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) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

51–037 PDF 2009

HEARING TO REVIEW EFFORTS TO DELIVER 

INTERNATIONAL FOOD AID AND PROVIDE 

FOREIGN AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT 

ASSISTANCE

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPECIALTY CROPS, RURAL 

DEVELOPMENT AND FOREIGN AGRICULTURE

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

JULY 16, 2008

Serial No. 110–41

(

Printed for the use of the Committee on Agriculture 

agriculture.house.gov 

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE 

COLLIN C. PETERSON, Minnesota, Chairman 

TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania, 

Vice Chairman 

MIKE MCINTYRE, North Carolina 

BOB ETHERIDGE, North Carolina 

LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa 

JOE BACA, California 

DENNIS A. CARDOZA, California 

DAVID SCOTT, Georgia 

JIM MARSHALL, Georgia 

STEPHANIE HERSETH SANDLIN, South 

Dakota 

HENRY CUELLAR, Texas 

JIM COSTA, California 

JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado 

BRAD ELLSWORTH, Indiana 

NANCY E. BOYDA, Kansas 

ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

KIRSTEN E. GILLIBRAND, New York 

STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin 

EARL POMEROY, North Dakota 

LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee 

JOHN BARROW, Georgia 

NICK LAMPSON, Texas 

JOE DONNELLY, Indiana 

TIM MAHONEY, Florida 

TRAVIS W. CHILDERS, Mississippi 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia, Ranking 

Minority Member 

TERRY EVERETT, Alabama 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina 

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

MIKE ROGERS, Alabama 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

MARILYN N. MUSGRAVE, Colorado 

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas 

CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, JR., Louisiana 

JOHN R. ‘‘RANDY’’ KUHL, JR., New York 

VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina 

K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas 

JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska 

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio 

ADRIAN SMITH, Nebraska 

TIM WALBERG, Michigan 

BOB LATTA, Ohio 

PROFESSIONAL STAFF

ROBERT L. LAREW, Chief of Staff 

ANDREW W. BAKER, Chief Counsel 

APRIL SLAYTON, Communications Director 

WILLIAM E. O’CONNER, JR., Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPECIALTY CROPS, RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND FOREIGN

AGRICULTURE

MIKE MCINTYRE, North Carolina, Chairman 

JIM MARSHALL, Georgia 

HENRY CUELLAR, Texas 

JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado 

JOHN BARROW, Georgia 

EARL POMEROY, North Dakota 

MARILYN N. MUSGRAVE, Colorado, 

Ranking Minority Member 

TERRY EVERETT, Alabama 

ADRIAN SMITH, Nebraska 

JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska 

ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina 

ALETA BOTTS, Subcommittee Staff Director

(II) 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Goodlatte, Hon. Bob, a Representative in Congress from Virginia, prepared 

statement .............................................................................................................. 6

McIntyre, Hon. Mike, a Representative in Congress from North Carolina, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 1

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 3

Musgrave, Hon. Marilyn N., a Representative in Congress from Colorado, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 4

Peterson, Hon. Collin C., a Representative in Congress from Minnesota, prepared statement ................................................................................................... 5

Smith, Hon. Adrian, a Representative in Congress from Nebraska, prepared 

statement .............................................................................................................. 6

WITNESSES

Yost, Michael W., Administrator, Foreign Agricultural Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C. .............................................................. 7

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 9

Kunder, James R., Acting Deputy Administrator, U.S. Agency for International Development, Washington, D.C. .......................................................... 13

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 14

Callahan, Sean, Executive Vice President, Overseas Operations, Catholic Relief Services, Baltimore, MD ............................................................................... 29

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 31

Supplemental submitted material ................................................................... 72

Barnes, Ph.D., Andrew, Director of Food Security, Food for the Hungry, 

Washington, D.C.; on behalf of Alliance for Food Aid ....................................... 34

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 36

Supplemental submitted material ................................................................... 78

Guroff, Avram ‘‘Buzz,’’ Senior Vice President, Food Security and Specialty 

Crops Portfolio, ACDI/VOCA (Agricultural Cooperative Development International/Volunteers in Overseas Cooperative Assistance), Washington, D.C. 40

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 41

Response to submitted question ...................................................................... 81

Minot, Ph.D., Nicholas W., Senior Research Fellow, Markets, Trade, and 

Institutions Division, International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, D.C. ........................................................................................................... 44

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 46

Supplemental submitted material ................................................................... 79

Dillaha III, Ph.D., P.E., Theo A., Professor of Biological Systems Engineering 

and Program Director, Sustainable Agriculture and Natural Resource Management (SANREM) Collaborative Research Support Program (CRSP), Office of International Research, Education, and Development, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Blacksburg, VA ............. 54

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 56

Response to submitted question ...................................................................... 80

SUBMITTED MATERIAL

Fowler, Dr. Cary, Executive Director, Global Crop Diversity Trust, submitted 

statement .............................................................................................................. 69

Paarlberg, Ph.D., Robert, B.F. Johnson Professor of Political Science, Wellesley College, submitted statement ........................................................................ 67

(1)

HEARING TO REVIEW EFFORTS TO DELIVER 

INTERNATIONAL FOOD AID AND PROVIDE 

FOREIGN AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT 

ASSISTANCE 

WEDNESDAY, JULY 16, 2008

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPECIALTY CROPS, RURAL

DEVELOPMENT, AND FOREIGN AGRICULTURE, 

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, 

Washington, D.C. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:02 a.m., in Room 

1300 of the Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Mike McIntyre 

[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 

Members present: Representatives McIntyre, Salazar, Barrow, 

Pomeroy, Musgrave, Smith, Fortenberry, and Moran. 

Staff present: Aleta Botts, Alejandra Gonzalez-Arias, John Riley, 

April Slayton, Mike Dunlap, and Jamie Weyer. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE MCINTYRE, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM NORTH CAROLINA 

The CHAIRMAN. This hearing of the Subcommittee on Specialty 

Crops, Rural Development and Foreign Agriculture will come to 

order. I am Congressman Mike McIntyre from southeastern North 

Carolina. Welcome to all of you for coming today and as shown by 

the presence of the number of people here, this obviously is a hearing that I believe will iterate—will be generating great interest. I 

would like to welcome everyone here to the Subcommittee’s efforts 

to deliver international food aid and provide foreign agricultural 

development assistance in the form of a hearing to discuss these 

issues. I am pleased to welcome Mr. Michael Yost, the Administrator of the Foreign Agricultural Service, and Mr. James Kunder, 

acting Deputy Administrator of the U.S. Agency for International 

Development. Welcome, gentlemen. 

The world is facing an unprecedented challenge to its food and 

agricultural systems. Just last week, the U.S. Department of Agriculture released a food security assessment that projects that the 

food security situation in 70 developing countries will deteriorate 

over the next decade, and the number of hungry people will increase by 16 percent in the next year alone. 

This hearing will consider two key pieces of the continuum of options to address this crisis: immediate food aid and longer term agricultural development assistance. So we want to look at both the 

2

short term, the immediate crisis, as well as the longer view so that 

we can plan for the future. 

First, with regard to food aid, the United States is by far the 

largest contributor of food aid worldwide, giving over half of the annual total worldwide. I am grateful that the good Lord has blessed 

our land with plenty that we can do this and I think we should 

count our blessings and share that cornucopia with others. Worldwide, the act of breaking bread with another person symbolizes a 

fellowship, a kinship with another human being and not only nourishes the body but nourishes the soul. Our food aid accomplishes 

this on a huge scale, something that we all, in this room, know the 

United States needs to do in this time of international crisis. The 

United States has stepped up to respond to the crisis through additional resources, as well. The recently enacted supplemental appropriations bill provides over $1.2 billion in additional funds for 2008 

and 2009 with the P.L. 480 Food for Peace program taking our contribution for food aid to an even higher level. 

We all are interested in learning the status of current food aid 

efforts, what is expected in the next year with regard to regions at 

risk of famine, including Ethiopia, a place that I have been to twice 

in the last 10 months and Somalia. And how the resources recently 

provided by the Congress and the supplemental appropriations bill 

will be used. 

Now, with regard to agricultural development, the United States, 

we realize, must continue to provide food aid to address crisis situations. However, we cannot be short-sighted. We have to consider 

how funds to provide the agricultural development can be used to 

enhance the ability of the developing nations themselves to produce 

food. After all, food provided directly today does not necessarily always lead to a full stomach for tomorrow. As Members of the Agriculture Committee, we are uniquely aware of the plentiful bounty 

that we do have in this country, with which we have been blessed 

in the forms of its fields and our resources. But, beyond that, we 

also understand the importance that supply chains have that deliver inputs and transport harvests; the markets that facilitate 

interactions between buyer and seller; and the well developed system of land-grant institutions, which I know many of us are proud 

of in our states, that conduct research and extension programs—

extension assistance to our farmers and our ranchers and to farm 

families. Underlying all of this, our legal, judicial and regulatory 

systems help protect private property rights and other rights that 

we know are enshrined in our Constitution and by law. All of these 

elements are critical to our highly developed agricultural economy. 

Rarely are all of them present in the economies of developing countries that are experiencing food shortages, which is why we have 

to look at the broader picture. 

Agricultural development assistance competes with numerous 

other foreign aid priorities and has, too often, lost in the battle to 

these other priorities. The proportion of U.S. development assistance for agriculture has declined from 25 percent of total development assistance in 1980 to less than one percent last year. The 

World Bank has decreased its lending to the agricultural sector 

from 30 percent in 1978 to eight percent in 2006. We need to evaluate that level of commitment from our own country and the develVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:33 Jul 24, 2009 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 I:\DOCS\110-41\51037.TXT AGR1 PsN: BRIAN
3

oped world to measure the increase that we need to have in agricultural production. 

I hope the witnesses gathered today will provide answers to the 

questions that have arisen about the state of our agricultural development efforts with examples and statistics like I have just 

shared. How can limited agricultural development resources best 

be used with regard to particular sectors, and for countries that are 

devoting their own resources to the effort and have created a desirable regulatory environment for agricultural development. What do 

we know about the successes and the failures of existing programs 

and how can we use those lessons to educate and enhance future 

development efforts. Also, I want you to be thinking about how the 

United States can do a better job of reducing the impact of the food 

crisis on vulnerable populations through greater attention with regard to agricultural development. 

I would encourage the witnesses to use the 5 minutes that they 

are provided for their statements to highlight the most important 

points. Please do not read your statement, unless you can read it 

all within 5 minutes. Otherwise, please select the highlights and 

summarize those within the 5 minute time period, given our time 

constraints today. Pursuant to Committee rules, testimony by witnesses, along with questions and answers by Members of the witnesses, will be stopped at 5 minutes. But don’t worry, your complete written testimony will be submitted, in its entirety, in the 

record and we welcome that complete statement. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. McIntyre follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE MCINTYRE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS

FROM NORTH CAROLINA

Good morning, and welcome to the Subcommittee’s hearing on efforts to deliver 

international food aid and provide foreign agricultural development assistance. I am 

pleased to welcome Mr. Michael Yost, the Administrator of the Foreign Agricultural 

Service, and Mr. James Kunder, Acting Deputy Administrator of the U.S. Agency 

for International Development. 

The world is facing an unprecedented challenge to its food and agricultural systems. Just last week, the U.S. Department of Agriculture released a Food Security 

Assessment that projects that the food security situation in 70 developing countries 

will deteriorate over the next decade and the number of hungry people will increase 

by 16 percent in the next year alone. 

This hearing will consider two key pieces of the continuum of options to address 

this crisis: immediate food aid and longer-term agricultural development assistance. 

Food Aid 

The United States is by far the largest contributor of food aid worldwide, giving 

over half of the annual total. I am grateful that the good Lord has blessed our country with plenty so we are in a position to do this. Worldwide, the act of breaking 

bread with another person symbolizes a fellowship, a kinship with another human 

being. Our food aid accomplishes this simply on a larger scale. 

The United States has stepped up to respond to the crisis through additional re- sources. The recently enacted supplemental appropriations bill provides over $1.2 

billion in additional funds for 2008 and 2009 within the P.L. 480 Food for Peace 

program, taking our contribution to food aid even higher. 

I am interested in learning the status of current food aid efforts, what is expected 

in the next year with regard to regions at risk of famine, including Ethiopia and 

Somalia, and how the resources recently provided by the Congress in the supplemental appropriations bill will be used. 

Agricultural Development 

The United States must continue to provide food aid to address crisis situations. 

However, we cannot be short-sighted. We have to consider how funds we provide 

for agricultural development can be used to enhance the ability of developing naVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:33 Jul 24, 2009 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 I:\DOCS\110-41\51037.TXT AGR1 PsN: BRIAN
4

tions to produce food. After all, food provided directly today does not necessarily 

lead to a full stomach tomorrow. 

As Members of the Agriculture Committee, we are uniquely aware of the plentiful 

bounty we have in this country in the forms of its fields and its resources. Beyond 

that, however, we also understand the importance of the supply chains that deliver 

inputs and transport harvests, the markets that facilitate interactions between 

buyer and seller, and the well-developed system of land-grant institutions that conduct research and extension assistance to our farmers and ranchers. Underlying all 

of this, our legal, judicial, and regulatory systems help protect private property and 

other rights enshrined in our Constitution and other laws. 

All of these elements are critical to our highly developed agricultural economy. 

Rarely are all of them present in the economies of developing countries experiencing 

food shortages. 

Agricultural development assistance competes with numerous other foreign aid 

priorities and has lost too often to these other priorities. The proportion of U.S. development assistance for agriculture has declined from 25 percent of total development assistance in 1980 to less than one percent last year. The World Bank has 

decreased its lending to the agricultural sector from 30 percent in 1978 to eight percent in 2006. We need to evaluate the level of commitment of the United States and 

the developed world to measures to increase agricultural production. 

I hope the witnesses gathered today will provide answers to questions that have 

arisen about the state of our agricultural development efforts. 

How can limited agricultural development resources be best used with regard to 

particular sectors and for countries that are devoting their own resources to the effort and have created a desirable regulatory environment for agricultural development? 

What do we know about the successes and failures of existing programs and how 

can those lessons educate future development efforts? 

How can the United States do a better job of reducing the impact of the food crisis 

on vulnerable populations through greater attention on agricultural development? 

Conclusion 

I would encourage witnesses to use the 5 minutes provided for their statements 

to highlight the most important points in their testimony. Pursuant to Committee 

rules, testimony by witnesses along with questions and answers by Members of the 

witnesses will be stopped after 5 minutes. Your complete written testimony will be 

submitted in its entirety in the record. 

At this time, I would like to recognize the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee, 

Representative Marilyn Musgrave, for any opening comments that she may have.

