U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

86–301PDF 2003

THE U.S. RESPONSE TO EAST AFRICAN FAMINES

AND THE FUTURE OUTLOOK FOR FOOD AID

IN AFRICA

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

APRIL 1, 2003

Serial No. 108–16

Printed for the use of the Committee on International Relations

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.house.gov/international—relations 

(II)

COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS 

HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois, Chairman 

JAMES A. LEACH, Iowa 

DOUG BEREUTER, Nebraska 

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey, 

Vice Chairman 

DAN BURTON, Indiana 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida 

CASS BALLENGER, North Carolina 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California 

PETER T. KING, New York 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

AMO HOUGHTON, New York 

JOHN M. MCHUGH, New York 

THOMAS G. TANCREDO, Colorado 

RON PAUL, Texas 

NICK SMITH, Michigan 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona 

JO ANN DAVIS, Virginia 

MARK GREEN, Wisconsin 

JERRY WELLER, Illinois 

MIKE PENCE, Indiana 

THADDEUS G. MCCOTTER, Michigan 

WILLIAM J. JANKLOW, South Dakota 

KATHERINE HARRIS, Florida 

TOM LANTOS, California 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California 

GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York 

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American 

Samoa 

DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey 

ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey 

SHERROD BROWN, Ohio 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

ROBERT WEXLER, Florida 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

BARBARA LEE, California 

JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York 

JOSEPH M. HOEFFEL, Pennsylvania 

EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon 

SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

ADAM B. SCHIFF, California 

DIANE E. WATSON, California 

ADAM SMITH, Washington 

BETTY MCCOLLUM, Minnesota 

CHRIS BELL, Texas 

THOMAS E. MOONEY, SR., Staff Director/General Counsel 

ROBERT R. KING, Democratic Staff Director 

M. PATRICIA KATYOKA, Professional Staff Member 

LIBERTY DUNN, Staff Associate 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

WITNESSES 

The Honorable Frank R. Wolf, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Virginia, and Chairman of the Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, 

State, and the Judiciary, Committee on Appropriations .................................. 5

The Honorable Alan P. Larson, Under Secretary of State for Economic, Business and Agricultural Affairs, U.S. Department of State ................................. 13

The Honorable Andrew S. Natsios, Administrator, U.S. Agency for International Development .......................................................................................... 18

James G. ‘‘Jim’’ Butler, Deputy Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services, U.S. Department of Agriculture ........................................... 34

Sheila Sisulu, Ambassador, Deputy Executive Director, United Nations World 

Food Programme .................................................................................................. 38

Mesfin Wolde-Mariam, Chairman, The Ethiopian Human Rights Council, and 

Research Fellow, Harvard University, Department of Afro-American Studies, W.E.B. DuBois Institute for Afro-American Studies .................................. 46

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

The Honorable Frank R. Wolf: Prepared statement ............................................. 6

The Honorable Alan P. Larson: Prepared statement ............................................ 14

The Honorable Andrew S. Natsios: Prepared statement ...................................... 22

James G. ‘‘Jim’’ Butler: Prepared statement ......................................................... 35

Sheila Sisulu: Prepared statement ......................................................................... 42

Mesfin Wolde-Mariam: Prepared statement .......................................................... 49

APPENDIX 

The Honorable Nick Smith, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Michigan: Prepared statement ........................................................................ 69

The Honorable Barbara Lee, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of California: Prepared statement ...................................................................... 69

The Honorable Tony P. Hall, Ambassador, The United States Mission to 

the United Nations Agencies for Food and Agriculture: Letter and trip 

report submitted for the record ........................................................................... 71

His Excellency Girma Asmerom, Ambassador of The State of Eritrea: Letter 

submitted for the record ...................................................................................... 78

Embassy of Israel: Materials submitted for the record ........................................ 79

Mesfin Mekonen, Ethiopian American National Congress: Prepared statement 

and material submitted for the record ............................................................... 84

(1)

THE U.S. RESPONSE TO EAST AFRICAN 

FAMINES AND THE FUTURE OUTLOOK FOR 

FOOD AID IN AFRICA 

TUESDAY, APRIL 1, 2003

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS, 

Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:15 a.m., in Room 

2172 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Henry J. Hyde (Chairman of the Committee) presiding. 

Chairman HYDE. The Committee will come to order. 

Well, thank you all for joining us this morning. As our Nation 

faces continued threats from around the world which absorb a good 

deal of our attention and energy, there are other serious problems 

in the world which also demand our attention. 

Today we focus on the war of hunger and starvation in East Africa. When it comes to providing food aid for countries in need, the 

United States is number one. The United States has regularly provided more than half of the food aid to countries in need. In June 

2002, the Committee on International Relations held a hearing on 

this very issue. The focus at that time was on the terrible drought 

sweeping through the southern region of Africa. That famine has 

been averted in Southern Africa, with the possible exception of 

Zimbabwe. The purpose of this hearing is to focus on another food 

crisis occurring in the countries of Eastern Africa. We will hear testimony from the Administration and the United Nations on the effectiveness of food availability and delivery and the general foreign 

assistance objectives in Africa. 

In 2000, large-scale famine was averted in Ethiopia and Eritrea 

due to both donor support provided by the United States and the 

good work of the United Nations World Food Programme. However, 

3 years later, an estimated 15 million people in Ethiopia and Eritrea are at risk of starvation. The crops in 2002 yielded a very 

small harvest, and, last summer early warning systems began to 

predict a dire harvest in the Horn of Africa. Since August 2002, the 

United States has provided approximately 430,000 metric tons of 

food, equal to $179 million. There is little left in the delivery channels for the remainder of this year. Congress appropriated $1.2 billion in the emergency supplement bill for Africa this year. Through 

the untiring efforts of Congressman Wolf and others, Congress was 

able to provide an additional $250 million in aid to Africa through 

September 2004. 

2

The war against famines can be won. Famine is not about waiting for the rains that didn’t come. It is about failing to enact policies that ensure a country’s means to cope with expected adversity. 

Famine is about the deliberate manipulation of resources for political gains. Famine is about denying people the right to own their 

own land, stifling free enterprise and controlling the means by 

which to produce food. Famine can be a symptom of greed, corruption and misguided economics. 

This morning we are interested in hearing about the political developments within Ethiopia and Eritrea and the commitments by 

these governments in meeting the long-term development needs of 

their people. How much they have opened their markets and invested in private sector agricultural development? Saving lives in 

crisis takes priority over long-term development needs. However, 

my sense is that genuine development in Africa must be founded 

on sound investments in agriculture in order to avert the vicious 

famine cycle. And we also need to pay more attention to the HIV/

AIDS pandemic which has so adversely impacted the productivity 

of the farmers. 

The battle against hunger on the African continent presents us 

with an opportunity to press for genuine development strategies 

that will end the struggle of recurring famines. 

I would now like to turn to my friend and colleague, the Ranking 

Member of the Committee, Mr. Lantos. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hyde follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE HENRY J. HYDE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, AND CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON INTER- NATIONAL RELATIONS

Thank you for joining us this morning. 

As our nation faces continued threats from around the world which absorb a good 

deal of our attention and energy, there are other serious problems in the world 

which also demand our attention. Today we focus on the war of hunger and starvation in East Africa. 

When it comes to providing food aid for countries in need, the United States is 

number one. The United States has regularly provided more than half of the food 

aid to countries in need. In June 2002, the Committee on International Relations 

held a hearing on this very issue. The focus at that time was on the terrible drought 

sweeping through the southern region of Africa. That famine has been averted in 

Southern Africa, with the possible exception of Zimbabwe. The purpose of this hearing is to focus on another food crisis occurring in the countries of Eastern Africa. 

We will hear testimony from the Administration and the United Nations on the effectiveness of food availability and delivery and the general foreign assistance objectives in Africa. 

In 2000, large-scale famine was averted in Ethiopia and Eritrea due to both donor 

support provided by the United States and the good work of the United Nations 

World Food Programme. However, three years later, an estimated 15 million people 

in Ethiopia and Eritrea are at risk of starvation. The crops in 2002 yielded a very 

small harvest, and, last summer, early warning systems began to predict a dire harvest in the Horn of Africa. Since August 2002, the United States has provided approximately 430,000 metric tons of food, equal to $179 million. There is little left 

in the delivery channels for the remainder of this year. Congress appropriated $1.2 

billion in the Emergency Supplement bill for Africa this year. Through the efforts 

of Congressman Wolf and others, Congress was able to provide an additional $250 

million in aid to Africa through September 2004. 

The war against famines can be won. Famine is not about waiting for the rains 

that didn’t come. It is about failing to enact policies that ensure a country’s means 

to cope with expected adversity. Famine is about the deliberate manipulation of resources for political gains. Famine is about denying people the right to own their 

own land, stifling free enterprise and controlling the means by which to produce 

food. Famine can be a symptom of greed, corruption and misguided economics. 

3

This morning, I am interested in learning about the political developments within 

Ethiopia and Eritrea and the commitments by these governments in meeting the 

long-term development needs of their people. How much have they opened their 

markets and invested in private sector agricultural development? Saving lives in crisis takes priority over long-term development needs. However, my sense is that genuine development in Africa must be founded on sound investments in agriculture 

in order to avert the vicious famine cycle. And we also need to pay more attention 

to the HIV/AIDS pandemic which has so adversely impacted the productivity of the 

farmers. 

The battle against hunger on the African continent presents us with an opportunity to press for genuine development strategies that will end the struggle of recurring famines. 

I would now like to turn to my friend and colleague, the Ranking Member of the 

Committee, Mr. Lantos.

Mr. LANTOS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And before 

addressing this very serious and important issue, let me express 

my personal delight at seeing you back in the chair in robust 

health. I know I speak for all of my colleagues on both sides of the 

aisle. We are delighted to have you back. 

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for convening this hearing 

to discuss the food crisis in East Africa. I also want to thank my 

friend, Frank Wolf, and other distinguished speakers for coming 

today to shed light on this very critical matter. 

I particularly want to thank Professor Mesfin for taking time to 

testify before our Committee. As you know, he is the cofounder of 

Ethiopian Human Rights Council and has just returned from Ethiopia, where he is standing trial for human rights activities. 

I want him to know that Chairman Wolf, the Republican Cochair 

of the Human Rights Caucus, and myself, the Democratic Chair of 

the Human Rights Caucus, are paying the closest attention to your 

trial, and we are fully supportive of you. 

Mr. Chairman, we all remember the terrible Ethiopian famine in 

1984 that killed nearly a million innocent people and sparked a 

massive international relief effort. It was a horrendous tragedy, 

one in which the Marxist government of Ethiopia and international 

donors made very costly mistakes. 

Innocent lives were lost because the Mengistu regime spent its 

precious resources on a civil war and international donors took far 

too long to react to the looming crisis. 

Just 2 years ago we again dealt with a famine in Ethiopia that 

threatened nearly 16 million people with starvation. Ethiopia and 

Eritrea were fighting a mindless border war that claimed a hundred thousand lives, cost vast fortunes, and displaced more than a 

million people. 

And now in 2003, Ethiopia and Eritrea are preoccupied again 

with their ongoing border dispute, while new famine emerges. In 

spite of heroic international efforts, thousands may die of starvation. Children who survive will be impaired for life, both physically 

and mentally because of the lack of nutrition. 

Mr. Chairman, it is an outrage that these two governments 

whose citizens live on the very edge of survival cannot end their 

belligerent relationship, settle their disputes and get on with addressing the most critical economical, social and political needs of 

their people. Instead of developing the great agricultural potential 

of Ethiopia and exploiting Eritrea’s strategic port, these two counVerDate Mar 21 2002 10:45 Jun 10, 2003 Jkt 086301 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 F:\WORK\FULL\040103\86301 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
4

tries find themselves again appealing to the international community for help. 

Under the circumstances I described, it is a temptation to throw 

up one’s hands and focus the scarce food aid on countries where the 

governments are not engaged in some mindless folly. 

But, Mr. Chairman, we have a moral imperative to ensure that 

the people of Ethiopia and Eritrea are not forced to starve to death 

because their leaders are both inept and corrupt. The wealthy nations of the world, including our own, must respond in a robust 

way. I am very pleased that our Agency for International Development and others are working hard to get food quickly to the region. 

Mr. Chairman, looking back at the 1984 famine, we have improved our capacity to detect droughts and create food pipelines 

much earlier. Still, these early warning systems are just tools that 

generate information. They do not guarantee the wisdom and good 

judgment of political leaders in the region to make food security for 

their citizens a priority above all others. 

The costs of insane, foolhardy military engagements, bad government and outmoded agricultural policies is way too high. If the millions of dollars poured into emergency food relief were spent up 

front on effective systems to irrigate, grow, process and sell food, 

what a different Africa it could be. 

Mr. Chairman, today we have to take a good hard look at the 

persistence of famine in East Africa and judge where political leaders and policymakers have succeeded and where they have failed. 

But let no one mistake this important discussion as a rejection 

of meeting the immediate food needs of the people of East Africa. 

The United States and the international community will not allow 

a repeat of the 1984 famine. 

Mr. Chairman, a starving child knows no borders. A starving 

child knows nothing of politics. A starving child knows no budget 

priorities. A starving child only knows that he or she is hungry. I 

believe that every child has the right to expect that leaders respond 

to that need. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman HYDE. Thank you, Mr. Lantos. 

The Chair would like to acknowledge the presence of several 

members of the ambassadorial corps from Africa here, and we are 

very pleased that you are here to attend this important hearing. 

Members who have statements will be free to submit them, and 

they will be made a part of the record at the opening of the hearing. 

I now would like to welcome our colleague from Virginia, Mr. 

Frank Wolf. He is serving his 12th term in Congress, and as a 

Member of the Committee on Appropriations, he serves as Chairman of the Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State and the Judiciary. 

One of the House’s leading advocates for human rights, Mr. Wolf 

is Cochairman of the Congressional Human Rights Caucus. He has 

traveled to Sierra Leone, Sudan, the Democratic Republic of Congo, 

and recently to Eritrea and Ethiopia to witness firsthand the suffering of the people at the hands of famine. 

5

We are honored to have you appear before the Committee today, 

Mr. Wolf. Please proceed with a 5-minute summary of your statement. Your full statement will be made a part of the record. Frank. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE FRANK R. WOLF, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF VIRGINIA, 

AND CHAIRMAN OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, 

JUSTICE, STATE, AND THE JUDICIARY, COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS 

Mr. WOLF. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My statement is about 2 

minutes. Then I am going to show about a 21⁄2-minute video. So it 

will be very short. I want to thank you for holding these hearings. 

I also want to pay tribute to the USAID employees and its Administrator, Andrew Nastios. I think they have done an outstanding job. America has really been in the forefront of this, largely because of their efforts. 

Mr. Chairman, between last December 29 and this January 4, I 

went to Eritrea and Ethiopia with my Chief of Staff, Dan 

Scandling. I first went to the region in 1984 in response to the horrendous famine. At that time, I didn’t think a famine of that proportion could ever happen again. 

It is happening again, and in some respects on a larger scale 

than in 1984. Eleven million people are at risk of starvation, and 

several weeks ago, that number was growing. Three million are on 

what they call the so-called watch list. 

Compounding this crisis, as you said, is a high population 

growth, from 45 million in 1984 to 69 million today. The AIDS epidemic is also devastating the country, with 300,000 AIDS deaths 

in the past several years and more than 3 million people believed 

to be HIV positive. 

Worse still is bad governance, which exacerbated a 21⁄2-year border war between Ethiopia and Eritrea, literally over nothing. On 

our trip we went up to the edge and nothing has changed. It is a 

desert area with mines and no change, and yet there are a lot of 

resources that could have fed people. 

But that is just in Ethiopia and Eritrea. All together, 30 million 

people are at risk of malnutrition and starvation in Africa alone, 

a number that is of biblical proportion. Add to this parts of Asia 

like North Korea, and even in Argentina, and you can begin to see 

the global nature of this crisis. 

That is why I recently sent a letter to Secretary General Kofi 

Annan urging him to appoint a special envoy to respond to hunger 

crises throughout the world and raise this issue to a much higher 

and urgent level. He appointed a special envoy for HIV/AIDS. Similarly, he could appoint an envoy who would report to him to go to 

the world and ask those who have not given to give. 

As you said in your opening statement, 50 percent or more of the 

food comes from the United States. The EU has only given 27 percent. The special envoy could be operating out of the World Food 

Programme in Rome with Jim Morris, but there ought to be a special envoy. 

It is hard to get people to focus on this humanitarian crisis with 

the war in Iraq, the situation in North Korea and the continued 

war on terror. If the Western media would focus as much attention 

6

on what is happening in Africa as it does to promoting TV shows 

like Joe Millionaire, The Bachelor and American Idol, perhaps 

much more could be done to solve this problem. 

Let me close by showing you a very short video taken by Dan 

Scandling, my Chief of Staff. That will take my testimony to the 

end. 

[Video played.] 

Mr. WOLF. This was 90 kilometers from Addis Ababa. We were 

there and also in the north where we were in 1984. 

That child is 5 years old. 

Same scenes as in 1984 except they keep the people in the villages and don’t move into the refugee camps as they did in 1984. 

All of the fat has been taken out of the buttocks. 

Skin disease on this child. They can’t walk or stand up. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Wolf follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE FRANK R. WOLF, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF VIRGINIA, AND CHAIRMAN OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE

ON COMMERCE, JUSTICE, STATE, AND THE JUDICIARY, COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Thank you Mr. Chairman for holding this hearing. 

Earlier this year between December 29 through January 4, I went to Eritrea and 

Ethiopia. I first went to that region in 1984 in response to a horrendous famine. 

At that time, I didn’t think a famine of that proportion could happen again. It 

is happening again and on a scale far greater than in 1984. 

Eleven million people are at risk of starvation and that number is growing; 3 million people are on ‘‘watch list.’’

Compounding this crisis is high population growth, from 45 million in 1984 to 69 

million today. The AIDS epidemic is also devastating the country with 300,000 

AIDS deaths in the past several years and more than 3 million people believed to 

be HIV positive. Worse still is bad governance which exacerbated a 21⁄2-year border 

war between Ethiopia and Eritrea literally over nothing. 

But that is just in Ethiopia and Eritrea. Altogether 30 million people are at risk 

of malnutrition and starvation in Africa alone. Add to this parts of Asia like North 

Korea and even in Argentina and you can begin to see the global nature of this crisis. That is why I recently sent a letter to Secretary General Kofi Annan urging him 

to appoint a special UN envoy to respond to hunger crises throughout the world and 

to raise this issue to a much higher and urgent level. (Submit the letter for the 

record.) 

It’s hard to get people to focus on this humanitarian crisis with the war in Iraq, 

the situation in North Korea and the continuing war on terror. 

If the media would focus as much attention on what is happening in Africa as 

it does promoting TV shows like ‘‘Joe Millionaire’’, ‘‘The Bachelor’’ and ‘‘American 

Idol’’, perhaps more could be done to solve the problem. 

Let me end it there because I want to show you a short video taken during my 

trip. Its images are more powerful than any of my words.

7


86301a.eps
8


86301b.eps
9


86301c.eps
10


86301d.eps
11


86301e.eps
12

Chairman HYDE. Thank you, Mr. Wolf, very much. 

Mr. WOLF. I would hope the Committee could urge again Kofi 

Annan, who I know has his hands full on Iraq, to appoint that special envoy, because USAID and our government has done a very 

good job. 

The failure has been that we have not gotten enough food from 

some of the EU countries and some of the other countries around 

the world. An envoy could call on these countries and ask and I 

think we would get a lot more food into those regions. 

Chairman HYDE. We will weigh in as a Committee on a bipartisan basis to try and keep this issue alive. 

Mr. WOLF. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman HYDE. Thank you very much. 

I would like to welcome Alan Larson, the Under Secretary of 

State for Economic Business and Agricultural Affairs. As the senior 

economic advisor to Secretary Powell, Mr. Larson’s responsibilities 

include the entire range of international economic policy. 

Since joining the Department of State in 1973, Mr. Larson has 

served in the Economic Sections of the U.S. Embassies in Jamaica, 

Zaire and Sierra Leone, and as U.N. Ambassador to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development in Paris. Welcome 

to Mr. Larson. 

Our next witness is Andrew Nastios, Administrator of the U.S. 

Agency for International Development. His career includes service 

as Director of USAID’s Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance from 

1989 to 1991. Later, during the Administration of President George 

H. W. Bush, Mr. Nastios served as an Assistant Administrator of 

USAID, responsible for food and humanitarian assistance. 

Before assuming his current position, he was Chairman and 

Chief Executive Officer of the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority 

and Secretary for Administration and Finance for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. He also has served as Vice President of 

World Vision. Welcome to you, Mr. Natsios. 

I would like to welcome Dr. Jim Butler, Deputy Under Secretary 

For Farm and Foreign Agricultural Assistance Services, the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture. As Deputy he provides leadership to 

agencies and programs within the Farm and Foreign Agricultural 

Service Mission. 

Prior to his appointment in November 2002, Dr. Butler was 

USDA’s Deputy Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory 

Programs. His experience includes serving as a sheep and wool specialist for Colorado State University, as Deputy Vice Chancellor of 

Agriculture and Life Sciences at Texas A&M, and as Executive 

Vice President of the National Wool Growers Association. 

Because the witness for our third panel, Ms. Sisulu, from the 

United Nations World Food Programme has to catch a flight to another engagement, I will ask her to join panel II, and we welcome 

you, Ms. Sisulu. If you will sit at the table. 

She is the Deputy Executive Director for Policy and External Affairs of the United Nations World Food Programme. Ms. Sisulu’s 

career began in 1974 in Soweto, South Africa, where she was a 

high school teacher. 

13

With the end of apartheid and the advent of black majority rule, 

she was named a special adviser to the National Minister of Education. 

Her diplomatic career began in 1997, when she was appointed 

South Africa’s Consul General in New York. Two years later she 

came to Washington to serve as the South African Ambassador to 

the United States until her appointment as Deputy Executive Director of the World Food Programme in 2003. 

We are honored to have all of you appear before the Committee 

today. Please proceed with a 5-minute summary of your statements, and your full statement will be made a part of the record. 

We will start with you, Dr. Larson. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ALAN P. LARSON, UNDER 

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR ECONOMIC, BUSINESS AND AGRICULTURAL AFFAIRS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

Mr. LARSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman and distinguished Members of the Committee, we really appreciate your 

leadership in pressing on this important issue of famine and food 

security. I would also like to thank Mr. Wolf for the valuable and 

moving report on his trip to the Horn of Africa. 

Famine weakens and ultimately kills not only individuals but entire societies, fostering deep poverty, displacement of people, instability and the collapse of governments. Fighting famine, therefore, 

is both a humanitarian imperative and also a foreign policy priority. 

The United States does have a strong leadership tradition in 

fighting famine. We are the world’s largest provider of emergency 

food assistance, and U.S. Development assistance has helped farmers around the world increase their harvests. 

