**STATEMENT OF**

**Theo A. Dillaha**

*Program Director, Sustainable Agriculture and Natural Resource
Management (SANREM) Collaborative Research Support Program (CRSP)*

*Office of International Research, Education, and Development*

*Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg*

Before the

**U.S. House of Representatives**

**Committee on Agriculture**

**Subcommittee on Specialty Crops, Rural Development and Foreign
Agriculture**

***Review of U.S. Efforts to Deliver International Food Aid and
Agricultural Development Assistance***

*July 16, 2008*

**Office of International Research, Education, and Development**

Virginia Tech (0378)

526 Prices Ford Rd.

Blacksburg, VA 24061\
Phone: 540-231-6813\
Fax: 540-231-1402\
Email: <dillaha@vt.edu>

SANREM Web Site: <http://www.oired.vt.edu/sanremcrsp/>

**Review of U.S. Efforts to Deliver International Food Aid and
Agricultural Development Assistance**

by Theo Dillaha, Professor of Biological Systems Engineering, Office of
International Research, Education, and Development, Virginia Tech,
Blacksburg

Testimony before the U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on
Agriculture Subcommittee on Specialty Crops, Rural Development and
Foreign Agriculture on international food aid and foreign agricultural
assistance\
July 16, 2008

Thank you, Chairman McIntyre and distinguished members of the
subcommittee, for inviting me to participate in today\'s hearing. I
welcome this opportunity to testify before you on the need for a new
approach to U.S. food aid and foreign agricultural assistance.

I am speaking today as a faculty member representing Virginia
Polytechnic Institute and State University and its Office of
International Research, Education, and Development (OIRED). OIRED
manages a research portfolio of over \$46 million in 44 countries around
the world. Current research projects involve forestry and natural
resource management, integrated pest management, sustainable
agriculture, watershed management, and micro-enterprise development and
higher education capacity-building projects Haiti, Nepal, and Oman.
Twelve full-time faculty and nine staff members support these efforts in
partnership with over 40 U.S. university partners and a similar number
of developing country institutions. The majority of these activities
involve agricultural development and are funded by USAID. Personally, I
have been engaged with the issues of international development for over
three decades as a Peace Corps volunteer, a U.S. university faculty
member involved in agricultural development and environmental
protection, and currently as the Program Director of the Sustainable
Agriculture and Natural Resource Management Collaborative Research
Support Program (SANREM CRSP) managed by OIRED and sponsored by the U.S.
Agency for International Development (USAID). The SANREM CRSP is a
long-term, \$2.4 million per year program that sponsors applied research
to develop new knowledge and technologies to improve agriculture and
natural resource management.

Even before the current global food crisis, there were numerous calls
for reviewing and improving the effectiveness of U.S. food aid and
foreign agricultural assistance programs. Now with the food crisis and
the potential for pushing at least 100 million people in developing
countries back into poverty due to rising food prices, the need for
program reform is even greater. I urge you and other members to act
quickly and responsibly to address this crisis. My recommendations are
based on my personal experiences in international development and
discussions and with colleagues involved in international development as
well as developing country scientists, policymakers, and aid recipients.

The overarching objective of the following recommendations is to
increase the capacity of developing countries to pull themselves out of
the food crisis spiral. I recommend that you consider the following
actions:

[Immediate]{.underline}

1.  Fully fund the emergency food assistance programs of the World Food
    Program and USAID's other Food for Peace activities, improve the
    effectiveness of these funds by removing earmarked and tied aid, and
    support World Food Program and USAID efforts to purchase food
    locally where possible. Wherever possible, require strong linkages
    between emergency food assistance and agricultural assistance
    programs.

2.  Do not transfer foreign agricultural assistance funds to emergency
    humanitarian relief efforts.

> The practice of reducing foreign agricultural assistance programs to
> provide emergency humanitarian relief is self-defeating and delays
> and/or inhibits developing country self-sufficiency in food
> production. After the successes of the Green Revolution we assumed
> that the "food" problem was solved and funding to increase
> agricultural productivity to keep pace with growing populations and
> demand declined dramatically. Today, we are faced with recurrent food
> crises in many developing country populations and with current
> policies and aid programs, no long-term solutions are in sight.