The CHAIRMAN. I would now like to recognize the Ranking Member, Mrs. Musgrave for an opening statement, and as a point of 

personal privilege, let me just say what an honor it is to work with 

her and I greatly respect her, her character and her work here in 

Congress. Mrs. Musgrave. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MARILYN N. MUSGRAVE, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM COLORADO 

Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Thank you, so much, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate you calling this hearing today to review the international food 

aid and agricultural development programs. As a Member of the 

House Hunger Caucus, these issues today are of particular importance to me. A little over a year ago this Subcommittee held a 

hearing to review food aid programs operated by USAID and USDA 

as a precursor to the Committee’s work on the farm bill. That legislation was a catalyst to streamline our international food aid programs and more effectively meet the needs of millions of people 

throughout the world who do not enjoy the freedom and prosperity 

that we Americans, sometimes, take for granted. 

For many years, the United States has been the leading contributor of all kinds of foreign aid. As you said, Mr. Chairman, especially food and development aid. Emergency food aid is a big part 

of what we are able to provide to help people survive in the face 

5

of acute hunger resulting from drought, conflict or poor government, sometimes corrupt government. This continued trend in rising commodity prices has a double edge and we on the Agriculture 

Committee know that very well. While producers can benefit from 

higher prices, the U.N.’s food world—the U.N.’s World Food Programme estimates that higher commodity prices will drive an 

added 130 million people towards hunger, in addition to the 850 

million people already suffering from chronic malnutrition. 

Congress recently stepped up efforts to help counter a near doubling in the cost of food aid commodities with an additional $1.2 

billion to supplement current efforts to combat hunger around the 

world. Today I look forward to hearing about how those efforts are 

succeeding. Though emergency assistance is an important component of U.S. aid around the world, agricultural development is believed, by many, to be the very foundation of sound economic 

progress. We are very proud of our ability to provide resources to 

help feed the world, but I think that everyone here would applaud 

the moment that those developing countries are able to have a sustainable economy. 

The United States has always been a leader in contributing to 

a vast array of development and capacity building initiatives. With 

the advent of significant, private investment in development programs it is imperative that a consensus on the direction of agricultural development be reached among all contributing partners, 

here and abroad, to prevent duplication of projects. Agricultural development, certainly, cannot happen in a vacuum and I believe that 

the United States must also play an active role in building the institutions of law, property rights, which are critical to the long 

term success of development efforts. We want to foster peace and 

stability in these developing nations and that will diminish the 

need for acute aid and allow leaders to turn their attention to 

building the global economy. 

As food and energy prices rise, the World Bank and the World 

Food Programme have stated that much of the progress made in 

the last decade has been eroded. Poor governments, weak institutions, adverse weather and multiple approaches to aid programs 

present tremendous challenges for those Congress has entrusted 

with taxpayers hard earned money to help developing countries. 

I look forward to hearing from the witnesses today, and I want 

to hear how they are overcoming these challenges. Thank you very 

much, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Mrs. Musgrave. The 

Chair will now request that other Members submit their opening 

statements for the record so the witnesses may go ahead and begin 

their testimony and we ensure that there is ample time for questions by the Members. 

[The prepared statements of Messers. Peterson, Goodlatte, and 

Smith follow:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. COLLIN C. PETERSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM MINNESOTA

Thank you, Chairman McIntyre for recognizing me to speak and for holding this 

hearing. I also want to welcome the witnesses who have joined us today and thank 

them for their testimony. 

6

The need for food aid has grown and changed in significant ways even just in the 

past few months. Administrator Yost from USDA and Acting Deputy Administrator 

Kunder from USAID, we are interested to hear how your agencies are responding 

to the increasing need for food aid and what can be done to help you respond to 

immediate and long term food assistance needs internationally. 

The international aid organizations on today’s second panel play an integral role 

in delivering food aid and supporting long term agricultural development in the 

countries where hunger and poverty are most acute. Today, I hope they can share 

with us their experiences on the ground where development programs have succeeded, where they have failed and why. 

While the food crisis is a major challenge facing people living in poverty and organizations dedicated to helping them, this is also an opportunity to invest in the long 

term ability of poor regions to expand agricultural production to feed their people 

and create successful businesses in their rural and agrarian communities. The market is providing a clear signal to encourage production, but unfortunately, due to 

a lack of roads, access to credit and other factors, producers in many developing 

countries are not able to respond sufficiently to the market. While meeting the immediate needs for food continues to be a priority, I hope that our witnesses can offer 

insight into the long term development that is going on and that needs to be done 

in order to improve the ability of developing countries to meet some of their own 

food needs. 

Chairman McIntyre, thank you again for holding this hearing, and I look forward 

to the testimony from our witnesses. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. BOB GOODLATTE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS

FROM VIRGINIA

I thank the Chairman for convening the hearing today, and for the time our witnesses have taken to be here. Today’s hearing is addressing two very important 

issues: food aid and agricultural development programs. Both of these programs 

have the potential to have a positive impact on the lives of many people throughout 

the world through emergency and long-term programs. 

The U.S. provides more food aid than any other country in the world. The recently 

passed farm bill reauthorized U.S. food aid and development programs and expands 

tools needed for quick humanitarian response, such as prepositioning commodities 

overseas. Our farmers and ranchers produce the safest, most abundant, most affordable food supply in the world and are proud of the role they play in helping those 

in need. 

Today, there are more people in need of urgent food aid than ever before. Sudan 

continues to struggle with conflict which is affecting over four million people in and 

around the country. Ethiopia is facing a chronic crisis with over ten million people 

requiring emergency assistance. And Zimbabwe has over five million people who are 

relying on food assistance. These are just a few of the many countries in need. 

While disruptions to crops, higher commodity prices, and growing populations add 

to the strain on their own food systems, the contributing factor of poor governance 

cannot be ignored. Today we will hear testimony discussing how USAID is coordinating agricultural development efforts through USDA and other partners. 

Agricultural development can provide a firm foundation on which countries can 

build their economy. It is important to pay attention to the details of how those programs are designed and implemented, so I look forward to hearing from the agencies and private organizations involved in carrying out these projects. I am particularly interested in hearing how the strategic approach USAID is using will overcome 

the significant challenges facing our experts in the field. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. ADRIAN SMITH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS

FROM NEBRASKA

Good afternoon and thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The price of food and fuel has arrested the attention of Nebraskans, the United 

States, and indeed the world. As all of us here are aware, these increased costs have 

created great challenges for lower income Americans, but have had an even greater 

impact on the poor of developing countries. The budgets of both government and 

food aid organizations have been stretched as they try to provide more assistance 

with fewer resources. We are here today to consider tools to meet these challenges. 

Our food aid and agricultural development assistance dollars should be spent to 

help developing nations become capable of sustained economic growth. We can acVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:33 Jul 24, 2009 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 I:\DOCS\110-41\51037.TXT AGR1 PsN: BRIAN
7

complish this objective through education, research into production systems best 

suited to different regions, free trade, and application of agricultural technologies. 

I personally find science-based solutions and new technologies exciting. They are 

the future of agriculture. Biotechnology has revolutionized agriculture in the United 

States, and genetically modified crops may lead to the second green revolution in 

the developing world. These technologies could help us to overcome the challenges 

of feeding an increasing number of people, dealing with extreme weather conditions, 

combating new and old diseases, and increasing efficiency with fewer inputs. 

I want to thank our witness for testifying, and the Committee and the Chairman 

for holding this hearing. I look forward to working with you in the future.

The CHAIRMAN. So with that, we will begin with our first panel, 

and Michael Yost, Administrator of the USDA Foreign Agricultural 

Service, James Kunder, acting Deputy Administrator of the Agency 

for International Development. Gentlemen, as I said a moment ago, 

we welcome you here today. Mr. Yost, if you would please begin. 

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL W. YOST, ADMINISTRATOR,

FOREIGN AGRICULTURAL SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF 

AGRICULTURE, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Mr. YOST. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee, I am 

pleased to appear before you today. The U.S. Department of Agriculture, the U.S. Agency for International Development and all of 

our partner agencies and organizations are proud of the role we 

play in helping countries overcome hunger and malnutrition. 

USDA’s Foreign Agriculture Service administrates two non-emergency food assistance programs that are making a difference in the 

lives of poor and hungry people: the Food for Progress (FFP) program and the McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and 

Child Nutrition (McGovern-Dole) program. 

The FFP is targeted to countries that are making strides toward 

democracy and private enterprise. The program emphasizes private 

sector agricultural and economic development to enhance food security. The McGovern-Dole program supports education, child development and food security in low-income, food-deficit countries that 

are committed to universal education. The program provides U.S. 

agricultural products, as well as financial and technical assistance, 

to our partners, who combat hunger and strengthen the quality 

and the access to education. FAS works closely on food assistance 

and agricultural development projects with USDA’s Farm Service 

Agency, USAID, and other partners, including private voluntary organizations and inter-governmental organizations. We base our priority countries on factors such as per capita income levels, prevalence of under-nourishment, moving toward freedom, adult literacy 

rates, government commitment to education and degree, if any, of 

civil conflict. 

Food aid is just one component in our global assistance efforts. 

Trade-capacity building allows USDA to lend its expertise in agriculture, food and trade to support market-based agricultural development and help countries create regulatory systems that enable 

them to produce safe products for domestic consumption and for 

trade with other markets. 

The Cochran Fellowship Program helps middle-income countries 

and emerging democracies develop the capacity to trade through 

short-term, market-orientated, agricultural training in the United 

States. The Norman E. Borlaug International Agricultural Science 

and Technology Fellows Program provides collaborative research 

8

training at U.S. universities, USDA or other government agencies 

and non-governmental organizations that foster the scientific and 

technological advances in agriculture. 

USDA also has a critical role in the economic, political and security environment in Afghanistan and Iraq. In Afghanistan, 80 percent of the population is involved in farming and herding. In Iraq, 

the agriculture there is the second largest contributor to the country’s gross domestic product and employs 25 percent of the labor 

force, making it the largest employer in Iraq. USDA provides expertise in agricultural policy and development in these two countries. We coordinate our efforts through an interagency process 

that includes, among others, the U.S. Department of State, the 

U.S. Department of Defense, and USAID. 

Our most notable role has been through USDA employees who 

have volunteered as advisors on Provincial Reconstruction Teams 

(PRT), which typically consist of military units of 50 to 100 personnel with two to three U.S. Government civilian advisors. PRT 

activities include soil and water conservation, irrigation and water 

management, grain and seed storage, post-harvest loss reduction, 

market system development, livestock health, nutrition, and breeding. Since 2003 and 2006, respectively, USDA has deployed 48 volunteers in Afghanistan and 20 to Iraq from nine different USDA 

agencies. The Administration’s Fiscal Year 2009 budget requests $12.5 

million for the Office of the Secretary, which is crucial for USDA 

to have the resources to support agriculture reconstruction and development in both of these countries. 

High commodity costs, combined with increased transportation 

costs, have tightened the amount of food aid that can be provided 

under the limited program budgets. We have taken innovative and 

bold steps to ensure critical needs are met. A year ago, USDA initiated the Stocks-for-Food program, exchanging government owned 

commodities, acquired through forfeitures of marketing assistance 

loans for processed products to be distributed through USDA domestic and international food assistance food programs. Stocks-forFood is providing approximately $120 million in funds, with $100 

million going to the emergency food assistance program, and more 

than $20 million to benefit over 650,000 children and mothers in 

the McGovern-Dole Program. 

Last month, Agriculture Secretary Schafer laid out the United 

States’ integrated three-pronged strategy to combat rising global 

food prices. First, the United States will target countries made vulnerable by rising food prices. To that end, President Bush directed 

USDA to draw down the Bill Emerson Humanitarian Trust, which 

made $200 million worth of total assistance immediately available 

through P.L. 480 Title II Program. We also greatly appreciate the 

supplemental appropriations provided by Congress for P.L. 480 

Title II Program food aid in Fiscal Year 2008 and the additional 

bridge funding provided for Fiscal Year 2009. Second, we will provide developmental assistance to countries capable of rapidly increasing stable food production, such as through the trade-capacity 

building programs that I previously talked about. And third, we 

will support trade liberalization, increasing the use of advanced agricultural technology. 

9

The United States is encouraging other governments to lift restrictions on agricultural exports, adapt science-based regulations 

that promote research and adoption of innovative technologies, 

such as biotechnology and conclude an ambitious agreement to the 

Doha Development Agenda of the World Trade Organization this 

year. While we will continue to deal with a variety of food assistance challenges in the years ahead, together we will remain focused on our primary goal to ensure that the food needs of the poor 

and hungry are met. 

This concludes my statement. I look forward to answering any 

questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Yost follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MICHAEL W. YOST, ADMINISTRATOR, FOREIGN

AGRICULTURAL SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee, I am pleased to appear before you 

today with James Kunder, Acting Deputy Administrator of the U.S. Agency for 

International Development (USAID). The U.S. Department of Agriculture, USAID, 

and all of our partner agencies and organizations are proud of the role we play in 

helping countries overcome hunger and malnutrition. I will review USDA’s efforts 

to deliver international food and agricultural development assistance. 

Food Assistance Programs 

The two food assistance programs administered by USDA’s Foreign Agricultural 

Service (FAS) are making a difference in the lives of poor and hungry people: the 

Food for Progress (FFP) Program and the McGovern-Dole International Food for 

Education and Child Nutrition (McGovern-Dole) Program. These programs provide 

international assistance and support development activities that alleviate hunger 

and improve nutrition, education, and agriculture in some of the world’s poorest 

countries. 

FFP is targeted to countries that are making strides toward democracy and private enterprise. The program emphasizes private sector agricultural and economic 

development and enhanced food security in recipient countries. In Fiscal Year 2007, 

USDA implemented 21 Food for Progress agreements in 15 countries with a total 

program value of nearly $120 million. Ongoing activities are reaching well over one 

million beneficiaries, including farmers and their families, community members, cooperatives, producer groups, and small agribusinesses. Activities have included improving agricultural techniques and marketing systems, providing education to 

farmers, helping to develop cooperatives, teaching irrigation and land conservation 

techniques, supporting agribusinesses and microcredit enterprises, and other activities that build the capacity to trade. 

The McGovern-Dole Program supports education, child development, and food security in low-income, food-deficit countries that are committed to universal education. The program provides donated U.S. agricultural products, as well as financial and technical assistance, to our partners, who creatively combat hunger and 

strengthen the quality of and access to education. In addition to providing food for 

direct distribution, USDA has provided cash resources for school-related infrastructure improvements, teacher and parent-teacher association training, and school gardens. Since 2000, the McGovern-Dole Program has provided meals to feed more 

than 22 million children in 41 countries and boosted school attendance. 