As a result the blight of famine has receded from many parts of 

the world. Today, however, we face a particularly difficult challenge. In the words of the United Nations Secretary General, Kofi 

Annan, quote, HIV/AIDS, food insecurity, and failure of government comprise a triad of crises leading to unparalleled catastrophe 

in Africa, unquote. 

The Secretary General, in a meeting that the United States initiated in New York, has called for a second green revolution, one 

that would benefit African farmers. The Administration is making 

a strong effort working with the United Nations, world food programs and other partners to mobilize an effective international response. 

As Mr. Natsios will detail, we moved quickly to respond to urgent needs in Southern Africa and the Horn of Africa. We have also 

sought to ensure a strong policy framework at home for food security. The Administration and the Congress have worked together to 

keep American food assistance funding at a high level. President Bush has proposed, in fiscal year 2004, a new $200 

million flexible famine fund, and the Administration has launched 

an initiative to promote agricultural development, the initiative to 

end hunger in Africa. Building on that platform of domestic policy 

initiatives, we have asked our G–8 partners to join with us in a 

three-part effort to end the cycle of famine. 

14

First of all, we are seeking to ensure that by the G–8 summit 

meeting in June of this year, the G–8 will have helped the World 

Food Programme mobilize adequate supplies of food and other necessary assistance to meet the present crisis in Africa. 

Second, we are seeking to make the international famine response system more effective, including by improving early warning 

capabilities, by bringing in additional donors through policies such 

as twinning, and by ensuring that emergency food assistance is 

combined with health and agricultural services. 

And, third, we are enlisting the help of others, including the multilateral development banks and the U.N. food agencies for efforts 

to increase the productivity of African farmers, including through 

improved technology, credit, land tenure and access to markets. We 

cannot effectively combat famine when vast segments of many populations are inflicted by HIV/AIDS and many farmers are to weak 

to engage in agriculture. President Bush’s $15 billion, 5-year initiative to combat international HIV/AIDS is therefore an integral part of the campaign 

against famine. Weak governance and poor policies are an underlying cause of famine. Zimbabwe’s leadership, for example, has pursued policies that discourage agricultural production and even 

sought to politicize the distribution of food aid. 

Improved agricultural policies are a key priority, and lie at the 

heart of USAID’s initiative to end hunger in Africa. The Millennium Challenge Account can also play an important role. President 

Bush has suggested that one goal of the MCA will be to increase 

harvests where hunger is greatest. 

Finally, freer agricultural trade would advance the cause of food 

security. Large agricultural subsidies and market access barriers, 

especially in Europe and Japan, disadvantage farmers in developing countries. Moreover, trade barriers among developing countries themselves sometimes impede the flow of food. Removing 

these trade distortions would allow food production to take place 

where it is most efficient and food supplies to flow freely and efficiently to where the need is greatest. 

Mr. Chairman, the challenges are very great this year, but so are 

the opportunities. If we can move forward with the full support of 

the international community on the initiatives that we are outlining here today, it is within our power to end this cycle of famine 

in Africa. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Larson follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ALAN P. LARSON, UNDER SECRETARY OF

STATE FOR ECONOMIC, BUSINESS AND AGRICULTURAL AFFAIRS, U.S. DEPARTMENT

OF STATE

Chairman Hyde, Ranking Member Lantos, Members of the Committee: 

Thank you for the opportunity to discuss the threat that food insecurity and famine pose to U.S. national interests, and our response to address these threats. 

We welcome your leadership in keeping a focus on this issue in the House of Representatives. We also appreciate the strong leadership of Mr. Wolf, who has brought 

both passion and policy insight to this issue. 

THE FOREIGN POLICY THREAT POSED BY FAMINE

Mr. Chairman, famine is insidious. It does not always capture headlines, like military conflicts or hurricanes. Rather, it creeps over a vulnerable population with an 

15

equally destructive force, stunting the growth of children, greatly weakening—and 

often killing—adults in their prime, and unraveling decades of development 

progress. 

Moreover, the carnage that famine exacts does not end when sacks of grain and 

powdered milk are distributed to the hungry. Individuals, communities, governments and the international community are left to deal with the aftermath of the 

famine’s wake, including loss of assets, income and productivity; increases in disease 

and regional instability; and widespread suffering and death. 

Desperate to keep their families and themselves alive for another day, victims of 

famines take actions they feel necessary to survive. Concerns for sustainable land 

management and property rights vanish in the face of imminent death. In the worst 

cases, refugees stream across borders, citizens riot, and governments collapse. Respect for treaties and demarcations are luxuries these people cannot afford. For this 

reason, we must approach issues of food security—hunger and associated poverty—

not only as an urgent humanitarian imperative but also as a serious foreign policy 

concern that profoundly threatens our interests in a democratic, stable, prosperous, 

free-trading world. Regrettably, this threat is growing. 

The world is currently facing a series of food security crises around the globe, particularly in Afghanistan, Horn of Africa, North Korea and Southern Africa. As a result, current budgets for food aid are reaching their designated limits. Global food 

aid requirements this year are expected to exceed 12 million metric tons, according 

to the World Food Program. And this is before we factor in our need to address any 

humanitarian crisis in Iraq, where the agricultural sector is reeling from years of 

neglect by the Hussein regime. 

Due to reduced harvests worldwide and this surge in demand, the amount of food 

available for aid has dropped to its lowest level in more than five years, according 

to the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). They also estimate a decline in 

global cereal production by more than 3.1% over the last year, which contributes to 

the difficulty and cost of addressing famine. 

U.S. LEADERSHIP: SECOND TO NONE

The United States has a long tradition of providing humanitarian assistance, dating back to 1812 when the Congress passed an ‘‘Act of Relief of Citizens of Venezuela.’’ The first major U.S. food aid operations occurred during and after the First 

World War. President Eisenhower summed up both the humanitarian and strategic 

wisdom of providing commodities as assistance when he said, ‘‘Food aid can be a 

powerful instrument for all the world in building a durable peace.’’

U.S. food aid programs stand as shining examples of the commitment we have 

shown to help the needy, regardless of political affiliation or the state of our bilateral relationship. Indeed, the United States is the world’s leading provider of food 

aid to the U.N.’s World Food Program, contributing 51.4% of its budget (about U.S. 

$929 million) this past year. Moreover, as President Bush has stated, ‘‘we will not 

use food as a weapon.’’ Consequently, the United States was the largest supplier of 

food aid to Afghanistan when the Taliban was in power. We are providing 40,000 

metric tons of food aid to North Korea in 2003, and will offer 60,000 metric tons 

more if the DPRK government agrees to improvements in UN monitoring and increased access to vulnerable populations. 

Similarly the United States has led food assistance efforts in the Horn of East 

Africa. Since July 2002 we have contributed 560,000 metric tons of food aid to Ethiopia and 70,000 metric tons to Eritrea. That brings our share of total contributions 

to 50 percent to date. We have also recently pledged 200,000 additional metric tons 

for delivery from the Emerson Trust. 

We have no international legal obligation to feed others, but do so because we believe it’s the right thing to do—not because we are obligated by treaties or unenforceable statements of rights. But even if charity motivates us, we provide this aid 

with a clear-eyed view that doing so is very much in our national interest. 

FAMINES ARE A PROCESS

Administrator Natsios has often noted ‘‘famine is a process.’’ Unlike a war or natural disaster, which can wreak havoc on an unsuspecting community in a moment’s 

notice, famine situations build over time and can be predicted and prevented. This 

makes them all the more tragic. 

U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan recently highlighted the multidimensional nature of famine when he warned that ‘‘HIV/AIDS, food insecurity and failure of governance comprise a triad of crises leading to unparalleled catastrophe in Africa.’’ 

Each of these factors, which on their own so severely afflict individuals and communities, are now combining to form a vicious downward spiral from which few can 

16

1 I assume Natsios will focus on efforts to improve donor contributions. 

escape—a ‘‘poverty trap.’’ HIV/AIDS incapacitates or kills farmers at a time when 

they should be at their most productive, reducing food availability and often preventing the transfer of knowledge from one generation to the next. Lack of food 

weakens the immune systems of those already ravaged by HIV and increases the 

likelihood of opportunistic infections. In addition, poor government policies inhibit 

the growth of vibrant rural sectors and often fail to take appropriate actions to stem 

the AIDS crisis. 

AID TO MEET IMMEDIATE NEEDS

Last year, the Administration saw these forces coming together. Under the leadership of Administrator Natsios, the Administration acted quickly on multiple fronts 

to lessen their impact. The most immediate need, which Mr. Natsios will describe 

in detail, was to warn the international community of the dangerous confluence of 

these factors and to make ready the humanitarian assistance we knew would be 

needed. 

As we have done so consistently in the past, the U.S. Government is stepping up 

to the plate with substantial humanitarian resources which Administrator Natsios 

and Deputy Under Secretary Butler will describe in more detail. In addition, President Bush has proposed in the FY2004 budget a new contingency fund, the $200 

million Famine Fund, to improve the ability of the U.S. to respond flexibly to current or imminent famine conditions. Use of the fund will require Presidential approval, and we intend to use it to help leverage increased assistance from other donors. 

Administrator Natsios who has done so much to put food security squarely on the 

foreign policy agenda, has pressed the donor community hard to provide more assistance. Working with him, I have sought to galvanize the G–8 behind an effort 

to address the immediate crisis and to take more effective international actions to 

prevent famines in the future. 

ENDING FAMINE: A NEW INITIATIVE

We are working with our G–8 partners to increase the supply of food aid to meet 

the immediate crisis in Africa. At the same time, we are seeking to promote a more 

proactive approach to ending famine. 

Indeed, in February, the United States and France (which holds the G–8 presidency this year) co-chaired a meeting of the top food aid policy officials of the G–

8 countries at the UN Headquarters in New York. Administrator Natsios, Ambassador Negroponte and I represented the United States. We were especially honored 

that UN Secretary General Kofi Annan opened the session with challenging remarks on the importance of ending famine and participated actively in the subsequent discussion, despite his heavy schedule. 

ADDRESSING THE IMMEDIATE CRISIS

Working with the World Food Program, we are seeking to get the firmest possible 

fix on 2003 emergency food aid needs. This WFP analysis will be matched against 

anticipated contributions to identify the gaps that need to be filled. We are counting 

on G–8 countries to take the lead in mobilizing the necessary resources. Former 

Congressman Tony Hall, now our Ambassador to the UN food agencies in Rome, is 

playing a crucial role in this effort. We aim to have completed this work by the June 

1–3 G–8 Summit in Evian. 

PREPARATION: EARLY WARNING 1

Even as we address the current crisis, we need to prevent future ones. Our proposal within the G–8 recognizes famine as a process and offers actions to defeat it 

based on the stage at which it is encountered. The first step is to prepare for famines by using advanced early warning systems and improved communication to raise 

awareness of an impending food crisis and to mobilize support within governments, 

international organizations and NGOs to respond. We have set up within the G–

8 an experts group to better coordinate our famine efforts and to improve the sharing of information. Early warning systems in the Horn of Africa worked well, and 

early donor response there has saved many thousands of lives. 

17

MITIGATING THE IMPACT OF FAMINE

But where we cannot stop the onset of famine conditions, the second step centers 

on famine mitigation and ways to get food or the resources to acquire food to those 

in need. 

The United States already provides an exceptionally high percentage of the 

world’s food aid. We are actively encouraging other donors to increase their food aid 

donations, and we are open to discussions on ways to protect more fully commercial 

sales and local agricultural production. 

Sadly, many countries that have commodities in surplus are unable to give to the 

World Food Program (WFP), because they do not have the cash to pay the WFP’s 

required full-cost recovery. Under this system, the donor nation must pay all costs, 

including administrative and transportation, related to the donation. To free up 

these commodities and cover the WFP’s costs, we have proposed changing WFP procedures to allow ‘‘twinning,’’ whereby countries with cash, such as Japan, Singapore 

or Saudi Arabia, are paired or twinned with countries with commodities, such as 

Russia, Kazakhstan or Ukraine. Simply put, one country provides the cash, and the 

other provides the food. We believe this simple concept can go a long way towards 

providing resources needed to meet crisis needs. 

Our mitigation efforts, however, go beyond food aid. We are also proposing more 

flexible tools to help us better fight the entire array of famines, including those driven by lack of buying power, not the more traditional, lack of supply. In some cases, 

such as Afghanistan last year, food availability was adequate to meet the populations’ needs. Rather, the food crisis was driven by a lack of family financial resources to purchase the food. In such circumstances, excessive injections of external 

food aid would not increase families’ purchasing power but could damage local farm 

prices and farm income. To meet these demand-driven famines, we have proposed 

well-targeted cash-for-work programs, which allow governments to use cash to pay 

people to work, such as in agricultural development activities like planting, irrigation or road construction. 

THE LONGER-TERM: INCREASING AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTIVITY

In the long run, the most important step is to strengthen the capacity of developing countries to grow more—whether to feed themselves or to sell in foreign markets. 

The starting point is, in the words of Secretary General Annan, to create a second 

Green Revolution. We must increase agricultural productivity, especially in Africa, 

to give Africans a chance to leave the poverty that are both a cause and an effect 

hunger and malnutrition. 

Beginning last year, the Administration began a new effort to fight hunger by increasing agricultural productivity. We show-cased our approach at the March 2002 

UN Conference on Financing for Development in Monterrey, at the June World Food 

Summit, the G–8 Summit in Kananaskis, and then at the World Summit on Sustainable Development. 

As Administrator Natsios will describe in more detail, the Initiative to End Hunger in Africa will provide increased funding to raise agricultural production and reduce poverty. The strategy is to empower African farmers in key countries and regions by increasing access to both new technologies and markets. The United States 

increased its 2003 funding for African agriculture by 25% to support implementation 

of IEHA. The initiative’s goal is to double the production of the basic food crops that 

make up African diets and increase family incomes. 

We are committed to working with and assisting developing countries on a bilateral basis. Yet, the needs are too great for one country to shoulder the burden alone. 

It is critical that a broad group of stakeholders must work together to build a strong 

international framework for assisting countries in creating thriving and resilient agricultural sectors. 

A FOUNDATION OF GOOD GOVERNANCE

While food aid is not conditional on reform, we must seize every opportunity to 

urge, pressure and help leaders to increase political and economic liberty, to protect 

property rights of farmers and to maintain policies that support economic growth. 

In Ethiopia and Eritrea, some important governance challenges are being met, but 

many remain. Peace between the two sides is holding. Both sides accepted the independent Boundary Commission’s decision on delimitation. Demarcation is expected 

to start by early summer this year. Differences over the border have not significantly affected emergency food deliveries. Both governments are cooperating with 

donors and NGO’s to distribute aid to the most needy as quickly as possible. The 

18

Ethiopian Government has clearly indicated they welcome biotechnology as a means 

of increasing agricultural production and preventing future famine. Both governments cooperate with donors in seeking to increase local food production and enhance the early warning systems that have prevented mass starvation so far in this 

year’s drought. 

This emphasis on good governance is central to and illustrated by the President’s 

Millennium Challenge Account initiative. The Administration seeks to significantly 

increase our development investment in countries that rule justly, invest in their 

people and encourage economic freedom. Countries that qualify for MCA by adopting sound governance and policies may choose to focus the aid on improving agriculture. And as the President made clear when he launched the initiative just over 

a year ago, this Account may be used, among other things, to ‘‘increase harvests 

where hunger is greatest.’’

FREER AGRICULTURAL TRADE PROMOTES FOOD SECURITY

Multilateral agricultural trade liberalization is fundamental to the goal of food security. Developing country economies are especially dependent on agricultural. Developed country subsidies to agriculture stymie developing countries’—particularly 

Africa’s—agricultural potential by suppressing the world price of commodities. 

Moreover, these subsidies are very large and badly undercut the impact of what we 

spend on development assistance. By some estimates, liberalization of trade in agriculture could provide developing countries with at least $100 billion in new annual 

income—money desperately needed for infrastructure, education, health care and 

other social services. 

Yet the blame for barriers to agricultural trade does not lie solely at the feet of 

the developed world. Trade between developing countries is already 40% of developing country trade. By reducing their own barriers to trade in agricultural products, developing countries would raise incomes, increase investment and ensure that 

food products flow to where the need is greatest. 

This is one of the reasons why the United States is pressing so hard for comprehensive liberalization of agricultural trade as part of the WTO’s Doha Development trade negotiations. We believe freer trade in agriculture would not only advance U.S. commercial interests, but would also promote economic development of 

the poorer countries and significantly improve food security. 

CONCLUSION

Mr. Chairman, food security is a serious foreign policy concern that profoundly 

threatens human health, economic prosperity and political stability. The Administration is acting quickly and decisively to counter food insecurity, we are pushing 

forward with new initiatives to address the short-term, medium-term and long-term 

policy responses. While the challenges are great, the opportunities are great as well; 

with the concerted efforts of a wide range of partners around the world, we can have 

a real chance to make famine and chronic food insecurity a thing of the past.

Chairman HYDE. Thank you, Dr. Larson. 

Mr. Natsios. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ANDREW S. NATSIOS, ADMINISTRATOR, U.S. AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT 

Mr. NATSIOS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to 

testify today before the Committee on the subject that is very important to me and to the agency that I lead. 

I have worked in both the public sector and the private sector on 

famine relief now for 14 years, and I have seen famine up close, 

where parents have to make decisions on which of their children 

will live and which will die. They feed the ones that are the healthiest, and they triage the ones that aren’t. 

Famine terribly disfigures the victims who suffer from it. I have 

seen mass graves over the years where there is simply not enough 

people to bury each person who dies from a famine individually, 

and so they create large pits. I saw actually them being dug and 

bodies being dumped into them during the North Korea famine, 

19

while I was on one side of the border in China watching a mass 

burial going on of 28 bodies during the terrible North Korea famine 

that killed 10 percent of the country, 21⁄2 million people. 

In my view the only thing comparable to famine is genocide. And 

in some ways, they are more horrible because they take so long. 

People do not die quickly in a famine, they take months to starve 

to death. So we have made a commitment in the Bush Administration to do all we can to avoid this terrible event from taking place 

wherever we can. 

Frequently though, famines are political in nature. The greatest 

famines of the 20th century were not caused by weather anomalies. 

The great Ukrainian famine of the early 1930s in which 13 million 

Russians and Ukrainians starved to death was orchestrated entirely by Stalin’s madness. 

The same thing happened in China. Twenty-nine million people 

died during the great famine, the great leap forward famine of 

1958 to 1962, the worst famine in recorded history, was entirely 

man-made. There was no weather anomalies anywhere in China 

that year. 

What we are facing in Africa now, right now, having gotten past 

the Southern African drought without large scale loss of life, is two 

remaining pockets. One is in Zimbabwe, which is a man-made famine. Whether there was a weather problem that could easily have 

been dealt with given that half of the country was in irrigated agriculture, the destruction of the irrigated agricultural system by the 

Zimbabwe government, Mr. Mugabe directed this, has been a catastrophe for the country. The country is still severely at risk. 

The Mozambican government has been through a terrible civil 

war in the 1980s and 1990s, in fact has one of the highest growth 

rates in Africa, and is a model of how a country can come out of 

a civil war, has in the one pocket a second year of severe drought, 

where there has been almost 100 percent crop failure. We are 

watching that very carefully. 

We are very concerned about this region of Mozambique, but the 

Mozambican government not only shows leadership on this but are 

close allies and partners of ours in fighting the potential for a second year of emergency in Mozambique. 

So the two places to watch in Southern Africa are Zimbabwe, 

Swaziland has got some food insecurity, and then this part of Mozambique. But we are watching that very closely. We contributed 

over 500,000 tons of food to the Southern Africa drought. As I said 

before, there was no widespread loss of life in Southern Africa. 

In East Africa, we are facing a severe drought in both Eritrea 

and Ethiopia. You already heard the numbers. But, let me talk 

about what we did about it. I went in January and I met with the 

Catholic priest from the Catholic Subcretariat, who was an Ethiopian. And I said, Father, what happened here last year? 

And he said, I don’t think your government is getting sufficient 

credit for what you did, but you don’t realize it. There would have 

been mass starvation in Ethiopia last fall if the United States had 

not quickly released a huge amount of food. There is a food reserve 

kept by the Ethiopian government through their central ministry, 

and the agreement is they will not release any food unless a commitment is made by a donor to replenish it. And we made a comVerDate Mar 21 2002 10:45 Jun 10, 2003 Jkt 086301 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 F:\WORK\FULL\040103\86301 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
20

mitment in September and they released 150,000 tons of food. And 

he said that stopped the famine last fall in its tracks. If you had 

not done that we would have been caught. Because no one, including the Ethiopian government, had predicted the severity of what 

happened with the crop that was supposed to come in in October. 

It happened very quickly. The NGOs, the UN, AID and the donors and the Ethiopian government did not have a lot of lead time, 

which we normally do. We have ramped up our response very rapidly and made a total commitment of 715,000 metric tons of food, 

which is a huge amount of food aid to Ethiopia, which is about 50 

percent of the total pledges that have been made by all donors. In 

other words, 50 percent comes from the United States, and the rest 

of the world gives the other 50 percent, which is from Canada, 

Japan, the European Union, the British, the German government 

and the Nordics. So we are half of the famine response right now. 

Right now about 72 percent of the total requirement for this 

year, this calendar year in Ethiopia have been met, which means 

we are—between now and this summer we are out of the danger 

zone. However, we have got to worry about August, September and 

October. The next crop will be in. 

So far the spring rains look pretty good. We will know in about 

a month whether or not the rains were sufficient to produce a good 

crop in October. And depending on whether or not that happens, 

we will know whether we will have to provide assistance beyond 

the crop in the fall. 

What are the causes of this drought? Eritrea is facing a similar 

emergency. And we have made a commitment of a hundred thousand tons to Eritrea for its drought. We shouldn’t, however, think 

of famine only in food emergencies only in the context of drought, 

because there are droughts all over. There was a drought in the 

United States, the worse drought we have had since the 1930s; we 

did not have a famine. 

It is a combination of poverty, of low household reserves, low capacity to deal with food—with a weather anomaly, such as the one 

we face in Ethiopia. Ethiopia’s per capita income 10 years ago was 

$170 per capita, one of the poorest countries in the world. It is now 

$107. It is now the poorest country in the world. 

Poverty is directly related to vulnerability to famine. Why is 

that? Because people, when they can’t grow enough food, if they 

have reserves at home, can buy food at the markets, or they can 

work somewhere else and get food through their work. 

Government policies in Ethiopia and Eritrea do not encourage 

trade and production. It is not a malicious policy. The government 

of Ethiopia is actually doing an excellent job in responding to this 

emergency, and I want to compliment Prime Minister Meles. He 

rang the alarm bells very early on as opposed to what happened 

under the Diarge, when they hid the famine, which is why all of 

those people died in 1985. 

So Prime Minister Meles, I met with him in January. We talked 

about the reforms from our perspective are necessary to ensure this 

does not happen again. Ethiopia faced a famine in 1999. About 

50,000 people died in it. It was caught before it got completely out 

of control. 

