substitute for the
emergency food aid programs that we have run for many years
through the office of Food for Peace and NAID.
For example, unfortunately, the need for emergency food aid
is going to continue; and while we are focused on 20 or so
countries, there are a lot of other ones that are not as
fortunate as these 20 and they facing emergency situations. So,
for example, in 2009, we provided about--the U.S. Government
provided 2.6 million metric tons of emergency food aid to about
44 different countries.
That will continue, and the Feed the Future initiative will
work very closely with emergency food aid so that they
reinforce each other and help folks move from the emergency
situation beyond to development issues. But the emergency food
aid will continue.
Ms. Watson. Mr. Chairman, may I take 1 more minute? I just
have to say these things.
Mr. Carnahan. Without objection, I will recognize you for
one more follow-up. And then I will do the same for Mr. Smith
as we wrap up.
Ms. Watson. Thank you. We all are concerned about what is
happening in Haiti. And one of the biggest issues is that there
is food and food product in storage not getting out to the
people. And what we are understanding is there is now a lack of
coordination. So I heard that Haiti was on the list, and that I
hope that the works that you are doing will help in terms of
coordinating this and getting food out to--there are youngsters
in orphanages that are starving, and there are warehouses
because of some kind of bureaucratic blocking are not giving
permission to get that food out. So that doesn't make sense to
me. And I am hoping that as we gather in the information about
the process, that we can really address Haiti. Thank you for
the additional time.
Mr. Carnahan. Thank you. And again, without objection, I
want to recognize Mr. Smith for some quick follow-ups.
Mr. Smith. Thank you. Just two quick questions. One would
be on results with regards to evaluation. Will there be a focus
on household level and not just on production? Yes? Secondly,
with regards to DR Congo. And Mr. Ambassador Garvelink, I know
that you served at DR Congo for 3 years. Yesterday, I met with
your predecessor Ambassador Roger Meece, who as we all know is
the special rep for the U.N., and wish him well in that very
difficult job.
I visited DR Congo and met with a group of farmers in the
capital, Goma. And one of the farmers told me, ``I can grow
anything. I just can't get it to market.'' And when I saw the
roads that he had to take to get his produce to market, you
know, his produce spoils. There is just no way of doing it in
any kind of way en masse. Is the DR Congo on that potential
list? They have had elections. They have made some strides.
Obviously they still have a ways to go. But if you could speak
to that.
Mr. Garvelink. Unfortunately, it is not just the roads.
There are blockades along the way where fees are collected. And
for those reasons, as we talked about earlier, governance and
the government's commitment to agricultural development is a
critical element of identifying the countries that are
considered for this initiative. And much to my personal regret,
having spent 3 years there, they are not on the list.
Mr. Smith. And one last point. While I was there, I learned
that the Chinese government was spending billions on roads, but
also had an agreement that any minerals they find in proximity
to those roads become theirs, or at least their ability to
extract it. And one parliamentarian told me with a bit of a
smile on his face, ``Yeah, that is why the roads are a little
bit zigzagged, because they are trying to incorporate the
find.''
From a strategic point of view and in terms of investing in
people--obviously, they have suffered so much, lost so many
people through years of warfare. Might the DR Congo be at least
considered a candidate?
Mr. Garvelink. Well, just a couple of comments. We have a
small agriculture program going on in the Congo where we are
confident through NGOs that we can reach the people that we
have to reach through those organizations. But there is also in
the eastern part of the country--in Goma, there is a fairly
large emergency assistance program that will address the needs
of the folks caught in the middle of the conflict and that sort
of thing, but it is not part of this initiative.
Mr. Carnahan. For one additional follow-up, I am going to
recognize Mr. Rohrabacher for 1 minute.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Did you say that Cambodia was on that list
as well? Do you know much about the Hun Sen regime in Cambodia?
Would you call that an honest government? Something that if you
managed to do something to help further promote the people that
it will permit the benefits to go to the people rather than
being taken away by the corrupt dictatorship in Cambodia? Hun
Sen is a tough guy. I mean, he is a gangster. And so are the
people in Ethiopia.
Look, it is one thing that we can all proclaim how much we
want to help people. And I think it is really important that
the United States maintain itself as a good country as well as
a free country, and we are good because we care about people.
But borrowing money from China in order to promote something in
a country run by Hun Sen or these guys in Ethiopia. And I don't
know about these other countries. I think that we are saddling
our young people with debt for the rest of their lives in order
to do something like this makes no sense. Thank you.
Mr. Carnahan. Thank you. And I want to take care of a piece
of housekeeping business. I know that Ambassador Garvelink
asked that the Feed the Future guide be included in the record.
Without objection, it will be. And also, just thank you, for
the work you are doing, the goals--the multilevel security
goals--involved in what you do, the levers that we have high
hopes that this program will create. But we do want to continue
to work with you, watch this closely, have you back--the new
coordinator--here when the yet to be named coordinator--we hope
to have him here before the committee as well. Thank you very
much.
If we could have the second panel come up. We are going to
jump into our second panel, if they could come forward. I want
to welcome our second panel and do some quick introductions.
Beginning on my left is Dr. William Danforth. He is
currently the chairman of the board of directors of Donald
Danforth Plant Science Center. He also serves as chancellor
emeritus of Washington University and chairs the Coalition of
Plant and Life Sciences. He became Washington University's 13th
chancellor in 1971 and served until his retirement in 1995. Dr.
Danforth received his B.A. from Princeton University, his M.D.
from Harvard Medical School in 1951, and is a native of St.
Louis, Missouri.
Next, Mr. Gerald Steiner is Monsanto's executive vice
president of sustainability and corporate affairs. He leads the
company's global Government and Public and Industry Affairs
teams across 70 countries where Monsanto does business. He is
also co-founder and board member of the Global Harvest
Initiative, a public-private initiative whose mission is to
sustainably double agricultural production by 2050. He received
a B.S. degree in agriculture economics from the University of
Wisconsin and an MBA from Washington University.
Next, Dr. Hans Herren. He was appointed Millennium
Institute's president in May 2005. Previously, he was director
general of the International Center for insect physiology and
ecology in Nairobi, Kenya. Dr. Herren was the recipient of the
1995 world food prize, the highest award given to an individual
for advancing human development by improving the quality,
quantity, and availability of food in the world. Dr. Herren
earned his Ph.D. at the Federal Institute of Technology in
Zurich, Switzerland.
Next, Ms. Evelyn Nassuna. Welcome. Ms. Nassuna is the
Uganda country director for Lutheran World Relief, an
organization that works with local implementing partners around
the world to seek lasting solutions to rural poverty. She
manages the LWR's Uganda portfolio of agriculture, health, and
livelihood development work. Previously, she worked for
Catholic Relief Services in Law and Advocacy for Women in
Uganda. She is a native of Uganda, holds a bachelor of law from
the University in Tanzania and a master's degree from
Georgetown University Law in Washington.
And, finally, Ms. Jennifer Smith Nazaire has been country
representative of Rwanda since August 2008, joined Catholic
Relief Services in 1993. She has worked in Morocco, Haiti, and
Cameroon, holds a bachelor's degree from Mount Holyoke College,
a master's from Johns Hopkins School of International Studies,
and was also a Peace Corps volunteer in Cameroon.
Welcome to all of you. We are really looking forward to
this second panel. And we will recognize Dr. Danforth to kick
this off. Welcome, Dr. Danforth.