For both the FFP and McGovern-Dole Programs, FAS works closely on food assistance and agriculture development projects with USDA’s Farm Service Agency, 

USAID, and our partners, including private voluntary organizations (PVOs), cooperatives, intergovernmental organizations, foreign governments, and the United 

Nations World Food Programme. Each fiscal year it is necessary to:

• Determine priority countries based on the objectives of each program and factors such as per capita income levels, prevalence of undernourishment, movement toward freedom, adult literacy rates, government commitment to education, and degree, if any, of civil conflict; and

• Evaluate and select proposals based on specific criteria. These criteria are program-specific and may include assurances that commercial markets will not be 

disrupted; tangible benefits exist for the country’s agricultural sector; the recipiVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:33 Jul 24, 2009 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 I:\DOCS\110-41\51037.TXT AGR1 PsN: BRIAN
10

ent country is committed to improving its quality of education and nutrition; 

and the program is sustainable after USDA funding ends. 

Trade-Capacity Building 

Food aid is just one component in our global assistance efforts. Trade-capacity 

building (TCB) allows USDA to lend its expertise in agriculture, food, and trade to 

support market-based agricultural development and help countries create regulatory 

systems that enable them to produce safe products for domestic consumption and 

for trade with other markets, leading to economic development and growth. 

Because of limited FAS resources, TCB is a shining example of how we coordinate 

with other agencies within USDA, and other parts of the U.S. Government, as well 

as with universities, PVOs, and the private sector. For example, we rely on the technical expertise of USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) to conduct food 

safety seminars, USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) to 

explain U.S. import requirements, and USDA’s Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service (CSREES) to connect us with experts at land-grant 

and historically-black colleges and universities. We all have a common goal to provide the means for people to lift themselves and their countries out of poverty and 

into sustainable and ultimately viable economies that can trade in the world market. 

Our TCB activities with developing and transitional countries facilitate trade, promote food security, and increase the ability of developing nations to participate in 

global agricultural markets. 

For example, our Cochran Fellowship Program helps middle-income countries and 

emerging democracies develop the capacity to trade through short-term, market-oriented agricultural training in the United States targeted at senior and mid-level 

specialists and administrators from the public and private sectors. The program 

helps eligible countries develop agricultural systems that meet the food needs of 

their citizens and strengthens and enhances trade linkages between eligible countries and agricultural interests in the United States. 

Since its inception in 1984, the Cochran Program has provided training for more 

than 13,000 international participants from 103 countries worldwide, including the 

President of Albania, the Prime Minister of Moldova, and Madagascar’s Minister of 

Land Reform, Fields, and Urban Planning. 

The Norman E. Borlaug International Agricultural Science and Technology Fellows Program provides collaborative research training for entry-level international 

agricultural research scientists and policymakers from developing and middle-income countries. Training takes place at U.S. universities, USDA or other government agencies, private companies, not-for-profit institutions or international agricultural research centers through exchanges that foster the transfer of scientific and 

technological advances in agriculture, and that address obstacles to the adoption of 

technology, such as ineffectual policies and regulations. 

Since 2004, the Borlaug Program has grown from training 33 Fellows from five 

countries to 310 Fellows from 40 countries in 2008. Notable graduates from the 

Borlaug Program include the Director of Animal Industry and Fisheries in Uganda’s 

Ministry of Agriculture, the Assistant Director for Nigeria’s National Institute of Agronomic Research, and the Director of the Quality Mark and Certifications Department in Oman’s Ministry of Agriculture. 

FAS’ Trade and Investment Missions (TIMs) target emerging markets and free 

trade agreement (FTA) countries to promote two-way trade and investment. The 

missions form partnerships between local agribusinesses and U.S. financiers and agribusinesses. The missions provide U.S. participants with focused one-on-one meetings with host country business representatives. In addition to furthering business 

opportunities, these discussions also identify and address trade barriers. Financial 

support to U.S. and host country businesses is facilitated through the Export-Import 

Bank and other investment brokers. 

TIMs have been conducted in many countries and regions. Since 2005, missions 

to East Africa, the Republic of Georgia, Kazakhstan, North Africa, Southern Africa, 

and West and Central Africa have generated an estimated $45.8 million in two-way 

trade. 

How These Programs Work Together 

Let me give you an example of how FAS weaves all these programs together in 

one region of the world to provide an integrated approach to developing stable, secure economies that can become reliable trade partners and markets for U.S. agricultural products now and in the future. The Dominican Republic-Central America 

Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA–DR) is notable for being the first U.S. trade agreement that includes trade capacity building in its structure. We are using all of our 

11

tools—food and technical assistance, trade-capacity building and training programs—to help our partners in this region realize the benefits of free trade. 

For example, in Honduras, USDA is working with Catholic Relief Services (CRS) 

to implement a McGovern-Dole Program agreement to improve access to quality 

education in 15 Honduran municipalities where malnutrition exceeds 60 percent. In 

2006, CRS used 4,400 metric tons of U.S.-donated food valued at $3.4 million to provide daily meals to more than 32,700 students in 658 elementary schools. Takehome rations were delivered to more than 13,000 children under the age of 5. The 

free school breakfasts and dry rations have allowed parents to use their resources 

for other purposes. The project also included the delivery of take-home rations to 

nearly 7,000 pregnant women and new mothers. 

Several complementary activities are being supported by this project, which will 

improve sustainability, education, and hygiene. More than 120 gardens or fish ponds 

have been built, teaching parents and schoolchildren new ways to produce food and 

providing food and income for the schools. Elementary and pre-school teachers from 

the schools continue to receive training through organized workshops in mathematics and Spanish. The program has improved sanitation systems and infrastructure for 77 of the neediest 100 schools. Work is continuing at the remaining 23 

schools. Employment opportunities have been created through handling and distribution of the food and the construction of the new infrastructure. 

In Guatemala, FINCA International, a PVO, implemented an FFP agreement in 

2006 that used 8,000 tons of U.S. soybean meal and 2,000 tons of U.S. tallow to 

generate $3.2 million in proceeds to support a micro-credit program. The proceeds 

were used to develop a village banking program tailored to the specific needs of 

Guatemala’s rural entrepreneurs. The program brings neighbors together, giving 

them the collective power to disburse, invest, and collect loan capital. Clients report 

improved earnings and family nutrition, high loan repayment rates, and increased 

empowerment. Last August, former Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns met with 

Guatemalan women who had used these loans to develop small businesses, all of 

which were generating income to support their families. 

Also during this trip, former Secretary Johanns announced that USDA would lead 

an agribusiness trade and investment mission to the CAFTA–DR region in the near 

future. This mission will provide an excellent opportunity for U.S. and Central 

American agribusinesses to develop commercial ties, expand two-way trade, and 

promote foreign direct investment. 

In Nicaragua, Cochran Fellowship Program alumni made valuable contributions 

to improving their country’s national trade policies and regulatory frameworks, resulting in increased market access for U.S. agricultural products. The four alumni 

received Cochran training in agricultural biotechnology. Upon their return home, 

they provided expert consultations to the Health Commission of the Nicaraguan National Assembly, which enabled the Commission to send a positive report on a comprehensive Biosafety Bill to the President of the National Assembly. 

Under the Borlaug Program, USDA has formed a partnership with the World 

Cocoa Foundation to provide a specialized program to help the cocoa industry in 

CAFTA–DR countries, Africa, and South East Asia combat cocoa pests and diseases, 

build trade and scientific capacity, and improve regional cocoa production and market access. USDA is seeking a total of 14 fellows from these cocoa-producing countries—four from CAFTA–DR, seven from Africa, and three from South East Asia—

for this new initiative. 

Reconstruction and Stabilization in Afghanistan and Iraq 

Finally, I would like to discuss USDA’s role in rehabilitating the agricultural sectors in Afghanistan and Iraq. Our assistance in these efforts is a critical component 

to the economic, political, and security environment in both countries. In Afghanistan, 80 percent of the population is involved in farming and herding. In Iraq, agriculture is the second largest contributor to the country’s gross domestic product and 

employs 25 percent of the labor force, making it the largest employer in Iraq. 

USDA provides expertise in agricultural policy and development in these two 

countries. We coordinate our efforts with and through an interagency process that 

includes, among others, the U.S. Department of State, the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD), and USAID. Again, we draw from a full range of resources both here 

in the United States and as much as possible in-country to facilitate technical assistance, exchanges, and university extension programs to demonstrate sound agricultural and regulatory practices. 

Our most notable role has been through USDA employees, who have volunteered 

as advisors on Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRT), which typically consist of 

military units of 50–100 personnel with two to three civilian U.S. Government advisors. PRT activities include soil and water conservation, irrigation and water manVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:33 Jul 24, 2009 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 I:\DOCS\110-41\51037.TXT AGR1 PsN: BRIAN
12

agement, grain and seed storage, post-harvest loss reduction, market system development, and livestock health, nutrition, and breeding. Since 2003 and 2006, respectively, USDA has deployed 48 volunteers to Afghanistan and 20 to Iraq from nine 

different USDA agencies, including the Agricultural Marketing Service; Animal and 

Plant Health Inspection Service; Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service; Farm Service Agency; FSIS; FAS; Forest Service; Natural Resources 

Conservation Service (NRCS); and Rural Development. Of these agencies, NRCS has 

provided the most employees. 

The Administration’s Fiscal Year 2009 budget request includes $12.5 million in 

the Office of the Secretary to help support the costs of participating in these activities in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Agricultural reconstruction and development are 

crucial for establishing stability in both of these countries, and USDA needs dedicated funding to have the resources needed for its staff to play an effective role in 

achieving that goal. 

High Food Prices 

High commodity costs, combined with increased transportation costs, have tightened the amount of food aid that can be provided under limited program budgets, 

but we have taken innovative and bold steps to ensure critical needs are met. 

About a year ago, we announced that USDA would exchange government-owned 

commodities for further processed products to be distributed through USDA domestic and international food assistance programs. We call this new initiative ‘‘Stocksfor-Food.’’ The government-owned commodities were acquired through forfeitures of 

marketing assistance loans to farmers, and include wheat, corn, soybeans, cotton, 

peanuts, and rice. 

Stocks-for-Food is providing approximately $120 million in funds, with $100 million going toward The Emergency Food Assistance Program—one of our domestic 

food aid programs—and more than $20 million to benefit over 650,000 children and 

mothers in several low-income countries through the McGovern-Dole Program. 

The issue of high food prices has received the attention of the world food aid community as well as world leaders. In response, President Bush directed USDA to 

draw down the Bill Emerson Humanitarian Trust, which made $200 million of total 

assistance immediately available through the P.L. 480 Title II Program to address 

the impact of rising commodity prices on U.S. emergency food aid programs, using 

the funds to meet unanticipated food aid needs in Africa and elsewhere. 

We greatly appreciate the work between the Administration and Congress to provide $850 million in supplemental appropriations for P.L. 480 Title II Program food 

aid in Fiscal Year 2008 and $395 million in additional funds to support the Title 

II program in Fiscal Year 2009 to address the most immediate needs and alleviate 

systemic problems. 

At the High-Level Conference on World Food Security in Rome last month, Agriculture Secretary Schafer laid out the United States’ integrated, three-pronged 

strategy to combat rising food prices. First, the United States will target countries 

made vulnerable by rising food prices. Second, we will provide development assistance to countries capable of rapidly increasing staple food production. And third, we 

will support trade liberalization and increasing the use of advanced agricultural 

technologies. 

The United States encourages other governments to conclude an ambitious agreement in the Doha Development Agenda of the World Trade Organization this year 

that increases market access for agricultural products and reduces trade-distorting 

subsidies; lifts restrictions on agricultural exports; and expands research, promotes 

science-based regulations, and encourages the adoption of innovative technologies, 

including biotechnology. 

Conclusion 

While we will continue to deal with a variety of food assistance challenges in the 

years ahead, together we will remain focused on our primary goal—to ensure that 

the food needs of the poor and the hungry are met. 

This concludes my statement. I look forward to answering any questions you may 

have. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, sir. Thank you very much. Mr. 

Kunder. 

13

STATEMENT OF JAMES R. KUNDER, ACTING DEPUTY

ADMINISTRATOR, U.S. AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL

DEVELOPMENT, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Mr. KUNDER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We very much appreciate your holding this hearing today. I think this is one of the 

most critical foreign policy issues facing our country, not only because of the human suffering that you mentioned, but because of 

the potential for instability in a number of critical countries around 

the world. What I tried to do in my testimony is talk about the nature of the current crisis we are facing. There are a lot of short 

term factors that are playing into this crisis, such as the drought 

that you mentioned in the Horn of Africa affecting Ethiopia and Somalia, increased petroleum prices, which obviously affect the utilization of fertilizer, and so forth, but essentially what I argue in my 

testimony is that we are facing a significant structural change in 

global supply and demand. 

During the 1970s and 1980s, global food production increases 

were averaging in the three to four percent rate. Those have now 

declined to one percent a year, and given the fact that we are talking about a global population increase of about 1.15 percent a year, 

and in the developing countries, more like 11⁄2 percent a year. We 

are facing a structural supply and demand situation that will require long term sustained efforts on the part of the U.S. Government and other donors around the world. 

I cite in my testimony that this is not a change without some 

mixed benefits. Obviously, there are opportunities not only for 

American farmers; there are opportunities for poor farmers in the 

developing world. Zambia, which had, historically, a grain surplus, 

is now selling its grain. That means African farmers are benefiting 

from increased sales. But overall, we have a structural imbalance 

that we are going to have to address. I summarize in my statement 

the three basic approaches that the U.S. Government is taking. 

One is emergency food aid for the vulnerable, that the Ranking 

Minority Member cited, who simply don’t have access to food. And 

not only is that a question of providing food, but certainly USAID’s 

experience in 50 years of dealing with these problems around the 

developing world, it is primarily a purchasing power problem. 

There may be food available on the markets; the very poor, the bottom billion that we talk about around the world, simply can’t afford 

it. So what we are trying to address is not only availability of food, 

but availability of credit and incomes, micro-lending programs that 

will give the poorest of the poor an opportunity to buy their own 

food. 

The second is we are looking at productivity increases where we 

think we can get an immediate bang for the buck in increased production in the developing world. To answer the part of your question, Mr. Chairman, as soon as we got that additional supplemental 

funding from the Congress, we have been identifying those countries in Africa and elsewhere where we believe an immediate infusion of additional foreign aid assistance could dramatically increase 

production of staple crops in the short term. 

And the third part of this equation is long-term trade facilitation, 

and again I would agree with what the Ranking Minority Member 

said. This is not just a question of increased trade, but it is also 

14

a question of macro-economic policy creating an environment where 

free markets will thrive around the world and we can see increased 

production. 