21

But now what we are facing is a cycle where Ethiopia has a 

drought and another famine before it has recovered from the last 

one. In fact, this emergency is directly a result of a failure to recover from the last emergency in 1999. 

And I notice very great scholar of famine, Mesfin Wolde Mariam, 

whose book on famine is one of the classic works in the late 20th 

century, last quarter of the 20th century. I have read his book a 

couple of times, I use it when I teach in the subject, and I am very 

honored that he is here today to join us. 

He is one of the preeminent authorities in Ethiopian famine in 

the world. But if you look at his book, he traces famine from the 

late 1950s until he wrote the book, I think in the early 1970s, if 

I recall correctly. And if you look at the pattern, the famines come 

closer and closer to each other.Now they are coming 2 or 3 years 

in a row. We can’t have that in the future and respond to it. So 

what has to happen? 

First is Ethiopia does not have a liberalized capital account, 

which means that they don’t have a currency that is easily exchangeable to facilitate trade. Two years ago, Ethiopian farmers 

were producing a surplus in certain areas of the country, they 

wanted to export that and they couldn’t, both because of poor infrastructure, but also because it is very difficult to trade because they 

don’t have a liberalized currency. 

The effect of that was to collapse prices. Prices were at 10 percent of the normal level. And farmers lost money after they had 

bought seed and fertilizer to invest to produce this surplus. So 

what they said is we are not doing this again, we are going bankrupt, we are in debt now because we produced this food. It couldn’t 

be exported and the price has collapsed. So it is a terrible incentive 

to farmers, a message to farmers, that if you produce a surplus and 

you can’t sell it, the price collapses, why do it the next year. 

So farmers pulled back and did not invest in producing a surplus 

in those areas. All of Ethiopia did not face a drought. The Amharic 

Highlands in the center of the country and the western part of the 

country had enough rains. It is in the south and the eastern part 

of the country that the severity of the crisis was. If the other areas 

had produced a surplus they could have moved that into the deficit 

areas. But infrastructure is a problem, and a liberalized trade account and banking reform that will bring capital, private capital in 

from other countries through the international banking system. 

Also, there has been an underinvestment in agricultural development. We have put a heavy emphasis in AID on agricultural development. We have increased our budget in African agriculture by 50 

percent under an initiative that the President and Secretary Powell 

have launched to end famine in Africa through agriculture. We 

have gone from 113 million when we started in fiscal 2001, to 167 

million. What did I say, thousand? 113 million spent in 2001, to 

167 million we are spending this year. So it is a $50 million increase, almost 50 percent in 2 years. That is not enough, however. 

And I might add, there does not appear to be a large constituency 

in this city for agriculture. 

We have to fight every step of the way to get more money. We 

put the money in the budget, and then it is spent in other sectors 

that are regarded as more popular. 

22

So unless we invest in agricultural development, in new seed varieties, in better use of natural resources, in more science applied 

to agriculture and finally more irrigation and water catchment 

areas and water management, we are not going to be able to deal 

with this problem in Ethiopia. 

And if we do that, though, we can break the cycle of drought and 

famine, not just in Ethiopia, in other areas, and produce the green 

revolution that Alan Larson just mentioned, which is our goal over 

the longer term. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Natsios follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ANDREW S. NATSIOS, ADMINISTRATOR, 

U.S. AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

Chairman Hyde, Members of the Committee: It is an honor to be here today to 

discuss the status of worldwide food security, the role of U.S. food aid programs, 

and the increasingly difficult issues that the United States and the international 

community face trying to meet the humanitarian food needs of people around the 

world. 

FAMINE

Persistent hunger continues to be one of the most significant global development 

challenges we face today. More than 800 million people, three-quarters of whom live 

in rural areas, are seriously malnourished. Most hungry people live in sub-Saharan 

Africa or South Asia, although there are groups in all regions that are vulnerable 

to under-nutrition, either continuously or during specific seasons. Most of the hungry are farmers, but they are unable to produce adequate food and income to ensure 

their families’ well being. Under constant stress from poverty, malnutrition, and disease, these vulnerable people can be pushed over the edge to famine by drought, 

unwise government policies, or conflict. 

Today, we are confronted with concurrent food crises in Afghanistan, southern Africa, the Horn of Africa, and North Korea. We are also witnessing, for the first time, 

a convergence of what ‘‘The Economist’’ magazine calls the double curse of HIV/

AIDS and food insecurity. In these difficult times, the international community 

must act now to meet critical food needs around the world. But that is not enough. 

We must also address the causes of food insecurity, or we cannot prevent famines 

in the future. 

At the World Food Summit in 2002, the United States committed with other donors to cutting hunger in half by 2015. That commitment means addressing access 

to food, availability of food, and improvements in agricultural productivity; it means 

ending famine, and improving nutrition. In order to make progress in this effort, 

we need to deepen our understanding of food insecurity and famine. Fortunately, 

we continue to learn lessons from our experiences using food and non-food resources 

in complex food insecurity problems. 

One of the most important lessons that we have learned is that food aid and humanitarian assistance alone will not prevent these crises from re-occurring, even in 

the short term. 

Famine is an economic crisis in which large numbers of people experience starvation and associated mortality. Most famine scholars and practitioners would agree 

that the understanding of famine and its complexity has grown enormously over the 

past half century. This research tells us that famine is a process, not an event. It 

is a process that provides us with early indicators (i.e., pre-famine indicators) of its 

onset. Despite this research, too many people attribute famine to drought conditions, 

when the reality is much more complex. We now recognize that regressive agricultural policies, failed markets, and destructive conflict drive famine more than 

drought alone. These characteristics of fragile, failed, and failing states, particularly 

when combined with a drought and high rates of HIV/AIDS, are the conditions that 

allow famines to occur. Only by addressing the root causes of these failures with 

the appropriate tools can the international community expect to prevent famines 

from occurring. 

Because multiple crises occur simultaneously, the task of accurately identifying 

and addressing the root causes of famine is far more complex today than when 

drought was thought to be ‘the only’ famine problem. Furthermore, the potential 

23

costs of responding with the wrong tools, at the wrong time can be terrible, particularly given the cost of ‘last resort’ interventions such as airdrops of food aid. 

As the President’s Coordinator for International Disaster Assistance, I have visited famine-prone situations throughout the world and have watched vulnerable 

people cope with multiple famine threats. I am convinced that the best way to provide assistance to vulnerable families is to provide relief that also contains the seeds 

of their recovery. 

When we see early indicators that may lead to famine, we need to intervene in 

ways to support the economic structures on which vulnerable families’ survival depends. We are most familiar with using food aid to respond to situations approaching a famine. In many cases, this is the correct response, particularly in the short 

term. In other famine conditions, however, the total availability of food is not the 

primary issue. Where sufficient food is available for the local population—yet widespread food insecurity and hunger exists—we need a broader range of non-food famine prevention tools that can effectively address those factors that limit access to 

and utilization of those food resources. 

Ethiopia’s present food crisis is an example of a supply-driven famine. The country does not produce nearly enough food to feed its people, and it lacks the economic 

reserves to import sufficient food to fill the gap. In situations such as this, food aid, 

and more specifically imported food aid, is the appropriate short-term response. 

Food aid alone, however, is clearly not the long-term solution for Ethiopia. The 

crisis in Ethiopia today is just the most recent in a series of food security crises that 

have devastated the country over the last twenty years. The United States will provide more than $300 million worth of food aid this fis- cal year. During the same period, we will provide $4 million of agricultural development assistance. While the Ethiopian government has taken a leadership role in responding to the famine, it has been reluctant until very recently to embrace the policies that will stimulate growth and investment in its agricultural sector to avoid future famines. 

Unless the donor community invests in recovery and prevention initiatives while 

promoting good government policies, these periodic shocks will continue and so will 

the associated costs in lives and resources. The donor community must allocate 

more resources toward famine prevention activities such as those in the agricultural 

sector. At the same time, unless the Government of Ethiopia embraces accountable 

and open governance and enacts market and trade reforms necessary to increase the 

capacity of local producers, Ethiopia will remain in a chronic state of hunger. It is 

critical that we all do our part to put the systems and policies in place that will 

prevent the next food security crisis in Ethiopia from occurring. 

In Afghanistan during 2002, the international community was faced with essentially a demand-driven famine. The countries surrounding Afghanistan had plenty 

of surplus food available, thus ensuring price stability, to meet the needs of the Afghan people. Unfortunately, approximately eight million people in Afghanistan did 

not have the purchasing power necessary to buy enough food. In this case, the 

United States and the international community both responded primarily with imported food aid. However, the tools did not exist for the U.S. Government to respond 

more effectively and, possibly, at lower cost to the taxpayer. Donors recognized that 

a more effective response in some cases would have been to create employment-generating opportunities that would have put cash, rather than food aid, into the hands 

of the poorest people who are most vulnerable in any famine. Cash would have allowed the people to meet their food needs and simultaneously stimulate markets 

and trade, thereby further promoting agricultural and economic development. 

It is not just the humanitarian and developmental community that recognizes the 

importance of employment and income-generating initiatives in promoting market 

and trade development. Gary Martin, the President and CEO of the North American 

Export Grain Association, recently said in a speech to the Capitol Hill Forum, 

‘‘...that the best, most sustainable way to stimulate the growth of U.S. farm exports 

is to provide for income growth in developing countries.’’

The Southern Africa food crisis is the result of a major drought complicated by 

disastrous government policies in Zimbabwe. First, the Government of Zimbabwe 

implemented price controls for staples, such as corn, which inhibit production and 

trade. Second, it has backtracked on the liberalization of grain marketing, bringing 

corn back under the control of the grain marketing parastatal and creating a monopoly that prohibits open commercial trade. Third, the government’s irresponsible 

expropriation of land from commercial farmers has decimated the most productive 

part of Zimbabwe’s agricultural sector. As a result of these political actions on the 

part of the government, Zimbabwe has lost its position as a net exporter of grain. 

Early reports do suggest that this year’s maize crop in Zimbabwe may be slightly 

better in the northern parts of the country due to improved weather. NotwithVerDate Mar 21 2002 10:45 Jun 10, 2003 Jkt 086301 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 F:\WORK\FULL\040103\86301 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
24

standing this improvement, however, this will still be far below the five-year average production for maize of 1.8 million metric tons (MT) due, not only to erratic 

rainfall, but also to flawed government policies. 

Crop assessments in other parts of southern Africa report marginal improvements 

for Zambia, though not significant enough to prevent a third year of serious food 

insecurity, particularly in southern areas of the country. In Malawi, increased crop 

production due to better weather conditions will help to improve the overall food security situation. The Famine Early Warning System, or FEWS, has issued a food 

security alert for Mozambique, stating that, ‘‘A serious deterioration in the food security status of vulnerable populations in southern and central Mozambique is occurring and is expected to worsen over the next twelve months. A near-total crop 

failure in some zones, following a poor harvest last year, has been the primary cause 

of the current situation.’’

Southern Africa is also struggling with high rates of HIV/AIDS which have exacerbated the effects of the political errors of the regional governments. With the highest HIV prevalence rates in the world, Southern Africa has 28.1 million people living with the disease. In many cases, the disease is killing the most productive members of society, most notably in the agricultural sector. The economic impact is massive as investments are depleted and human resources are lost. HIV/AIDS is causing the collapse of social safety nets for families and communities, thus undermining 

the ability of both to weather economic downturns. 

Efforts to promote an economic recovery in southern Africa must focus on addressing the economic and market policies that have tied the hands of the private sector 

while simultaneously providing critical assistance to vulnerable groups, in particular those infected with HIV/AIDS. The donor community, in this case, plays only 

a supporting role in the recovery of southern Africa, as the critical initiatives and 

actions related to economic reform must be driven by the governments of the region. 

RESPONSE

The problem of hunger in Africa is large and getting worse. The impact that this 

has on the prospects for current and future generations of African children, women 

and men is devastating, and highlights agriculture’s contribution to reducing hunger 

and the consequences if we do not succeed. 

Projections from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), the Food and Agriculture Organization, and the 

United Nations indicate that hunger in Africa will increase, given current trends of 

economic performance, agricultural growth, conflict and limitations of existing policy. At present, one third of the entire population of sub-Saharan Africa falls below 

the poverty line and goes to bed hungry each night. By 2011, an estimated 50 percent of the world’s hungry will reside in sub-Saharan Africa. We cannot wait until 

then to take action. 

In Africa, meeting the Millennium Development Goal of cutting hunger in half 

means reducing the estimated number of hungry from 206 million as of 2000, to approximately 103 million people by 2015. This is achievable, if progress can be made 

to accelerate agricultural growth, improve health and education, and reduce conflict. 

If the conditions are created for agricultural growth to accelerate, the prospects 

for rural households in Africa are very promising. Per capita incomes can triple. Recent analysis by the IFPRI indicates that it is possible to achieve the Millennium 

Development Goal of cutting hunger in half. Specifically, the analysis shows that 

it is possible to make significant improvement in the incomes of the rural majority 

in Africa. 

Investing in an integrated agenda to increase agricultural growth and rural incomes not only reduces the number of hungry, it can also reduce and save emergency food aid costs significantly. By 2015, at current projections, it is estimated 

that emergency food aid costs worldwide will be approximately $4.6 billion per year. 

Fostering agricultural recovery in famine-prone countries can create substantial savings in future emergency assistance. If we invest now and increase agricultural 

growth and rural incomes, it is estimated that food aid costs will drop to approximately $2 billion per year. This is a net reduction of over $2.5 billion per year. 

While agriculture alone is not sufficient to end hunger or eliminate famines, hunger cannot be reduced or ended nor famines mitigated or prevented without agriculture playing a large and driving role in the development effort. In agriculturedominated economies, including many African economies, agriculture accounts for 

greater than 40 percent of the impact (more than any other sector) on efforts to reduce hunger. Recent studies have shown that a 1 percent increase in agricultural 

productivity could reduce poverty by six million people in Africa. 

25

If agricultural sector and rural incomes do not grow, however, the future prospects are bleak; rural households could be poorer in 2015 than they were in 1997. 

A NEW AGRICULTURE

Over the next five years, USAID is renewing its leadership in agricultural development assistance. This new agricultural strategy reflects adaptation to major 

emerging opportunities, including:

• Accelerating agriculture science-based solutions, especially using biotechnology, to reduce poverty and hunger;

• Developing global and domestic trade opportunities for farmers and rural industries, in particular by strengthening rural markets and increasing incentives to produce;

• Extending training for developing world scientists and agricultural extension 

services to third world farmers; and

• Promoting sustainable agriculture and sound natural resources management.

These new agricultural initiatives provide the framework for our future activities. 

Under each initiative, the Agency proposes to launch a set of activities that broadly 

signal a shift in USAID leadership in this sector and may leverage new commitments and funding from others. 

Equally important, agricultural development is now seen as part, not the whole, 

of the solution. Investments in infrastructure, health, and education both reinforce 

and are made more viable by investments in agricultural growth. 

U.S. COMMITMENT TO REDUCING HUNGER

Mr. Chairman, the United States retains its strong commitment to reducing hunger around the world. At the World Summit on Sustainable Development, an Administration initiative to End Hunger in Africa was announced. This 15-year initiative is committed to the concerns of agricultural growth and building an Africanled partnership to cut hunger and poverty. The primary objective of the initiative 

is to rapidly and sustainably increase agricultural growth and rural incomes in subSaharan Africa. 

Congressional support for agriculture has also been strong. In FY 2000, Congress 

passed revised Title XII legislation restating the United States’ commitment to the 

goal of preventing famine and freeing the world from hunger. This legislation provided USAID with a new and more positive legislative framework that supports the 

emergence of a ‘‘new agriculture’’ in developing and transition economies. 

GLOBAL FOOD AID NEEDS AND AVAILABILITY

The U.S. Government will be taking the steps I have just described to help address the long-term causes of food insecurity and famine. For the foreseeable future, 

however, significant levels of food aid will still be needed to provide an international 

safety-net for the world’s food insecure. As I mentioned previously, the world is currently faced with a series of large-scale food security crises. These crises have 

pushed international food aid requirements to their highest level ever. Global food 

aid availability, however, has dropped to its lowest level in more than five years. 

According to some estimates, global food aid requirements will exceed more than 12 

million metric tons in calendar year 2003—over 3.0 million tons more than the past 

global average. Needs in sub-Saharan Africa alone are expected to exceed 5.0 million 

metric tons. 

Global food aid availability has been seriously reduced by a number of coincidental factors. According to the Food and Agriculture Organization, global cereal 

production declined more than 3.1 percent in 2002 when compared to 2001. More 

alarmingly, global cereal production was more than 80 million metric tons below 

consumption requirements. 

In other words Mr. Chairman, the world consumed more grain than it produced 

last year. 

Only through the availability of carryover stocks, primarily in developed countries, is the world avoiding a global food shortage. Because of the reduced global 

grain production, prices rose significantly for most major grains. Early in 2003, U.S. 

wheat and corn prices, for example, rose more than 39 percent and 25 percent, respectively, although some commodity prices have begun to decline. All of these factors, when combined with declining donor food aid contributions, are expected to reduce global food aid levels to no more than 8 million tons this year. With needs approaching 12 million tons and estimated food aid contributions providing perhaps 

26

8.0 million tons, a food aid shortfall of more than 4.0 million tons is expected—the 

annual food requirement of approximately 20 million people. 

U.S. COMMITMENT TO INTERNATIONAL FOOD AID

Mr. Chairman, the commitment of the United States to use its agricultural abundance to help the less fortunate around the world is stronger today than ever. President Bush mentioned U.S. food aid programs during his State of the Union address 

on January 28th of this year when he noted with pride that, ‘‘Across the earth, 

America is feeding the hungry; more than 60 percent of international food aid comes 

as a gift from the people of the United States.’’ The President’s comment was based 

upon the percentage of U.S. contributions to the World Food Program (WFP) in 

2002. 

Congressional support for U.S. food assistance programs also continues to be very 

broad and bipartisan. The Consolidated Appropriations Resolution for 2003, which 

was signed by the President on February 20, provides $1.44 billion for P.L.480 Title 

II activities. This level of funding will again position the United States to be the 

largest, most responsive food aid donor in the world. 

U.S. FOOD AID PROGRAMS

Mr. Chairman, the United States has a number of food aid programs that it uses 

to meet a variety of food, market development, and food aid requirements. These 

programs, which include P.L. 480 Titles I, II, and III, Section 416(b) of the Agricultural Act of 1949, the Food for Progress program, and the McGovern/Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program (FFE) are administered 

either by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (Title I, Section 416(b), Food for 

Progress, and FFE) or by USAID (Titles II and III). These programs are projected 

to provide a combined total of more than 4.0 million metric tons of international 

food aid in FY 2003. 

The largest of the U.S. food aid programs, and the program that exclusively addresses the nutritional needs of vulnerable groups, is the P.L.480 Title II program 

(‘‘Title II’’). The Title II program is administered by USAID’s Office of Food for 

Peace and is the flagship of U.S. humanitarian food aid efforts overseas. On average, the Title II program has provided more than 2.0 million tons of U.S. agricultural commodities per year, with a value of more than $850 million. With the $1.44 

billion that the President has just approved for Title II, we estimate that the program will provide in excess of 3.0 million metric tons this year. 

During FY 2002, the Title II program supported activities in approximately 45 different countries, in partnership with international organizations like the World 

Food Program (WFP) and the leading nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) like 

CARE, Catholic Relief Services, and World Vision. These types of activities bring direct assistance to more than 61 million people annually in both non-emergency and 

emergency response activities. 

In addition to our appropriated food aid resources, the United States continues 

to maintain the Bill Emerson Humanitarian Trust. The Emerson Trust is a critical 

humanitarian reserve that remains available to meet urgent and extraordinary food 

needs. It is my hope that other donors, both traditional and new, will do their fair 

share to meet the needs of the world’s most vulnerable people and thus obviate the 

need for the United States to draw from the Emerson Trust. 

At the urging of the United States, in an effort to address famine and food security issues including current crises and prevention of future crises, a Contact Group 

of G–8 officials met informally in New York on March 5. The Contact Group discussed these issues with UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, WFP, FAO and the 

International Fund for Agricultural Development. This meeting provided a forum for 

the WFP to again share with the donor community the fact that there is a 4.0 million metric ton shortfall in food aid availability. 

EAST AFRICA

In the fall of 2002, the Government of Ethiopia issued its first appeal for a looming crisis that could affect as many as 15 million people under a worst-case scenario. 

As a result of low and erratic rainfall during both the major and minor rainy seasons in 2002, Ethiopia was faced with an anticipated food deficit of more than 2.3 

million tons. The drought, which followed just two years after another serious 

drought, exhausted the coping mechanisms of millions of pastoralists and subsistence farmers, making them completely dependent upon international food assistance 

for their survival. 

Since the first Government of Ethiopia appeal, the United States, through 

USAID’s Office of Food for Peace, has pledged more that 715,000 metric tons (MTs) 

27

of food aid to the people of Ethiopia with a value of approximately $320 million. 

This assistance totals approximately forty percent of the 2002/2003 food aid requirement in the country. 

Unfortunately, Ethiopia will face renewed food shortages beginning in July, unless the international community provides further, significant contributions of food. 

A near total crop failure in Eritrea has led to shortfalls there of 280,000–350,000 

metric tons. Thus far, USAID has committed to supplying 69,000 of that need, and 

another 38,000 MTs are planned. Together, they will raise the total U.S. contribution to Eritrea to $47 million. USAID is also providing 4,000 MTs of food assistance 

to refugees from neighboring countries now living in Djibouti. 

CONCLUSION: GAPS AND FUTURE CHALLENGES

Mr. Chairman, as I have just reported, global food insecurity is complex and dynamic. There is no standard recipe of assistance that will solve all of the country 

or regional crises that I briefly described above. Each food security crisis must be 

addressed based upon the unique causes of that particular situation. The international community must develop a set of tools that are flexible enough to address 

the unique causes of each particular crisis. Those tools, together with the recipient 

government’s attention to good governance and sound policies, will enable the global 

community to provide truly effective assistance. 

The U.S. food aid programs that I described above are clearly the most effective 

in the world. This Administration, from the President and the Secretary of State 

down through the foreign affairs agencies, however, recognizes that food aid programs are just one tool among many that are necessary to address the complex 

needs of the least developed countries in the world. To meet these complex needs, 

the President has proposed a number of new initiatives that will give the United 

States the capacity to assist in both the prevention and mitigation of food security 

crises around the world. Let me briefly describe each initiative: 

In his 2004 budget, the President has announced a new humanitarian Famine Fund. The President’s Famine Fund is a $200 million contingency fund for dire, unforeseen circumstances related to famine. Use of the fund will be subject to a Presidential decision and will be disbursed by USAID, modeled after the International 

Disaster Assistance funds to ensure timely, flexible, and effective utilization. 

The Famine Fund is intended to support activities for which other funding is either not available or not appropriate. It will increase the flexibility of the United 

States to anticipate and respond to the root causes of famine. Potential uses might 

include:

• Leveraging non-traditional donor contributions through ‘‘twinning.’’