STATEMENT OF WILLIAM H. DANFORTH, PH.D., CHAIRMAN, BOARD OF
DIRECTORS, DONALD DANFORTH PLANT SCIENCE CENTER
Mr. Danforth. Thank you, Mr. Chairmen, Chairman Carnahan,
Chairman Payne, Ranking Members Rohrabacher and Smith. I
appreciate this opportunity to share my vision with you.
We started our plant science center in St. Louis because we
saw an historic opportunity to further important basic human
rights; enough nutrition to sustain life and health, and a
liveable environment for one's family. We saw that these goals
could be pursued in partnership with national and international
organizations. And we believe and do believe that the stars are
aligned for success for several reasons: One, thanks to decades
of Federal investment, we have the scientific biologic tools.
Second, we have two strong Federal programs, the Agricultural
and Food Research Initiative, AFRI, that is part of the new
congressionally mandated National Institute for Food and
Agriculture in the USDA. And, second, the Agency for
International Development works effectively with international
organizations to bring them some of the boons of modern science
to people who need it most.
Thus, in my view, we have the tools and we also have
problems that need solutions. We have heard earlier 1 billion
people will go to bed hungry tonight. On an average, every 6
seconds a child will die causes related to malnutrition. So we
feel a sense of urgency.
Moreover, the population of the world is growing, as are
the demands on farmers for greater production per acre with
less input of water and fertilizers. We think that
biotechnology is part of the solution.
As I say to our St. Louis friends, we with our skills are
at the right place at the right time. It is up to us to make
the most of our opportunities to do something wonderful. And I
appreciate your interest here for nothing, so great can happen
without the support and help of the Federal Government.
I will tell you a bit about how our plant science center is
just one example of what can take place. We are not for profit,
dedicated to using plant science for human betterment. More
specifically, we want to help feed the hungry and promote
better human nutrition and to preserve and enhance the
environment, to feed the world with its expanding population
and greater per capita consumption of food without ruining the
environment. That will require that, by 2050, farmers will have
to double the production per acre with less use of water and
fertilizer. The traditional method of adding more acreage won't
work. That land just doesn't exist.
Our work with cassava will provide you with specifics.
Cassava is a root crop with limited market or money-making
potential in the developing world, but is the third largest
source of calories in the developing world. Seven-hundred
million people rely on a cassava as a major source of food. It
offers a lot: Rich in calories, grows in poor soils, withstands
drought. It is a food security crop. Families can preserve the
roots in the ground and dig them up when they are hungry. But
cassava has problems. Crops can be devastated by virus
diseases. While there are lots of calories, it lacks vitamins,
minerals, and proteins. Children are especially subject to
protein deficiency and vitamin A deficiency, two conditions
that can lead to disability and early death.
We have two separate projects. Our longest one is to
increase the resistance to cassava mosaic virus and, more
recently, the devastating brown streak virus that destroys
crops. So far, the results of field tests in Uganda look good.
More recently, thanks to the Gates Foundation, we have been
making cassava more nutritious. To date, we and our partners
have quadrupled the levels of protein and iron and increased
the amount of vitamin A by 30-fold. But doing science is only
part of our effort. With the funding of the Gates Foundation,
we created a new biosafety resource network. The goal is to
assure research projects that are part of that foundation's
Grand Challenge, Global Health Initiative, deal properly with
biosafety regulatory issues, and the technologies are socially
and culturally appropriate. We work with African scientists to
train young people to be scientists.
Finally, I would say that Federal support for these timely
efforts is very important to make the most of today's
opportunities. And I particularly note the importance of the
Department of Agriculture with its new agriculture and food
research initiative and the agency for international
development.
I have with me an article from the New York Times that is
quite interesting and I would like to submit it, if I may, for
part of the record.
Mr. Carnahan. Without objection. Thank you, Dr. Danforth.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Danforth follows:]
Mr. Carnahan. And we will next go to Mr. Steiner.
STATEMENT OF MR. GERALD A. STEINER, EXECUTIVE VICE-PRESIDENT,
SUSTAINABILITY AND CORPORATE AFFAIRS, MONSANTO CORPORATION
Mr. Steiner. Thank you. And good afternoon, Chairman
Carnahan and members of the committee. Thank you for inviting
me to testify on an exciting new initiative, Feed the Future. I
am going to present a summary of my written testimony.
For us, Feed the Future is exciting because it recognizes
the power of millions of farmers to meet the world's growing
demand for food and fiber and fight poverty at the same time.
Farming is diverse and it is local, and there is no single way
to accomplish the goal described. There is no silver bullet
that, if you do just one thing, we can meet this problem and
fix it. I find in my travels around the world that farmers are
often underestimated, and we really believe that farmers should
have more and better choices so that they can select what they
see as best.
Now, I grew up on a small Wisconsin dairy farm, and I
really loved watching things grow. And, Chairman, I stacked
many loads of hay myself and I understand the importance of
stacking the foundation very firmly. Today, I love working for
Monsanto. We are a company that develops some of the tools that
helps farmers produce more on every acre, do it with less risk,
and with a smaller environmental footprint. As a company, we
are wholly focused on agriculture. It is our only business.
That gives us great opportunity and it also gives us great
responsibility, and we are committed to improving agriculture's
ability to meet the demands that are placed on it by the
growing population that has been talked about here and the
environmental challenges.
This is an immense challenge, and no one can achieve it by
themselves. We actively partner with other people including on-
the-ground NGOs. Together, we believe we can build systems that
begin with access to more choices and tools like improved
seeds, fertilizer, extension, and have to end with a
functioning market and a road to get the commerce there. In
other words, these are exactly the type of systems that are
envisioned in Feed the Future.
For Monsanto, doing our part means investing in cutting-
edge innovation to develop better seeds, seeds that farmers can
see for themselves and choose when they see that they make
sense. Now, this private sector investment requires predictable
science-based regulatory systems and reasonable laws to protect
these kinds of new inventions. We have 400 people who live and
work in Africa, and we are proud that our local business in a
country like Malawi was able to contribute to the improvements
in food security that they have made over the last 5 years, and
we believe that these situations ultimately are addressed by
having a strong local business sector, and that is crucial to
accomplishing the mission. And sometimes a humanitarian action
is also needed to get it started.
We are engaged in a variety of public and private
partnerships around the world both in the market development
side as well as accessing better seeds. One of the most
significant on the accessing better seeds is a 2-year-old
program called the Water Efficient Maize for Africa, or WEMA.
Its goal is to increase the drought tolerance of white maize in
Africa where it is the key stable crop.
Now, to maximize the performance and deliver the best
locally adapted drought tolerant seed for these farmers, we
have donated access to our best locally adapted hybrid
germplasm, new breeding tools that we developed for our
commercial business, and biotechnology-based genes that we
think are going to help in drought. Nothing is held back in
meeting this challenge. We believe WEMA will result in seeds
that perform just as well in good conditions but achieve 20 to
35 percent more yield when we have moderate droughts. And the
yield protection provided by these seeds then makes it less
risky for farmers to invest in fertilizer, meaning more farmers
will use it and the entire local community will benefit from
the increased production and increased consistency.
The design around WEMA follows the principles that are laid
out in Feed the Future. It is led by a local organization in
Africa, the African Agricultural Technology Foundation based in
Kenya. It directly engages the five partner countries and their
ag research systems. CIMMYT, which is the International Maize
and Wheat Improvement Center and home of the late Dr. Norman
Borlaug. And while these scientists are out there working in
the field developing this product, they are also developing
their capacity. In fact, there is a brand-new team of 60
scientists that are out there today that are up and operating.