3.  Assess and change policies contributing to the global food security
    crisis whose humanitarian and economic costs outweigh their
    benefits. Key policies that need to be reviewed include:

-   Biofuel programs competing with grains and oilseeds used for food.

> Current short-term U.S. goals for biofuel use are not reasonable in
> light of their effects on food prices. Deadlines need to be scaled
> back until biofuels can be supplied without competing with food crops;
> subsidies for biofuel based on food crops should be reduced or
> eliminated; and non-food crop biofuel research (e.g., cellulosic
> ethanol) should be greatly expanded. While I congratulate the
> Committee for recognizing the importance of transitioning to advanced
> biofuel through the introduction of a new producer credit for
> cellulosic ethanol and for providing mandatory funding for cellulosic
> infrastructure expansion, there is certainly more that needs to be
> done. For one, a six cent reduction in the ethanol blenders credit
> does not do justice to the immediate need to move U.S. biofuel
> production away from an unsustainable corn based system.

-   Repeal the 1986 Bumpers Amendment, which prohibits the use of
    foreign assistance funds in developing countries on crops that if
    exported, would compete with U.S. agricultural commodity exports.

> This regulation is hampering agricultural development and U.S.
> influence in some of the poorest countries. Recognition that it is not
> helpful for development is illustrated by the fact that it is slowly
> being relaxed, e.g., U.S. assistance to cotton production in West
> Africa.

4.  Facilitate the immediate provision of seeds and fertilizer for
    countries most affected by the food crisis by using 'smart' subsides
    friendly to market development in the upcoming planting seasons.

[Intermediate to Long Term]{.underline}

Increase the ability of developing countries to feed themselves and
reduce their dependence on external food aid through capacity building.

From the U.S. university perspective, the major agricultural development
problem and a fundamental cause of the current food security crisis is
the lack of effective capacity of developing country institutions and
personnel to solve local problems and to work with U.S. and other
international scientists and development specialists on more complex
problems. Local capacity building is the cornerstone of sustainable
development. Efforts to build local capacity and solve local problems
have been hampered because:

-   U.S. universities have had few effective and stable long-term
    developing country partners with which to build capacity and few
    resources to do so.

-   Long-term partnerships are necessary to address sustainability
    problems because management strategies for agriculture and natural
    resources are dynamic, constantly presenting new challenges and
    opportunities that require new, innovative and collaborative
    research.

-   US universities simply cannot return again and again each time a new
    challenge appears to rebuild developing country problem solving
    capacity that was lost and that is continually needed for responding
    to evolving needs before they become critical.

5.  [Expand agricultural research:]{.underline} For the past forty
    years, the Green Revolution and other public and private sector
    agricultural research allowed food production to keep pace with
    population growth and increasing demand and saved 100s of millions
    of people from starvation. As a result, governments, policymakers,
    and others concluded that the "food problem" was largely solved and
    that the remaining issues were rather marginal technology transfer,
    distribution, and marketing problems. Resources for new technology
    development and systems-related research declined in real dollars.
    As a result, agricultural production is not keeping pace with rising
    demand, food prices are increasing dramatically, and the numbers of
    people in poverty and at risk of malnutrition and starvation are
    increasing.

> Needed investments in agricultural research include:

-   Reversing declines and restoring funding for USAID's Collaborative
    Research Support Programs, the Consultative Group on International
    Agricultural Research (CGIAR) and other international agricultural
    research centers, the USDA-Foreign Agricultural Service, and other
    programs that engage U.S. universities agricultural research and
    education in developing countries.

-   Long-term research programs with well-defined goals rather than
    short-term projects. Long-term programs not only solve current food
    production problems, they also build human and institutional
    capacity to solve future problems.

-   Creation of developing country agricultural research institutions
    (national and/or regional) that can address local and regional
    agricultural research needs.