One last aspect that I touch on in my testimony is we have to 

make sure we have good data, and are targeting the aid that the 

American taxpayers are making available to us. USAID traditionally funds the so-called FEWS NET program, the Famine Early 

Warning System. This is a combination of satellite tracking and 

local monitoring of food prices. We have now extended the FEWS 

NET system into urban areas around the world, which face the 

greatest potential for instability in this environment. The overall 

trend, I report in my testimony, within the U.S. Government, in 

terms of investing in all of these agriculture research, agriculture 

development issues, has in fact been downward. And that trend, 

over the last 20 years, is paralleled by the European foreign aid donors and all the other major donors around the country. And I 

think your diagnosis is correct, Mr. Chairman, what has happened 

is not a lack of attention or lack of interest in this, but simply our 

desire as a government to address other critical priorities like the 

global AIDS pandemic, and so forth, have crowded out agricultural 

funding. And certainly, in our 2009 request we are increasing those 

levels and I would posit that we have to get that investment back 

up, both with our agricultural universities and in partnership with 

the U.S. private sector. 

We very much appreciate the assistance of the Congress in raising the appropriation levels that we asked for in Fiscal Year 2008 

and 2009. I would just add one additional item to that. USAID is 

in the business of trying to rebuild our staffing levels. We once had 

a premier cadre of agricultural—American agricultural—specialists 

that we could have around the world assisting local farmers. That 

staffing level has dramatically eroded over the years, so from our 

perspective, we need to build up both our dollar amounts and also 

our technical staffing. We work very closely with the United States 

Department of Agriculture to make sure that we have technical experts around the world, but we simply don’t have enough technical 

officers out there working with the exchange programs and the 

other critical interventions. 

So that summarizes my statement, Mr. Chairman. I am glad to 

answer any questions you have. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Kunder follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JAMES R. KUNDER, ACTING DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR, U.S. 

AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Thank you Chairman McIntyre and distinguished Members of the Committee. I 

appreciate the opportunity to be here today to address this important topic. 

We are in the midst of a global food crisis unlike other food crises we have faced 

in the past half century, one not caused by natural disasters, conflict or any single 

event such as drought. It is not localized—instead it is pervasive and widespread, 

affecting poor people in developing countries severely. It is one that has demonstrated how worldwide markets transmit price rises rapidly, underscoring the 

need for global solutions. 

The Members of this Committee are familiar with the new reality we face; Last 

year, the international food price index rose by 27.1%, compared with just 14.4% in 

2006. So far from April 2007 to April 2008, the index is up more than 45%, and 

the prices of some major staples have increased even more. Dwindling global stocks 

of grain make prices even more sensitive to shocks, whether from a drought in Australia or floods in our Midwest. When countries react to high prices or tight supplies 

15

by hindering trade, the global food system functions less efficiently, further exacerbating price volatility. 

While sharply higher prices have been welcome news for many farmers, for the world’s poor subsisting on $1/day or less they can mean deprivation and real hunger. The World Bank estimates that ranks of the chronically food insecure have 

grown, due to the impact of high prices, by over 100 million in the past year—to 

nearly 982 million. In addition to current estimates of 75 to 100 million people 

whose needs require immediate response, over two billion people, more than 1⁄3 of 

humanity, are being seriously affected. 

The rapidly increasing cost of food is also weakening the ability of governments 

of both poor and middle-income countries to sustain growth, protect the vulnerable, 

or even to maintain order. The fear of food riots, even in some middle-income countries, presents a new dynamic that puts pressure on sound decision-making for long 

term growth and stability. The same high prices also limit our own ability to respond to critical emergency hunger needs around the world through our food aid 

programs. 

In response to the challenge posed by rising food prices, President Bush has called 

for a three-pronged strategy to the crisis resulting from high global food prices. The 

first and most pressing component involves expanding humanitarian assistance, the 

second increasing agricultural productivity in at-risk regions, and the third, a vigorous policy effort to promote agricultural trade and investment. 

Our food assistance programs have to be more efficient and targeted than ever. 

In Fiscal Year 2007, USAID provided more than two million metric tons of P.L. 480 

Title II commodities, worth $1.87 billion, that reached an estimated 41 million beneficiaries in 56 countries around the world. In Sudan alone, more than 350,000 metric tons of food commodities, valued at $356 million, were provided to an estimated 

6.4 million beneficiaries. 

These amounts include approximately $1 billion annually to the U.N. World Food 

Programme (WFP), or approximately 40 percent of all contributions to the organization. We also contribute significant international food aid through private voluntary 

organizations (PVOs), and are committed to working with other donors, from both 

the commercial and nonprofit sectors. 

To assist in meeting these immediate needs, the United States has taken various 

steps: 

On April 14, President George W. Bush directed the Secretary of Agriculture to 

draw down on the Bill Emerson Humanitarian Trust to meet emergency food aid 

needs. The Emerson Trust is a food reserve of up to four million metric tons of 

wheat, corn, sorghum, and rice administered under the authority of the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture. The Secretary of Agriculture may authorize the release of 

commodities from the reserve to meet unanticipated emergency needs that cannot 

otherwise be met under Title II of P.L. 480. This release was estimated to provide 

$200 million in emergency food aid through USAID. This additional food aid is being 

provided for emergency needs in Afghanistan, Ethiopia, Kenya and Zimbabwe. 

In addition, President Bush on May 1 requested $770 million in additional allocations, including $395 million intended to preserve price parity in existing food aid 

programs. These funds will allow USAID’s emergency food aid program partners to 

meet their ongoing humanitarian obligations. 

We thank Congress for passing the emergency supplemental spending last month, 

with $850 million in P.L. 480 resources for Fiscal Year 2008. Working closely with 

USDA, within days of the President’s signature of the emergency supplemental, 

USAID initiated expedited commodity procurement procedures to ensure rapid arrival of lifesaving assistance. 

Food for Peace has already provided significant assistance to the drought emergency affecting the Horn of Africa, particularly Ethiopia and Somalia. In Fiscal Year 

2008 to date, more than 780,000 metric tons of Title II food aid, valued at nearly 

$650 million, has been provided to assist the region. With the new funding made 

available through the supplemental appropriation, much more food will soon be in 

the pipeline. 

In summary, USAID’s Food for Peace funding committed to address food insecurity and price increases totaled $1.87 billion in Fiscal Year 2007, with more than 

$1.53 billion to date in Fiscal Year 2008. Additionally, the emergency supplemental 

appropriation makes available in Fiscal Year 2009 $395 million for additional emergency food assistance. 

To aid in addressing the new challenges we face, I’d like to share with you two 

new tools that will assist us in identifying populations impacted by rising food 

prices. The urban poor are particularly vulnerable to price increases because such 

a large portion of their income goes to purchasing food. These new early warning 

tools, developed by USAID’s Famine Early Warning Systems Network (FEWS NET), 

16

will allow us to monitor more closely emerging food security threats in urban settings. 

The first tool is an urban food market price watch, which tracks price changes 

for staple foods in 20 countries. This price information will provide advance warning 

to better target our food aid resources to the most vulnerable. The second tool, 

which emerged from a workshop with private voluntary organizations and World 

Food Programme experts, is an urban food aid programming manual that will allow 

us to better target and deliver food aid to those most impacted by rising food prices. 

As I have stressed, food and emergency assistance are short-term measures; they 

are critical tools but food aid alone will not solve the food crisis. Our approach links 

those emergency tools to growth in agricultural production, access to markets and 

advancement of global policy solutions that foster trade and investment in agriculture. 

In its invitation, the Committee also asked for information about our agricultural 

development efforts—essentially the second thrust of our three-part effort in humanitarian assistance, growth in agricultural productivity, and sound global policies. 

Agricultural productivity in developing countries grew at between three and four 

percent per year during the 1970s and 1980s. These gains fueled broad economic 

growth and marked reductions in hunger and poverty; food became both more available and more affordable for literally billions of the world’s people. Now, annual agricultural productivity growth rates in the developing world are less than 1%—a 

rate that will not keep up with rising demands from ever-larger populations. 

A coordinated global effort will be required to reverse the downward trend in productivity growth, and engagement by the United States as a leader will be essential. 

We have the world’s largest and most diversified agricultural research capability, 

in our partnerships with USDA, the land-grant universities and in the private sector. Our seed, fertilizer and food industries represent tremendous resources in 

strengthening markets, reducing losses and generating economic gains through 

value addition. 

Many of the threats faced by agriculture are global—for example the new stem 

rust disease of wheat spreading in Africa and Asia that Norman Borlaug has 

warned of. By working with the International Agricultural Research Centers and 

partners in Africa and India and here at home, USAID and USDA have combined 

forces to reduce the impact of an epidemic overseas and at the same time help protect American farmers and consumers from this devastating disease which could potentially cause billions of dollars in losses. Sources of resistance have been identified 

through research partnerships and resistant varieties are being developed and multiplied. 

Similarly, our work to stop the spread of Avian Influenza is helping to protect 

both the health and livelihoods of millions of people in Africa and Asia. Valuable 

information is gained and lessons are learned that we can apply in similarly protecting our own nation’s health as well as its poultry industry and wildlife. 

Agricultural growth and resilience not only lead to reduced needs for food aid and 

emergency assistance, they open up new markets opportunities for American farmers and business to reach new markets. Traditionally, as developing countries invest 

more in crops, livestock and irrigation, demand for feed grains, other commodities 

and technology increases. 

USAID has a proven track-record of promoting agricultural growth in many countries—we are seeing remarkably positive trends in countries that invest in technology and infrastructure, and build markets and trade that helps farms access the 

inputs they need and market the output they produce. Through the President’s Initiative to End Hunger in Africa (IEHA), we have focused squarely on productivity, 

markets and trade—in other words, growth, but growth with special attention to the 

most vulnerable. This vision has now been widely acknowledged as the only sustainable means of reducing hunger. 

Unfortunately, in recent years funding for agricultural development investments 

have declined as we face budgetary constraints. Let me stress that there has not 

been opposition to agricultural investment by USAID. In fact, current and past leadership of USAID have called for the need to do more in this vital sector. And within 

our budgetary constraints, we have done what we can. However, support to some 

of our most effective and strategic investments—for example in agricultural biotechnology and the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research centers—had to be reduced. 

Now that a renewed understanding of agriculture’s vital importance to combating 

hunger, poverty and even civil unrest has emerged, the outlook for agricultural investment for FY 2009 has improved. USAID is gearing up to provide renewed leadership to the global development community. The emergency supplemental just 

17

passed by the Congress will provide an additional $200 million in FY 2009 development assistance to help us begin to mount an effective response to the crisis. Of that 

amount, $50 million will support regional market development and local procurement of major food crops, $130 million will target production increases and markets 

in countries that have the potential to mount a rapid production response, and $20 

million will support science and technology aimed at increasing productivity of food 

staples. 

Our strategy focuses on increasing the availability and affordability of food staples 

on which low-income people depend in the most at-risk regions. We will do this by 

helping the agricultural sector in those countries modernize, providing new opportunities for millions of farm families, especially smallholders, to respond to the market. We can achieve this vision by building a coalition that aligns the resources of 

the U.S. Government with the commitment of the target countries themselves, other 

donors and the private sector—both for-profit and nonprofit. 

Our investments will focus on restoring the growth in agricultural productivity in 

the developing world, especially of key staple foods, to levels that can meet rising 

demands. We will work to achieve rapid growth in agricultural trade—making markets more efficient for both low-income consumers and producers. The gains we 

make will actually reduce the need for emergency food assistance, as communities 

and nations make gains in ensuring their own food security. As we work toward 

these vital objectives, we will continue to meet the needs of those most vulnerable 

through both food assistance and emergency resources, all the while helping them 

to rebuild their livelihoods and resilience. 

The Development Leadership Initiative recently endorsed by the Congress will 

help us build the institutional capacity necessary to lead in the global development 

community. Our partnership with the U.S. University community through Collaborative Research Support Programs (CRSPs), Higher Education for Development and 

other partnerships remains strong, and are helping to build a new generation of scientists and decision-makers from our partner countries ready to apply technology, 

policy and marketing know-how to solving the problems facing developing countries. 

We are aligning our humanitarian and development assistance efforts in new 

ways. We are coordinating our efforts to address the near-term humanitarian crisis 

with the design of new programs that will build the foundation—information, technology, institutions, policies, safety nets—for the modernization of agriculture, 

transforming more small producers into commercial enterprises. To be successful we 

must focus our effort in agriculture while scaling them up to the level of the challenge. 

Following are the key elements of our vision: 

First, we must halt the slide into hunger and absolute poverty. Maintaining 

our global commitment to emergency food and nutrition assistance, and expanding 

local purchase and IDA funding to quickly reinforce productive safety nets (e.g. cash 

or food for work) and livelihoods, we will stabilize the situation, beginning this year 

in East and West Africa, and expanding to encompass other at-risk countries. 

Second, we must expand development and use of modern technology for 

staple foods. We know that we can double yields of staple foods by ensuring that 

small-holder producers access the tools of modern agriculture—improved seeds, fertilizer, irrigation, dairy management. This is an area for U.S. leadership. Through 

our universities and industry, we are global leaders in the area of science and technology. U.S. farmers are in the forefront of adoption of modern technologies and 

practices. We see this very clearly in the area of biotech crops, for example. We 

must dramatically expand the use of existing technology and practices by small 

farmers, while also investing in longer-term challenges to agricultural productivity—climate change, the high price of fertilizer linked to high fuel prices, natural 

resource degradation, competition for water resources, and emerging diseases such 

as avian influenza or wheat stem rust. 

To do this, we are expanding funding for research and development, harnessing 

traditional breeding, biotechnology, geospatial technology to guide resources management, as well as consider the role of advances in nanotechnology and energy efficiency. We will expand our partnerships with the biotechnology industry and the 

seed sector, U.S. universities, the Consultative Group on International Agricultural 

Research, and national research systems to leverage advance scientific research 

while training a new generation of agricultural researchers. 

Third, we must empower the private sector to deliver inputs and information. More than ever before, agribusiness will take the lead in getting up-to-date 

production and marketing information to smallholder farmers. We must support 

small and medium enterprises as the key means of delivering seeds and fertilizer 

to rural communities. That will mean expanding support for business services, 

strengthening linkages between public research and commercialization of techVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:33 Jul 24, 2009 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 I:\DOCS\110-41\51037.TXT AGR1 PsN: BRIAN
18

nology, access to credit, and policy reform to reduce the barriers to private sector 

investment. 

Fourth, we need to expand market access and efficiency. We will connect 

small-holder producers to the market by expanding rural roads and information 

technology to provide access to market and price information. To stimulate marketled growth, we will strengthen the ability of producers to meet market standards—

the quality, product diversity, and safety standards that will generate opportunity 

for commercial growth. Export restrictions, taxes and other hindrances to market 

signals and producer responsiveness will be reduced or eliminated. We will work to 

foster science-based regulatory policies that will foster trade, particularly in food 

staples, as well as investment by both the public and private sectors. 