This new kind of unprecedented partnership makes excellent and
efficient use of public resources, and I believe it is part of
the future.
In closing, the beauty of helping with better seeds,
whether they are conventional, hybrids, or biotech, is that
they can be used by and benefit every farmer, from the woman in
Burkina Faso, farming an acre with a hoe, to the Iowa farm
family using GPS-guided tractors on thousands of acres. The
promise of an improved seed is portable, it is scale neutral,
and it is built in. Our focus is on what works in the field.
Feed the Future contains the seeds for real progress also
in helping them meet some of these most pressing needs and
greatest opportunities, and we stand ready as one of many
partners to help it grow. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Steiner follows:]
Mr. Carnahan. Thank you. Dr. Herren.
STATEMENT OF HANS HERREN, PH.D., PRESIDENT, MILLENNIUM
INSTITUTE
Mr. Herren. Chairman Carnahan, members of the committee, it
is a pleasure to be here today, and thanks for the invitation.
The Feed the Future Guide, I think, is a very forward-
looking document, and again which demonstrates a strong will to
move forward in terms of the global food security. I would have
called this Nourish the Future rather than Feed the Future,
because I think we have to think also of nutrition security and
not only food security in the future.
The five principles by which this initiative will be
implemented look interesting, and certainly but also need to be
looked at a bit more closely. In particular, the issue of this
country-owned plans, and I think in particular, the issue of
how are the countries able to do the planning and confer and
defend their own ideas later on. And I think that has been
shown in the past to be a problem and I think also in the
future, unless some steps are being taken to help countries
with developing those plans, in particular with capacity
building to get in that direction so they can do their own,
make their own decisions and confer with plans which are
acceptable.
The policy approach, which consists of sustainable
agriculture and small-scale farmers, again, that is good, which
is lined out, but I think it is falls short on some key issues
which are the center of a new paradigm for sustainable
agriculture. What has been outlined as the way forward again is
more of the same, more seeds and fertilizer. And there is very
little talk about actually looking at the system, because the
problems in agriculture are systemic problems in agriculture
and beyond agriculture, which I think have to be addressed. And
they cannot be sold with the quick fixes as in the past we have
done already.
And as the cochair of the International Assessment of
Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development,
these are the book here, 2,000 pages total which have been
written by 400 people is not even mentioned in the report. And
here we have basically analyzed the last 50 years of
agricultural knowledge, science, and technology and look 50
years forward. It is quite interesting that even though there
are summary for decisions-making which are very small, some 20
pages to read, have not found their way into the initiative.
Which, by the way, was funded by the United States for
$250,000, had three government members writing on it, 56 U.S.
authors were also part of this exercise. So it is a bit
unfortunate that all the wisdom which has been accumulated
there in particular looking at sustainable agriculture issues
have not been taken into account.
We also make a point that the multi-functionality of
agriculture is very important, and we have to look at
agriculture in the environment where it is done, and it is very
site specific so one size doesn't fit all at all. And I think
that is something, when we look at science and technology how
this could be helping, we have to be very careful that this is
done actually locally rather than just in one place and
transferred to another.
One issue also which doesn't appear and which relates to
actually the issue of nutrition security is the issue of
diversity. And, again, here I think the report doesn't address
the issue of more diversified food plants which need to be
grown and worked and developed, and I think that is something
which cannot be done simply and needs to be done at the country
level by the people, and because they are very dependent on the
different environments.
And I think we know what works. There are many technologies
developed already in Africa manage to push-pull, and you can
look it up, or biocontrol which have saved the cassava crop.
With $20 million, we save 200 men and people's livelihood and
20 million lives. I have done this myself, so I know what is
going on and how we can change things in Africa. And it cannot
be done with quick fixes. Again, I think we have to think about
the system and see how we can work with the system rather than
with just a silver bullet approach. It is a matter of price
also to make sure that some of the solutions I think which can
be implemented right now are already.
They could go with much less cost and time delay than to
develop new varieties, when actually we know that what exists
already can quadruple minimum or maybe more in a very
sustainable way the production, agricultural production in
Africa and farm productivity, rather than just more yield of a
specific crop.
So I think that we do have solutions. We want to make sure
that they get implemented rather than to look again for silver
bullets. Thank you.
Mr. Carnahan. Thank you, Dr. Herren.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Herren follows:]
Mr. Carnahan. Now I would like to recognize Ms. Nassuna.
STATEMENT OF MS. EVELYN NASSUNA, UGANDA COUNTRY DIRECTOR,
LUTHERAN WORLD RELIEF
Ms. Nassuna. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the
respective subcommittees for this opportunity to speak about
Lutheran World Relief's work with small-scale farmers in
Uganda, as well as my initial thoughts on the impact that Feed
the Future can have on that work.
Some of you are probably familiar with LWR, but many of you
I suspect are not. So let me begin by telling you a bit about
us.
LWR is a relief and development organization support by
U.S. Lutherans, church bodies, private foundations, and a small
number of government grants. We are also supported by some
remarkable U.S. farmers who work with the Foods Resource Bank
to use their farms to raise funds to support in farmers in
developing countries.
In Uganda and around the world, LWR works through local
NGOs and grassroots organizations to seek lasting solutions to
rural poverty. Guided by a philosophy and framework of
accompaniment, we seek to empower local communities by
emphasizing shared values and jointly developed objectives. I
have personally been blessed to offer LWR in Uganda since 2004.
One of the organizations I have had the privilege to work
with in Uganda is LWR partner Gumutindo Coffee Cooperative
Enterprise. A few years ago, the story of Gumutindo could
easily have been a story of failure. In 2006, Gumutindo
recorded a loss of $2,000. Coffee bean quality was low,
production was weak, and farmer members lacked technical
knowledge to produce hearty crops. LWR worked with the
organization to put in place better financial systems and
provide the resources to help train the farmers. Now, Gumutindo
has become a booming cooperative. Its coffee beans are high
quality, its production is efficient. Membership has grown to
10,000 farmers. And, in 2008, made a profit of $250,000. The
very banks that refused to work with the cooperative in 2006
are now calling Gumutindo and offering loans.
But real success is not in numbers, it is in its members.
Like Mrs. Masifa Bisaso. Mrs. Bisaso is a widow and a coffee
farmer who once struggled to produce enough income from her
coffee trees to feed her family. As a result of her own hard
work and training from Gumutindo, Mrs. Bisaso has seen a
remarkable transformation in her farming enterprise. She says
her trees look better and she is commanding a higher price for
her crop, but she is especially excited by high increased yield
which is more than 30 percent larger than last season.
With her new income, Mrs. Bisaso is investing in a
diversified diet for her family by purchasing a cow and two
goats. She is also paying school fees for a granddaughter and
saving to buy a pulping machine which will help further
increase the value of her coffee beans.
In the Wakiso district, LWR works with a Ugandan NGO and a
certified microfinance institution calls Voluntary Action for
Development to provide access to credit, training, and
technology for ten cooperatives of maize, bean, and mushroom
farmers. Mrs. Namuli Kate is one of the farmers.
A subsistence farmer for the last 10 years, Mrs. Kate was
struggling to provide food and education for her three
children. With the help of VAD, she recently decided to focus
on growing produce to provide income as well as food for her
family. After being trained in new farming techniques,
bookkeeping, and marketing, Mrs. Kate was able to take out a
small loan to cultivate two acres of improved maize. After
selling her crop to a local school, she was able to pay off
part of her loan, send her children to school, and invest in a
local poultry project.