• Supporting cash initiatives where ‘‘access’’ to food, rather than ‘‘availability’’ 

of food, is the barrier to food security.

• Supporting initiatives that leverage broader donor support for famine prevention.

The President’s FY 2003 supplemental and FY 2004 budget request includes funding for a new U.S. Emergency Fund for Complex Foreign Crises ($150 million in 

the FY 2003 supplemental, $100 million in the FY 2004 budget). These proposals 

will assist the President to quickly and effectively respond to or prevent unforeseen 

complex foreign crises by providing resources that can be drawn upon at the onset 

of a crisis. This proposal will fund a range of foreign assistance activities, including 

support for peace and humanitarian intervention operations to prevent or respond 

to foreign territorial disputes, armed ethnic and civil conflicts that pose threats to 

regional and international peace, and acts of ethnic cleansing, mass killing or genocide. Use of the Fund will require a determination by the President that a complex 

emergency exists and that it is in the national interest to furnish assistance in response, similar to the Emergency Refugee and Migration Assistance (ERMA) Fund. 

Mr. Chairman, there are clear limits to what U.S. assistance can do to promote 

peace, stimulate development, and prevent and mitigate crises. Without the combined efforts of the donor community and, more importantly, the recipient governments themselves, progress will be limited. By combining our established tools, like 

our outstanding food assistance and disaster assistance programs, with new initiatives designed to focus on prevention and mitigation activities in least developed 

countries, we can significantly increase the possibility of either preventing a crisis 

from developing or, at least, reduce the severity of a crisis that does develop. 

I urge Congress to support these critical new initiatives that have been proposed 

by the President. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. I would be pleased to answer any 

of your or the Committee’s questions.

28


86301f.eps
29


86301g.eps
30


86301h.eps
31


86301i.eps
32


86301j.eps
33


86301k.eps
34

Chairman HYDE. Thank you, Mr. Natsios. 

Dr. Butler. 

STATEMENT OF JAMES G. ‘‘JIM’’ BUTLER, DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY FOR FARM AND FOREIGN AGRICULTURAL SERVICES, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Mr. BUTLER. Thank you, and good morning, Mr. Chairman. I am 

pleased to join all of you dedicated to assisting hungry people 

worldwide. 

There is no mission more worthy or more challenging. The 

United States Department of Agriculture is a full partner with the 

U.S. Agency for International Development in delivering food aid 

programs that utilize U.S. Agricultural products to relieve famine. 

My testimony submitted for the record highlights five areas. 

First, it notes how the administration of title I of Public Law 480 

by the Foreign Agricultural Service dovetails with AID’s administration of title II of the act. 

Second, it describes the unfortunate circumstance of lower U.S. 

Productions this year of the major commodities traditionally used 

in our food aid programs. 

Third, the testimony reviews food aid programs run by Foreign 

Agricultural Service and cites examples of their use in East Africa 

this past year. 

Fourth, it details exciting results from pilot projects under the 

Global Food for Education Program. 

Finally, per instructions of your letter, my testimony comments 

about agriculture development strategy in East Africa. Given the 

magnitude of the problem we face with our efforts to alleviate hunger, it is essential that all U.S. Government agencies, the World 

Food Programme, the private volunteer organizations work hand in 

hand to make the best use of our limited resources. 

For the most part we have done a good job. Now comes the harder part. We must also leverage our experiences and influence to encourage other nations to share more fully in providing both food assistance and technical assistance to food in insecure countries. 

I emphasize technology here. It will become a self-help tool to 

supplement the food aid that I think we all agree will be necessary 

for a long-term commitment. At the same time, the proper technology helps people to help themselves. It is a major tool to extend 

our food aid resources to their maximum. That is why it is so 

alarming to see biotechnology, a highly-charged political food aid 

issue. The issue for food aid intensified last summer when our ability to deliver desperately needed food to African nations was greatly hindered by individuals and organizations opposed to biotechnology who made misguided statements about the U.S. Food 

system. 

There was dissemination of grossly erroneous information and 

scare tactics employed. That was absolutely shameful that it kept 

much of the needed safe American food from reaching those who 

were most in need. 

We must address the many ungrounded unscientific concerns 

about products produced in biotechnology. The U.S. Regulatory 

process for transgenic crops is well coordinated among the Federal 

35

regulatory agencies that set standards for human, animal and 

plant health and environmental safety. 

The commodities we ship overseas commercially and for food aid 

are the same products sold and consumed here at home. We have 

been working to assure food aid recipients and our partners in the 

food aid community that the U.S. Food is safe and wholesome. We 

are doing this through in-country educational seminars and workshops, visiting with key foreign representatives to the United 

States, and a variety of other educational and other outreach activities. 

As we work to implement our food aid programs as effectively as 

possible, we must remember that food aid is just one aspect of the 

efforts to promote world food security. Our food aid efforts go hand 

in hand with our development efforts, sharing technology, expanding trade, promoting economic reform. 

These are all factors that can help grow and reduce poverty, the 

keys to food security. Toward that end, Secretary Ann Veneman 

has invited agriculture, environment and trade ministers from 180 

countries to an agriculture, science and technology conference 

scheduled in Sacramento this June. 

We know that introducing new technologies offers unprecedented 

potential for meeting the world’s food needs. With that, Mr. Chairman, I will conclude my remarks. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Butler follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JAMES G. ‘‘JIM’’ BUTLER, DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY FOR

FARM AND FOREIGN AGRICULTURAL SERVICES, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, I am pleased to come before this Committee with my distinguished colleagues who are dedicated to assisting the millions 

of hungry and impoverished people in Africa and around the world. The Department 

of Agriculture is a full partner with the U.S. Agency for International Development 

in delivering food aid programs that utilize U.S. agricultural products. Secretary 

Veneman and those of us who implement USDA food assistance programs are dedicated to this critical task. 

Just two weeks ago, Secretary Veneman and Administrator Natsios announced 

two major food assistance efforts using the Bill Emerson Humanitarian Trust. 

USDA recently released 200,000 tons of wheat for emergency food assistance in Africa, particularly Ethiopia and Eritrea. In addition, USDA released up to 600,000 tons 

of wheat for assistance in Iraq. A portion of the wheat for Iraq will be swapped domestically for rice. We anticipate shipping 200,000 metric tons of commodities to 

Iraq as soon as possible. 

These are just the latest U.S. efforts to alleviate the suffering of the estimated 

50 million people in the world who face crucial food needs. Food crises in the Horn 

of Africa and southern Africa threaten some 38 million people with starvation. In 

addition, we continue to work with the international community to help meet urgent 

needs in Afghanistan, Central America, and North Korea. The causes of food insecurity in these areas include poverty, ill-conceived agricultural land policies, corruption, droughts, floods, political instability, and the HIV/AIDS epidemic. 

My objective this morning is briefly to discuss issues affecting the implementation 

of U.S. food assistance programs and to outline the USDA food assistance programs 

that integrate with the largest U.S. food assistance program—the P.L. 480 Title II 

program administered by the Agency for International Development. As you know, 

USDA administers Title I of P.L. 480. USDA is also responsible for the procurement 

of commodities programmed under all these various food aid programs, and for assuring that commodity specifications are met for each food aid shipment, providing 

quality control laboratory services, inspection of cargoes, and claims functions. 

FOOD AID IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES

U.S. production of the major commodities used in foreign food aid programs, including soybeans, soybean meal, corn, and sorghum has dropped to lows not experienced since 1999 for soybeans and meal and since 1995–96 for coarse grains. As a 

36

result, prices for these commodities this year are higher, reducing the quantity of 

food aid that can be supplied with available funding. A related, complicating factor 

is a provision that, under PL 480, no agricultural commodity determined to be in 

short domestic supply may be made available for food aid purposes. Fortunately, 

there is an offsetting provision that the Secretary may waive the limitation for urgent humanitarian purposes. That is what occurred this year. 

The commodity availability waiver in P. L. 480 made it possible for us to provide 

coarse grains and soybeans to carry out the urgent humanitarian purposes of P.L. 

480 this fiscal year. This provided the quantities needed for most of the Title II programs. However, it is important to note that wheat supplies are only marginally 

available under the P.L. 480 criteria to carry out Title I and Title II programs, and 

vegetable oil is only available to carry out Title II programs. We have remaining 

about 1.2 million tons of wheat in the Bill Emerson Humanitarian Trust that may 

be made available for urgent humanitarian food assistance, assuming the full use 

of the 800,000 tons authorized for release for Africa and Iraq. 

In your letter of invitation to this hearing, you asked me to comment on the level 

of coordination between agencies in the Administration. Achieving the best use of 

our limited food aid resources is the major objective of all of us involved in providing 

food assistance. At the same time, we must be mindful not to interrupt normal trade 

flows of commercial markets as we implement food aid policies. In an effort to walk 

that line efficiently, the inter-agency Food Assistance Policy Council coordinates 

U.S. food aid policies and programs government-wide. At the program implementation level, the staffs of the Agency for International Development and the USDA 

meet on a regular basis to review and coordinate program plans and resolve any 

issues that might arise. 

FOOD AID PROGRAMS

Allow me to provide a brief explanation of the objectives of our food aid programs, 

planned funding levels for Fiscal Year (FY) 2003, and examples of the impact of last 

year’s programs in Africa. 

The P.L. 480, Title I program focuses on promoting economic development and assisting countries to meet their food import requirements. This government-to-government program provides credit for up to 30 years at very low interest rates. Including carry-over funds from prior years, $178 million is available for the P.L. 480 

Title I program for FY 2003. 

Eritrea in Title I Credit is an example of what a Title I program can accomplish. 

Last year, Eritrea received a $10-million loan to purchase U.S. wheat. The wheat 

was sold in local markets, and the proceeds are being used to improve the infrastructure for agricultural production, to train farmers, improve access to credit, develop storage and marketing facilities, and to encourage the development of agroprocessing industries. In FY 2003, for Africa, we anticipate using approximately $61 

million of P.L. 480, Title I funds for the Food for Progress Program for governmentto-government grant programs in Ethiopia, Eritrea, and Cameroon. 

The Food for Progress program provides commodities to developing countries and 

emerging democracies to support democracy and private enterprise reforms, including agricultural policy reforms. The Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 

2002 established new, higher funding ceilings for certain aspects of the Commodity 

Credit Corporation (CCC) program. CCC funds can be used to purchase commodities; up to $40 million of CCC funds can be used for associated non-commodity 

costs, such as ocean freight; and up to $15 million can be used to provide administrative and technical assistance to the organizations carrying out the programs. It 

is expected that a total of 400,000 tons of commodities will be provided globally on 

an annual basis through this program if transportation funding is sufficient to 

achieve this tonnage. Last year, a total of $18 million in commodities and CCC 

funds was provided to seven countries in Africa. These grants supported a wide 

array of development activities, including financing of agricultural equipment, preventative health care programs, youth vocational training centers, small farmer 

credit programs, expanding economic associations for women, training for veterinary 

health providers, and building of rural infrastructure. We anticipate CCC funding 

will be used to support an additional nine projects in Africa in the current year with 

a total value estimated at $33 million. 

Section 416(b) of the Agricultural Act of 1949 authorizes donations of surplus CCC 

stocks to assist people overseas. This year, CCC has significant inventories of nonfat 

dry milk. Every effort is being made to make this commodity available for foreign 

food aid programs. While nonfat dry milk is very nutritious, it is challenging to use 

effectively in international food aid programs largely due to limited access to safe 

drinking water. We anticipate its use in Africa this year in several countries includVerDate Mar 21 2002 10:45 Jun 10, 2003 Jkt 086301 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 F:\WORK\FULL\040103\86301 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
37

ing Angola, the Republic of Congo, Eritrea, Malawi, Mozambique, Nigeria, Sudan, 

and Tanzania. 

In FY 2002, CCC provided 300 metric tons of nonfat dry milk, valued at $596,000, 

to Malawi under section 416(b). Overall, last fiscal year African countries received 

324,000 metric tons of U.S. commodities worth $52 million under the program. 

The McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program, which was authorized in the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 

2002, builds on the framework of the $300-million Global Food for Education (GFE) 

pilot program implemented by the USDA beginning in 2001. The new program will 

include pre-school and school feeding projects and maternal, infant, and child nutrition initiatives. The longer-term goal is to provide education as a path to upward 

mobility and an improved standard of living. The preliminary data for the pilot program show that average enrollment for schools participating in the pilot program 

increased from 5 to 10 percent. There were 30 pilot programs in 17 African countries. The new McGovern-Dole program will be funded with $100 million of CCC 

funds during FY 2003, and we expect that a number of high quality projects will 

be in Africa. 

DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIES AND TECHNOLOGY

Before closing, I’d like to respond to your letter’s question about development 

strategies in East Africa. Given the magnitude of the problems we face in our efforts 

to alleviate hunger, it is essential to work hand in hand with the other U.S. government agencies, the World Food Program, and the private voluntary organizations to 

make the best use of limited resources. Technology is a major tool to spread those 

resources to their maximum. We also must work harder to encourage other nations 

to share more fully in providing food assistance and technical assistance to food insecure countries. 

Biotechnology has become an important political food aid issue. We have been 

working to assure food aid recipients and our partners in the food aid community 

that U.S. food is safe and wholesome. We have been doing this through in-country 

educational seminars and workshops, visits by key foreign representatives to the 

United States, and a variety of other educational and outreach activities conducted 

from Washington and by our staff overseas. Many of these activities have involved 

African nations. However, we should point out that such efforts have not been necessary in the Horn because these countries have accepted our aid without issue. 

We must address the many ungrounded, unscientific concerns about products produced using biotechnology. The U.S. regulatory process for transgenic crops is well 

coordinated among the federal regulatory agencies that set standards for human, 

animal, and plant health, and environmental safety. The commodities that we ship 

overseas commercially and for food aid are the same products sold and consumed 

here at home. 

The issue for food aid intensified last summer when our ability to deliver desperately needed food to African nations was greatly hindered by individuals and organizations opposed to biotechnology who made misguided statements about the 

U.S. food system. The dissemination of grossly erroneous information and scare tactics were shameful in that they kept much needed, safe American food from reaching those most in need. 

We know that introducing new technologies offers unprecedented potential for 

meeting the world’s food needs. That is why Secretary Veneman has invited agriculture, environment, and trade ministers from 180 countries to an agricultural 

science and technology conference in Sacramento in June. 

The conference will focus on the critical role that science and technology can play 

in raising agricultural productivity in developing countries in an environmentally 

sustainable way. It will provide a unique opportunity to address access to technologies, new scientific research, and the relationship between regulatory practices 

and innovation. It will lay the groundwork for the creation of partnerships to help 

developing countries understand new technologies and adopt them to increase agricultural productivity. Technology is one of the most powerful tools we have to 

achieve the goals of increasing agricultural productivity, ending famine and improving nutrition. 

As we work to implement our food aid programs as effectively as possible, we 

must remember that food aid is just one aspect of our efforts to promote world food 

security. Our food aid efforts go hand-in-hand with our developmental efforts—sharing technology, expanding trade, and promoting economic reform. These are all factors that can help produce growth and reduce poverty—the keys to food security. 

That concludes my statement, Mr. Chairman. I would be glad to answer any questions that you or members of the Committee have.

38

Chairman HYDE. Thank you, Dr. Butler. 

And now Ms. Sisulu. 

STATEMENT OF SHEILA SISULU, AMBASSADOR, DEPUTY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, UNITED NATIONS WORLD FOOD PROGRAMME 

Ms. SISULU. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairperson. 

Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you very much for inviting 

me to come in and address the issue of the crisis in Ethiopia and 

Eritrea. I would like to thank Members of the Committee for making the time to come and hear the testimonies on this crisis that 

we are facing in the Horn of Africa. 

I would also like to underscore the appreciation of the World 

Food Programme for the contribution that is made by the American 

Government, by stepping up to the plate tirelessly, and we appreciate also the fact that the U.S. Government is contributing more 

than all of the other donors put together. 

But I would like to assure the Committee that we are doing everything possible, under the leadership of our Executive Director, 

to broaden the base of resources coming to us, and also diversifying 

it by identifying new and emerging donors, but also urging our traditional donors to do more. 

Mr. Chairman, when our Executive Director Jim Morris visited 

Ethiopia in February, he was struck by the magnitude of the 

drought, but also by the good will and strong coordination of the 

government, our staff from World Food Programme, donors and the 

nongovernmental organizations on the ground. 

Congressman Wolf, USAID Administrator Mr. Natsios, and Ambassador Hall were also recently there. We think they would agree 

that this is an example where, if we have the resources that we 

need to do the job, we can avoid a catastrophe. 

We also want to make sure that the needs in Eritrea are not 

overshadowed. Granted, sheer numbers of affected are far lower 

than in Ethiopia, but nearly 60 percent of the population in Eritrea 

urgently requires food aid. 

Let me begin by stressing a few points. We should be proud, as 

the other speakers said, that the investments that we have made 

in early warning and food aid response systems have in fact paid 

off, particularly in Ethiopia, by allowing us to stay on top of the 

crisis, more can be done to strengthen these systems and to make 

sure to cover remote regions. But, we are much better able to forecast needs than we were just 3 years ago when we were gearing 

up for the last major drought in the region. 

Also, we are fortunate that we share a commitment to making 

sure that we never again witness a famine of the proportions seen 

in Ethiopia in 1984 and 1985. And that commitment has been repeated before the House today. 

Up to 1 million people tragically died in that famine, as we know. 

Most of the assistance that may have saved them arrived only 

afterwards, much too late. For many people here and around the 

world, that devastating famine was their first realization of the intense suffering that exists due to inadequate food. 

Today I would like to focus on the current situation in Ethiopia 

and Eritrea, and let you know how we are working, with your supVerDate Mar 21 2002 10:45 Jun 10, 2003 Jkt 086301 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 F:\WORK\FULL\040103\86301 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
39

port, to address these needs. I will also talk about some of the challenges that we face and how you can help us to do our job to avert 

famine. 

Over 11 million Ethiopians require food and other relief assistance as we speak. An additional 3 million people need to be monitored very closely and may need assistance in the near future. 

In Eritrea, 1.4 million drought affected and an additional 

900,000 displaced or recovering from war need food aid. While this 

is a much smaller number than Ethiopia, it accounts for about twothirds of the total population. 

In both countries, late, inadequate and poorly dispersed rains is 

the ultimate culprit. Eritrea faces drought for the fourth consecutive year, so the population has no resilience to cope with another 

year of shortages. 

They entered 2003 with the worst crop failure since their independence in 1993. In addition, about one-third of livestock, a major 

source of revenues for many Eritreans, risk death due to lack of 

water, pasture and fodder. 

The government of Eritrea’s Relief and Refugee Commission has 

appealed for nearly a half a million metric tons of food aid for 2003, 

including food for 1.4 million drought affected. 

In Ethiopia, concerns of drought emerged in the middle of last 

year. These worries were confirmed by a series of assessments. Production in lowland and marginal crop producing areas was particularly bad, but shortages also exist in traditional surplus production 

area. In pastoralist areas we are seeing a rise in livestock deaths 

and a major reduction in livestock prices. 

The nutritional situation in both countries has also deteriorated, 

with malnutrition rates approaching 30 percent in some areas. 

Both countries also have a large population who rely on food aid 

for part of the year. 

Similarly, Eritrea would require at least 200,000 metric tons of 

food aid, even if food production was at normal levels. But when 

a severe drought such as this one occurs, not only the people living 

in the food-secure areas are affected, but also pastoralists and people in surplus-producing areas who depend on rain-fed agriculture. 

The World Food Programme aims to provide over 600,000 metric 

tons this year to reach 4.6 million people. This will cover 40 percent of the overall requirements for cereal and part of the needs 

for supplemental food. We expect that the balance will be met by 

bilateral donations to the Ethiopian Government Disaster Prevention and Preparedness Commission, and also to NGOs. 

Our emergency program in Ethiopia seeks to save lives and prevent mass migration. We provide food aid, along with fortified 

blended food for the treatment of malnutrition. We also use emergency food aid to mitigate the impact of disasters and help rehabilitate essential household and community assets. 

We are seeking to reach 4.6 million people, including children 

under 5, pregnant and nursing women, the sick, including those affected by HIV and AIDS and their families and the elderly. 

In Eritrea, drought needs stand at 1.4 million people. We are 

providing food aid to 400,000 of those. We urgently need to expand 

this program to reach 900,000 drought affected people but lack the 

resources to do so. We are also continuing our program to feed an 

40

additional 500,000 people, reduced from 700,000, who are recovering from the border conflict. 

The challenge is in the response. Our extended involvement in 

the region and the goodwill and cooperation on the part of all involved has allowed us to stay on top of the food needs. However, 

the needs are massive and exceeding in numbers the 84–85 famine 

and the more recent drought in 2000. In addition, even where we 

are having some success in receiving and delivering food aid, we 

also know that food aid alone is insufficient to prevent famine. Collectively we need to commit to meeting the full range of assistance 

requirements and rise to several challenges in the face of a growing 

need. 

First and foremost, we, the concerned governments, our sister 

U.N. Agencies, and our nongovernmental organization partners will 

need more resources to meet the needs. The world will have to donate a total of 1.4 million metric tons to the relief effort to avert 

famine. The good news is that we collectively already have 

pledges—totaling about 70 percent of the total food needs. This can 

allow food distribution to continue until early August of this year. 

However, in order to ensure maximum coverage of targeted beneficiaries, the cereal rations have already been reduced from the 

planned level of 15 kilograms per person per month to 12.5 kilograms per person per month. This has some risks given that food 

insecurity this year is especially acute. For the World Food Programme in order to meet our commitment to cover 40 percent of 

the total needs, we urgently require new contributions. 

We also face a critical gap in fortified blended foods which are 

needed as supplemental rations for nutritional treatment programs. Programs run by the WFP and nongovernment organizations require 128,000 metric tons of blended food to assist malnourished children and mothers and we need it in country immediately, 

right away. So far, we have only received 50 percent of our total 

requirements. We urgently need another 10,000 metric tons to 

cover the priority areas outside the NGO operational areas where 

malnutrition rates are unacceptably high. 

Our resource situation in Eritrea is grim. The World Food Programme needs 260,000 metric tons to reach our target. Currently, 

we have about 20,000 in country and 40,000 scheduled to arrive 

soon. It is critical that we find and move an additional 200,000 

metric tons in order to continue and expand our program to avoid 

widespread malnutrition. 

Let me take this opportunity again to thank USAID for its support. USAID’s Office of Food for Peace has provided us with 

148,000 metric tons of title II food aid for Ethiopia this year and 

has allocated some additional resources to other organizations providing food aid. 

The World Food Programme is working closely with USAID in 

capacity building for early warning, nutritional surveillance, and 

training local officials in targeting. USAID also gave us 12,000 

metric tons to support our drought program in Eritrea. We will 

need to continue to benefit from the generosity of the American 

people while also appealing to other donors to provide more aid, as 

I indicated earlier. 