Fifth, we must work with the partner countries and the private sector to expand 

access to financing. We must expand and strengthen mechanisms to stimulate 

private investment in agriculture—from small producers to the value chain industries that take the product to the market. We must go beyond producers, however, 

and develop new mechanisms to fund the larger agribusiness engaged in the value 

chain—commodity importers, millers, processors, and distributors. Developing country policies must foster renewed confidence on the part of the financial sector that 

farming and other agro-enterprises are emerging as principal drivers of economic 

growth. 

Sixth, the United States must lead a global effort to promote policies that support growth. This is, in effect, the third, longer term dimension of the President’s 

response to the food crisis. As we engage our own government as well as other donors and the target countries themselves, we will support further analysis and discussion on policy dimensions and especially the successful conclusion of the Doha 

agreement. 

Seventh, we must reduce risks to food security for the poor. We will align 

our humanitarian efforts with this growth strategy to maximize the synergies between meeting basic needs and enhancing productivity investments. This means 

linking our agricultural investments to humanitarian interventions (e.g. diversifying 

diets, delivering nutritional outreach alongside agricultural extension and health 

services) making sure that as we deliver humanitarian aid, we protect household 

productive assets and move families, communities, and the agricultural sector towards a growth strategy. We will also ensure that our productivity, market and finance activities build resilience for small producers. We are engaging the PVO and 

NGO community more comprehensively in ways that align with this growth strategy. 

And finally, eighth, we need to develop a new coalition based on commitment to a common agenda. The United States is a crucial part of a global response to a global problem. To be effective, we must work as a partner and engage 

leaders at the highest levels in the target countries, regional economic organizations, the international development community (UN, World Bank, regional banks, 

private foundations) and the private sector (agrifood, seed, fertilizer industry, and 

finance institutions). 

In sum, our vision calls for an unprecedented humanitarian and development assistance effort by the United States, distinguished by:

➢ Significant attention to staple foods;

➢ Action at scale with the problem;

➢ Real integration of targeted safety nets with wealth creation;

➢ Building the capacity in the target countries to carry the growth process beyond our assistance;

➢ Partnership with the target countries to ensure the commitment to policy and 

good governance needed to reach success. Our partner countries must demonstrate political will to invest and set a positive policy environment;

➢ Clear targets and metrics to gauge progress towards longer term goals;

➢ A ‘‘whole of government’’ approach, uniting the resources of multiple agencies;

➢ A coordinated effort with other donors; and

➢ A major role for the private sector in implementing this agenda.

We know we can increase food security in the world’s poorest countries—in both 

its supply and demand dimensions—through strategic investments in agricultural 

development, markets and trade. The task of reducing hunger is huge, but the 

moral imperative is compelling. And in the long run, the cost of action will be less 

than the cost of inaction. 

The FY 2009 bridge funding just approved by the Congress is an important step 

in the right direction. I urge the Members of this Committee to help make United 

19

States’ leadership in combating global hunger all that it should be. No one is better 

positioned to lead—in food assistance, in science and technology, and in fostering 

markets and trade. 

We are confident that, with U.S. leadership and investment, we can stem and reverse the supply-demand imbalance that exists today in food staples. Some of it will 

occur here at home, but some of it must occur in countries where poor, food insecure 

populations generally make their living in agriculture. We know how to do it—we 

know what works and what does not; we know that we must rely much more on 

the private sector and on broad alliances than was the case in the first Green Revolution. We have new tools, and we need to use them: markets, trade and science 

will transform our approach. 

Political leadership can help solve this crisis. Over the past months we have seen 

major commitments from the President and the Congress, and from leaders around 

the world. Ban Ki-moon, Bob Zoellick and Josette Sheeran have put the full force 

of their respective organizations behind this effort. But U.S. leadership remains 

vital to success and to the pursuit of a sustainable growth agenda for agriculture. 

Failure is not an option. Though I have concentrated on the problem and its solution, we must never lose sight of the terrible human cost of hunger. Even short term 

hunger can unalterably affect a child by exposing him or her to disease, threatening 

normal cognitive development and lifelong productivity, or, tragically, even early 

death. Yet the problem posed by high food prices is one we know how to solve—

and in doing so we can also recommit to ending the scourge of chronic hunger once 

and for all. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Excellent job. We appreciate that. 

Let me go ahead and ask you, since you were summarizing some 

of your points. You have the eight elements that you identify as 

part of the vision of USAID to address the food crisis. Many of 

these currently appear, in some form or fashion, in an existing development where, I noticed that you mentioned that it looked like, 

primarily, the concern was money and staffing. Are there other elements that can or should be enhanced in these eight items under 

the vision you have? 

Mr. KUNDER. Beyond the funding level, sir? 

The CHAIRMAN. Right. 

Mr. KUNDER. Yes, certainly the staffing levels. We had a U.S. 

foreign aid program, at one point during the Vietnam War, we had 

12,000 Americans we were sending around the world to assist with 

health programs, education programs, agricultural extension. I 

think it is common knowledge that when the Cold War ended, we 

made a number of decisions, as a government, the Administration 

and Congress, to eliminate tools of foreign policy like the U.S. Information Agency. We made a decision that we really didn’t need 

to engage in the global struggle for hearts and minds. In my view, 

sir, that was a mistake. The U.S. Agency for International Development went from 12,000 American officers, we are down to now 

about 1,200 officers. And I don’t want to paint all gloom and doom. 

We worked very closely with the U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

with the Army Corps of Engineers, with other parts of the U.S. 

Government, but we have eroded the staffing to what I believe is 

a harmful level, in terms of America’s ability to respond to these 

kind of crises when they arise. The second thing is we need to rebuild as many of our partnerships with the land-grant universities. 

As the staffing has gone down within USAID, we once had a much 

more robust partnership with the land-grant universities. They are 

an enormous benefit and tool that America has to contribute to 

these kinds of crises, and one of the things that Administrator Fore 

has committed to is rebuilding that partnership with the landgrant universities. 

20

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, sir. And, Mr. Yost, can you tell us 

has there been any particular analysis done on the Food for 

Progress program to point out areas where the program has, particularly, achieved success that we can build on or, particularly, 

and conversely had a problem that we need to make sure is not repeated or that is removed. 

Mr. YOST. We have a number of success stories with the Food for 

Progress program. Kenya comes to mind where we have done something with Land O’Lakes where we have developed a founder market system, including coaching for dairy—for the dairy industry, 

budding dairy industry in that country. As we look to the future, 

it is incumbent upon us to leverage our resources, perhaps, more 

than we have in the past. To put these programs that we administrate at USDA in more of a holistic approach to development, and 

we are trying to accomplish that, trying to blend the Food for 

Progress program along with the Cochran program, the Borlaug 

Program, our trade investment missions, so that we can build an 

infrastructure in these countries that can participate in world 

trade, bring their agricultural economies into the 21st century. And 

also, we are exploring some partnerships in some private sector 

trade associations and companies. 

The CHAIRMAN. Can you give us an example of some of those private sector ones? 

Mr. YOST. I would go back to the trade investment missions that 

we have hosted. We have hosted them in different parts of the 

world, we have a couple more that we are proposing to take place 

this year, where we take U.S. companies, small, medium and large 

to different countries. We have been to Kenya, we have been to 

Ghana, we have been to Kazakhstan, and they interact with their 

peers over there and they talk about opportunities, what needs to 

be done to create opportunities, what the government needs to do, 

what the private sector needs to do, and I think these are very beneficial. With today’s technology, with wireless communication, with 

the group of young entrepreneurs coming up around the world, I 

think this can create the foundation for something quite dynamic 

as we move to the future. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, sir. Mrs. Musgrave. 

Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Kunder, you 

and Mr. Yost, both, have talked about the three-pronged approach 

to combating the world food crisis and agricultural development 

seems to be the very centerpiece of that. I just would like to ask 

you why USAID previously diverted funding from the most effective and strategic investments, such as research that was mentioned in your statement, and where did you send this money? 

Mr. KUNDER. Yes, ma’am. I probably would quibble with the 

term ‘‘diverted’’ because we have a Federal budgetary process and 

along the way we make a number of competing decisions. Our staff 

work in the developing world, and are passionately committed to 

food issues; and perhaps we have requested levels that perhaps 

weren’t approved. But I particularly mention the term ‘‘crowding 

out.’’ I honestly believe that what we have had happen in the 150 

account, the foreign assistance and foreign diplomacy account has 

had a cap established by the budget process. As we have made decisions to take on issues like PEPFAR and malaria and illiteracy 

21

and reconstruction in Afghanistan, the amount of money left over 

for some of the core things that we have traditionally done in foreign aid, jobs creation, creating private enterprise system, the kind 

of things you were talking about land titling, and certainly agriculture simply got crowded out within that 150 account. And I am 

not making excuses. We could have fought harder. Maybe we could 

have fought smarter, but that is the effect of what happened is we 

bumped up against those ceilings and I have enormous respect for 

the Congress. I am not here complaining, but our budget is currently earmarked. The U.S. Foreign Aid Budget is currently earmarked at about 104 percent. That is to say that we have enormous guidance from the Congress, in terms of how much we have 

to spend on malaria, how much we have to spend on child survival, 

and these are all worthy causes. But, what I find that is the core 

economic and agricultural functions which have the least passionate constituency and which end up at the end of the line, and 

that is the honest truth, ma’am. 

Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Well, I certainly agree with the last part of your 

statement that you just made, the passion for each of these causes. 

Tell me about the role of private volunteer organizations and do 

they get to make many decisions about where programs should be 

and how it should be operated? 

Mr. KUNDER. We rely enormously at USAID on the private sector, both not for-profit and for-profit. In terms of the NGOs, the 

way USAID operates around the world, the American non-governmental organizations and local NGOs are among our primary partners. They are actually out there on the front lines, working with 

the villagers, disseminating new seeds, disseminating new techniques, working with marketing systems. On the private sector 

side, the for-profit side, I have to say that this is one of the most 

productive areas for future work. We launched a couple of years 

ago what we call the Global Development Alliance, an explicit attempt to partner with for-profit private sector American firms. I got 

our team to print out, before I came up here today, a list of our 

current agricultural partnerships, and it is quite dramatic. We are 

partnering with Shell Oil in Nigeria to improve cassava production. 

We are partnering with American business in Angola to increase 

food production there. This is an exciting area where we can devote 

more of America’s desire to invest in these poor countries and to 

the cause of human progress. So, in short, both the NGOs and the 

American for-profit, private sector are critically important partners 

to us. 

Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Very quickly, when we think about wise use of 

these taxpayers’ dollars, what do you do to avoid duplication? That 

is probably one of our biggest concerns. 

Mr. KUNDER. Yes, ma’am, it is a very fair question and I would 

not claim perfection, but what our Food for Peace office does and 

our agricultural office, they do a country by country analysis and 

they try to look at what the country is investing, what other donors 

are investing, the World Bank, the British, the Japanese, what the 

NGOs are able to raise on their own. They do a country by country 

analysis to make sure that we are filling in the critical gaps and 

trying not to duplicate what others are doing. 

22

Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Yes, ma’am, thank you. Mr. Pomeroy. 

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, and Ranking Member Musgrave, 

I want to commend each of you for your thoughtful opening statements and also for leadership of the Subcommittee in this way. You 

know, it disturbed me greatly, that as we were building the new 

farm bill, we found ourselves frequently at policy odds with the 

global hunger community, or at least the U.S. representatives of 

international food aid. We even heard suggestions, not new—that 

have made—been around for a few years, that the structure of the 

farm bill as constructed in this Committee has actually been a contributing factor to global hunger. That somehow U.S. agriculture 

was a contributing factor to the misery people are experiencing 

around the world and can’t get enough to eat. I have just flat out 

rejected the premise of those advocates. I mean, the U.S. farmer 

has been extremely proud of the role they have played in providing 

food for the world. U.S. ag infrastructure has been very proud of 

the role they have played in the technological innovations that 

have greened the world. And so far from being a—viewing ourselves as somehow making the situation worse, we have always 

viewed ourselves as being a substantial contributing factor to the 

fight against global hunger. 

Now, if we have some things wrong, we need to have a very robust dialogue about straightening out this difference. I view this 

hearing, and I hope other hearings to follow, as a formal way by 

which this Subcommittee really grabs this issue. I think it is a big 

one and one that in the end will potentially threaten our ability to 

pass another farm bill, if we don’t get these points of difference 

straight. So it is in our near term self interest, but far beyond that. 

It is also consistent with the best instincts of this Committee, historically, we want to do our part to making sure people across the 

world have enough to eat, and so I—you know, this isn’t, maybe, 

kind of run of the mill Agriculture Committee stuff that we are 

doing. Some might think, well this is—almost feels like the Foreign 

Affairs Committee. It is right in the heart of what we ought to be 

doing and I really commend the leadership of each of you in getting 

into this area. To our panel, I would say, if I close my eyes Mr. 

Kunder and Mr. Yost, I think, gosh, I don’t—this is USAID or the 

Secretary of Defense at the table. I am going to quote the Secretary 

of Defense. I think what he has done is extraordinary and spot on. 

Today’s Washington Post, Secretary Gates, ‘‘we cannot kill or capture our way to victory,’’ he says, ‘‘in the long term campaign 

against terrorism.’’ Now, the military action should be subordinate 

to political and economic efforts to undermine extremism. ‘‘American’s civilian institutions of diplomacy and development have been 

chronically undermanned and under-funded for far too long, relative to what we traditionally spend on military, and more importantly, relative to the responsibilities and challenges our nation has 

around the world.’’ How about that from the Secretary of Defense? 

I really think that the painful errors that have been made in military and foreign policy ought to shock us back into rebuilding the 

capacity, much in the ways that each of you have spoken of, so we 

have many things to talk about and not a lot of time. 

23

Let me start with the little issues to make sure I get to cover 

it all in with the bigger issue. Land-grant—I was in Mali, what is 

it 2 years ago, and I was just appalled. It said 17 percent of the 

population has proximate access to potable water. I came back here 

to North Dakota State University with 3,000 engineering students 

and just magnificent engineering capacity. Nothing would be better 

for the—some of those engineering students to be parlayed into 

meaningful assistance in a partnership way as part of their learning experience. Maybe some of them would find careers in international development, but if nothing else, it would still be an extraordinary experience as part of an undergraduate curriculum. 

Yes, absolutely consistent with hard core engineering training, I 

mean, are these the kinds of things, Mr. Kunder, that you believe 

we could build upon? 