With more than 1 billion suffering from hunger, the world
can learn much from the experiences of Mrs. Bisaso, Mrs. Kate,
Gumutindo, and VAD. Key lessons include the need to focus on
small producers, empower women, strengthen organizations, and
consult with the affected communities.
One of the things I didn't tell you in connection with the
story of Mrs. Kate is that much of the food accessible in rural
Africa is produced by farmers just like her. I have seen
American farms, so I know that her two acre maize patch might
not seem much to you, but you cannot overlook her or her maize
patch if you want to help Uganda. What she does is a mainstay
of our economy, and the primary source of our food. Working
with small-scale producers to increase yields and create value-
added products, two important components of Feed the Future, is
the way forward for Uganda.
Feed the Future has also identified gender as one of its
cross-cutting priorities, and I strongly with this strategy.
Although women like the two I have told you about do most of
the farming in Africa, they face significant disadvantages
compared to men. Challenges include access to land ownership,
education, and credit. So I look forward to seeing increased
efforts to make agricultural inputs and extension services more
accessible to women.
At the same time, I hope Feed the Future will be careful
not to overlook the husbands, fathers, and brothers of these
women. Before starting a new project to help women, it is also
important to consult with the men to find out what it would
take them to make them supportive of the project. When men are
included in the process and see that what the women are doing
is helpful to their communities, they will support progress
instead of opposing it.
Another big challenge for Feed the Future will be to scale
up work that is already proving successful. LWR, for example,
has helped tens of thousands of Ugandan farmers, but there are
more than 30 million people in our country, the majority of
which derive all or part of their livelihood from agriculture.
And helping rural communities is in a developing country is
challenging. Each farm is different and each community is
distinct. The only thing you can count on is the fact that the
travel to reach them will be difficult.
Supporting organized groups of farmers is the key to
scaling up successfully. Feed the Future is a new initiative,
and so the impulse may be to start new groups and
organizations, but I encourage you to focus on the groups that
are already there. They may be poorly governed and have little
bookkeeping or business knowledge, but as demonstrated by our
work with Gumutindo, there is great potential to turn these
groups into good development partners, with built-in community
support, who can provide technical education, collective
purchasing arrangements, collective credit arrangements,
savings opportunities for thousands of farmers at a time. But
the most important lesson I can offer you from my work in
Uganda is that Feed the Future must find a way to ensure that
national governments in charge of developing country plans
consult with the intended beneficiaries and their local civil
society organizations. In Africa, this means more farmers with
limited resources and little time to spare. Civil society
organizations are equally stretched, and with many staff
members holding two jobs to just make ends meet. But these
people and organizations must be involved if country investment
plans are to be effective, accepted, and incorporated broadly.
Governments must have the financial support and the
incentive to consult with farmers. In most cases, they cannot
do this by e-mail or even by phone. Government officials must
meet in person with small farmers and civil society groups, and
provide adequate time for meaningful consultation. Very
literally, this means government officials making trips, or
supporting the travel of small farmers and civil society groups
to hold consultation. Something as simple as providing
translation is easily overlooked and also critical to
consultation success. But this too calls for financial support.
I trust these efforts will be made, but at the end of the
day, Feed the Future must ensure that national governments
fulfill their consultation requirements by refusing to push
forward country plans that do not include the input of affected
communities and local civil society.
My final thought on Feed the Future is simply that you
should give this program the time and the support it needs to
succeed while still remaining vigilant in your roles as
overseers. In the agriculture sector, results are rarely
immediate, and if they are, you may want to question them.
Mrs. Bisaso and Mrs. Kate did not improve their livelihoods
overnight, and, to be honest, they still face challenges. But
they have more stable access to food than ever, and their diets
and those of their families continue to improve. This important
progress came as a result of their own hard work and a little
support from people in the United States. Your continued
support for Feed the Future will ensure that many more lives
are impacted. Thank you.
Mr. Carnahan. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Nassuna follows:]
Mr. Carnahan. Next, I would like to recognize Ms. Nasaire.
STATEMENT OF MS. JENNIFER SMITH NAZAIRE, COUNTRY
REPRESENTATIVE, CATHOLIC RELIEF SERVICES--RWANDA
Ms. Nazaire. Good afternoon. I would like to thank Chairman
Payne, Chairman Carnahan, Ranking Member Smith, and Ranking
Member Rohrabacher for calling this important hearing on Feed
the Future program. To the two chairmen, I would like to submit
my official statement for the record, and I will be summarizing
my statement for you here.
I am Jennifer Smith Nazaire, Catholic Relief Services
country representative for Rwanda. CRS has had a presence in
Rwanda since 1960, and we have worked since then in poor
communities throughout the country and many other countries on
agricultural production, food security, and nutrition
initiatives. CRS has maintained a steadfast relationship with
these communities and local partner organizations throughout
the changes and development approaches over more than four
decades.
During the 20 years of neglect of agriculture by major
development donors, CRS used our limited private resources to
continue to work with farmers and rural communities because we
recognized the crucial role that agriculture plays in rural
economic development and its direct link to reducing poverty
and hunger.
CRS would like to emphasize that the purpose of Feed the
Future Program should be to build food security for the poorest
people in the poorest countries, and not just to increase food
production through agribusiness or other large-scale schemes.
Governments must play a national leadership role, but do
not always have the orientation and capacity to reach the
poorest farmers in a comprehensive and effective way. To
develop effective and representative responses, governments
need to engage with local civil society and international NGOs
about the best approaches for solving problems of food
security.
CRS has a long proud history of partnering with the
government of Rwanda and civil society organizations in
agriculture, food security, and nutrition programming. Such
programs have evolved significantly over 50 years from
nationwide school feeding activities to complex and
comprehensive nutrition and livelihood projects, reaching
Rwanda's most vulnerable populations. Today's programming also
includes value chain marketing initiatives involving strategic
food commodities such as cassava, orange blush sweet potato,
and coffee, to name a few.
Local operational NGOs are advancing food security
development efforts in significant ways in all Feed the Future
target countries. National investment strategies do not always
reflect this. Local NGOs have developed programs and activities
over many years that advance food security to fill a void
caused by lack of attention by national governments.
On December 7 and 8, 2009, I was one of a number of NGO
representatives invited to a 2-day country-led consultation
process for Feed the Future in Kigali, hosted by the government
of Rwanda. The meeting was part of the signing of a compact
between the government of Rwanda and the African Union's
Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Program, CAADP. As
you know, Rwanda was the first Feed the Future target country.
There was minimal involvement of civil society and
international NGOs in the meeting discussions. It was evident
that the government of Rwanda and donors do recognize that we
in the international NGO community are filling an important gap
until necessary capacity has been built in government and civil
society, but there were no specifics on how we, or even our
local civil society partners, would be involved in the
government's plan for agricultural transformation to improve
food security.
As I come to the end of my testimony, on behalf of CRS I
would like to offer four recommendations: First, the measure of
success for Feed the Future should be how families grow more
food, earn more income, and are better able to provide a
healthy diet for themselves and their children.
Two, we need to ensure that national investment strategies
have mechanisms within their budgets for funding civil society
organizations to further the goals of Feed the Future.
Three, we would like to see governments formalize
mechanisms for citizen participation. Establishing
participatory budgeting or ombudsmen's offices to address
citizen complaints can both empower citizens and provide
governments with greater understanding of societal problems.