41

I hope that we can continue to count on your support. It will be 

important that critical water, health, and agriculture interventions 

and the U.N. and nongovernmental organizations who implement 

these programs also receive the funding that they need. Food aid 

is the overwhelming need in Ethiopia and Eritrea. However, lack 

of food, poor nutrition and inadequate and unsafe water increase 

the vulnerability of people to disease. Also livestock and agricultural recovery activities must begin during the emergency to ensure quick recovery. As we saw in the 2000 drought in Ethiopia 

and as we are currently seeing in Southern Africa, food aid can 

only achieve its full benefits when it is combined with other interventions. 

With regard to HIV and AIDS, an estimated 2.2 million Ethiopians are infected by the virus HIV, including 200,000 children. Almost 1 million Ethiopian children are orphaned as a result of HIV/

AIDS. In Eritrea, 55,000 people are infected and there are about 

24,000 AIDS orphans. HIV/AIDS is a devastating disease, destroying the fabric of families, communities, and even government infrastructure. HIV/AIDS leaves already poor families in a very bad position to cope with food shortages. Special attention is also needed 

to reach children orphaned by HIV/AIDS who can be overlooked in 

the relief planning process. 

Awareness of the impact of HIV/AIDS on food security and the 

need to target HIV/AIDS-affected families with assistance is now a 

critical component in all World Food Programme programs in high 

prevalence areas. In Ethiopia, we will continue to provide HIV/

AIDS awareness training to all drivers of transport companies used 

by the World Food Programme to avoid further spreading the disease as a consequence of the relief effort. 

I know many of you share our concerns that more needs to be 

done to address the consequences of this terrible disease. We must 

use our programs to build the resilience of the people against such 

disasters and to build national and local capacity to handle crises. 

Part of our emergency response is to make investments that build 

economy growth and help people better cope with these droughts 

that are coming with increasing frequency and affecting growing 

numbers. 

Chairman HYDE. Could you summarize? 

Ms. SISULU. The Government of Ethiopia has asked us to deliver 

food aid in ways that encourage those who can work to create assets that will benefit them in the future. We are linking our emergency programs with our long-term activities such as school feeding, which already focuses on disaster-prone areas, to ensure that 

the progress we have made is not erased by the latest crisis. 

In conclusion, I hope that I have impressed upon you the urgency 

of the situation in Ethiopia and Eritrea and the importance that 

we redouble our efforts to prevent famine. The World Food Programme welcomes the continued generous support we receive from 

the United States as well as your ongoing effort to encourage other 

donors to also contribute generously to this important cause. 

Chairman HYDE. Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Sisulu follows:]

42

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SHEILA SISULU, AMBASSADOR, DEPUTY EXECUTIVE

DIRECTOR, UNITED NATIONS WORLD FOOD PROGRAMME

I am honoured to be here today to talk with you about the unfolding crisis in 

Ethiopia and Eritrea and the role of the World Food Programme. When our Executive Director, Jim Morris, visited Ethiopia several weeks ago he was struck by the 

magnitude of the drought, but also by the good will and strong coordination of the 

government, our staff, donor representatives and the NGOs on the ground. Congressman Frank Wolf, USAID Administrator Andrew Natsios and Ambassador Tony 

Hall were also recently there and we think they would agree with WFP that this 

is a clear example of a situation where, if we have the resources that we need to 

do the job, we can avert a catastrophe. WFP’s Executive Director was not able to 

visit Eritrea on his short trip but we want to make sure that the needs there are 

not overshadowed. Sheer numbers of affected are far lower than in Ethiopia but 

nearly 60 percent of the population urgently requires food aid. 

Let me begin by stressing a few points. 

We should all be proud that the investments that we have made in early warning 

and food aid response systems, particularly in Ethiopia, which is an immense country, have paid off by allowing us to stay on top of the crisis. More can be done to 

strengthen these systems, particularly in the more remote regions, but we are much 

better able to forecast needs in a timely way than we were just three years ago, 

when we were gearing up for the last major drought in the region. 

Also, we are fortunate that we all share a commitment to making sure that we 

never again witness a famine of the proportions seen in Ethiopia in 1984/85. Up to 

1 million people tragically died in that famine and most of the assistance that might 

have saved them arrived only afterwards. For many people here and the world over, 

that devastating famine was their first realization of the intense suffering that exists in parts of the world due to inadequate food. The stick figures emerging from 

the dusty plains of Ethiopia and the Sudan border remain imbedded in our minds. 

It was during this famine that a clear US policy emerged from former President 

Ronald Reagan, separating humanitarian aid and politics. ‘‘A hungry child knows 

no politics’’ endures as a central tenet of US policy and remains critical to the World 

Food Programme’s efforts. 

I am also struck by how much easier it is to work in countries where there is 

a strong government commitment to humanitarianism and the needs of their people, 

which is clearly the case in both Ethiopia and Eritrea. Obviously this is a major 

difference from the mid-80s.There are serious challenges in Ethiopia and Eritrea—

both countries face deep poverty and have major structural food deficits to contend 

with—but the governments and civil society are committed to building a better future and we are committed to helping them succeed. 

Today I would like to focus on the current situation in Ethiopia and Eritrea and 

let you know how we are working, with your support, to address the needs. I will 

also talk about some of the challenges we face and how you can help us do our job 

to avert famine. 

CURRENT SITUATION

Over 11 million Ethiopians require food and other relief assistance. An additional 

3 million people need to be monitored very closely; they are in a precarious condition 

and may need assistance in the near future. In Eritrea a smaller number—1.4 million drought-affected and an additional 900,000 displaced or recovering from war—

require food aid, but this accounts for about two-thirds of the total population. 

In both countries, late, inadequate and poorly dispersed rain is the primary culprit. 

In Eritrea, 2002 was the fourth year of drought, leaving the population with no 

resilience to cope with another year of shortages. A November multi-agency assessment showed 2002 production at 54,400 metric tons, more than 70 percent below 

the national average. The population entered 2003 with a near total loss of their 

cereal harvest—the worst crop failure the country has experienced since its independence in 1993. Those who managed to cultivate something will consume it by 

the spring. In addition, about one-third of livestock, a major source of livelihood for 

many Eritreans, risk death due to lack of water, pasture and fodder. The amount 

of grain pastoralists can get from selling one animal is decreasing rapidly as more 

are forced to make distress sales. For those whose income is based on livestock, this 

has a devastating impact on their ability to buy food. 

The Government of Eritrea’s Relief and Refugee Commission (ERREC) has appealed for nearly a half million metric tons of food aid for 2003. Of this, 290,000 

is for the 1.4 million drought affected. More than 900,000 additional people are also 

targeted for food aid, including internally displaced people, returnees, demobilized 

43

soldiers and vulnerable urban dwellers, including victims of HIV/AIDs and their 

families. 

In Ethiopia, concerns of a drought began to emerge in the middle of last year, 

following a prolonged dry spell between the end of the short rains (called belg) in 

April 2002 and the main crop season rains (called meher) which began four to six 

weeks late at the end of July. Farmers delayed preparing and planting their fields, 

and opted to plant low-yielding, short-cycle crops such as teff (the grain they use 

for bread), wheat and pulses, instead of maize and sorghum. They also invested less 

than normal in improved seeds and fertilizers. Once the rains finally came, they 

were lighter than usual and unevenly distributed, reducing crop production. By August the government raised its estimate of people requiring food aid for the year 

and we started planning for various grim scenarios for 2003. 

Two major country-wide assessments in November further revealed the extent of 

the problem. They forecasted total production of cereal and pulses at about 9.27 million tons, down 25 percent from the previous year and down 21 percent from the 

five year average. Food aid estimates for 2003 were set at 1.4 million tons. Production in lowland and marginal crop producing areas was particularly bad, but shortages of 20–30 percent were also found in traditional surplus production areas. In 

pastoralist areas, such as the east and north-east, poor rains decreased available 

forage and water, leading both to an increase in livestock death rates and an up 

to 50 percent reduction in livestock prices. In some areas, pastoralists were forced 

to migrate early with their herds and flocks in search of better pasture; in others, 

competition over scarce water and pasture has led to conflict. 

The nutritional situation in both countries has also deteriorated. In Ethiopia, 

rates of acute malnutrition have approached 30 percent in areas of Afar and over 

15 percent in Amhara, Oromiya and Somali regions. In Eritrea, acute malnutrition 

rates range from 14–28 percent. Normally anything above 10 percent is serious and 

beyond 15 percent is critical. 

There are always at least 4–5 million people in Ethiopia who are chronically foodinsecure and, even in a good year, rely on food aid to meet their minimum daily 

requirements for part of the year. Similarly, Eritrea would likely require at least 

200,000 metric tons of aid, even if food production was at normal levels. However, 

when a severe drought such as this one occurs, not only the people living in the 

chronically food insecure and drought prone areas are affected, but also pastoralists 

and people in surplus producing areas who depend on rain-fed agriculture. 

MEETING THE NEEDS

WFP works closely with the government of Ethiopia’s Disaster Prevention and 

Preparedness Commission (DPPC) to address food needs in Ethiopia. We aim to provide over 600,000 metric tons this year in order to reach 4.6 million people. This 

will cover 40 percent of the overall requirements for cereals and part of the needs 

for supplementary food for 2003. The balance is normally met by bilateral donations 

to the DPPC or NGOs. 

Our emergency programme in Ethiopia seeks to save lives and prevent mass migration, by providing adequate bulk food along with fortified, blended food for the 

treatment of malnutrition. We also use emergency food aid to mitigate the impact 

of disasters and help rehabilitate essential household and community assets. Over 

the past year we provided an estimated 2.5 million people with emergency food rations. In our expanded programme to reach 4.6 million, we will continue to focus 

on children under-five, pregnant and nursing women, the sick (including those affected by HIV/AIDs and their families) and the elderly. 

In Eritrea, over the past two years we have provided food aid to up to 200,000 

drought affected people and an additional 750,000 people, most of whom needed 

help recovering after the border conflict. Now drought needs stand at 1.4 million, 

with 900,000 other vulnerable people also in need of assistance. We are currently 

providing 400,000 people who had no harvest last year due to drought with food aid. 

We urgently need to expand this program to reach 900,000 drought affected people 

but we do not have the resources to do this. Our new operation, targeting a total 

of 900,000 drought affected people with 130,000 tons, will need to be in place and 

well resourced by April, when the numbers needing food aid will swell as existing 

food stocks are consumed. We are also continuing our programme to feed an additional 500,000 people (reduced from 700,000) who are recovering from the border 

conflict. 

We have a well established and strong logistical network in the region to support 

our deliveries. Some of you may recall that we faced major logistical impediments 

in Ethiopia during the last drought in 2000. The Assab port in Eritrea was off limits 

due to the border conflict and we were forced to import huge tonnages into Ethiopia 

44

through previously under-used ports. This required serious upgrading of regional 

port and road infrastructure. Thankfully, these past investments continue to benefit 

our efforts today. We are confident that the Djibouti port is capable of handling an 

average offloading rate of 5000 tons per day and the up to 1.5 million tons will need 

to flow through it, and that a combination of rail, road and the Ethiopian trucking 

system can move the food through the country. We don’t anticipate significant problems in Eritrea where the tonnages are much smaller. In the event that the needs 

rapidly increase due to further failure of rains, we have also identified other ports 

and routes that can be used. 

CHALLENGES IN THE RESPONSE

We have been fortunate that our extended involvement in the region, particularly 

in Ethiopia, along with the good will and cooperation on the part of all involved, 

has allowed us to stay on top of the food needs. However, the needs are massive, 

exceeding in numbers (but not percentage of the population) the 84/85 famine and 

the more recent drought in 2000. In addition, even where we are having some success in receiving and delivering food aid, we also know that food aid alone is insufficient to prevent famine. Collectively, we need to commit to meeting the full range 

of assistance requirements and rise to several challenges in the face of the growing 

need: 

Resource Requirements 

First and foremost, we, the concerned governments, our sister UN agencies and 

our NGO partners will need more resources to meet the needs. The world will have 

to donate a total of 1.4 million metric tons to the Ethiopia relief effort to avert a 

famine. The good news is that we collectively already have pledges totaling about 

70 percent of the total bulk food need. This can allow food distributions to continue 

until early August 2003. However, in order to ensure maximum coverage of targeted 

beneficiaries, the cereal rations, which assume that beneficiaries still have some access to food, have had to be reduced from the planned level of 15 kg per person per 

month to 12.5 kg per person per month. This is a fairly common practice in Ethiopia 

but it does have some risks this year given that food insecurity is especially acute. 

For WFP, in order to meet our commitment to cover 40 percent of the total needs, 

we urgently require new contributions. 

We face a critical gap in fortified, blended foods, which are needed as supplementary rations for nutritional treatment programmes. Programmes run by WFP 

and NGOs require almost 128,000 metric tons of blended food to assist malnourished children and mothers, and we need it in country right away. So far, we have 

only received 50 percent of our total requirements. We urgently need another 10,000 

metric tons to cover the priority areas outside the NGO operational areas where 

malnutrition rates are unacceptably high. 

Our resource situation for Eritrea is less positive. WFP needs 260,000 MT to 

reach our target. Currently we have about 20,000 in country and 40,000 scheduled 

to arrive soon, which will address a total caseload of 900,000 until April. It is critical that we find an additional 200,000 metric tons pledged and into the pipeline 

quickly in order to avoid widespread malnutrition. 

I should take this opportunity to thank the U.S. Agency for International Development for its support to our efforts so far and its continued commitment to addressing food needs in the Horn of Africa. For Ethiopia in 2003, USAID’s Office of Food 

for Peace has provided us with 148,000 metric tons of Title II food aid, valued at 

over $77 million dollars and has allocated some additional resources to other organizations providing food aid. WFP is working closely with USAID in capacity building 

for early warning, nutritional surveillance and training local officials in targeting. 

To support our drought programme in Eritrea, USAID recently gave us 12,000 metric tons, valued at $5 million. 

We will need to continue to benefit from the generosity of the American people, 

while also appealing to other traditional and new donors to provide aid. I hope that 

I can count on your support. 

Adequate support for non food programmes 

It will be important that our UN and NGO colleagues who plan to implement critical water, health and agriculture interventions also receive the funding that they 

need. Food aid is the overwhelming need in Ethiopia and Eritrea. However, as we 

have learned, lack of food and poor nutrition, combined with inadequate and unsafe 

water, increase the vulnerability of people to disease, which is the primary cause 

of death during famines. In some areas, people are walking three to five hours to 

collect drinking water. Moreover, activities that focus on livestock and agricultural 

recovery, even during the midst of the crisis, are critical in ensuring a quick recovVerDate Mar 21 2002 10:45 Jun 10, 2003 Jkt 086301 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 F:\WORK\FULL\040103\86301 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
45

ery. As we saw during the 2000 drought in Ethiopia, and as we are currently seeing 

in Southern Africa, food aid can indeed only achieve its full health benefits when 

it is combined with other interventions. 

HIV/AIDs 

An estimated 2.2 million Ethiopians are infected by HIV/AIDs, including 200,000 

children, and almost 1 million children are orphaned as a result of HIV/AIDs. In 

Eritrea, 55,000 people are infected and there are about 24,000 AIDs orphans. Southern Africa has shown us how devastating HIV/AIDs is and how it destroys the very 

fabric of families, communities and even government infrastructure. HIV/AIDs 

leaves already poor families in a very bad position to cope with food shortages, having already lost their productive labor and given increased expenditures on medical 

costs. Special attention is also needed to reach children orphaned by HIV/AIDs who 

can be overlooked in the relief planning process. 

Awareness of the impact of HIV/AIDS on food security and the need to target 

HIV/AIDS affected families with assistance is becoming a critical component in all 

WFP programmes in high prevalence areas. In Ethiopia, we will also continue to 

provide HIV/AIDs awareness training to all drivers of transport companies used by 

WFP to avoid further spreading the disease as a consequence of the relief effort. I 

know many of you share my concern that more needs to be done to stem the tide 

and address the consequences of this terrible disease. 

Link to Longer Term Activities 

In countries such as Ethiopia and Eritrea, where there are major, chronic food 

needs and recurring cycles of drought, it would be irresponsible for us to simply provide a band aid. We must use our programmes to the extent possible to build the 

resilience of people against future disasters, while also building national and local 

capacity to handle crises. Part of our emergency response in the region is to make 

investments that build economic growth and enable people to better cope with these 

dramatic droughts that are coming with increasing frequency and affecting growing 

numbers, especially women and children. We have some very good examples in Ethiopia where minimal investments in food aid have created assets that left chronically 

food insecure people in disaster prone areas much better positioned to cope with this 

drought. 

The government of Ethiopia is very keen on such programmes and has asked that 

we deliver food aid in ways that encourage able-bodied participants to create assets 

that will benefit them in the future. We will try to distribute about one-third of our 

emergency assistance through such employment generation schemes and will ensure 

that such activities are planned and implemented by communities. Also, in both 

Ethiopia and Eritrea we will build synergies between our emergency and our longerterm programs, such as school feeding, which already focus on disaster prone areas 

to ensure that critical gains made are not erased by the latest crisis. 

CONCLUSION

I hope that I have impressed upon you the urgency of the situation in Ethiopia 

and Eritrea and the importance that we redouble our efforts to prevent famine. The 

World Food Programme welcomes the focus of this important Committee on hunger 

in the Horn of Africa. We also welcome the continued, generous support that we receive from the United States and your ongoing efforts to encourage other donors to 

also contribute generously to this important cause. 

Thank you.

Chairman HYDE. I am going to rearrange the order of witnesses. 

We have one witness left and it seems to me appropriate if we ask 

that witness to join this panel so we can have one round of questions and everybody gets an opportunity to ask a question. 

So if Dr. Mesfin Wolde Mariam would step forward and perhaps 

sit next to Mr. Larson, we will have a microphone available for you. 

Mr. Mesfin Wolde Mariam is one of Ethiopia’s leading geographers. 

He has faced harassment and imprisonment for his work which 

states that political rather than natural forces have caused the 

countries’ famines and recurring food crises. His scholarly research 

led him to conclude that the Ethiopian peasant is in a persistently 

vulnerable state because of poor governance. He has argued that 

46

basic social and cultural changes, together with land reform, must 

take place in order for the cycle of famine to end. 

The Ethiopian Government has arrested Dr. Wolde Mariam a 

number of times over the past several years for his criticism of government policy. On May 8, 2001, the Ethiopian security forces arrested him in relation to a seminar that he and a colleague conducted on academic rights and freedoms. The offices of the Ethiopian Human Rights Council which he founded was shut down for 

10 days and searched by the police following his arrest. After 

spending 4 weeks in jail, a judge ordered the Ethiopian Government should release Professor Wolde Mariam from police custody 

on $1,299 bail. 

Harvard chose Professor Mesfin to serve as the fall 2002 Scholar 

at Risk, since he faces the risk of persecution because of his scholarship, beliefs, and political courage. He was awarded a fellowship 

at the W.E.B. DuBois Institute for Afro-American Research in collaboration with the university Committee on Human Rights Studies. He has also served as a Fulbright scholar. 

Chairman HYDE. Dr. Mesfin, we would be delighted to hear from 

you if you can condense it to 5 minutes. I know that is quite a 

trick. And then if the panel will make themselves available for 

questions. Thank you, Dr. Mesfin. 

STATEMENT OF MESFIN WOLDE-MARIAM, CHAIRMAN, THE 

ETHIOPIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL, AND RESEARCH FELLOW, HARVARD UNIVERSITY, DEPARTMENT OF AFRO-AMERICAN STUDIES, W.E.B. DuBOIS INSTITUTE FOR AFRO-AMERICAN STUDIES 

Mr. MESFIN. Thank you Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee. I am honored to be here and thank you for the kind words. 

I will not exceed the 5 minutes. I have made a summary of the already short statement that I have prepared for this Committee. I 

will be talking on the socioeconomic origin of famine. 

The socioeconomic origin of famine has two pivotal concepts: One 

is vulnerability to famine and the other is the process of famine. 

Some of the previous speakers have really very well explained 

some of these concepts. Peasants engaged in subsistence production 

are hindered between two forces, the natural forces and the socioeconomic forces. The difference between these forces is that the 

natural factors are adverse periodically, while the socioeconomic 

forces are always adverse. 

Traditionally, Ethiopian peasants always kept grain in store not 

only for bad years, but also for several social occasions such as 

weddings and memorials for the dead. Modern administration 

brought with it extortions of cash in the form of taxation. Contributions were also sought for projects and, now, debts for fertilizers 

and seeds. Every year, peasants are impoverished by extortion. The 

capacity of the peasants to save either in grain or cash is rendered 

impossible. The officials, with their inflexible demands, invariably 

appear during harvest time. In order to meet their cash obligations 

all peasants take their products at the same time. And because 

prices fall abysmally, they have to sell more of their produce. What 

is left is not sufficient to take the peasants and their families to 

the next harvest. 

47

It is well known by all nutritionists in Ethiopia that in every 

normal year from about March to September, Ethiopian peasants 

suffer from what is known as postharvest and preharvest hunger. 

This is what I call the socioeconomic origin of famine. The constant 

impoverishment of peasants and their incapacity to save has nothing to do with the natural forces, but with oppression and exploitation. 

It is important to realize that famine is not an event, but a process that takes from 5 to 7 months. Famine is not the same as ordinary hunger, malnutrition, or undernourishment. I define famine 

as follows: Famine is the most negative state of food consumption 

under which people, unable to replace even the energy they lose in 

basic metabolism, consume whatever is stored in their bodies. That 

means they literally consume themselves to death. That is famine. 

The process of famine is a continuation of the preharvest hunger. 

When any adverse natural factor brings about crop failure, it 

means there is no harvest. Any responsible and responsive government would have intervened immediately with relief assistance. 

Five to seven months passed, pushing the poor peasants to the cliff 

of famine. It becomes news only when peasants and livestock become victims of mass death by starvation, sometime in March and 

April. 

This omission of what the regime ought to have done immediately after a crop failure is known, marks the second manifestation of irresponsibility; the first being the oppression and exploitation of peasants. In fact, the regime sends its cash extortionists 

even in time of famine. This is a fact. The poor peasants will be 

forced to sell their livestock, even their oxen, to pay their taxes, 

contributions and debts, thus ensuring another year of famine. 

That is why a famine year is always followed by another. 

It can be stated with confidence that Ethiopia’s agricultural resources, such as land, water resources, and climatic diversity are 

such that would make the country a surplus producer. It is misguided policies and mismanagement of these resources that lead to 

impoverishment of the people, especially the peasants. 

In 1967, an American agricultural economist, John Fisher, in a 

very thorough study he made, recommended that agricultural production should increase by 4.4 percent. He said then this is more 

than 200 percent of the rate by which total food production has 

been increasing in recent years. To achieve such a rate of growth 

is possible, but, short of superior effort by Ethiopia, is improbable. 

That is what he wrote in 1967. We already had a second famine 

of modern times at that time. 