Mr. KUNDER. Yes, sir, we do have a cooperative research support 

program with the land-grant universities. We have been in discussions, Administrator Fore has directed us to talk with the National 

Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges here in 

town, which happens to be headed by our former USAID Administrator, Dr. Peter McPherson, formerly of Michigan State, and that 

is exactly the kind of thing we want to explore. There is an enormous capacity within our land-grant system to contribute to the 

problems we have been discussing here today, but, again, as the 

funding has gone down, as the number of ag officers that we have 

had to talk to our colleagues in the land-grant universities has 

eroded for all the reasons I think you, rightly, summarized earlier, 

this discussion has waned. 

Mr. POMEROY. I had spoken, at some length, to the President of 

North Dakota State University about this and if there was a, specifically, an idea you have about how we might engage, in North 

Dakota, in this way please let me know. 

Mr. KUNDER. Thank you. 

Mr. POMEROY. I would like to do a little matchmaking there. We 

are ready to go. 

Mr. KUNDER. Thank you, sir. If I could just add one thing, sir. 

You mentioned this perception that somehow American agriculture 

is contributing to some of these problems, I know there is a huge 

policy debate out there, but the Congress, in its wisdom, has given 

us the Bellmon Amendment and we are required to do, by law, a 

Bellmon Analysis of making sure that whatever agricultural bounty we deliver from the American farmer does not, in fact, disrupt 

local markets. Now I am not going to claim 100 percent perfection. 

We sometimes make mistakes, it is a tough business, but this is 

a standard part of our doing business. Before we deliver any U.S. 

food aid assistance, we do a serious analysis to ensure that it does 

not disrupt local farmers markets. 

Mr. POMEROY. I just have one. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr.——

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I have one more question. I know 

I am over time, but——

The CHAIRMAN. We will come back to you because what we have 

is——

Mr. POMEROY. Fine, another panelist. 

24

The CHAIRMAN. Yes, if we have enough time, we can come back, 

I believe. Mr. Fortenberry. 

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member for holding this hearing and thank you, gentlemen, for coming 

before us. I think at the outset it is important to point out that the 

United States leads the world in terms of generosity and outreach, 

both in terms of agricultural and humanitarian assistance. I think 

that is important to point out because it is important to examine 

how effective our programs are, but also the underlying premise 

there is, in spite of the needs that exist in the world and the fact 

that people are continuing to turn to us to lead in this regard, this 

is very good because it points to two things. One, our capacity to 

help other peoples and two the generosity of the American people 

and willingness to do that, and with that said, and I appreciate Mr. 

Pomeroy’s pointing out some of the creative and interesting thinking that is going on, in terms of issues of international security. 

How they are interrelated with: building capacity for people in 

need, not only in civil structures, but in market structures so that 

we can prevent boom and bust cycles; the need for immediate humanitarian assistance in grave circumstances so that these problems are mitigated and stability comes to people throughout the 

world, not only in terms of food production, but also in terms of 

building a variety of civil capacity so that people can, truly, have 

lives filled with opportunity and hope and build just and good societies. I mean, that is going to continue to be an evolving part of 

our entire foreign policy and defense policy considerations in Congress. With that said, you have both of those jobs, to meet the immediacy of need in terms of humanitarian crises that exist in the 

world, but also to try to prevent those crises by building the capacity for people to stabilize institutions of—whether that leads to agricultural production or other institutions such as markets that can 

allow for the free flow of goods and help people. In that regard, and 

the second point in regards to capacity building, I would like you 

to point to some best practices that have evolved and are working 

extraordinarily well that have prevented boom and bust cycles in 

terms of food production throughout the world. These have led to, 

again, an increase in capacity and stability for people who are in 

the most dire and difficult circumstances. 

Mr. YOST. Congressman Fortenberry, as far as trade capacity 

building you were referring to? 

Mr. FORTENBERRY. No. I am referring to building sustainablility 

in country infrastructure that will lead to, again, stabilized food 

production. Basically, since that is the primary focus of our hearing 

today, and other capacities that will, again, prevent or help build 

long term capacity to prevent the types of humanitarian difficulties 

that seem to arise in various places in the world and then necessitate emergency responses. 

Mr. YOST. Well, it is a tall order, as you are well aware and other 

Members of the Committee have commented on. We have a number 

of things that we are trying to do and with varying amounts of success, as we try to establish sustainability, particularly in tenuous 

parts of the world. We have worked with countries on developing 

some good governmental practices. You have to have policies in 

place that reward production. You don’t have economic policies in 

25

place that provide a disincentive to produce, you don’t control food 

prices at an artificially low level, as far as what you pay to producers. You also have to have in place financing—especially small 

ordered land holders, need financing desperately. That is one of the 

common threads we see throughout the world. We are working on 

different programs, trying to bring that—raise that issue to a higher level. 

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Such as micro-finance. 

Mr. YOST. Micro-financing, exactly. Then it gets into the acceptance of new technology. There is a resistance to biotechnology in 

developing countries that is unfounded. It is one of the reasons we 

are so productive in this country. We need to accentuate the positive of biotechnology. It is not the only new technology that we 

need to accentuate, but that clearly is one of the critical ones. People have to realize that if there are millions of farmers around the 

world, 12 million farmers, now using biotechnology, then it is good 

for all sizes of farmers. Things like: drip irrigation, water is getting 

to be a more and more precious resource; livestock genetics, we can 

quickly improve productivity by enhancing livestock genetics; food 

safety issues, post harvest handling, how to control losses. Many 

countries have up to 40 percent losses of post harvest handling to 

insects, rodents, because they don’t have proper storage, don’t have 

cold chains. These are all things that we are trying to work on, we 

are trying to elevate as necessities for sustainabilities. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, very much, Mr. Fortenberry. We 

would like to welcome the gentleman from Kansas, Mr. Moran. Although he is not a Member of the Subcommittee, he is a Member 

of the full Committee and we are always happy to have his presence with us. I have consulted with the Ranking Member, we are 

pleased to welcome you to join us in the questioning of the witnesses. It is my understanding, you were waiting until the second 

panel for questions, is that correct? 

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank you for your and Mrs. 

Musgrave’s courtesy in allowing me to join the panel here today, 

and the opportunity to listen to the testimony and hear the witnesses. I am one of the House co-chair hunger—I am one of the CoChairman of the House Hunger Caucus and this is an issue of significant importance to all of us and I am delighted that you are 

having this hearing. I thank you again for your allowing me to participate today. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Moran. Mr. Salazar, I understand you do not have a question at this time, but we welcome you 

with us. I will open the entire panel for anyone who may have a 

second question, and Mr. Pomeroy I believe you did, so I will be 

happy to call on you first. 

Mr. POMEROY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is probably an issue 

that, maybe, Mr. Moran will want to jump in on, as well. We discussed in the course of the farm bill construction, the structure of 

food aid response and we advanced the proposition and maybe we 

ought to wall off some of this aid to make sure that it goes into 

capacity building. Then, inevitably, there is an emergency, inevitably there is a complete spend out in the emergency response, so 

we are always fighting the fire and we never get around to fire prevention. In the end, that fell out of the bill and in light of the globVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:33 Jul 24, 2009 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 I:\DOCS\110-41\51037.TXT AGR1 PsN: BRIAN
26

al food crisis, that wouldn’t have probably had to, but Mr. Yost can 

you speak to this issue of—or either one of you, the issue of trying 

to build capacity, while on the other hand continually losing the resources because we have to deal with the emergency and not ever 

making much structural progress. Mr. Moran, have I captured your 

thoughts on that? Okay. 

Mr. KUNDER. Sir, this was, as you know, a very hard-fought policy issue. We took the position that while we understand the basic 

principle that unless we invest in long term agricultural development in these poor countries, we are never going to get ahead of 

this thing, and we know we need to do that. But our argument was 

that the worst possible thing you could do would be to put rigid 

quantitative numbers into that bill. I am one of those people who 

have to, ultimately, sign the documents and make the decision to 

cut off emergency food to some place where people are starving because we would bump up against a ceiling and it has got to go into 

agricultural research. Now, obviously, the right answer in a resource unconstrained environment is we need both and that is why 

we are arguing for more money for long term agricultural research. 

That is why we appreciate the generosity of the Congress in giving 

us more money for that, but that is really the issue, is how to carve 

out enough money from the overall Federal budget to invest in long 

term agricultural research. But in the short term we would vigorously—respectfully, but vigorously—resist the notion of trying to 

figure this out ahead of time and allow us to make some of these 

very difficult decisions late in the fiscal year when people are starving somewhere. 

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Yost, are you seeing an evolution of receptivity to biotech foods in Africa? It was our take, a couple years 

ago, it seemed to be heavily influenced by European thinking on 

this. Basically, it was stifling some of the innovation that could be 

created to respond to unique circumstances of the extraordinarily 

difficult production circumstances in Africa. We could give them varieties that are going to do better down there, but the innovations 

used in developing those varieties was constrained, the ultimate result was food shortages. 

Mr. YOST. Congressman Pomeroy, you are exactly right. The Europeans do have a significant amount of influence over Africa when 

it comes to biotechnology. I think gradually, maybe more than 

gradually, now, with the food security, the food price issue being 

at the forefront in everyone’s mind, that people are starting to look 

at this technology in a different view. There is no question about 

it, it started in Asia, quietly the Koreans and Japanese have let 

products of biotechnology enter the food supply now. They haven’t 

shown the resistance they have in the past. And visiting with 

groups that work in Africa, visiting with representatives from African countries, I see more interest than in the past. The key will 

be to develop crops that are grown in Africa, that are grown for domestic needs, not for exports that have bio-traits, particularly 

drought resistance traits, some other pest resistant traits. If we can 

get those developed, in place, on the ground, I think a critical mass 

will be there to see its acceptance. 

Mr. POMEROY. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

27

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you Mr. Pomeroy. Anyone else have a second question? Yes, sir, Mr. Fortenberry. 

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Mr. Kunder, I would like to allow you a 

chance to respond to the question that I asked, as well. In terms 

of looking at that second critical component of your work, emergency assistance. But, also, the balance that you are trying to 

achieve in terms of building sustainable capacity in the most difficult areas of the world so that we can prevent the emergencies 

that so often happen, and basically occupy, obviously, most of your 

effort. Best practices, in that regard, that you think have actually 

helped mitigate what could have been substantial crises that we 

can learn from and potentially duplicate. 

Mr. KUNDER. Thank you, sir. I would agree with Mike that the 

range is pretty broad. The way we design our U.S. foreign aid program, we don’t sit here in Washington, as the military likes to say, 

and apply the 6,000 mile screwdriver. We send an American team 

to a place like Malawi or Sri Lanka and then those folks tell us 

what is most needed. Is it improvement of the agricultural exchange service in that country, is it improved seed varieties, is it 

a strengthened agriculture training university? And then we try to 

build the program from the bottom up. But to answer your question 

directly, the two things that I think are unqualified successes 

around the world have to do with linking information technology 

with the effort to increase production. Number one, in places that 

don’t have much infrastructure, where it is very hard to get farmers together because they don’t have cars, pickup trucks, to disseminate new information about cropping techniques. Distance 

learning, we really perfected the technique of having an agricultural expert in the capital city and then having farmers gather 

around a radio somewhere and create an interactive extension 

service that is low cost, but effective, and then, increasingly try to 

disseminate to farmers the ability to tap into the Internet on market prices. One of the great impediments to these farmers is they 

are smart people and they know markets, but they simply don’t 

have market data, and through simple dissemination of radios or 

other systems, we are able to allow them to tap into market data 

just like an American farmer and they will make the right decisions based on that. Those are the ones I would cite as real cost 

effective investments on the part of the American taxpayer. 

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, sir. Mr. Moran, did you want to ask 

a question yet? 

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, thank you, and I appreciate the gentleman from North Dakota and his line of inquiry. We struggled in 

a way that you, Mr. Kunder, indicated that you would expect people to struggle and try to figure out what the right answer is. Each 

of us recognizing the importance of—emergency aid doesn’t ever 

eliminate the need for emergency aid, and so there is a great desire, on our part, to make certain that developmental aid occurs. 

I think our balance—I don’t know who won this battle, but I hope 

that the people who are hungry were the ultimate winners. As you 

probably know, the outcome of the farm bill debate, the provisions 

in that bill are for a $450 billion box, in which you cannot tap that 

for emergency aid without first utilizing the Emerson Trust, and 

28

you can’t use that money for foreseen—for difficulties, disasters 

that are known to occur. They have to be unexpected, and you do 

have to notify Congress, although we no longer—we did not leave 

in that bill the provision that we have allow you the opportunity. 

So I hope we found that right mix, because the consequences of 

those decisions are about life and death for people around the 

world. 

I just wanted to ask a broader question about the Department 

of Agriculture’s viewpoint on the opportunities that agricultural research has to alleviate hunger by producing greater yields and 

larger quantities of crops. Is there evidence that we are on the 

verge of scientific research breakthroughs that will dramatically increase the ability to feed the world? 

Mr. YOST. Congressman Moran, you are a little bit out of my 

area of expertise. I think that there are a lot of things I am told 

on the horizon, both in the public and private sector that can dramatically increase yields. There is no question about it, I touched 

on biotechnology, I touched on drip irrigation, there are a number 

of things, minimum tillage. There are a lot of things that can be 

done. Now with the economic incentive there, I think we are going 

to see a more amplified response in both the public and private sector. Agriculture has been in the back water, really, when you talk 

about the economy and the world concerns for a period of time. Mr. 

Kunder has talked about the diminishing roles played in their programs. Clearly in our economy, now, with it on the front page every 

other day of every major newspaper, I see a big change both in government and in the private sector on where resources are going to 

go, and where initiatives are going to begin. We have taken a renewed interest in pulling together the various agencies within the 

Department on this food security strategy. Our agency is trying to 

play point on that. We think we have an awful lot to offer and we 

are working with USAID and others inter-governmentally on this. 

It takes awhile to get it together, but to answer your question, yes 

I think that there are several things on the horizon that will dramatically allow increased food production, but we also have to have 

countries in the world that will allow that to happen. They have 

to have the rule of law and good governance of people who will go 

there and invest and allow things to happen. 

Mr. MORAN. Administrator, if you would tell your colleagues at 

the Department of Agriculture of my interest in this question, I 

would be glad to hear from others as well. And I do think that it 

is an area that we, on the Agriculture Committee, ought to be 

spending more time on, on those who are concerned about hunger. 

I think there is significant potential and we often think about how 

do we divide up the resources that we have? How do we divide the 

loaf, as compared to how do we produce more loaves, and I think 

there are some significant opportunities with technology and research that advance agriculture in a hungry world. I thank you, 

Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you so much, Mr. Moran. That concludes 

this panel. We thank both gentlemen. I would like you to answer 

in the affirmative, if you would be willing to answer Members written questions within the next 2 weeks should they be submitted to 

you. Would you? 

29

Mr. KUNDER. Yes, sir. 