These and other mechanisms for ensuring participation in
country strategy development can also serve as a foundation for
greater transparency and accountability.
Fourth, and lastly, U.S. Government representatives in Feed
the Future target countries need to arrange regular meetings
with civil society including international NGOs, local NGO
partners, faith-based groups, and other pertinent members.
To both chairmen and ranking members, thank you for this
opportunity to present testimony before the subcommittees. Feed
the Future is an exciting departure from the past as it seeks
to address the complexities of global hunger through a
comprehensive approach that brings all stakeholders into the
process. It is our conviction that civil society plays a key
role in that process.
I would be pleased to answer any questions that you may
have at this time. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Nazaire follows:]
Mr. Carnahan. Thank you, and thank all the panel.
We will begin with a round of questions here. I will kick
this off with the first 5 minutes and really wanted to start
with Dr. Danforth.
You had cited some great examples of the cassava project in
terms of nutrition and resistance to disease that are
impressive. Can lessons learned from that program be applied to
other crops in Africa? And, if so, could you talk about that?
Mr. Danforth. Yes. We have most of our efforts on cassava
as an African crop. We also work with other African crops such
as sorghum and chickpeas and other things, but cassava has
gotten most of our attention. What we think is that the
scientific technologies that we use can be applied to other
plants.
Other plants are not cassava. They have different problems.
For example, we have been working on the cassava mosaic virus
for many years, more than a decade. The work has gone very
slowly, and it has taken a long time. We are finally in field
testing, and it looks as if we have something very important.
When the new virus came along, because we are used to
working with cassava and doing this, instead of a dozen years,
it took us 3 years to get something into the field.
So these technologies can be used. You just can't take
something from one plant and necessarily transplant it into
another, but it can be done if you know how to do it.
Mr. Carnahan. Thank you, Dr, Danforth.
For others on the panel, perhaps Mr. Steiner and Dr.
Herren, Nobel Prize winner Dr. Norman Borlaug strongly
supported the use of both conventional and modern
biotechnologies to develop crops needed for sustainability and
for our growing population needs. I guess I wanted to get your
comments on really trying to focus some of these debates that
have gone on on sound science versus many philosophical
arguments in terms of meeting these challenges and how we can
really be sure we get the best science at the table during
these efforts.
Mr. Steiner. Chairman Carnahan, I would start from the
perspective of a farmer. The farmer can only plant one seed in
that spot in the field, and the farmer wants something that is
going to work and stand up to the challenges that nature is
going to bring forward.
To the extent that we can solve these problems in a more
simple manner with breeding, it is fantastic. We know there are
certain things that are very, very difficult to do, such as
getting plants to protect themselves against viruses of the
kind Dr. Danforth talked about. Many of them we do with
breeding. Or protect, for example, against insects. And it is
very fortunate that we have been able to use the BT proteins,
the same protein that organic gardeners use to control many
pests and get plants to protects themselves.
So I think if we look at this from a farmer's perspective,
they just want something that works and works really reliably
here. And I believe we are going to have to use the best of
both to really get a solution that is going to fit in many
different places, and that solution will be unique.
Mr. Carnahan. Dr. Herren.
Mr. Herren. I think we need to really look what has worked
in the past, number one. I think there are biological control
method against pathogens and insects, for example, that work
very well. I think we have to dig up again and implement it.
There is a lot to do there which doesn't cost the farmer
anything and which actually takes care of the system.
Now any seed, as good as it may be, won't grow on this
table here. And the program actually in Africa is that we have
a huge ill gap. The ill gap between the varieties which exist
and what they could be performing are at least fourfold, if not
more.
Now where is the problem? The problem is therefore not in
the seed. The problem is in the soil, soil fertility and water
retention.
So we have to put sort of the tractor in front of the cart
and not behind. I think we have to really think about first
issues are soil fertility, how to improve it, and actually make
agriculture as part of the climate change solution, not the
problem. Right now, we are losing all our organic matter. So
let's put it back into the soil, have soils which are really
fertile and where presently available seeds can produce enough
food to feed Africa and the rest of the world beyond 2050.
So I think we have to really stop to think about where are
the problems and solve the problems and then to look at we have
a solution here. Where can we use it?
Mr. Carnahan. Thank you. My time is up.
I will recognize Mr. Smith for 5 minutes.
Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you all for
your testimony and for your leadership.
Let me just ask a couple of questions.
Jennifer Nazaire, I quoted some of your testimony during
the previous panel. Several of my questions were aimed at
providing these two subcommittees with very detailed accounts
from the two ambassadors and from their office as to the
criteria used for choosing the 20 countries. I know the four
criteria, but when you really get down into the weeds, what was
really done to ascertain that this country would be chosen over
that country, and this is what we are going to do and how much
we are going to spend. We need that kind of oversight
information.
But I especially want to know in addition, how the civil
society and the international nongovernmental organizations
have integrated. I am sure we will get that information. I hope
we will get it in a timely fashion.
There are several countries that Ambassador Garvelink has
ticked off--and he did all 20 countries quite well, I thought--
as being in phase two: Ghana, Mali, Rwanda, Senegal, Tanzania,
and Uganda. He also mentioned Haiti--and Bangladesh.
Given that these countries are close to the launch phase, I
am wondering what you have been seeing in the field with regard
to inclusion of faith-based and international NGOs, civil
society, and the private sector.
I know we learned bitter lessons from PEPFAR and from the
Global Fund--because of the CCNs and the way they operated--
that many faith-based and other NGOs that were indigenous to
that country were left out. Especially in countries where there
had been a history of corruption and perhaps an animosity
toward the church because it was the voice for human rights
that called government officials on the carpet, faith-based
organizations were excluded from the CCMs. I and others have
forcefully asserted that faith-based NGOs are the key to Africa
health. And I would think that, given the long history that CRS
has had in Rwanda, for example, since 1960, you need to be
included and in a robust way. So I am very concerned.
You mentioned that, as of that meeting, there was very
little contact. Where is it now? Have they reached out to try
to bring in Catholic Relief Services or Lutheran or any of the
groups that provide tremendous information and insights and
have a whole network that they can then work with on the
ground?
Ms. Nazaire. Thank you for your question.
Yes, as I testified, I was invited and other international
NGOs and civil society to this big meeting in November to
launch the Feed the Future Initiative in Rwanda. We were very
happy to be invited.
As I said in my testimony, the discussions were not very
inclusive, I would say, of civil society. I would not say that
is the fault of the U.S. Government, necessarily. I think there
are many reasons for that. Perhaps there is a certain
environment in Rwanda--and I can only speak for Rwanda. I don't
know what the situation was in other countries.
In terms of inclusion of civil society, both international
NGOs and local civil society, we feel very happy that we have
been included in the consultations of the design of this
program; and I want to make that very clear. We have
collaborated very, very effectively, I think, and have been
invited to participate in the design of this initiative.
There is that phase and then there is the implementation
phase, which you are asking about. I think it is a slow
process, implementation, and there are many phases, and we may
not be aware of all the phases and what is going on. What I can
say is that there have been limited meetings even since then,
since November, that have involved civil society, both
international and local civil society. So I am a bit concerned
about that.
I think also there is the nature of discussion and
participation. When those meetings with civil society are
called, they basically look at plans that the national
government and the donors have put together and then we are
just being asked to check and say, yes, that looks good, or,
no, this does not, or have we been active members in putting
together those plans? I think that is what I am most concerned
about.