Since then, all Ethiopian peasants have been dispossessed of 

land. The regime can’t understand this is a disincentive to agricultural development. Furthermore, it cannot understand that its 

stubborn policy of attempting to modernize minuscule and fragmented peasant plots of less than one hectare is a futile exercise. 

As long as Ethiopian peasants remain powerless and in bondage, 

families will continue to decimate Ethiopian peasants and the regime will continue to call on the international community for relief 

assistance. We have done this since 1959. And it will be easier to 

count the number of years when the United States has not given 

48

relief assistance rather than when it did. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. ROYCE. [Presiding.] Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Mesfin follows:]

49


86301l.eps
50


86301m.eps
51


86301n.eps
52


86301o.eps
53


86301p.eps
54

Mr. ROYCE. We will just hold it down here. The question I wanted to ask you—you heard earlier as Congressman Lantos explained 

the collective exasperation of Congress with a senseless war that 

was fought several years ago by Eritrea and Ethiopia—how did 

that war affect these countries’ ability to address this famine? As 

I understand it, people remain displaced as a result of the war. You 

have got land mines that preclude the use of a lot of agricultural 

land. So there is the question of the true cost of the war, which is 

a component of this besides the exploitation of peasant farmers 

that you discussed. 

And I was going to ask you about the economic and agricultural 

policies that have been used that have harmed the country’s ability 

to feed itself. As you explained, much of the land there has been 

in the hands of the state. What recommendations do you have for 

increasing agricultural productivity in Ethiopia and in Eritrea and 

your remarks on the true cost of that war? Thank you. 

Mr. MESFIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The war definitely has a very serious impact on this. It is a most 

stupid war. It is not only the cost for the weapons and so forth that 

the regime spent that must be taken into account, it is also the 

able-bodied people that were taken from the rural areas, from 

farms. Many able-bodied persons were taken out of the farms and 

have become counter forces there, and eventually the rural areas 

in many parts of Ethiopia have remained with only women, small 

children, and older people. This has happened before at the time 

of the previous regime in its wars, and this is exactly what is happening now. 

And so the priorities that the regime has for that war, it was 

able to have resources, to buy all those weapons, airplanes and 

tanks and so forth. But when people are starving, it cannot buy out 

those resources that it has. Suddenly the international community 

would be without responsibility. 

Recently, there was—it is normal, the Ambassador here wrote a 

letter to The Washington Post; without quick action by the international community, the drought crisis will endanger millions of 

our citizens. Now the responsibility becomes that of the international community when that regime itself has not met its own 

responsibility, it has not enabled the peasants to save grain, it has 

not enabled the peasants to save cash. And so when they reach the 

cliff by oppression and exploitation, it waits and even then, even 

then as I can testify, even in time in famine, those extortionists 

still go to the rural areas and demand payment. 

So it is mismanagement of our resources. If we manage our resources properly, if the peasants could be motivated by their own 

land—they tell us, if we give them land, they will sell it. So what 

if they sell it? They will come to the urban areas. So what if they 

come to the urban areas? They are coming now by the hundreds, 

although sometimes at night they take them out and throw them 

in the forest. That is no reduction of poverty by eliminating poor 

people. So there are ways. 

Ethiopia does not lack the resources to produce sufficient for its 

own consumption. In fact the climatic—the diversity of climate in 

Ethiopia will allow it to produce a variety of crops, fruits, and vegetables to export to surrounding countries and to Europe practically 

55

every month of the year. Every month of the year can be a harvest 

month in Ethiopia. 

Mr. ROYCE. Lastly, I wanted to ask Administrator Natsios about 

the food crisis in Zimbabwe. Mr. Natsios, you stated this is not 

about drought and it is a completely preventable situation, a tragedy in the true sense of the word. And I would like to know if the 

Mugabe government is still using food as a weapon in its campaign 

against its political opposition in Zimbabwe. 

Mr. NATSIOS. Let me first say that some reprehensible things 

took place this past week in which 500 members of the opposition 

were arrested for demonstrating against interference in the recent 

local elections and attempts to manipulate those elections including, I think, the Vice Chairman of the opposition party was arrested. And so the oppression of the population continues. 

But in addition to that, the government seems not to understand 

that the confiscation of the large farms by the state and then the 

giving of those farms to members of the inner circle of the ruling 

party and relatives of President Mugabe has done an enormous 

amount of damage to the food system in the country. 

The reservoirs were full when the drought took place. Half of the 

system, agricultural system is irrigated. If they had let those farms 

farm, the big irrigated farms, they could have used the water in 

the reservoir to overcome the reduction in production in the rainfed area of the country last year. And so there is a serious problem 

with production. We estimate production may be down as much as 

80 percent this year over the average of the past—before the 

droughts of 5 years. 

So there is a massive reduction of food production in the country, 

to a disastrous level. People can usually take, in a relatively prosperous country, 1 year of drought without having mass casualties. 

They can’t do it for 2 years. The Zimbabwean people were among 

the best educated people, a 92 percent literacy rate. It had an advanced infrastructure and advanced agricultural system, and he 

has literally destroyed it. It is one of the worst examples in African 

history of gross mismanagement, of predatory government policy, 

and of tyranny over its own people. And I want to say it is a terrible tragedy to a functional society of an educated people to have 

this happened. 

They have used food as a weapon. Matabeleland is a region of 

the country that has traditionally been in opposition to Dr. Mugabe 

and his party. They have never liked him, never voted for him, and 

they have attempted to shut off all food distributions in those areas 

and prevent reporters from going in to see what the consequence 

is. We are not seeing mass starvation yet. But with a second year 

of reduced harvests, I think we are going to face famine conditions. 

Their malnutrition rates are rising. We have some examples in 

some provinces, according to the NGOs and church groups we talk 

to, of children whose parents are of the opposition, being pulled out 

of feeding lines and told they will not eat because their parents 

supported the opposition candidates in the last election. So there 

is a politicization, not of our food aid—our food aid has gone 

through NGOs and the World Food Programme. None of it has 

gone to the government and none of it will go to the government. 

56

Mr. ROYCE. Thank you, Administrator Natsios. We will go to the 

Ranking Member of the African Subcommittee, Mr. Don Payne, for 

his questions. 

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. I 

would like to thank Congressman Wolf who has done so much over 

the years in bringing problems of drought and famine to our attention. I think those graphic pictures certainly said it all. 

Just quickly, you know before I ask the question, I do want to 

mention that I would hope and was hoping that I know that Mr. 

Natsios has an interest in agricultural assistance as a part of and 

as a tool of USAID and I would hope that USAID can really get 

the funding to increase agricultural assistance. I don’t think that 

we see it in the Millennium Program, some of the new efforts that 

are going to be made. But I think it is essential that water programs, irrigation programs, farmer-to-farmer programs that Mrs. 

Eva Clayton has talked about legislating—of course we have 

dropped agricultural assistance by 50 percent over the last decade 

or so from the U.S. In our aid programs, and so I hope we can turn 

that around. 

Secondly, it is very difficult for African countries, even if the governments have bad programs, to really have African countries get 

on an equal footing. We will continue to see highly subsidized U.S. 

And European farmers. As you know, in the rich countries, $311 

billion a year is spent on agricultural subsidies. Now it makes it 

very difficult for a poor farmer in a developing country to even 

raise chickens at less than what they can buy them even if the cost 

goes up tremendously. And so with continued agricultural subsidies 

in the USA, which is one of our bigger—I guess other than defense, 

agricultural subsidies is one of the biggest growing parts of our 

budget, and the Europeans do the same thing, I think it makes it 

difficult for countries that would naturally be agricultural, Nigeria, 

some of the countries that have land and perhaps where the water 

is more dependable, they could get into agriculture. But if they are 

not going to be able—the 311 billion is twice the amount of the 

total exports from developing nations around the world what the 

subsidy is from the Western countries, so that is going to be an 

overall problem. 

Let me just ask a question regarding being able to get food aid 

in. Mr. Natsios, you mentioned a very important thing; that 

droughts were cyclical but they were about 10 years apart. 1962 to 

1972, I was in Ethiopia up in Wallo Province and Dese and all that 

during the distribution of food in the 1972 drought. And then the 

1983 drought came about. The 1972 was also not told to the world, 

and that is when they deposed the emperor, but we find that the 

contractions become shorter. 

How do you see us getting out of this when the droughts—I am 

not talking about the so-called man-made droughts, but the ones 

that have been cyclical, rather long, how can we deal with their reduction from 10 years; and then it was 1982 and 1989 and we got 

to about 5 years. Now we are looking at 2- to 3-year cycles. What 

would you suggest to deal with that? 

Mr. NATSIOS. Mr. Chairman, if I could respond? Let me just respond in terms of the question of the agricultural budget for AID 

for Africa. It was 113 million in 2001. It is 163 million this year, 

57

so $50 million increase. Not enough, but it is a 50 percent increase 

over 2 years. We put more in, Mr. Chairman, and it was put in 

other accounts that are more popular. The money was transferred 

and put into HIV/AIDS, the environment, and everything that you 

could imagine. 

The constituency in this city is not there for agriculture. You and 

I both support it, but generally speaking it doesn’t have the constituency. And so the money we put in was taken out and was put 

into other accounts. I was very angry about it. If you ask African 

heads of states and prime ministers and finance ministers, not the 

agricultural ministers who have a vested interest, but the other 

ministers, where we should be putting money in Africa, they will 

all tell you, money in agriculture. 

Eighty percent of poor people in Africa live on the farms. If you 

want to reduce poverty, you have to invest in agriculture. We will 

continue to put money in, but we really want support in the city 

to increase these budgets. In terms of the frequency of drought, we 

are seeing an increase—or the length of time between the droughts 

diminish each year. And the reason for that is there are very high 

rates of population growth in Ethiopia. And that means areas that 

are more drought prone are much more affected because they are 

overpopulated now and the carrying capacity of the land has diminished. 

Now, if you are industrialized, it is irrelevant what happens. But 

Ethiopia is a rural agricultural society. And so if people are subsistence farmers, then high population growth rates in marginal 

lands means people are much more vulnerable to weather anomalies. 

What can be done about it? The first thing that can be done, Africa has the lowest rate in the world of irrigated agriculture. India 

is now at 70 or 80 percent—70 or 80 percent of their agriculture 

is irrigated. They radically increased that after independence, this 

effort to do that. In fact, in drought years in India, they fed the 

peasantry and used food for work to build rural roads, number one; 

and two, to irrigate the agricultural system. So they have used 

famine or droughts. They have not had a famine since independence in India. 

And that, I think, needs to be a lesson to us in Africa, particularly in Ethiopia where we should use the droughts as a way of 

taking the labor of the farmers by giving them food aid to build 

rural roads to increase access for farmer-to-market roads; but two, 

to irrigate the agricultural system so that you are less vulnerable 

when these emergencies take place. And there are some things we 

could do in irrigation. 

The second thing is, I think one of the things we need to invest 

in, this is a decision that the Ethiopian Government has to make, 

not us. But there are new varieties of crops being developed 

through biotech in South Africa. These are not American varieties. 

American varieties are appropriate for our agricultural system, not 

for Africa. 

I had lunch—dinner last August with some brilliant South African scientists who are developing some drought-resistant forms of 

maize and wheat, and they are extremely promising and they may 

in fact insulate agriculture in Africa against periodic drought. 

58

So we are looking to scientific solutions and technical solutions 

that are simple but are appropriate for Africa to deal with the 

onset of drought, but using science. 

We also need to educate another generation of scientists, African 

scientists in their ministries of agriculture, in their universities, to 

do the research for what is appropriate for the agricultural system. 

We used to do 20,000 scholarships a year in 1980. We only do 900 

now. I think it is scandalous that there has been a dramatic reduction in the number of scholarships to people from the Third World 

to American universities to take that technology back to their countries and use it for their own benefit. So we are putting a new investment into scholarships in the United States. 

I have to tell you this one story. I was at the World Food Summit 

with Alan Larson in June of last year, and this man came up to 

me from Guatemala and he said, ‘‘I am the Minister of Agriculture 

in Guatemala’’ and I thought he was going, and he said, ‘‘I want 

to thank you and AID because I got my degree from an AID scholarship and I was a member of your staff in the AID mission for 

many years, and because I developed such good skills I get promoted to be the Minister of Agriculture.’’

So the scholarship programs work and capacity programs work, 

but it takes years to see them in people who get promoted to senior 

positions. So there are things that we can do in terms of science 

and technology, investment in infrastructure and small-scale irrigation. Big-scale irrigation has not worked well in Africa, but smallscale irrigation has, and we believe that is one of the answers that 

we need to invest in. 

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you. My time has expired, and I just want to 

say I appreciate and it is very clear that you have thought about 

this a lot and am very passionate. I do want to wonder about—and 

I won’t ask a question, but I am concerned about the food being delivered through the port of Djibouti, which is one of the ways, and 

now because of the engagement in Iraq, and I know a lot of military is going through that area. So I just hope that the cost of insurance and other dangers don’t impact on our being able to get 

food distributed to that area. 

Secondly, I just would like to comment that I do think, Dr. 

Mesfin, that there has to be reform in what is going on in Ethiopia, 

as you said, with extortion and illegal activities. It should end. And 

we will certainly make that point to the government. 

We had a problem in our country years ago. It wasn’t extortion 

but in the twenties, bankers came in and took the mortgages of our 

farmers, and many of them lost their farms and we kind of reformed the program. So we got better at it and we don’t do it anymore. So maybe we need to work with the government there so 

maybe they can transform and get back on the right track. 

I guess with that, I have to yield back because I have no more 

time. 

Mr. ROYCE. I have an announcement to make. Secretary Larson, 

I understand, must leave. And Secretary Larson, we may have a 

few questions for you for the record from the Committee, which we 

will submit to you, but we thank you for your presentation and we 

are now going to go to Mr. Houghton for his questions. 

59

Mr. HOUGHTON. Thank you very much Mr. Chairman. Well, it is 

good to see you all here, particularly Madam Ambassador. Is that 

what you are still called, Ambassador? Commissioner, Director, Holiness? Well anyway, it is wonderful to be here with you. 

Well, I think the whole issue is how do we help? And there are 

so many issues here, whether they are political or economic or 

medical or what. And so in terms of trying to put these in some 

sort of proportion and put the priorities on the scale, if there was 

one thing—there is more than one thing, but if there was one absolute important thing we should do right now, I would be interested 

in knowing what it is so we can gather up ourselves and work toward this. What would you say? 

Ms. SISULU. Well, I think with regards to Eritrea and Ethiopia, 

from my perspective in the World Food Programme right now, we 

need additional resources to save lives. If we do not——

Mr. HOUGHTON. You had said, excuse me, you had said that you 

are only getting about 50 percent of your requirements? 

Ms. SISULU. We get 50 percent of the fortified foods for treating 

malnutrition. We got 70 percent of food that we need that will take 

us up to August to feed people who do not have food. We do not 

have the food to take us through to the end of the year. The danger 

of not having that food—because we can’t wait until August, and 

if we wait until August and the crop has failed, the food has got 

to be already in the country. We cannot begin then to bring the 

food in. And the problem is because we have people, as I said in 

my testimony, that we are already giving less rations then they 

should be getting, 12 kilograms per month as opposed to 15, which 

means they are really on the borderline. So if we do not get the 

food that we need to take us through the end of the year, we might 

see the whole success of intervening at the right time unravel, may 

actually see those deaths that we have been able to avert. 

Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Natsios, so you have heard this before and 

you understand the dimensions of this thing. Obviously it doesn’t 

rest entirely in the United States. It rests with the governments 

themselves. I mean, are those supplies available? 

Mr. NATSIOS. Let me just say overall, we are at 72 percent of 

what we need for the famine response. So total contributions have 

been 72 percent of what the total need is according to the Ethiopian Government. So we are well on our way toward meeting the 

requirement. The specific thing that Ambassador Sisulu is talking 

about is a smaller portion of the food basket which is corn soy 

blend, which we mix with oil for children who are acutely malnourished. We actually were the first donors to give that food to WFP 

and we recently diverted a ship that was going somewhere else 

that wasn’t as necessary to Ethiopia, at the request of WFP, to provide that corn and soy blend. It has not arrived yet, but it will 

shortly. 

Mr. HOUGHTON. Anyway, you feel you can move from 72 percent 

up to what, with what you know and have available? 

Mr. NATSIOS. We have given 715,000 tons. 

Mr. HOUGHTON. I just don’t mean the United States but the 

whole world. 

Mr. NATSIOS. We have had meetings with our European counterparts and I have talked to our Canadian friends and the AID agenVerDate Mar 21 2002 10:45 Jun 10, 2003 Jkt 086301 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 F:\WORK\FULL\040103\86301 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
60

cy about whether we could beef up, because we are doing as much 

as the world combined, and I think other countries need to step up 

to the plate. It used to be we give a third, the Europeans would 

give a third, and the Canadians would give 20 percent, and the rest 

would be done by the rest of the world. That has now changed, and 

we are doing 50 to 60 percent in many famine responses. And I 

think there needs to be a balance here. But we will give what is 

necessary to stop this from getting out of control. 

Mr. HOUGHTON. If that happens then you are relatively happy, 

not totally. Now what is the next thing? 

Ms. SISULU. The next thing is ensuring that people receive food 

aid and other kind of assistance will enable people in droughtprone areas to be able to cope with these short cycles of drought, 

when they arrive, through development; development that is broad, 

socioeconomic. And also, as I think we have to encourage governments. And I must say the Government of Ethiopia has been very 

cooperative with us in this regard, but to encourage them to work 

with the international community in putting on the ground assets 

and resources that will ensure that when—and we know that the 

droughts are going to come, they are no longer unpredictable—

when they do come, that the people have themselves assets and capacity to withstand the impact for a little longer, while the international community rallies around. And hopefully, that in the long 

term, people—as Mr. Natsios said, when there are droughts there 

does not have to be a famine—that one day people will get to the 

point through development where they will not need international 

assistance. 

Mr. HOUGHTON. I don’t know whether my time is up. I won’t ask 

any more questions. 

Mr. NATSIOS. Could I add one comment, though, just to endorse 

what Dr. Mesfin said about the private ownership of property? The 

Ethiopian Government is resisting the notion of giving peasants 

their land. They are not investing in their land. They tell us that 

in the villages: We are not going to fix this land up because it is 

not ours. It belongs to the State. Unless we own the land and have 

title to it, we are not going to invest in it. 

The private ownership of land is a policy change that would 

make a difference in terms of people investing in their own property. Some of them will sell their land, but some plots are so small 

they can’t sustain a family anyway. And it increases the efficiency 

of the agricultural system if the farms are a little larger. So that 

is a reform they can make. They can liberalize their capital; in 

other words, have a floating currency so it is easier to trade with 

neighboring countries and move down trade barriers. And that 

makes a big difference in terms of moving surplus around. 

And third, if they liberalize their banking system and allow 

international banks to come in, they can have more capital for investment in the economy. But they are reluctant to do that as well. 

So those are reforms they have the capacity to do on their own 

which they have done not done so far. We encourage them to do 

that. 

Mr. ROYCE. Thank you. On that subject, Hernando DeSoto’s book 

The Mystery of Capital, explaining why land title is so important, 

is one of the best selling books in the developing world. And I have 

61

talked to a number of ministers overseas on my trips about that 

work, and it proves the point that you are advocating here in terms 

of Ethiopia’s movement to a system where land title could actually 

be held and transferred and the consequences of that. 

Mr. NATSIOS. We have been a supporter of Hernando DeSoto’s institute for 20 years in AID. 

Mr. ROYCE. I appreciate that effort because I think he is on the 

right track. We want to go to Congresswoman McCollum from Minnesota. 

Ms. MCCOLLUM. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think what I will do I 

is, have a couple of questions and I will go through them briefly. 

And then as time permits, if the panel would answer them, and if 

time does not permit, if you could share the information back with 

myself and the Committee. There has been quite a bit of discussion 

in the last round of questioning dealing with Ethiopia. I am concerned that we haven’t spoken as much about what is actually 

going on in Eritrea, and that it sounds to me and looks to me from 

reading the statistics in here that Eritrea is lagging behind Ethiopia not only in pledges but in food on the ground. 

I have a concern—Congressman Payne and I serve on the Education Committee—with what is going on with foreign students. As 

you mentioned, the foreign student exchange program and educating farmers and that. We have a backlog. We have problems 

right now with getting foreign students into the country with the 

way foreign students—some of the colleges, with what is going on 

with that whole—it is a mess. It is a mess right now with what 

is going on with foreign students, what is going on with some of 

the colleges and some of the colleges’ willingness in the future to 

be dealing with a Department of Homeland Security and the INS 

with possible sanctions against them for not following rules that 

seem to change minute by minute and computer systems that don’t 

work. 

So if you are aware of that, you should be. If you are not—if you 

are experiencing problems, I know those of us on the Education 

Committee would very much like to be of assistance in this area 

to see what we could do. 

To Dr. Butler in particular, you talked about biotech. There has 

been discussion about some of the crops being developed in South 

Africa being specific to the continent of Africa. But I have heard 

that right now, we have manufacturers with our chemical fertilizers and with our seeds that go in with seeds, and then the 

farmer has to have the right fertilizer to go with the seed, and that 

is expensive and that in some ways is contributing to some of the 

problem farmers have with being able to afford crops and sustainability. The seeds in many cases cannot be harvested and sowed 

into the ground. In other words, you have to repurchase new. That 

makes it very expensive and we need to be at a sustainable agricultural order. 

The other question I have, with all the irrigation I am hearing 

about and irrigation is a wonderful thing, but is irrigation—how 

long is it going to be sustainable? I mean we have irrigation right 

here in the United States in California, Arizona, and other parts 

of the West, and other people are literally fighting over water because water also goes through cycles. 

62

And so, Mr. Chair, those are my questions, and with that I will 

be quiet. And as many people that can answer, I would be very excited to hear what they have to say. 

Mr. SMITH OF MICHIGAN. [Presiding.] Any comments from the 

witnesses? I think it was a good statement. I would like to follow 

a little bit on the—where we go with new seed varieties, either 

through conventional cross-breeding and hybrids, or whether we 

look at the new biotechnology. I mean, there are several reasons 

for famines. I mean, there is the corruption and the distribution of 

food. There is weather that can hamper even the good biotech varieties. But it would seem from everything that I have examined and 

as Chairman of the Research Subcommittee on Science, we held 

three hearings on biotechnology and the safety and the possibility 

of assisting not only this country, but especially developing countries with the kind of varieties that can better acclimate to those 

soils and those climates. 

You know, we have made mistakes over the years—before I ask 

my questions in terms of going into a country and helping with 

child mortality and health care that further complicated some of 

the problems on starvation and famine. And so one of my questions 

is how do we look at the coordination of what seems to be good 

deeds that might further complicate the long-term survival of a 

particular country? And it seems to me that it is logical to look at 

the long-term solutions and make sure that the short-term solutions of adding better health care, more antibiotics, food for the 

short run that might not be there in the long run, it would seem 

to me there is an advantage to look at the long run. 