The CHAIRMAN. Would you, Mr. Yost? 

Mr. YOST. Yes. 

The CHAIRMAN. Okay, thank you. So, I encourage Members to 

please submit any further questions you may have in writing. The 

gentlemen have agreed to answer you within 2 weeks of the submission of those questions. This does complete our first panel. We 

thank the gentlemen very much. 

We would like to invite our second panel to come quickly to the 

table. Mr. Sean Callahan, Executive Vice President for Overseas 

Operations of Catholic Relief Services, Baltimore Maryland; Dr. 

Andrew Barnes, Director of Food Security, Food for the Hungry Incorporated here in Washington; Mr. ‘‘Buzz’’ Guroff, Senior Vice 

President, Food Security and Specialty Crops Portfolio of ACDI/

VOCA in Washington; Dr. Nicholas Minot, Senior Research Fellow 

at International Food Policy Research Institute here in Washington; and Dr. Theo Dillaha, Program Director, Office of International Research for Education and Development, Virginia Tech 

University. If these folks would please come to the table, we want 

to stay on time and we will begin our questions. Thank you very 

much. Mr. Callahan, you may begin with your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF SEAN CALLAHAN, EXECUTIVE VICE

PRESIDENT, OVERSEAS OPERATIONS, CATHOLIC RELIEF 

SERVICES, BALTIMORE, MD 

Mr. CALLAHAN. Good morning Chairman McIntyre, Ranking 

Member Musgrave, Members of the Committee. My name is Sean 

Callahan. I am the Executive Vice President of Catholic Relief 

Services. We serve in over 100 countries throughout the world and 

are supported by over 68 million Catholics in our effort, and have 

been a long time partner of USAID and Food for Peace in trying 

to eradicate hunger globally. This hearing here today is very timely, and we very much appreciate the efforts that you have made to 

date. We would like to thank your leadership, not only in holding 

this meeting, but also in providing the leadership in food aid internationally and the recent approval of the farm bill. 

We think that that is a mechanism that will help us into the future, in responding to this grave crisis. As a U.S. taxpayer and a 

representative who goes oversees, the leadership that the U.S. has 

provided in this area is very, very helpful in us having a more influential voice to those overseas in trying to eradicate hunger. People are suffering in this global food crisis and we see that not only 

in our own country, and our colleague agency Catholic Charities, 

as increased numbers of participants in their local programs. 

Where in the United States only ten percent of the income is used 

for food purchases, whereas overseas it is over 75 percent, so we 

understand the grave need that people are facing. People are indeed stretched and Catholic Relief Services sees that on the 

ground. We see that people are eating less, and in some cases making very difficult decisions on who in the family should actually 

eat. 

Last month I was in Ethiopia and I happened to make a trip 

down to an area where one of our partners said people were suffering and in distress. And I went down to a site that was being 

30

serviced by the Ethiopian church, The Missionaries of Charity, and 

Doctors without Border were providing medical assistance. In this 

area, although people were claiming there wasn’t a hunger crisis 

in the area, 23 children had died at the site that we had served 

once they had been admitted to the site, and over 40 children in 

the area community were said to have died. Now one of the parents 

brought one of the children in as we were there and told us that 

the situation was so bad that they brought their healthy child to 

the center because their unhealthy child probably wouldn’t make it. 

Another grandfather was feeding a child with a syringe because the 

child didn’t have the ability to even drink the high protein solution 

that was being provided at the time. So although some countries 

may not admit right away that there is a crisis, certainly we are 

seeing it on the ground. 

Unfortunately, this food crisis has deep roots, and the deep roots 

are complex and just can’t be answered by providing additional 

food assistance. It is an increased demand for food, generally, an 

increased demand for animal protein, we are seeing higher fuel 

prices that are leading to this, a diversion of grain and oilseed 

crops that go into biofuel production, as well as commodity speculation and global climate change. We are trying to work in all of 

these different areas and in global climate change to try to reduce 

the affects that disasters have on people. It has affected not only 

the urban areas, but as I have just attested to in Ethiopia, also 

some of the rural areas where people produce. 

We see at Catholic Relief Services a couple areas that we can 

focus on. I think there are two of them that are structural and that 

is developing a mechanism to better enhance and strengthen our 

ability to coordinate our hunger efforts in the United States. The 

U.S. is a leader in this area, but I am not sure that we are coordinating our efforts as we have, possibly, in the HIV/AIDS with 

PEPFAR and so I ask you as a Committee to look at that to see 

if we need to focus a greater need and a coherence in our hunger 

efforts. In addition to that I would say greater partnerships overseas, as we do at the civil society, and community level because 

this isn’t something that we can solve from the outside. We need 

to build the local capacity and strengthen the local communities so 

that they are more resilient and better able to respond to shocks 

in their systems. 

We look at four different areas for developmental assistance. 

One, certainly, is the global safety net which is not only saving but 

transforming lives as I saw personally in Ethiopia. We also need 

alternatives, and Mr. Fortenberry mentioned some infrastructural 

issues. Alternative to rain fed agriculture: One of the big problems 

that we see is the rain fed agriculture and so irrigation systems are 

crucial. A greater focus on agro-enterprise at the local level linking 

small farmers to markets is a crucial area. We found voucher programs that others are enticing small business people into the community so that we can actually develop a market and also the issue 

of infrastructure as far as roads go and transportation so that the 

communications are there so people can actually market their 

crops. Again, I would also say, alternative sources of energy are 

also very much needed at the local community level. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Callahan follows:]

31

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SEAN CALLAHAN, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, OVERSEAS

OPERATIONS, CATHOLIC RELIEF SERVICES, BALTIMORE, MD 

Good afternoon Chairman McIntyre, Ranking Member Musgrave, and Members of 

the Subcommittee. 

Thank you for calling this very timely hearing on delivering international food aid 

and providing foreign agricultural development assistance. I would like to express 

my gratitude for providing Catholic Relief Services the opportunity to share our insights—based on our long experience of programming food aid for emergencies and 

long-term development, including our support of agricultural development with poor 

farmers around the world. 

My name is Sean Callahan, Executive Vice President of Overseas Operations for 

Catholic Relief Services (CRS). Operating in more than 100 countries around the 

world, CRS is the international development and relief agency of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, drawing support from among the 68 million members 

of the U.S. Catholic community. And for more than half a century, we have been 

in a partnership with Food for Peace that has tangibly expressed the goodwill and 

compassion of the American people. 

In my testimony, I will spotlight what I call the ‘‘Global Food Crisis’’ by citing 

the actual experiences of hungry people, including my personal observations. I will 

then focus on the deep roots of this crisis. Last, I will make five recommendations 

on food security to guide Congress in its response to the emergency: $2.1 billion for 

Title II, $300 million for the McGovern-Dole program, $230 million to replenish the 

Emerson Trust, more cash for local purchases and vouchers, and stronger partnerships with recipient nations. 

Hungry People Suffer in the Global Food Crisis 

As you all know, high commodity prices are affecting people in every country of 

the world, including our own. The average American family spends less than ten 

percent of its income on food, while low-income Americans spend a larger proportion 

of their limited resources on food. An impoverished family overseas that typically 

spends about half its income on food is now spending up to 75 percent or more because of the Global Food Crisis. These price increases have made food truly 

unaffordable to the very poor—and sometimes the not-so-poor. This desperation is 

fueling the urban demonstrations and riots that have been springing up around the 

world over the past several months. The problem for CRS relief efforts is not the 

availability of food, but the soaring prices that make food less and less affordable 

for the poor in both urban and rural settings 

CRS staff around the world has heard stories of families who are stretched to the 

limit by the high price of food. Some are having to make do with eating less at each 

meal. Some are already skipping meals, or even not eating on a particular day. Few 

can afford to buy meat or chicken for any of their meals. The most desperate will 

sell off precious resources, such as a water jug, a hoe or even the tin roof of their 

home in order to buy food. Tragically, they may even have to decide which child or 

children may have the best chance of survival and which, already ill and weak, will 

be allowed to die. These are the agonizing choices the global food crisis is forcing 

the poor to make. 

Frequent reports from our CRS field offices document that this awful scenario is 

being repeated in many countries in the developing world. In some regions of Niger, 

families have started eating only one meal a day. In dire circumstances, some families have resorted to eating anza, a wild plant with bitter leaves, to supplement 

their diet. In northern Ghana, students have been taking CRS-provided lunches 

home to share with hungry family members. For some children, this means sharing 

their only meal of the day. 

In southern and eastern Ethiopia, two consecutive seasons of poor rains have led 

to total crop failure. Many people in these areas now have nothing—literally nothing—to eat. And with food prices soaring worldwide, they cannot afford to buy the 

dwindling and increasingly expensive supplies in the market. As a result, we are 

beginning to see cases of severe malnutrition, especially in children. 

I was in eastern Ethiopia last month, and I saw how the people there are already 

suffering. I visited a feeding site run by the Ethiopian Catholic Church and the Missionaries of Charity in a largely Muslim area where, over the previous 5 weeks, 28 

children had died of malnutrition. The conditions there are already dire. They are 

going through a ‘‘green drought,’’ where there was just enough rain to allow stocks 

to sprout 3 to 5 inches, but there is no yield. 

I saw one Ethiopian parent bring a very sickly, lethargic child to the center for 

emergency treatment. The parent told the sisters, ‘‘I brought this child because I 

32

thought he could make it. My weakest child is at home.’’ Nearby, a grandfather fed 

his grandson sips of milk every 30 seconds from a plastic syringe. 

This Food Crisis Has Deep Roots 

My first reaction on seeing all this was simply to bite my lip, to contain my emotion. My second reaction was anger. How could we let this happen? But the more 

I observed, I realized that this was a place of hope. I saw kids being fed and stabilized, getting better. Parents were thanking the workers for saving the lives of 

their children. This is an area that has had good production over the past 5 years, 

and they just need some immediate food assistance so that they can make it until 

the next harvest. And much of that help is coming in the form of food aid from the 

American people. They also asked for help to increase their planting for the next 

season. But if the next rainy season is poor and the next harvest fails, these people 

will be even worse off. 

What really concerns me about his food crisis is that it is not a blip on the screen. 

This food crisis is structural. Its causes are complex and are based on fundamental 

changes in the global marketplace. The Economist magazine has called these 

changes ‘‘The end of cheap food,’’ in recognition of a consensus that prices will not 

return to pre-food crisis levels. 

This food crisis will be long-lasting. And it is just beginning. Its effects are being 

seen first in urban areas where people cannot produce their own food and cannot 

absorb the steep price increases. There is widespread drought in East Africa, and 

there may be other crop failures this year, beginning with the massive destruction 

of rice in Myanmar. Farmers who are struggling to feed their families will not be 

able to invest in fertilizer that has doubled in price and continues to rise, so their 

yields will be lower. By next February, this crisis will be deeper and broader as 

more segments of society are pushed into poverty by the combination of higher food 

prices and reduced availability worldwide. 

Over the long term, there are several factors that could exacerbate the food crisis, 

including an increased demand for food generally, an increased demand for animal 

protein, higher fuel prices and the diversion of grain and oilseed crops for biofuel 

production. In addition, there is an emerging scientific consensus that there is evidence of global climate change, and that this phenomenon is having a significant 

impact on global agriculture. Earlier this month, the head of the UN’s Framework 

Convention on Climate Change said the Global Food Crisis will only worsen because 

of climate change, as he urged the leaders of the G8 to set goals to reduce carbon 

emissions within the next dozen years. It is a fact that droughts and severe storms 

and other natural disasters are occurring more frequently and are adversely affecting food production. And it is inevitably those least responsible for the factors leading to climate change, the poor, who will bear the brunt of its effects. In terms of 

the response to this Global Food Crisis, we are looking at short-term measures as 

well as longer term initiatives. 

In the short term, CRS believes we need to get cash and food into the hands of 

the urban and rural poor, so people can eat. Our plan is to provide cash vouchers 

to help both urban and rural families afford sufficient food during the crisis, where 

food is available. Eligible families would receive a set amount of food vouchers to 

supplement their food supplies when rising prices limit their purchasing power. This 

approach was successfully applied by CRS in 2006 as part of a drought response 

in Kenya with 2,500 expectant and nursing mothers and 3,500 families with malnourished children receiving food vouchers to supplement their food resources. 

Where there isn’t sufficient food available, we are working with Food for Peace and 

the World Food Programme to ensure delivery of imported food. 

We are also providing an opportunity for people to receive cash for working on 

projects that better prepare communities to weather disasters like hurricanes or cyclones. For example, in Haiti, cash for work projects have helped to clear drainage 

canals that will help prevent flooding when a storm hits. We are also seeking to 

help farmers in the developing world by investing in seeds, fertilizer and other materials that will help them in the next planting season. For example, we have used 

a voucher approach to enable rice farmers in Burkina Faso to acquire both improved 

seed and fertilizer in order to boost production of this urban staple that is in such 

short supply. In Ghana, Senegal, Mali and Nigeria we are hoping to expand this 

approach, and we have a proposal waiting for funding to expand production in 16 

countries across Africa, and to move from rice to pulses and eventually to roots and 

tubers such as cassava. 

Unfortunately, within the current food aid framework, there are not enough cash 

resources available from Food for Peace to fund these types of programs, especially 

at the scale that is needed. In addition to using valuable food aid resources, CRS 

will also be devoting private resources to fund some of these short-term measures. 

33

This Global Food Crisis is bigger than food aid alone. The U.S. Government should 

provide much more cash in the International Disaster Assistance and Development 

Assistance accounts to complement current food aid efforts. 

In the longer term, CRS agrees with the general consensus among international 

PVOs that there must be a much more robust investment in agricultural productivity and market infrastructure in the developing world to reverse the decade-long 

decline in aid for agriculture. Ironically, the food crisis presents us with an opportunity to make a major impact in the fight against extreme poverty, particularly in 

Africa. Timely initiatives that increase agricultural productivity and expand small 

farmers’ access to markets could go a long way toward easing the suffering caused 

by hunger. As Pope Benedict XVI said in his message to last month’s FAO summit 

on food security:

Hunger and malnutrition are unacceptable in a world which has, in fact, levels 

of production, resources and knowledge sufficient to put an end to such dramas 

and their consequences. The great challenge of today is to ‘globalize,’ not just 

economic and commercial interests, but also the call for solidarity, while respecting and taking advantage of the contribution of all components of society. 

Congress Can Help To Reverse the Global Food Crisis 

The response by Congress to the Global Food Crisis has already been substantial, 

and I must commend you for this. The 2008 Farm Bill will greatly help us in this 

fight against global hunger. I would in particular like to commend Chairman Peterson and Ranking Member Goodlatte for their bipartisan leadership in crafting the 

2008 Farm Bill. A number of initiatives that strengthen food aid and food security 

were included in the Trade Title that was enacted into law. Perhaps the most important of these is the $450 million safebox for developmental food aid. CRS views 

this provision as an important first step in reshaping United States international 

food and agriculture assistance policy and increasing global food security. United 

States international food and agriculture policy must integrate Title II, McGovernDole, and regular bilateral and international agricultural programs, while continuing to provide adequate and practical resources for emergencies. 