Yes, 2 weeks ago, we were invited to a meeting at USAID in
Kigali. We participated. We were the only international NGO
that was invited, as far as I know. I don't think local civil
society was invited.
Mr. Smith. I would hope the administration would take your
advice and the advice of others into consideration, unless you
want to create a sidebar type program that would be inferior to
what could be done overnight. And we did it with PEPFAR. That
was under the Bush administration. My hope is that we don't
replicate that error here.
Secondly, very quick to Mr. Steiner, we know Europe really
does have a lot of heartburn over genetically modified
organisms (GMOs); and, obviously, a lot of money coming into
Africa and the target countries will be interfacing and working
synergistically with European money, G-8 money and even G20
money. So my question is, given their hostility toward GMOs,
what kind of balance can be worked out? I think GMOs are a way
of ensuring the greatest possible feeding of the world, within
some guidelines. But how does that work with country led plans
when you have a competing interest in terms of what kind of
seeds go into the ground?
Mr. Steiner. In a meeting that I was in a number of years
ago, the expression was: When the elephant is dead, the grass
gets trampled. That was what they had said. What I am heartened
in what I am seeing is that more and more African countries are
starting the process which will enable them to look at these
technologies for themselves and make a decision for themselves.
A very good example is Burkina Faso, which over the last 6
years has been looking at insect-protected cotton, the same
insect-protected cotton that is grown in this country and China
and India and a whole number of other countries around the
world. And they have moved forward and a third of the cotton
crop was produced with the help of that technology, reducing
the number of sprays from six to two.
So I think the power of example will move this debate. It
will be choppy, given those factors.
Mr. Smith. My time is up. Thank you.
Mr. Carnahan. Thank you.
Next, I want to recognize Chairman Payne for 5 minutes.
Mr. Payne. Thank you very much.
I really applaud this initiative and how the world has come
in to support it. With 25,000 people dying every day due to
hunger or related causes and 265 million people, nearly one-
third of the continent's entire population suffering from
hunger, I do know that we really can't keep spending a whole
lot of money that we don't have. I think that our children and
our grandchildren might forgive us for this $3 billion that we
are talking about over the next 3 years, and maybe it will
reduce some of the 25,000 people who die every day from
malnutrition and its related diseases. You might--if you divide
the number into the cost--you might find it is really not that
much.
I guess the question is, how much is a human life worth? I
don't know whether it is in the eyes of some where the life is.
However, that is a debate for another day.
Mr. Payne. In Rwanda, you say that you have not been that
involved. But how is food production in Rwanda better this year
overall than it was last year or last year better than the
previous year? I might just ask you: Is there success?
Ms. Nazaire. Yes, Chairman Payne. I am not an
agriculturalist, so I can't give you have any statistics
exactly, but I understand that agriculture production is
definitely improving in Rwanda. The Government of Rwanda has
made a commitment to agriculture. They know the great majority
of the population depends on agriculture. They have put their
money forth, and their investment plan includes their own
monies in addition to monies that they are receiving from
development partners--or hoping to receive. So, yes, I think it
is a success story so far in Rwanda.
Mr. Payne. And there are countries that are doing poorer,
to say the least, and it may be that the expertise that you
have, the fact that you have been there so long, may have had
something to do with the fact that the government has kind of
pulled itself together and are doing better. So I think it is
not really a rejection of your group. But it might be that
there could be next door in Burundi, where I don't hear very
good stories happening, that you may put your resources there,
and it might be better for them.
Let me just ask Mr. Steiner, there was a discussion about
modified GMOs. If you could go back--a lot of times we say in
retrospect that we go back and start all over again. Of course,
you represent the companies. I want you to keep your job.
However, do you feel that GMOs, the concept was introduced
properly? Was it something that you knew, your company knew,
other scientists knew, and you said, this is good enough? How
can you reject this?
I mean, look at when you are dealing with people who may
have a traditional way that they went about either--I have read
some articles where even the United States, an old farmer--and
I don't know how old Mr. Carnahan was when he was doing that
hay on the wagon--but some of the newer farmers, whether there
was a thorough explanation about what this thing is.
Mr. Steiner. I think that all of us, if we look backward
and say there is nothing we have learned, we probably aren't
looking very hard.
The first thing I would say is that, from a standpoint of
farmers, farmers everywhere around the world, when they have
had the opportunity to choose, have very quickly seen the
benefits of these products, whether it be fewer pesticides,
less tillage, reduced costs, increased yields. And that has
been true very universally.
We, I believe, got caught up in being so excited about this
technology. And the first couple of products--one of those I
mentioned a minute ago was insect-protected cotton that Burkina
Faso just took in place right here. And we thought that how
could someone, including someone who cares deeply about the
environment, not want to see fewer pesticides being applied to
a cotton field? How could anyone fight that? And we really
thought we would see a lot more embracing from those
organizations, and I think we were blinded by our own
enthusiasm on this.
So if we had a chance to do it all over again, I think we
would engage in a different kind of communication and a two-way
dialogue at the very early stages. And we know that, once you
start, you can't do it all over again. You have to deal with
what you have got. But from a standpoint of technology and
farmers getting a chance to see this, this has been extremely
successful.
Mr. Carnahan. I recognize Congresswoman Woolsey for 5
minutes.
Ms. Woolsey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I have no new thoughts on this, but I have two major
concerns. We listened to the government panel, and they were
quite convincing about outreach and inclusion with affected
communities. I think that is because they actually believe that
they are doing it, and they are doing enough of it. So I think
there is a gap. I think there is a gap between their enthusiasm
to get out and get going forward and what this panel, I heard,
that will be glad for help, but I think the help would be much
more effective if you included us in the planning, design, and
implementation. So that--and I am going to ask for feedback on
how you would do that.
The other concern I have, and that is for you, Dr. Herren,
when you are feeding and bridging a gap of needing a lot more
food for a lot more people, how are we going to put controls on
the possibility of maybe too much of a good thing when it comes
to better seeds and what is really a better seed versus a
better way of growing?
I actually, Mr. Steiner, I represent Marin and Sonoma
County just north of San Francisco. They have placards
everywhere: No NGOs. Believe me, they are worried about this.
So I think we have to worry. And there is a concern that we
don't take advantage of a hungry nation or hungry nations by
all of a sudden setting up systems where there will no longer
be fertile seeds, et cetera, et cetera.
So, first, how about you, Ms. Nazaire, on bridging the gap
with the inclusion?
Ms. Nazaire. Right. I believe that the administration is
making serious efforts. I think there can always be more.
But, obviously, some of my concrete recommendations, I
would go back to what I said in my testimony about regular
meetings with civil society. As I mentioned, we were included
in a meeting 2 weeks ago. It is the first meeting that we had
been invited to on this initiative for 6 months. So I think I
would emphasize that regularity. And I don't know exactly what
that regularity is. I think it depends on how fast the process
is moving.
I think that the other thing is advocating vis-a-vis the
Government of Rwanda, for example, for more inclusion of civil
society--local civil society and international civil society. I
think that the government of Rwanda, for example, doesn't
automatically think of us. They are in charge of their
development agenda, and they want to be running the show. They
do include us from time to time. But I think that the
Government of the United States could advocate for us and the
role that we could play more than they are.
Ms. Woolsey. How about Uganda, Ms. Nassuna?