To solve the food security crisis, researchers from the U.S., other
developed counties, and our developing country partners must work
together to provide unbiased scientific knowledge, which policymakers
and development specialists can use to address the food security crisis.
Critical issues include:

-   New agricultural production technologies and methodologies

-   Sustainable food production given accelerating soil, water, and
    ecosystem deterioration

-   Lack of well-trained local researchers

-   Extension services for technology innovation and transfer

-   Economics (poverty cycle, markets, infrastructure, trade issues
    including U.S. domestic agriculture policy)

-   Storage and post harvest food losses (up to 50% in some cases)

-   Impacts of global warming and climate change

-   Control of invasive species and plant pests

-   Biotechnology

-   Outmoded land tenure systems

-   Gender and resource access issues

-   Corruption and governance issues

-   HIV-AIDS and other diseases

-   Increasing population pressure

-   Food aid and delivery mechanisms

-   Food transport systems

-   Ecosystem services

6.  [Expand agricultural education:]{.underline} Increase the capacity
    of food-insecure developing countries to solve their food security
    needs by educating developing country agricultural scientists and
    policymakers at U.S. universities.

> The principal investment needed in long-term agricultural education is
> adequate funding for training and capacity building programs conducted
> by:

-   the USAID Collaborative Research Support Programs,

-   US programs such as the Fulbright and Humphrey Fellow and Scholar
    Programs,

-   the USDA-Foreign Agricultural Service, and

-   long-term partnerships between U.S. land-grant universities and
    colleges and developing country educational, research, and extension
    organizations.

Prior to 1990, the U.S. was the world leader in educating developing
country scientists and policy makers; however, U.S. efforts in this area
have declined dramatically. Long-term training in the U.S. decreased
from approximately 15,000 per year in the 1980s to approximately 1,000
last year. Long-term degree training in the U.S. also benefits the U.S.
by exposing future developing country leaders to the U.S. system and
creating leaders who understand and are supporters of U.S. policy and
actions. The decrease in training of Africans has been particularly
devastating for agriculture in Africa, as a significant portion of U.S.
educated African scientists and policymakers have either died of AIDS or
retired. Because of the decrease in training, there is now a dearth of
qualified people for agricultural research, development, and leadership
positions. In Africa, China has replaced the U.S. as the premier leader
in long-term higher education, and we have lost one of our most
effective means of influencing future African leaders.

7.  [Support for the U.S. land-grant university model under Title
    XII]{.underline}

> Combining agricultural research, teaching, and extension missions into
> a university led system has been largely responsible for the success
> of U.S. agriculture. A similar system based on the U.S. model is also
> largely credited with the success of agricultural development efforts
> in India. This success is due to the following factors:

-   The U.S. land-grant university approach to agricultural development
    facilitates communication and collaboration among the three
    necessary components of agricultural development: research,
    education, and extension.

    -   Through this integration, research and education are grounded in
        real world problems identified through agricultural extension
        programs, and extension programs in turn benefit from the
        cutting-edge university research and teaching methods.

> In the developing world, the three missions are generally housed in
> different ministries, greatly complicating collaboration internally
> and externally.
>
> U.S. land-grant universities and colleges and their world class
> researchers, educators, and extension specialists are ideal mentors
> for developing country universities wishing to adopt this model. They
> can build human capacity (long-term degree training and faculty
> development) as they advise and helped integrate the agricultural
> research, education, and extension missions in developing country
> institutions based on the land-grant model.
>
> The U.S. land-grant university model with long-term partnerships
> between U.S. land-grant universities and colleges and developing
> country "land-grant" type institutions are natural partners for
> solving the immediate as well as emerging problems in agriculture and
> natural resource management. Together they can leverage many more
> resources to support joint efforts and thereby magnifying the impacts
> of U.S. foreign assistance.

8.  [Dramatically and sustainably increase agricultural development
    assistance:]{.underline} The U.S. devotes too high a proportion of
    its foreign assistance budget to temporary emergency food aid. More
    resources should be devoted to developing country capacity building
    to enable them to solve their own problems.

Food aid is a double edged sword; it relieves immediate hunger, but it
can create dependency and more threateningly, it can disrupt local food
markets, lower local food prices, and make local food production
unprofitable. Many developing country officials indicate that their
people would be much better off if food aid were reduced and resources
were shifted to agricultural development assistance so they could feed
themselves. For example, Ethiopia, a chronically food insecure U.S. aid
recipient, receives approximately \$12 in food aid for each dollar of
agricultural development assistance. Food aid and development assistance
are related in their consequences but should be funded separately.

9.  [Restore the agricultural development capacity of USAID
    by:]{.underline}

    -   Recognizing that agricultural development is necessary as the
        first step in economic growth and a precursor to
        industrialization.