And I guess my question may be to you, Mr. Natsios, is what—

or maybe get everybody’s interpretation and impression—what 

would it take for African countries to start accepting biotech seed 

food products? 

Mr. NATSIOS. Let me first say that some countries in Africa, 

South Africa, Nigeria, and Kenya are already—9 percent of their 

corn is biotech. It is South African Biotech varieties, and they just 

experimented successfully with a new kind of white corn, which is 

more popular in southern Africa than yellow corn is. It is very popular. This is for poor farmers, not just for the big commercial farmers. And Kenya and Nigeria are moving very rapidly toward the development of indigenous capacity to use biotech to develop seed varieties that are appropriate for their country. 

AID has been supporting for 35 years the preeminent set of—and 

it is called the CGIAR network, the Consultive Group on International Agricultural Research. It is a subsidiary, kind of independent from the World Bank, but it was formed in the sixties to 

do improved seed varieties. There are 16 of these different institutes around the world to develop these varieties, and we are the 

largest donor and continue to be a very big supporter of theirs. 

The question has always been getting the technology they developed out to the small farmers. The big farmers get it, but the small 

farmers don’t. And so we have engaged over the last decade at AID 

in getting this to the NGOs that work with the smaller farmers in 

the rural areas to get this improved seed variety out to them, too. 

One of the things we did in Uganda—it is a wonderful story—there 

was a terrible disease——

63

Mr. SMITH OF MICHIGAN. I want you to remember my question, 

too. What is it going to take for the other African countries. I 

mean, is it partially the nervousness that seems to exist with Europe and Great Britain saying we are not going to import your 

products if you contaminate it with biotech, or is it the countries 

themselves that are nervous about either potential health problems 

or environmental concerns? 

Mr. NATSIOS. I think we have exaggerated the opposition in Africa because of what happened in Zimbabwe and Zambia. Malawi 

made a decision to allow all biotech food from the United States in. 

I met with the President. He said bring it in. If they won’t take 

it in Zimbabwe, we will take it. Mugabe didn’t say there was a 

health problem. He just didn’t want the seed being planted, which 

I thought was a specious argument. Peasants who are hungry don’t 

take food aid and plant it. They eat. He politicized it and that 

spread into a couple of countries. The great bulk of African agricultural ministers, presidents and prime ministers I have spoken with 

are all interested in bringing this technology to their agricultural 

system. So there is not widespread opposition in Africa. That is an 

illusion. 

Mr. SMITH OF MICHIGAN. Dr. Mesfin and Dr. Butler, if I could get 

each one of your comments. In my H.R. 4664, which was the National Science Foundation bill that was signed into law last December, we actually put in provisions where the United States scientists would accommodate and pay for cooperative research with 

African researchers and scientists for them to decide what kind of 

a product they want to try to develop, and then work with them 

and help pay for that effort. 

Dr. Mesfin, any comments that you might have? And then, briefly, Dr. Butler. 

Mr. MESFIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to say something that I know and I think perhaps you should inquire about 

this. In the sixties, the United States built in the eastern part of 

Ethiopia a very modern agricultural college. It is almost a piece of 

America, put there with the cooperation of Oklahoma State University. It really was a fantastic university and it has all sorts of agricultural scientists being taught there. It has been developed to be 

a top-notch agricultural institution in Africa. 

Now, there isn’t a single one of the senior graduates of this college in Ethiopia, not a single one. You will find them in Asia, 

America, Europe, all over the Pacific, doing all sorts of jobs in their 

fields in all sorts of organizations, FAO and others, but not in Ethiopia because Ethiopia is not a fertile ground for scientists, for academics who can do work independently. And this is why the connection, the research connection between Oklahoma and various 

scientists, agricultural scientists, was almost broken when that—

now it is a university, but it is only a shadow of what it was once. 

Mr. SMITH OF MICHIGAN. Thank you. And, Doctor Butler. 

Mr. BUTLER. Obviously the system they developed in these countries needs to be based on sound science in which I am sure you 

can concur. They have to develop a regulatory system that will 

have consumer confidence. So the regulatory system with regard to 

biotech needs to be linked with a marketing system, needs to be 

linked with consumer confidence through education. 

64

Mr. SMITH OF MICHIGAN. It seems—we are approaching almost 

a decade that Americans have been consuming biotech products, so 

it seems like that would be a little indication that it might cause 

obesity, I don’t know—strike that from the record. Mr. Weller, 

would you consider presiding for your final statement? 

Mr. WELLER. Well, Mr. Chairman, as soon—I have a meeting as 

well. As soon as I am done with my question, then I can preside 

from here. 

But I do want to thank you, Mr. Chairman. I can tell that my 

friend Chairman Smith and I are both the farmers in the group 

here, with the line of questioning we had. And as a new Member 

of this Committee, of course, I patiently waited my turn to ask a 

question. And I want to thank the panelists for the important information that you have been sharing today, and particularly my 

colleague, Mr. Wolf, for, frankly, the very heartbreaking images 

that he shared with us, really illustrating the importance of the 

issue we have before us today. 

As you know, I grew up on a family farm, I like Mr. Smith. And 

for five generations my family has raised pure bred hogs and, of 

course, corn and soybeans as well. 

And I grew up seeing what—the benefits of what we used to call 

animal husbandry, and the development of hybrid varieties of corn 

and beans and other food crops, which of course have doubled if not 

tripled the production and capability of our American farms. 

So, it is—you know for me I have been very frustrated when I 

have seen some of our friends, particularly in Europe, certain countries have, who because of their commercial and trade interests, 

have enlisted the assistance of certain individuals and organizations to, as Dr. Butler pointed out, disseminate false propaganda, 

false information, on the food products that used to come from 

what we used to call hybrid corn. Now today it is called biotechnology or for those who wish to taint American food products, 

they use the term GMO, or genetically modified organisms. 

That is a shame, because not only do we see these images in Africa which are heartbreaking, but I also think that the intent of 

some of these countries to enlist these organizations frankly is 

heartless, because they are advancing their commercial interests, 

while thousands if not millions are starving. 

So I think that is a great shame. I think the example, and I am 

just going to direct my question, because we are limited on time, 

to Dr. Butler. And I want to thank everyone for your time this 

morning. 

But, Dr. Butler, in your testimony you really illustrated this 

frustration. And of course this was not seed corn, for example, 

being sent over there to plant, this was corn being sent there to 

be eaten. 

And, of course, Africans were told that it was dangerous, they 

shouldn’t touch it. And, of course, many were afraid to consume 

American food products as a result of this propaganda campaign. 

And I was wondering, can you share with us some examples for the 

record of attempts to of course misinform Africans, but also what 

the results were as a result of that campaign? 

Mr. BUTLER. I don’t have a specific example of misinformation, 

but I can site examples of coordination between our agency at 

65

USAID and AID conducting in-country seminars, the classic extension model. Based on your background, you are obviously familiar 

with that of what we have done in the United States. Taking our 

professionals, our scientists, meeting with farmers in small communities, talking to them about the science of this, the cultural practices of planting, harvesting, marketing. So it is those outreach efforts that we have extended into these countries that are quite 

similar to what we have experienced in the United States for many 

years. 

Mr. NATSIOS. If I could, I have got three examples I can give you 

from my trip. I was appealed by it. One of the ministers of a very 

close country to us, he just told me the story, he said he didn’t 

agree with it, but this is what people were spreading, Europeans 

I might add. In a Muslim of this country, that the United States 

had taken pig genes, of course Muslims do not eat pork, pig genes 

and cross-bred it with corn. 

And I said there is no kind of animal genes of any kind in any 

of our corn, that is ridiculous. He said, I know it is ridiculous, but 

tell it to the peasantry. That is what they are spreading, these 

groups from Europe that are running around scaring people. I have 

never seen such outrageous and irresponsible behavior by institutions that say they are in favor of poor people. They are doing enormous damage to poor people in Africa by those rumors. 

Second rumor, that the corn will cross-breed with your vegetables. Well, it is genetically impossible for corn to cross-pollinate 

with another variety other than corn. Corn cross-pollinates with 

itself. You can’t take pollination from corn and cross with an apple 

tree or with vegetables or tomatoes. That is not how it works genetically, it can’t happen. So that is another lie that was being 

spread in one of the villages. 

The President of Zambia was told by one of those groups that 

this was poison food, rejected by Americans who would never eat 

it. I said, President Bush, the United States Senate, the United 

States Congress all eat Corn Flakes. And all of our Corn Flakes 

have biotech corn in them, because it is commingled in our agricultural system. We all eat it. We have been eating it for 7 years and 

none of us are sick. 

There hasn’t been one single lawsuit, and we are an extremely 

litigious society in the United States. It is not poisoned. And the 

African Academy of Scientists, which is like our National Academy 

of Science but for Africa, said there is no health risk to biotech 

foods, and they said it themselves, not just us. 

So these are scare tactics that are designed to frighten people. 

Their head of state actually said it was poisoned in the middle of 

a drought that was affecting people’s lives. There were riots in 

some villages saying, we will eat it anyway because we are starving. Give us the food, let us poison ourselves. And they actually 

went in and looted some of the WFP warehouses because the food 

was not being distributed, even though it was sitting there in the 

warehouses. 

Mr. WELLER. Well, thank you. That is so important to illustrate 

that. I think it is very, very unfortunate. We have a lot of friends 

in Europe, but they are also our competitors. I think we need to 

call it for what it is, and this campaign to distribute and misinform 

66

citizens of Africa with false information and scare tactics is clearly 

part of a—it is a trade effort. These countries want to raise trade 

barriers against American food products in Europe. 

And of course they have spread this campaign to Africa, because 

they then in turn want to ship their food products and eventually 

sell it to Africa some day. I think we need call it for what it is, but 

I also appreciate your efforts in, of course, providing the corrective 

information we have, and of course we in the Congress need to continue working our dialogue with our European friends to convince 

them that the people that are truly being hurt are the starving Africans and those who are losing their lives. 

So thank you for your testimony this morning. It has been a very 

helpful hearing. 

Mr. PAYNE. [Presiding.] Thank you very much. I think that our 

time has been exhausted. I would like to thank the panelists for 

coming. I would just like to say that I do hope that we can see support from other countries around the world. 

I will be, through the Chairman, Mr. Hyde, pressing our European allies to increase theirs. Would just like to indicate that I 

think that we ought to look at the system of land ownership. 

However, if people’s income have dropped 25 percent from $170 

a year to $100s a year, I am not so sure how much private investment could go into that land. Maybe an incentive to do more. And 

I am not saying that state-run land is the best. As a matter of fact, 

I think that our system of free enterprise is best. However, there 

are places like Tanzania where government-owned land had productive results. And we don’t want to look at the wrong reasons for 

the lack of productivity. 

I think abject poverty is something that is never mentioned, but 

I don’t know what you do and how you live with a family of four 

on $100 a year, even if you owned your property. 

And with that, I would like to say that the record will—oh, the 

final thing I wanted to say is that I would hope that representatives from Ethiopia that may be here would make it pretty clear 

that we are hoping that the Government of Ethiopia will abide by 

the rulings of the Border Arbitration Commission that have come 

up with a determination. The reason you go to arbitration is when 

there are two views, you bring in an impartial third party, and 

they then make a resolution. 

Usually, when a resolution is made, one side doesn’t like it and 

one side does. However, the reason you use impartial arbiters is so 

that it can be done unbiased. I would just want to let it be known 

by me as the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Africa that 

we would be shocked and disturbed and outraged if there is any 

attempt to have tinkering with the Border. 

Again, we are going to push to get food assistance and other assistance to Ethiopia. I think they need more than food assistance. 

I think, as we have heard, they need agricultural assistance, they 

need USAID to help build roads so that they can get food out to 

places when it is produced. There is a lot of things. We need to alleviate poverty. And that is a big broad spectrum. 

But I do want to make it pretty clear that we will not tolerate 

the rejection of the Border Arbitration Commission. 

67

The record will remain open for 5 days. With that, I will adjourn 

the meeting. Thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 12:25 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

(69)

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE NICK SMITH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN

I want to thank Chairman Hyde for holding this hearing today about East African 

famine and food aid. I would also like to thank our colleague, Chairman Wolf, representatives of the Administration, and the representative of the United Nations for 

taking the time to share their experiences with us on these issues. 

When we look at the famines of Africa, we have to ask two questions. What are 

the structural causes of the famines? And how can we alleviate them? We know 

that, in addition to whether, the lack of food is often caused by war, corruption, tyranny, and government mismanagement. 

On the Horn of Africa, the Ethiopian and Eritrean governments have been unable 

to prevent famine. They have been at war for 30 years, and Ethiopia has only begun 

to reform its economy since the Communist government fell in 1991. Almost all land 

is still owned by the state, including the coffee plantations, Ethiopia’s only export. 

To handle the crisis, the United States has been providing over half of all the 

world’s donated food. 

In Southern Africa, governments have made all the mistakes of the Horn, and 

then some. While their people starve, governments have raised barriers against free 

food from American farmers. Zambia declined 63,000 tons of our corn, because some 

of that corn was from a variety improved through biotechnology. These policies are 

based in fears that the EU might refuse food shipments from developing African 

countries if there were indications of genetic modification 

While some leaders of African nations refuse free food, the people and the governments of East Africa have embraced the promise of biotechnology. No East African 

country has refused American food aid. Kenya is even leading the way with research 

programs in biotech sweet potatoes and cassava. The biotech varieties of these staples are more drought and disease resistant. Through agricultural research, the 

countries of East Africa are lowering the risk of famine by changing the ecological 

equation. Kenya has also completed a relatively smooth, democratic transition of 

power, and initial steps indicate that the new government is working actively to reduce corruption and more equitable distribute food. 

These examples illustrate the problems that we face, but also the sources for 

hope. But to further promote advances we must co-operate to find new food varieties 

that can grow in these areas and provide more nutrition. Science should be used 

to confirm the safety to health and environment of these new varieties, whether 

from traditional breeding or from biotechnology. My NSF bill, H.R. 4664, signed into 

law last December, included provisions to bring African and American scientists together to develop new biotech seed varieties that could best help those countries. 

And, in the end, real progress can only be achieved in partnership with transparent 

governments that respect the rule of law. 

Again, I would like to thank Chairman Hyde for holding this important hearing. 

For Africa, there really are seeds of hope, but care will be needed to let them bloom. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE BARBARA LEE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

I would like to thank the Chair, Congressman Hyde and Ranking Member Lantos 

for holding this important full committee hearing on food security in East Africa. 

I also want to thank our esteemed panelist for appearing here today. 

70

As we all know, food production in Africa has fallen behind population growth 

over the past 30 years. Ironically leaving Africa, an agriculturally rich continent, as 

a net importer of food. Political evolution, industrialization, reduction in land use, 

climate change, HIV/AIDS, and several other factors contribute to the challenge we 

face: eradicating Africa’s current famine crisis and stabilizing the social sectors that 

have crumbled as a result of the crisis. 

Although the United States remains the largest single contributor to the World 

Food Program, donating $917 million dollars worth of food to various WFP operations around the world—the last three years have actually seen drops by at least 

a third from 15 million to 10 million metric tons of food. 

The reality is: emergency food aid needs are up and food aid assistance is down. 

I had hoped that the President would include desperately needed food assistance 

funding in his recent Supplemental Appropriation to Congress, but because it was 

excluded, I do hope that Africa, our long-time global ally and friend, will not be forgotten as we fund Operation Iraqi Freedom and the rebuilding process in Iraq. 

Today we will talk about the war on hunger and what must happen to curtail this 

crisis. We must listen to Africans and what the social and economic challenges are 

in each country as a result of food insecurity. One of the largest social issue relating 

to famine from my perspective is HIV/AIDS throughout the country. The HIV/AIDS 

pandemic has exacerbated the food crisis. In some of the countries most affected by 

hunger, rates of HIV/AIDS prevalence are as high as 38 percent of the population, 

with further reaching effects on other health issues, education, and productivity 

throughout society. 

As we combat the AIDS virus: we must look at the important component nutrition 

plays. Let’s put this in perspective; when we are prescribed to take aspirin we instructed to take it with water and food. Imagine being an African taking drugs for 

the AIDS virus on an empty stomach. The toxicity alone is harmful, but these drugs 

on an empty stomach is dangerous. This is one of the reasons why battling the food 

crisis is critical to the United States’ campaign to stop the Global HIV/AIDS pandemic. 

In closing, I would like to reiterate the words of Secretary Powell given just a few 

weekends ago as he spoke to reporters regarding food security in North Korea, 

‘‘. . . But to go back on our solid policy is that we don’t use food as a political weapon. You go through all the politics; there are kids out there that are starving. If we 

can help them, we will.’’

I agree with Secretary Powell, food is our weapon to combat the rising hunger in 

Africa—and we must address this issue now. Africa needs our help and we must 

deliver. 

Thank you, and I imagine that the witnesses today will reiterate my concerns. 

71


86301q.eps
72


86301r.eps
73


86301s.eps
74


86301t.eps
75


86301u.eps
76


86301v.eps
77


86301w.eps
78


86301x.eps
79

MATERIALS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY EMBASSY OF ISRAEL

THE PROBLEM

Two very worrisome trends have plagued the poorest countries of the South in recent years. On the one hand, chronic hunger and food emergencies are a growing 

concern. The upsurge of hunger is fueled by dislocation of vast populations due to 

ethnic conflict and war and an alarming process of rapid desertification caused by 

both climactic changes and damaging agricultural and water management policies 

and practices. On the other hand, donor countries are downplaying their involvement in agricultural development assistance, perhaps due to costs, past disappointments and the much longer time period needed to achieve measurable results compared to assistance in other sectors. 

There is, however no other way to attain basic food security and sustainability 

and to alleviate dependency on food relief, than by assisting countries to achieve 

self-sufficiency by enhancing their basic food crop production capabilities, food storage and post harvest care. Failure to help the poorest countries of the South introduce the necessary practices, policies and preconditions for self-sufficiency can only 

lead to growing dependence on emergency food aid, which is very costly, logistically 

problematic and ultimately unsustainable. 

There is no shortcut to food security. It can only be attained if we invest in the 

training of farmers and peasants, in water resource management and development 

and in the organization of support systems that can ensure the timely delivery of 

farm inputs, storage facilities and market outlets. The problem is not one of knowhow. Advances in agricultural and environmental sciences have resulted in a revolution in crop yields in developed countries over the past few decades. These same advances can be put to work in the developing world by adapting technologies to local 

skills and conditions. 

Israel is committed to working with the governments, scientists and farmers of 

the developing world in order to help them harness the know-how which enabled 

Israel to make its deserts bloom while increasing its agricultural production twelvefold over the past forty years. We believe that Israel’s innovative solutions in fields 

such as combat of desertification, water management, irrigation and agricultural extension and support systems can be of great use in helping the developing world 

meet the challenge of food security. Thus, over its 50 year history, MASHAV—the 

Center for International Cooperation of Israel’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs—has established dozens of agricultural demonstration projects in the South and has trained 

tens of thousands of developing world farmers and extension officers in agricultural 

courses in Israel and abroad. In this context, we would like to note MASHAV’s very 

positive history of cooperation with USAID in joint agricultural development 

projects throughout Africa and Central Asia. This cooperation has enabled USAID 

to take advantage of Israel’s unique experience and capabilities while allowing 

Israel to coordinate its policies and priorities with those of the US and to broaden 

the scope of its activities. 

BREAKING THE CYCLE OF HUNGER

Agricultural activity in the developing world ranges from low-level subsistence agriculture to improved traditional agriculture to cash-oriented agriculture. For each 

of these different categories of agricultural activities, solutions can be found in order 

to enhance productivity and reduce risk. The overall policy aim, however, should not 

merely be to make subsistence agriculture viable but rather to move farm populations out of subsistence to specialized market-oriented agriculture. It is Israel’s belief that serious commitment of the international community to working in partnership with local governments and NGOs in order to transfer basic technologies, implement sound agricultural and environmental policies and provide necessary training and support to farmers can enable farm populations to move out of low-yield 

subsistence farming to high-yield market-oriented agriculture over a period of 2–3 

generations. Doing so, in the long run, will help to significantly reduce dependency 

on food aid and will enable the developing world to provide adequate nutrition not 

only for its own citizens but for the world at large. The following analysis details 

the three basic stages in agricultural development, including what can be done at 

each phase to help achieve this goal. 

Subsistence Agriculture 

Over 45% of Africa’s active rural population today, and most of its women, depend 

on basic subsistence agriculture for their livelihoods. However, the population explosion in the third world, in combination with worsening climactic conditions and severe soil degredation, has made methods of subsistence agriculture which have been 

80

practiced for centuries insufficient in modern times to provide adequate nutrition for 

those who practice it. 

There is a vicious cycle at work in subsistence agriculture: use of only the simplest of hand tools, degenerated seeds, limited cultivated areas, overgrazing and 

overfarming and no irrigation leads to land degredation, desertification and very low 

yields. This, in turn, provides insufficient nutrition for the farmer who is then fit 

to farm only increasingly smaller plots of land with increasingly degraded soil conditions. 

As populations boom and arable land shrinks, the low yields associated with subsistence farming pose an even greater threat to food security. Nobel Laureate Prof. 

Norman Borlaug wrote about the worsening problem of low crop yields in subsistence farming in Asia. ‘‘Were Asia’s 1961 cereal yields of kg per hectare to still prevail today, nearly 600 million hectares of additional land of the same quality would 

have been needed to equal the 1997 cereal harvest. Obviously, such a surplus of 

land was not available in Asia. Moreover, even if it were, think of the soil erosion, 

loss of forests, grasslands and wildlife species that would have occurred had we 

tried to produce these larger harvests with lower technology.’’ The problem of low 

crop yields is acute among subsistence farmers, using traditional, extremely lowtech methods of farming. For example, in Latin America subsistence yields in maize 

are ten times as high per acre in commercial enterprises as in subsistence farmer. 

These problems are are even more acute in Africa where we find accelerated and 

massive loss of soils and productivity due to drought, war and the scourge of AIDS. 

A small illustration of the meaning of subsistence: One hectare of rain-fed maize 

production under hand implement cultivation requires about 150 labor days with a 

yield of only about 1 ton. A family of six persons will require approximately 1.8 tons 

per year of grain equivalent to survive. Therefore, even in the best of circumstances, 

the subsistence farmer, using only rain-fed farming, will struggle with difficulty to 

produce enough grain equivalent of 1.8 tons on two hectares representing an intake 

of about 2,200 calories per capita per day and requiring approximately 300 labor 

days over a six-month rainy season. In the event of drought, floods, plant pests or 

diseases, conflicts, wars and epidemics of chronic illness family labor availability 

and cultivable area can easily drive families to the brink of starvation and beyond. 

There is, furthermore, a clear correlation between nutrition levels and the ability 

to break out of a cycle of poverty. Malnourished and overworked subsistence farmers 

haven’t the time, the resources or strength to improve their situations. 