Ms. Nassuna. In Uganda, we would recommend that Government
works with the farmers themselves. They should do this in a
more decentralized manner. They should go down to the
districts, work with the cooperatives, the organizations, the
producer organizations that already exist, to provide them with
the information that is needed, instead of waiting to invite a
few people to go down to the center of the country that is the
capital to kind of provide their input into a plan that has
already been developed. And it is important that it is done at
the time that is quite convenient to the farmers. Sometimes
they hold these meetings when farmers cannot even afford to
leave their gardens to go out for a meeting. And they should
work with civil society because they have been doing this for a
very long time and they know how to work it well.
Ms. Woolsey. Thank you.
Dr. Herren.
Mr. Herren. Thank you for this question.
I think we need to realize that more food or more
production doesn't mean less hunger or less poverty. Look at
the green revolution. For all its benefit it has provided to
grow more food, we have today, what, 1.3 billion people who are
hungry and another 1.5 billion which are malnourished.
Obviously, there is a problem with that approach which we need
to rethink, and we have done so with 400 people for 4 years
around the world.
And we cannot get--although breeding is necessary, that we
need better seeds, even maybe by technology or genetic
engineering, the problem really is elsewhere. And we need to
deal in sequence.
So, first, we have to see where are the major constraints;
and they are really actually in the farming systems, in
growing, in plant health. And so we need to make the best use
of what we already have of the research which has been done in
the international agricultural research system, funded by the
United States with a lot of money.
So there are a lot of solutions that are already available.
Why are they not put in place? And I think we need to think
about genetic engineering or GMOs. Where do they really fit?
And I think that if you ask yourself this question, you go
out and look--I mean, I have 30 years experience on the ground
in Africa, so I have seen it. I think the role they play is
minimal at this time, because we know how to deal with the most
urgent matter.
And, actually, the farmers, women in particular, what they
need is information. They want to know how can I do things
differently on a project. It is amazing how much information
people want and can absorb.
But is it there? No. We need to prepare it to pass it on,
and then they can do it.
They want to know how do we do compost; how can we grow
sustainably; how can we do a biological control. Things they
don't have to pay for but which can actually increase their
income. So all these things are available. Now let's put it out
there and let's move it.
Again, drought tolerance. There is a lot of drought
tolerance in local varieties. Actually, some of the genes which
are being taken out of local varieties in Tanzania and then
replaced in other varieties. Maybe that is good. But, again,
there are other solutions. We need a better soil which has
organic matter to absorb the water, rather than to let it run
off. We need to have complex systems where you produce a
fertilizer in situ with legumes, with crop rotation. We don't
just want maize and more and more maize. Because I think that
is, first of all, not very good human food, certainly not in
Africa where we have humongous problems with aflatoxins in
corn.
So, again, I think the solutions--we have worked with this
so much. I would wish that the initiative would actually go
back and look at this tremendous amount of work here and say,
okay, what can we implement right now? Where are the needs for
more research?
Again, I think GM technology, more research is actually
required. How do they fit into the system, into an integrated
pest management system? So we don't have those answers yet. So
let research go on and implement what we know already which
doesn't create any issues and long discussions.
Mr. Carnahan. Thank you.
I think we have time to do some quick second round of
questions before we wrap up.
I just wanted to wrap up with a question with regard to the
impact and the outreach to women. We will start with Ms.
Nazaire talking about the outreach you have done. We heard
comments earlier about the impact that women have in what we
are doing in agriculture and in food quality and development.
If you could touch on that.
Ms. Nazaire. Sure. Absolutely.
I agree with everyone who has talked about the vital role
of women in agricultural production and also as caretakers of
their family. In Africa, as it has already been stated, and
certainly in Rwanda this is the case as well, a lot of the
farmers--majority of farmers are women. The work that CRS does
with our partners on the ground always works with groups of
women who are in the majority in farmers' groups and in the
cooperatives.
In our nutrition activities as well, the majority of the
beneficiaries are women. We are working with them on improved
nutrition practices, on growing food in their kitchen gardens
that are more nutritious for their families.
So I would agree with everything that has been said and say
that CRS is definitely working with women in agricultural
production.
And, also, it hasn't been really discussed today, but
savings and internal lending groups, micro credit, are vital
for food security as well; and it is important that those kind
of programs be folded in. It is not all about agricultural
production. It is also, as some of my colleagues said, about
nutrition and access to income.
Those groups, micro credit groups, are, by and large,
women, 90 percent women. And payback rates, as you have all
heard already, I am sure, are very high among women.
Mr. Carnahan. Thank you.
Ms. Nassuna.
Ms. Nassuna. Of course, women do most of the work on the
farms. They produce the food. But, unfortunately, they face a
lot of challenges. Most of the women don't own the land on
which they farm. They cannot access credit, and often when
there is a training, it is the men that attend. That is why we
are saying the consultations are very, very important to
involve both men and women. Because when the men are not
involved and we target only the women, then the men are not
very supportive.
We have seen this in our work, especially like with the
coffee cooperative that they talked about. We may do all the
work on the coffee farms; and then, when the money comes in, it
is the husband that controls the money or the brother or the
uncle, depending on the male figurehead around. But when one of
our partners came up with an initiative that would be called
the ``women coffee projects'' and women were being paid more,
then men were more supportive and giving women land to farm
their own coffee to generate income.
So we are saying that when we are doing these consultations
to target women, who are facing more challenges than their male
counterparts, it is very important to involve the men, because
they are supportive of the projects that we support.
Mr. Carnahan. Thank you.
Dr. Danforth and Mr. Steiner, can you talk about the work
that you have done in outreach to women as well?
Mr. Danforth. Yes. Our work is primarily with science and
then carrying that into field tests. We, of course, have women
in our organization and involved in the projects, in the field
tests. We are reliant on our partners to say what their
particular countries need, and we work in training scientists,
both male scientists and women scientists. Because in the long
run--and we hope in the very short run--scientific decisions
for developing countries should be made by scientists in those
developing countries.
May I make one other comment? I would just like to say that
human beings have been improving agriculture for 12,000 years.
They have been improving agriculture through making better
seeds, through irrigation, through looking for better land. And
that is going on today, and it will probably go on long after
we have gone.
It has just been very, very interesting to hear these
discussions. There is not going to be a single answer. I think,
given the challenges in the world today, we want to encourage
everything and stop nothing.
Mr. Carnahan. Mr. Steiner.
Mr. Steiner. For over a decade we have had an external
advisory council, and two of the most influential persons of
those councils over time have been women in Africa. But one of
which led an underground NGO doing work similar to what Heifer
International does and another who is a farmer herself. They
have kept our feet to the fire of who we are really working
with, and that predominantly is women.
The last point I think Dr. Danforth made about needing
everything I think is really important. As a matter of fact, I
disagree with very little about what has been talked about of
what is needed. The point I think we really need to be
conscious of is not thinking about this from the perspective
that we need to direct the agricultural system.
I believe these farmers, predominantly these women farmers,
are far more rational and effective decisionmakers than they
are given credit for. Yes, they absolutely need more
information, and essentially it is an important piece of this.
But I believe in getting choices in front of these people. They
will make good choices. That is one of the things I know we are
personally committed to; and I hope Feed the Future does, also.
Mr. Carnahan. Thank you.
Mr. Smith.
Mr. Smith. Just three quick questions.
The Millennium Challenge Corporation and the coordination,
do you see any evidence that there is an understanding by the
20 targeted countries, particularly those with compacts, that
they can, again, synergistically really enhance their situation
if those are coordinated?
Secondly, what country or countries would each of you add
to the 20? What was left off the list that cries out for
inclusion?