    -   Establishing agricultural production and food self-sufficiency
        as USAID's priority in developing countries that are food
        insecure.

    -   Double USAID and other US foreign agricultural assistance
        support of rural infrastructure; water and irrigation services;
        developing country agricultural education, research, and
        extension services; and post-harvest management in countries
        that have supportive agriculture policies that favor economic
        growth.

    -   Improving the effectiveness of USAID agricultural assistance
        programs by fully staffing USAID and by hiring program managers
        with expertise in agriculture and natural resource management.

> As noted by Peter McPherson, former USAID Administrator, and Secretary
> of Defense Robert Gates, USAID human resources have declined
> dramatically. Since 1980, permanent American USAID employees have
> declined from 4,058 to 2,200 and permanent foreign officers from about
> 2,000 to 1,000. In terms of all permanent USAID employees, USAID staff
> has dropped from a high of 15,000 during Vietnam to about 3,000 in the
> 1990s. In addition, there has been a dramatic loss of technical
> expertise. For example, USAID now has only two engineers, 16
> agriculture experts and 17 education experts. So the combination of
> reduced staff overall and the loss of technical expertise puts the
> agency in the difficult position of trying to manage projects and
> programs with technical expertise and numbers of staff that are
> substantially inadequate. We need to rebuild human capacity for our
> international work (Secretary of Defense Robert Gates).

-   Doubling USAID central funding (USAID/EGAT/AG) for agricultural
    programs, and provide increased funding flexibility by reducing
    earmarks.

> USAID has much less flexibility today to respond to new problems and
> the needs of countries as the countries define them because of
> excessive congressional and executive earmarks and directives
> (sometimes exceeding 100% of appropriated funds). There is
> insufficient funding and budget flexibility to respond to
> opportunities or to leverage resources from others. Congress must
> provide direction to USAID for appropriated monies, but with greater
> flexibility within the context of the appropriation process and
> oversight (Peter McPherson).

-   USAID agricultural development assistance should be a mix of
    short-term, intermediate, and long-term agricultural development
    programs overseen by USAID staff with appropriate disciplinary
    expertise.

> Because of staff cuts, USAID has moved from an implementation to a
> contracting agency, which farms out large portions of the foreign aid
> program. It is increasingly difficult for USAID to provide proper
> technical oversight to these contracts. I have been told that because
> of staff shortages, USAID program officers are currently managing on
> average four times more funding than USAID policies call for. This
> makes technical oversight difficult. As an example, I recently
> conducted a training program for USAID staff in Washington on payments
> for environmental services. At one point I apologized that my program
> speakers were all economists. One of the USAID participants quickly
> responded, "Don't worry about that; we are also almost all
> economists." USAID needs more staff and more appropriate disciplinary
> diversity.

10. Full implementation of Title XII, the Famine Prevention and Freedom
    from Hunger amendment to the Foreign Assistance Act, which
    identifies a leading role for U.S. universities to work with USAID
    to achieve the goals of "ensuring food security, human health,
    agricultural growth, trade expansion, and the wise and sustainable
    use of natural resources" -- agriculture in all its dimensions --
    through research, education, extension/outreach, and policy
    formulation.

Over the years, the scope and level of activities carried out by USAID
through U.S. universities that have been characterized as "Title XII
activities" has declined dramatically. The early members of the Board
for International Food and Agricultural Development (BIFAD) had a broad
and bold vision of their role and were supported in that view by the
USAID administration of the time. They envisioned a huge potential in
the application of university-led cutting-edge research and technical
assistance in solving food and nutrition problems around the world
(Deborah Ruben, 2008 Title XII Activity Report).

**Conclusions**

In conclusion, I would like to thank the committee for giving me the
opportunity to testify. I hope that my testimony has been useful and
will assist the committee in playing a leadership role in the discussion
and reform of U.S. international food aid and foreign agricultural
assistance. There are no silver bullets or easy answers to the current
food security crisis. Solutions will take time, but the time to act is
now. Please make sure that U.S. food aid and foreign agricultural
assistance investments benefit both the U.S. and our developing country
partners by assuring that each investment:

-   reduces developing country dependence on foreign food aid,

-   builds developing country capacity to solve their own problems, and

-   strengthens positive attitudes in developing countries regarding
    U.S. policies and actions.