The challenge is to break the vicious circle of subsistence agriculture by devising 

ways of improving, first and foremost, nutritional levels in those populations. Wellmanaged food-for-work programs can tap communal labor in the off-season to implement land and water conservation projects (including terracing and mulching) as 

well as the development of agro-forestry systems which can help preserve and enhance soil conditions and increase yields for the subsistence farmer. 

The MASHAV-supported International Program for Arid Land Crops (IPALAC) of 

Ben Gurion University of the Negev has developed practical and professional ways 

to upgrade natural resources owned by subsistence communities based on developing water-sheds, micro-catchments, protective buns (for water harvesting) and the 

planting of advantageous mixes and strains of crops, bushes, shrubs and trees of 

economic value. Use of better open-pollinated seeds in these projects can improve 

yields and reduce risk. The activity can be organized either as a public works program or as community based activities financed from food donations. The element 

of remuneration should not be food exclusively and part of the payment should be 

on a cash basis. Thus for instance, if a project is to be developed through the payment of food (say, 3lb wheat/adult/day), the remuneration should be supplemented 

by a minimum of, say, $1/adult /day. Such a policy achieves four objectives:

1. The use of communal labor improves the natural resource base of the community.

2. It ensures sufficient daily caloric intake (ranging from 1,700 cal./day—2,200 

cal./day depending on climate and food availability from other sources).

3. The modest cash remuneration becomes the first stage to introduce population into a market economy, in order to break the cycle of subsistence farming.

4. Improved seed quality and agricultural practices improve yields and lower 

climate-related risk. 

Improved Traditional Agriculture 

In the end, however, while food-for-work programs may help to meet basic needs 

in the first instance, the goal should be to introduce technological and methodological improvements to subsistence farming which will enable small farmers to 

81

meet their families’ basic needs. Thus, we will define a second category of agriculture in the developing world,that of ‘‘improved traditional agriculture’’ which in 

Africa, for example, represents over 30% of the farm population. 

Improved traditional agriculture uses partial irrigation and better cultivation 

methods in order to provide higher nutrition levels to the farmer. In this category, 

partial irrigation can enable the farmer to produce two crops per year, utilizing the 

dry season. In addition, terraced and/or mulch farming, improved seed and plant 

material, traction animals and/or mini-tractors can be used in order to improve 

yields for the small farmer. With the implementation of relatively simple technologies and better methodologies, hunger can be significantly reduced, although 

these small farmers may still suffer from poverty and lack of basic amenities. 

Israeli researchers and development organizations alike have been working to 

help transform traditional agriculture in semi-arid zones such as Africa’s Sahel 

through the introduction of major technological innovations developed by Israeli scientists to combat land degradation and enable lower-risk sustainable agriculture. 

For example, the aforementioned IPALAC program of Ben Gurion University, in cooperation with MASHAV, has recently developed an innovative new system known 

as the ‘‘African Market Garden’’. This system uses innovative easy-to-use, very low 

cost and low pressure irrigation systems in order to irrigate single-household plots 

in arid and semi-arid regions. Using a carefully planned mix of crops, such plots, 

producing year-round, can yield enough produce to feed a family unit—even in conditions of scarce water resources—with a small surplus remaining for cash sale. The 

system has had great success in West African countries and has proven particularly 

effective for alleviating food insecurity of dislocated farm families that have settled 

informally around bigger towns. It also is of particular relevance to women farmers 

charged with the task of providing food security for their families. 

One notable aspect of the program is the centrality of cooperation with local African NGOs and research institutes, who have been vital partners in determining optimal crop mixes for the specific region through preliminary R&D and in implementing vigorous in-situ training the NGO agricultural development officers who 

are be responsible for disseminating this system among small farmers. Such partnerships with African institutions have proven instrumental in providing for project 

sustainability. 

In addition, while technological improvements must provide the cornerstone of 

any strategy of improved traditional crop farming, this is not the only area for action. International development organizations can assist partner countries in developing effective and agricultural extension and training systems, needed credit facilities and logistical support for supplying critical inputs. 

Market- and Cash-Oriented Agriculture 

A significant step up from traditional farming is the market and cash-oriented 

sector, (involving in Africa about 14% of the active rural population). Agriculture at 

this level is characterized by use of irrigation, hired labor, double and multi-cropping, semi-intensive livestock husbandry, enabling a profit-based agricultural industry. 

Supply to urban markets inevitably requires pre-processing facilities, such as 

dairy, cooling and pasteurization plants, slaughter houses, grading and chilling, 

grain cleaning and storage, etc. The role of government is to promote, through providing incentives to the private sector, the establishment of such facilities, which are 

often critical to advance policies of diversification. In addition, adequate credit facilities, which can often be provided through agricultural collectives, are of great importance. 

Israel provides a good example of the process of transition between traditional 

and market-oriented farming. Israel entered this stage close to its independence in 

1948, with the challenge to feed a growing population, including the absorption of 

hundreds of thousands of people, the remnants from the concentration camps in 

Nazi Europe and refugees from Middle East countries. The government hastily 

sought to provide incentives and capital to cater for the necessary components of 

an indicative-planned national food basket. At first, the basic components of the food 

basket were provided under a strict food rationing system, corresponding to an intake 2,500 calories of per adult. This policy was phased out after about six years 

due to the ability of Israel’s developing agriculture to supply vegetables, fruits, milk 

derivatives and poultry products to replace imports as well as industrial crops for 

cash sale and export. 

This diversification was attained by a combination of rural extension, farm investments, seasonal credit and water resource and irrigation systems combined with a 

policy of minimum price support acting as a social security net for the inexperienced 

farm population. There was an early realization that ‘‘know-how’’ is as important 

82

as physical resources (land and water and capital). Hence, the establishment of extension (i.e. government-employed expert agricultural advisers) at the village regional and national levels. 

Applied and/or adaptive research, which included extension workers and farmers 

themselves, made it possible to reduce the time period for introducing agro-technical 

innovations from the accepted period of 7 years down to 3–4 years. Another aspect 

of the effort to promote agricultural diversification was the introduction of innovative technologies that made it possible to produce farm products under plastic cover 

outside the normal season. 

Agriculture cooperatives and second tier associations played an important role in 

ensuring the timely supply of inputs and the establishment of processing and marketing systems. This would not have happened if Israel would not have had a comprehensive, pragmatic agricultural policy entailing the establishment of regional integrated water resource programs, planned villages, rural service centres and agritownships within functionally planned development regions. 

As a result of these policies, Israel’s agricultural production has increased twelvefold over the past 40 years, despite extreme climactic and physical constraints of 

limited water resources and arable land. The Israeli example makes clear that by 

working with governments in order to establish good agricultural policies it is possible to make the transition from traditional to market-oriented agriculture. 

GOVERNMENT POLICY—WHAT CAN BE DONE

In addition to the above strategies for upgrading farming in the least developed 

countries of the world, there are a number of policies which we believe governments 

may adapt in order to reduce risk and thereby reliance on outside food aid:

1. Promote the pre-positioning of emergency food supplies in vulnerable sub-regions by designing a decentralized system of food and basic service centers 

managed and operated by the community. Some of the elements in such service centers are:

• An emergency food warehouse consisting of basic grains, milk and egg 

powder, baby food and dried vegetables. The warehouse, to the extent 

possible, will be continuously restocked by purchasing commodities from 

local farmers in ‘‘normal’’ years.

• An emergency fodder supply center providing the minimum fodder requirements for body maintenance of livestock in regions of nomadic agriculture. This supply would be restocked by purchasing grain and hay in 

‘‘normal’’ years.

• In a selected number of basic service centers a food enrichment facility 

should be positioned to add protein and vitamins to grain (flour based on 

a minimum caloric requirement for survival) either as bread or as porridge.

• A primary health clinic operated by trained paramedical staff operating 

a timely program of vaccinations and supply of basic medicines.

2. Promote a program of hygroscopic cloudseeding in vulnerable sub-regions 

based on some very promising rainfall results in South Africa, Israel, Mexico 

and the U.S.

3. Establish a pre-positioning of idle water exploration equipment based on existing geological studies to tap into existing groundwater resources for basic 

potable water requirements (possibly in cooperation with oil exploration companies) and the construction of small water impoundments to store run-off 

water. This in many cases implies the application of simple, micro-catchment 

engineering.

4. Strengthening of grassroots extension delivery systems to respond to specific 

agricultural situations (described previously) under an autonomous management system that should benefit from a set of built-in incentives, to include 

mobility (vehicles and their upkeep) to attain objectives of promoting food 

crop production.

5. Promote policies, plans and implementation of small irrigation projects either 

as communal gardens run by women in the community or to insure sustainable minimum crop production on family holdings. 

CONCLUSIONS—A VIEW TO THE FUTURE

This statement has given an indication of the sort of measures that can be taken 

in order to enhance food security and combat hunger by enhancing the ability of the 

South’s farmers to cultivate sufficient food for themselves and others. While the 

83

policies proposed above can significantly enhance food security, the list of proposals 

made here is in no way exhaustive. This statement is not meant to provide all of 

the answers for sustainable agriculture but rather aims to make clear one very important point: it is possible to achieve an end to hunger in the developing world if 

there is a concerted effort made by the international community and the developing 

world itself in order to improve agricultural practices and support services. The solution is in our hands, but only if we work together to achieve it. Israel and 

MASHAV—its Official Development Assistance, offers its hand in partnership to the 

United States and the international community. We wish to join our expertise, resources and experience to those of America’s in order to win the war against hunger. 

For years, MASHAV and USAID have been collaborating in agricultural projects 

throughout Africa and the developing world, made possible by Congress through an 

amendment to the Foreign Aid act in 1988 allocating 4 to 5 million dollars annually 

for joint funding under a Cooperative Development Program (CDP) for training and 

short and long term consultancy missions in Agriculture, Community Development, 

Medicine and Public Health, and Women in Development as well as the operation 

of agricultural demonstration projects throughout Africa. This program is about to 

come to an end, thereby leading to the discontinuation of all of the joint MASHAV–

USAID agricultural activities in Africa. It is our sincere hope that it will be possible 

to renew such collaboration in the future. 

84


86301y.eps
85


86301z.eps
86

UPROOTING THE ROOT CAUSES OF FAMINE IN ETHIOPIA

GHELAWDEWOS ARAIA

NOVEMBER,04 2002

I am grateful to those concerned Ethiopians who have taken the initiative to extend their relief support to the starving fellow Ethiopians. In point of fact, one of 

these concerned Ethiopians is the Houston based group and I, for one, wholeheartedly endorse their noble initiative. 

However, while appreciating relief efforts, the main theme of this Article is ‘uprooting famine once and for all.’ Therefore, I will thematically highlight development 

strategies to eradicate famine from the Ethiopian landscape. In order to make a 

more meaningful discourse on the conquest of famine, I shall first address the misconceptions surrounding the causes of mass starvation. 

It is an elementary notion and quite obvious even to the uninitiated that the disappearance of rain can cause drought and subsequent famine in Ethiopia. But, it 

is also abundantly clear that the culprit behind drought and widespread starvation 

is not as such lack of rain but the vulnerability of a given society that wholly depends on a rain-fed agriculture. The incredible irony is, while Ethiopia encounters 

drought and famine almost every decade (now perhaps every half a decade) despite 

the blessings of hundreds of major rivers and thousands of streams, Egypt with an 

ecology that does not witness rainfall and the country depending on the Nile waters 

of Ethiopia, is a major exporter of food crops, especially beans. 

By the same token, China and India, once known as lands of famines, now 

(thanks to their sound government policies and development strategies) they have 

not only gone beyond rain-fed agriculture, harnessed their waterways, and diversified their economies, but also became relief donors themselves. 

Nature as a whole and climate in particular are not to be blamed for the cyclical 

famines if we critically examine it in light of the living examples of countries mentioned above that managed to defeat hunger successfully. If we continue to blame 

nature for the causes of the Ethiopian famine (whether this conceptual framework 

is cynical or engendered by genuine ignorance is immaterial), we shall miserably fail 

to understand the vagaries of famine and possibly come up with a wrong diagnosis 

and hence wrong prescription. 

In order to have clarity on the phenomenon of famine, we must first be able to 

combat ambiguous, elliptical, and seductive explanations of the Ethiopian famine. 

Put otherwise, we must avoid sentimental and superficial analysis of mass starvation shrouded in mysticism and religious overtones. 

Once we begin to see beyond the rather seductive and ironic depictions of the famine encounter, we will be in a position to recapture a glimpse of the real causes of 

famine and cautiously avoid the conflation of natural calamities with ‘man-made’ 

famines. It is from this standpoint that I like to argue that the Ethiopian famine 

is largely caused by human forces and not by nature, and to be sure far from starving, Ethiopians should have enjoyed the fruits of a breadbasket from ‘‘Garden of 

Eden.’’ (See my argument in The Paradox of Bread Basket Starving Ethiopia, September 2002 ). 

The ‘Garden of Eden’ and/or ‘Bread Basket’ theories are corroborated by the Pan 

African News Agency (Dakar, February 8, 2001) as aptly put in its report: ‘‘It may 

sound paradoxical, but as informed sources at the Global Environment Facility 

(GEF) assert, starving Ethiopia could well pass for the world’s seed basket! The very 

mention of Ethiopia readily evokes sad images of raging battles and starving children—of a people bereft of the bare necessities of food, clothing and tranquility. The 

last likely image is that of a nation whose farming practices help provide food and 

jobs in places as far away as Europe, Asia, and North America. Yet this largely unknown profile is a vital part of Ethiopia’s complex reality.’’

Ethiopian scholars and professionals (experts in agronomy, rural development, development economics, political economy, and related fields) have an opportunity to 

seize the moment and explore the true profile of the Ethiopian enigma and contradictions of a famine prone society. This complex and complicated scenario will ultimately be unraveled, though I gather there will be a tacit collusion with the powers that be and other global interests who wanted to bury the truth in the arid 

zones of Ethiopia. 

In any event, in spite of the hidden profile of Ethiopia, the cruel irony is that the 

country is unable to feed its own people. What is to be done to stamp out famine 

from Ethiopia? In one of my articles (Combating Future Famines in Ethiopia, East 

African Forum, April 2000), which I still consider relevant to the current situation 

in Ethiopia, I have posed the following questions and attempted to discuss them visa ́-vis the relapsing hunger and the miserable condition of the Ethiopian people:

87

‘‘What can we do to deny famine a future in Ethiopia? Can we really conquer 

famine and usher development agendas for the 21st century? To answer the 

above questions, we need to seriously engage ourselves in addressing strategies 

for development in Ethiopia, the only sure way to stamp out famine from the 

Ethiopian landscape . . .’’

The precondition to development and the eradication of famine in Ethiopia, 

should, as a matter of course, entail ‘ecological awareness’ that will enable Ethiopians to preserve the remaining forests (only 2.7% of the original forest is now in 

existence) and replenish the now barren lands with a massive reforestation program. Planting trees, however, is not enough unless supplemented by a sustainable 

and stringent forest management program. 

The second major undertaking that Ethiopia must consider is to harness the 

major rivers and utilize them for irrigation and hydroelectric purposes. In this regard, some projects were developed during the Derg regime and the present government of Ethiopia, but it is not adequate when it comes to the conquest and eradication of famine. Irrigation will enable Ethiopia to bid farewell to rain-fed agriculture but it is not going to be an easy development strategy, for it will require 

a huge capital intensive initiative. But it does not mean it is not realizable at all. 

With sound public policy, domestic devotion, and international aid, Ethiopia can successfully overcome the drawbacks of a rain-fed agriculture. 

Irrigation also will have its side effects. There are some scientists who are opposed to the extensive use of water through irrigation, because the latter cause salinity and sedimentation problems. However it is better to use irrigation and pay 

the price of ‘silt and salt’ later than depend on rain-fed culture and suffer mass starvation. After all, desalination programs can drastically lessen this problem and also 

help prevent the destruction of algae and midges, which are sensitive to salinity. 

On top of the above two major undertakings, Ethiopia can also consider scientific 

methods to combat drought and famine that I have cited in The Politics of Famine 

and Strategies for Development in Ethiopia (Doctoral dissertation) and that is also 

recommended by the US National Academy of Sciences:

• Expansion of water supply through such means as publicly financed irrigation 

projects, water catchment projects, wells and desalination efforts.

• Expansion of both central and local, on site food storage facilities to reduce 

waste through improved handling and distribution techniques and to facilitate pest control.

• Crop selection substitution and multiple cropping development activity over 

an extended period and should consider a middle and long-term effort.

Similar recommendations were made by the FAO dry land agronomist P. T. S. 

Whiteman who undertook ‘‘Agronomy Research in Drought Affected northern Ethiopia.’’ In 1977. Incidentally, one off the objectives of the Whiteman team was to 

‘‘conduct observation on soil-water-plant relationships and introduce and test measures likely to conserve moisture and/or enhance the efficiency of its use.’’

Most importantly, famine can be defeated with certainty if a holistic and highly 

diversified development package is seriously considered to overhaul the Ethiopian 

economy and lead the country toward a sustainable agricultural and industrial development. In this context, the ‘agriculture-led industrial development’ is a suitable 

policy and development agenda if fully implemented to realize a situation beyond 

famine. 

Diversification of the economy could embark Ethiopia on the threshold of ‘denying 

famine a future,’ but it could not be a guarantee unless the country makes a transition from a mono-culture agriculture to a multi-cropping system with emphasis on 

food crops, and this transition will certainly serve as a lynchpin for industrial development. 

Once the cornerstone of the above development strategies is laid, it would be of 

utmost importance to consider the participation of the Ethiopian peasants so that 

they themselves could experience food self-reliance. Frances Moore Lappe and Joseph Collins, in their remarkable book Food First: Beyond the Myth of Scarcities, 

have promoted insightful ideas that are essential to grassroots rural development 

and food self-reliance:

1. Food self-reliance requires the allocation of control over agricultural resources to local, self-provisioning units, democratically organized.

2. Food self-reliance depends on mass initiative, not on government directions.

3. With food self-reliance, trade becomes an organic outgrowth of development, 

not the fragile hinge on which survival hangs.

4. Food self-reliance requires coordinated social planning.

88

The participatory mobilization of the Ethiopian peasants, as we shall see below, 

is prerequisite to the overall food security and the ultimate objective of uprooting 

the root causes of famine. In relation to the ‘‘social security of food’’, I am tempted 

to recommend the reader to have a look at a very important book by R. E. Downs 

et al entitled Political Economy of African Famine (Food and Nutrition in History 

and Anthropology, 1992) and read especially Chapter Two, ‘‘Cultural Construction 

in a ‘‘Garden of Eden′′: The Influence of Ontological Acquiescence in an African Development Projects and Its Implications for Food Security.’’ Any open minded and 

sincerely concerned person can get the gist of what I am trying to emphasize in this 

article. 

Having made clear what we must do to defeat famine, we can now turn to the 

significance and importance of relief measures for our fellow Ethiopians. This too 

requires some scientific explanation as opposed to sentimental depiction of famine 

which is intertwined with mirage sensations (obscurantism!). 

There are plethora of perspectives on relief operations, but we can confine ourselves, at least for now, to only four ‘‘schools’’ of thought that I have discussed in 

my previous works and that were inspired by Thomas Stephens: 1) Relief as Humanitarian Task, sees disaster in terms of unexpected human deprivation; 2) Relief 

as a Managerial Task, sees the problem of disaster relief stemming from the need 

for bringing coherence and order to relief operations; 3) Relief as Development Task: 

If assistance is to be effective, it must concentrate on pre-disaster planning and preparedness and from an integral component of the overall development plan; 4) Relief 

as Confrontational Politics: the government policy of the donor country may see relief assistance as a means of obtaining influences with the recipient country’s government. 

From the above ‘‘schools’’ of thought, Relief as Development Task comes very close 

to the central theme of this article, and Ethiopians must not lose sight of the significance and relevance of this form of relief in the struggle to wipe out famine for good. 

‘Relief as Development Task’ is inextricably linked to crisis management in wide 

spread famines and relief operations. 

In Anatomy of Disaster Relief, Randolf C. Kent discusses disaster in three phases:

1. Emergency phase: entails measures to ensure the immediate survival of victims. At this phase, ideology becomes irrelevant and the humanity school 

prevails.

2. Rehabilitation phase: assistance of materials to rebuild housing, provision of 

seeds and equipment to produce crops, to dig wells etc. Rehabilitation is concerned with those basic steps required to restore the community to a point 

where it can stand on its feet again.

3. Post-rehabilitation: overlaps with general approach to development. This 

stage may also promote pre-disaster planning by community organizations.

On top of the above disaster phases, other important criteria for relief are:

1. Preparedness: usually incorporated within ‘National Disaster Plans’ critical 

resource lists maintained and updated, emergency simulation exercise undertaken, risk areas monitored and Early Warning Systems (EWS)developed.

2. Prediction: Famine indicators can now be analyzed with more accuracy, 

thanks to technological advancement and the interplay of the latter with socioeconomic understanding. Satellites can now detect pre-famine syndromes 

such as soil erosion and deforestation.

3. Assessment: must include at least the following: provision of food, transport, 

medical supplies, water supply, financial supply; the condition of rainfall, 

crop production, and market prospects; aid for relief and rehabilitation

4. Appropriate Intervention: follows ‘Assessment’. If the assessment is correct 

and reflects the social and economic complexities of the famine situation, it 

will enable domestic and external relief workers to intervene accordingly.

5. Timely Intervention: if aid is not received on time, i.e. when the famine victims needed it most, it is not aid. Timely intervention also includes when to 

stop aid; it is not only an awareness when aid should be delivered. The objective is to defeat famine and not create permanent beggars! Hence, our ‘Postrehabilitation’ phase mentioned above.

6. Coordination: is by far the most important tool in the criteria of relief, but 

cannot be effective without the other five criteria.

Ethiopia is a poor developing country suffering intermittently from famines of 

great proportions. As per the UNDP Human Development Indicators 2002, Ethiopia 

ranks # 168; the life expectancy at birth is 43.9, human development index (HDI) 

89

is 0.327, adult illiteracy rate 60.9 %, population not using improved drinking water 

is 76%, population below income poverty line (1983–2000) is 76.4%, people living 

with HIV/Aids: women number up to 1,100,000 and children up to 230,000, and traditional fuel consumption as % of total energy use is 95.9. The UNDP Report is a 

wake up call for all of us and it is for this simple reason that we need to seriously 

engage ourselves in any way we can for the development of Ethiopia. Ethiopia may 

have exhibited some ‘‘stride in economic growth,’’ but the latter is meaningless unless it is meant to consciously design a development package that, in turn, is geared 

toward the final blow of famine. 

Concluding Remark: As I have indicated in Combating Future Famines in Ethiopia, ‘‘it must be known that the conquest of famine in Ethiopia is a mammoth historical task and it should not be left to squarely fall on the shoulders of the Ethiopian authorities. The Ethiopian intellectual and professional in the Diaspora must 

be willing to contribute in the reconstruction and development of Ethiopia, and the 

government must create a fertile ground and incentive so that Ethiopians can demonstrate commitment. Collectively, we must deny famine a future in Ethiopia.’’

Æ