And finally, how well coordinated are the other donor
countries' contributions, as far as you know? Is there evidence
that that money, particularly the new money, is being used? We
know that some is just rearranged and repackaged. But there is
some new money, I am sure, coming from several of those
European and other donors. How well is that being used?
Mr. Herren. I think what is important is to see how you can
also work with--on a regional base. Because the international
agricultural research and the regional agricultural may
actually be places where, again, more support is needed to move
the whole agenda forward. And also, like was mentioned, but
also the Central African arrangement and also East Africa.
So I think there are regional organizations where it may be
valuable to look into because then you sort of avoid the issue
of country A or B, but I think you can channel a lot of
information and know-how to the farmers in these places, too.
So, again, maybe looking on a regional level.
Ms. Nazaire. Just very quickly for the three questions you
asked. In terms of MCC coordination, I haven't really seen it
myself so far. In Rwanda, I haven't heard it being talked about
as much as Feed the Future. For other countries, I don't have
any specific countries that I would say why was that country
not included. I think there is a lack of information about why
those particular 20 countries were chosen. I know a number of
my colleagues' country representatives have been asking those
questions.
In terms of other donor participation and coordination, my
feeling is that the European donors are coordinating quite well
with the U.S. Government. And I can't say more than that,
really.
Mr. Smith. On that second point, we will get, I believe, a
very detailed analysis from the administration as to how they
were picked, criteria, the whole thing. Because I believe, Mr.
Chairmen, it is very important that we know how this process is
being undertaken, and maybe we might have a few ideas that
could enhance it, and perhaps you would, too.
Mr. Danforth. I was going to say, from the standpoint of
making sure that the research is done in the United States in
these areas, I have been amazed at the amount of information
sharing and the amount of cooperation that goes into everything
that we have been associated with. We have one in our
environmental area where we have a single grant that has two
national laboratories, 12 universities, and 15 private
corporations all involved in one big project; and it is going
fantastically well. That is what you can do with modern
communication.
Ms. Nazaire. I forgot to mention, although I don't have any
specific suggestions for additional countries that need to be
targeted, we do feel it is very important, and I was very glad
to hear the testimony from the previous panel, that part of the
Feed the Future Initiative funding will be also going outside
of those 20 target countries. As we have heard, the neglect of
agriculture over a number of decades has really affected a lot
of countries, and I think it is important that we not just put
all of our eggs into those 20 countries.
Thank you.
Mr. Carnahan. Thank you.
Playing cleanup for today's hearing is Chairman Payne. He
is going to get the last set of questions.
Mr. Payne. Thank you very much. Let me once again commend
you for this very important hearing.
Dr. Danforth, you mentioned about moving forward and some
of the countries that haven't had much of a program. Do you
feel that the different countries are at different stages and
that some very basic types of things could be done such as
trying to control water during the rainy season or trying to
have some other type of basic irrigation? What is your feeling
on the sub-Saharan countries, the difference in the ability or
the capability to move forward on this increasing agriculture?
Mr. Danforth. Mr. Chairman, I can't comment on all of those
things, because I don't have any knowledge and experience. I
can comment only on the areas in which I have experience, and I
would say this.
There is a lot of difference in the African countries and
countries in other continents in both their scientific
knowledge, understanding, and the kind of governmental
organizations they have to assess safety and to work with
organizations that are trying to do bio safety. There is an
enormous difference.
I would also say that we work with the countries that we
feel we can work with that want us to work with them. We don't
have the self-confidence to coordinate these different
governments. We work with those that want to work with us.
Fortunately, more and more seem to be wanting to do so.
The biotechnology that we use has been around for 14 years
now, and there have been no problems with it, and people are
getting more and more confidence. Other coordination, I can't
really say with any expert knowledge.
Mr. Payne. Ms. Nassuna, we talked about women having an
impact. We know that Miss Wangari Maathai, the Nobel Peace
Prize winner, really showed how one person can really make a
difference.
And I couldn't agree with you more that the women really
are the ones that are the engine, and I couldn't agree more
that I think you have to bring in the men to try to make them
at least feel like they are partners to try to get the job
done. I think that through our program--hopefully--we will try
to stress that as we move forward to the various countries in
Africa.
I just conclude again by mentioning examples of good ideas
and enthusiasm. For example, there was a notion 3 or 4 years
ago of something called AFRICOM, where the U.S. said we are
going to run in the region, and this is how we are going to do
it from now on as related to the presence of the U.S. military
in African countries. Now they didn't really mean they were
going to go and have the General in charge and USAID and State
Department report to them, but it sounded that way. So every
country rejected it except Liberia. They were just looking for
anybody to come in. If they are going to buy some food, they
are going to help our economy.
But it was just, I guess, a more current example of how
something that is not introduced--something that is really
good--and I am not so sure AFRICOM is as good as you say your
GMOs are--receives the same kind of rejection, suspicion. Why
now? Are they going to try to militarize our countries? Will we
all have to report to Generals? We have elections to get rid of
Generals and now you have got AFRICOM. So perception, as you
know, is so important. And so I know that, as you move forward.
I think that the way you are going about it now, perhaps with
education, with results, probably is certainly going to be more
advantageous than the initial response.
Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for this very important
hearing. I would congratulate you for telling the Speaker don't
have any votes while I am having my hearing. I wish I could be
that powerful.
Mr. Carnahan. I think it was luck.
Thanks to all of you on this panel.
Ms. Nazaire. I don't want to prolong the hearing, but I was
wondering, even though Chairman Payne didn't address the
question to me, if I could address the issue of countries at
different stages.
I would just like to say that I do really feel that the
different African countries especially, but I think all the
countries, are at very different stages and abilities for
moving forward and showing results from this program. All of
them can go forward, but can they all show results? And I think
that is what we are looking for.
I think some of the things we should be looking at are
absorption capacity, the level of priority that the government
gives to agriculture, their commitment that has been shown and
proven in the past, stability of the country. If the country
doesn't have stability, it is really hard to move forward on
some of these areas. And then accountability and transparency
has come up in this hearing a number of times, especially
earlier.
So I would put that forward as well. I think that the
administration has taken into consideration all of these
things, and that is why you see the two phases. So I just
wanted to appreciate that.
Mr. Carnahan. Thanks to all of you for bringing your
expertise and your passion here to this issue and for our
previous government panel that is kicking off this initiative.
Again, we have a very optimistic view of this, kicking off
this new vision for development. It is not just about food. It
is about security on so many levels. It is not just a U.S.
initiative. It certainly is international in scope. We are very
much going to be looking forward to getting the new coordinator
in place to get the program up and running and to be sure that
we are getting the most leverage and those results. That, I
think, will tell a lot in terms of how this new program is
really being rolled out.
Thank you all very much.
[Whereupon, at 3:53 p.m., the joint subcommittee hearing
was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Material Submitted for the Hearing RecordNotice deg.
Mi
nutes deg.
Ca
rnahan
FTR deg.__
Material submitted for the record by the Honorable Russ Carnahan, a
Representative in Congress from the State of Missouri, and Chairman,
Subcommittee on International Organizations, Human Rights and Oversight
Po
e
statement deg.
__________
Po
e
QFRs deg._
deg.
__________
[Note: The entire May 2010 Feed the Future Guide is not reprinted here
but is available in committee records or may be accessed via the
Internet (accessed 10/25/10) at: www.feedthefuture.gov/FTF_Guide.pdf]