I must point out, however, that the structural changes in commodity prices will 

likely erode any increases to developmental food aid in the safebox. The volume of 

commodities that can be procured and shipped will continue to decline as prices of 

food, fuel, and transportation skyrocket. Even with the recent supplemental appropriation, Food for Peace is not in a position to provide more food aid than it did 

in 2007, which had the lowest volume (at 2.6 million metric tons) in many years. 

So, in fact, we are right back to where we started unless we take other urgent steps. 

We must remember that Food for Peace operates programs fighting long-term hunger in only 18 or so countries. The World Food Programme has identified more than 

30 countries that are now affected by the current Global Food Crisis. 

Moreover, as part of a broad Catholic coalition working on the farm bill, CRS had 

sought real price support payment reform, especially to level the playing field for 

poor small farmers in our partner nations so they can compete fairly and help their 

countries respond to the global food crisis. A major opportunity for real reform was 

lost and what functions as a subsidy system continues to help those who need it 

least instead of those who need help the most, both in the United States and 

abroad. 

At the same time, we would like to thank the Congress and the Administration 

for acting to pass the FY 2008/2009 Supplemental Appropriations Act. It will provide vitally needed resources to begin an emergency response, as well as to continue 

developmental food aid programs that build long-term food security. 

Looking ahead, we would like to ask you to work with your colleagues on the Appropriations Committee to help enact the following five initiatives build food security:

• First, in addition to the $395 million included in the supplemental, we recommend that Congress fund the FY 2009 regular appropriation for Title II at 

$2.1 billion. This appropriation will bring the total appropriation for FY 2009 

to $2.5 billion, the maximum level authorized in the farm bill. A level of $2.5 

billion also ensures that we can provide enough food aid to match closely the 

average tonnage level of the last 5 years of 2.77 MMT (assuming a cost of $700 

per metric ton). Only robust funding will fill the safebox and maintain the U.S. 

contribution to global food aid, while ensuring that we can respond to additional 

needs and ever-rising prices.

• We also recommend that Congress provide complementary funding of $300 million for the McGovern-Dole Nutrition and Education program. This level would 

equal the amount that would be authorized by the Global Food for Education 

34

Pilot Program. It would ensure that the McGovern-Dole program could also 

keep pace with rising food aid costs while also responding more completely to 

the rising demand for integrated education and nutrition programs.

• Third, the Bill Emerson Humanitarian Trust complements regular Title II 

emergency aid as an important reserve for responding to acute hunger. We urge 

Congress to replenish $230 million, the amount withdrawn in April and May 

of this year to address the current food-price crisis. We need an incremental replenishment now or the next withdrawal likely will deplete the Trust, the most 

timely and flexible resource for handling unanticipated food emergencies.

• Fourth, the Administration and Congress must also recognize the need for cash 

resources as a necessary complement to commodities. In addition to new cash 

resources included in the 2008 Farm Bill, we urge you to work with your colleagues on the Appropriations Committee to ensure that cash resources are provided in the International Disaster Assistance and Development Assistance accounts. We direly need cash to buy food locally or to support voucher and foodfor-work programs, as may be appropriate.

• Finally, we need to build stronger partnerships with the hungry and poor overseas. Money alone will not solve the problem of food security. We need real commitments from beneficiary nations to energize their own resources in the fight 

against acute and chronic hunger. We also need to rely on private voluntary organizations like CRS because we have durable and effective partnerships with 

the poor overseas. We further need to ensure that we integrate all food security 

programs in close cooperation with recipients and host governments. Such integration includes using cash wisely and making effective investments in agricultural development.

In conclusion, I want to once again thank you, Chairman McIntyre, and all the 

Members of the Subcommittee for your leadership on food security in the 2008 Farm 

Bill and for holding this hearing on responding to the needs of the hungry around 

the world. At Catholic Relief Services, we believe that the current food crisis will 

add another 100 million people to the 850 million people already suffering from hunger. This troubling reality requires the continued and augmented leadership of the 

U.S. Government in providing for both chronic and acute hunger needs. 

I would be pleased to respond to any questions that the Committee may have.

The CHAIRMAN. Dr. Barnes. 

STATEMENT OF ANDREW BARNES, PH.D., DIRECTOR OF FOOD 

SECURITY, FOOD FOR THE HUNGRY, WASHINGTON, D.C.; ON 

BEHALF OF ALLIANCE FOR FOOD AID 

Dr. BARNES. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to testify on food aid during this period of global food crisis. I am the 

Director of Food Security for Food for the Hungry and I am testifying today, on behalf of the Alliance for Food Aid, an alliance of 

14 PVOs. We are most grateful to Congress for providing $850 million of emergency supplemental funding for 2008 and $395 million 

of advanced funding for 2009. It is further proof that the United 

States is a long standing global leader in providing food assurance—food assistance. 

However, we feel that in light of the global food crisis, even 

greater funding will be needed for developmental food aid. Due to 

the crisis, an additional 100 million people are facing food shortages. We hear 130 million today. Many of these people are in Ethiopia where I served as Food for the Hungry’s Country Director for 

the past 4 years. I returned to the United States last month. 

Therefore, I will focus my discussion on food aid in the developing 

crisis on my experience in Ethiopia, which I feel is very relevant 

across Africa. 

Ethiopia’s farmers, like many in Africa, survive on small, highly 

eroded farms while facing frequent droughts. Food crises occur annually. To survive during these periods, families many times, need 

35

to sell assets, including agricultural tools and this results in long 

term reductions in productivity. The innovative Title II funded Productive Safety Net began in 2005, and was designed to alleviate 

the consequences of these annual food shortages. This program 

helps the poor before they must use destructive strategies to survive. 

American PVOs, Food for the Hungry included, have used Title 

II resources to work with communities to prevent annual food 

shortages and to build productive community assets. These food for 

work generated assets are being linked to other agricultural programs and have resulted in increased agricultural productivity and 

the lives of many have been greatly improved. In spite of the success of this safety net, the global food crisis has hit Ethiopia very 

hard and this year an estimated 10.4 million people, approximately 

12 percent of the population, are in need of assistance. Three factors have combined to make this crisis worse than any crisis in recent years. 

First, very low crop yields have resulted from extremely poor 

rains in 2007 and 2008. Second, the cost of wheat and other staples 

has more than doubled and local market prices, surprisingly, are 

now higher than global market prices. Third, the supply of food in 

Ethiopia’s emergency food reserve is very low. Much of this food, 

which is set aside to help in cases of emergency, has been sold in 

an attempt to stabilize the rising commodity prices. This action has 

greatly reduced the reserves of food stocks and very little emergency food is currently available in the country. Without this safety 

net, the current situation would be much worse than it is. It has 

greatly improved the lives of millions, but the current food crisis 

has the potential to undermine this progress. 

Consequently, PVOs have proposed an emergency program to 

USAID and resources are being mobilized. Rapid mobilization is 

critical to save lives. The question is, where do we go from here? 

Across the globe, long term solutions are needed. Innovative foodbased development programs need to be expanded to other countries. Kenya, for example, would greatly benefit from a safety net 

type program. Unfortunately, important Title II programs in Kenya 

are ending this year because of limited funding. 

Food aid must be linked to long term strategies to improve nutrition, agricultural productivity and to build self-sufficiency. Food for 

development is critical for this and we thank this Committee and 

Congress for setting minimum levels of Title II funding. However, 

we encourage that $500 million of Title II funds be made available, 

annually, for non-emergency developmental programs, in order to 

reduce the suffering during this global crisis. 

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, because of the current global food 

crisis, developmental food aid funded by the United States of America, is needed now, more than ever. I thank you and I will be 

pleased to answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Barnes follows:]

36

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ANDREW BARNES, PH.D., DIRECTOR OF FOOD SECURITY, FOOD FOR THE HUNGRY, WASHINGTON, D.C.; ON BEHALF OF ALLIANCE FOR FOOD AID

Food Crisis in the Horn of Africa 

The United Nations reported on July 11th that approximately 14 million people 

in the Horn of Africa (Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, Djibouti, Uganda and Kenya) are 

facing an unprecedented food crisis. These countries are suffering from both rapidly 

rising food costs and an extensive drought. The 14 million includes 1.2 million pastoralists in northern Kenya, 700,000 Ugandans, and approximately 2.6 million people in Somalia. However the vast majority are in Ethiopia, which has 10.4 million 

individuals facing an acute lack of food. 

The situation in Kenya is typical for the region. In Kenya drought, high fuel 

prices and political instability have contributed to the food crisis. The impacts of the 

food crisis are being felt in both urban and rural areas but the urban areas are facing the greatest difficulties. The country is being hit with increased inflation, increased costs of production, and lower crop production in 2008. Food prices for staples have risen rapidly; the price of corn flour has risen by more then 40%. These 

price increases are particularly hard on the poor who already spend a large portion 

of their income on food. To survive in this situation many are pulling children out 

of school and families skipping meals. Increased prices for fertilizers and fuel have 

resulted in a 50% increase in land preparation costs making land preparation less 

affordable and the results will be lower agricultural production. The reduced production will obviously extend and increase the intensity of the crisis. 

I served as Food for the Hungry’s Country Director in Ethiopia from June 2004 

until June 2008 when I took the position of Director of Food Security with Food for 

the Hungry in Washington. The majority of my comments will focus on Ethiopia because of my experience in that country. 

Ethiopia’s Productive Safety Net Program 

Ethiopia’s economy and its people remain largely dependent on subsistence farming. This dependency has proven to be very problematic because of a number of factors including high variability of rainfall from year to year. However frequent 

droughts are not the only factors contributing to Ethiopia’s food security problems. 

The average farmer works to feed his or her family on less than 2 acres of land 

and this land is often over cultivated and subjected to intense soil erosion. Ethiopia’s population growth remains very high with an annual rate of approximately 

2.4%, causing further reductions in farm size. As farm size decreases the intensity 

of agriculture increases contributing to further land degradation and soil erosion. 

These perennial problems make Ethiopia one of the world’s poorest countries. Ethiopia’s children bear the brunt of this poverty; approximately 50% of children under 

the age of 5 are moderately to severely stunted. 

Donors (including USAID), the Government of Ethiopia and PVOs have worked 

together to limit the adverse affects of this situation. The drought of 2002–2003 resulted in 21% of Ethiopia’s population needing relief aid. The U.S. responded generously and many lives were saved. While saving lives is obviously necessary, those 

interested in Ethiopia’s future realize that more must be done to break the vicious 

cycle of drought and poverty. 

Approximately 8.5 million people, ten percent of Ethiopia’s population are chronically food insecure (face annual food deficits). These people are very vulnerable to 

the negative consequences of any variability in rainfall or other negative events. 

During an emergency situation their ability to survive depends on the ‘‘mining’’ of 

their already limited capital and assets including, physical assets (tools and oxen), 

natural assets (land and water) and human capital (education and labor). The mining of assets occurs when families take last resort actions such as taking children 

out of school, or selling productive assets and household goods in order to survive. 

These survival strategies result in long-term negative impacts. After the drought 

has passed, these families must rebuild their capital to become productive again; 

consequently, the economic impacts of a crop failure are long-term and result in lifelong reductions in earnings. With each shock, families and communities become less 

able to cope and fall farther into food insecurity. 

Before the introduction of the Productive Safety Net in 2005 a large portion of 

food aid was programmed ‘‘on the fly’’. Food aid appeals were made based on annual 

crop assessments. The timing of these assessments and appeals made it difficult to 

receive the food aid on time and many people had to sell assets to survive until the 

food arrived. Also the food for work activities associated with these annual appeals 

were hastily planned and the quality of the activities was in many cases less than 

desired. Truly, a new approach to programming food aid was needed for the lives 

of these food insecure households and communities to improve. 

37

Ethiopia’s recent history makes it clear that weather related problems and annual 

food shortages will continue to occur regularly in the future. Consequently, the Productive Safety Net Program (PSNP) was designed with the expectation of these annual food shortages. In the Productive Safety Net food aid is program based on long 

term historical needs and in a typical year no emergency appeal is need beyond the 

programmed PSNP resources. In this program the food aid is planned in advance 

and made available during the annual hunger period; therefore the safety net helps 

the chronically food insecure communities before the onset of the food shortage season and before they must use negative coping strategies. By eliminating the need 

to sell scarce assets to survive the food shortage season, the hard hit communities 

are able to retain and build upon their asset base. Through this innovative program 

American PVOs using Title II resources are working together with local communities to prevent annual food shortages, build community assets that will contribute 

to long term productivity and reduce the need for poor families to sell assets to survive until next year. 

The following figure represents a generalization of food availability throughout 

the year for a high-land community in Ethiopia. Food availability begins to increase 

in October when the harvest begins. It peaks in December but then begins to decline 

from March to June or July when it reaches the low point. It remains low through 

September and then climbs again at the start of the new harvest.

The Productive Safety Net Program is based on this food availability calendar. 

From January to June communities involved in the PSNP work on previously designed ‘‘Public Works’’ that build community assets such as soil conservation systems, irrigation systems, roads etc. They then receive food as payment for their 

labor during the hunger period later in the year. 

The lives of the safety net participants have been greatly improved. Families in 

the program no longer need to ‘‘mine’’ personal assets to survive the normal annual 

food deficient period. Community assets are being constructed through food for work 

activities and many of the assets are being synergistically linked to and utilized by 

other agricultural and food security programs to improve productivity and income. 

Graduation from the program is the ultimate goal of the PSNP and will result 

in the reduction of the number of households requiring external food aid and assistance. As community assets are built and are linked to other agricultural and income 

generating programs family assets are protected and can actually increase. After a 

family’s assets grow to an appropriate level graduation from the Productive Safety 

Net program will occur. 

This program has been operating in Ethiopia since 2005. USAID is funding six 

PVOs (CARE, Catholic Relief Services, Food for the Hungry, REST (an indigenous 

Ethiopian organization), Save the Children and World Vision) to implement the Productive Safety Net in over 40 districts. The program is supported by wheat, peas 

and vegetable oil produced by American farmers and is partially funded by monetization of vegetable oil. Without monetization this program would lack adequate 

funding and be greatly reduced in scale. 

The Productive Safety Net and the Current Situation in Ethiopia. 

The Productive Safety Net has stabilized and greatly improved the lives of millions of people in Ethiopia. As intended community assets are being built, livelihoods are being protected and improved and the normal annual food gap is been 

filled. 

The Productive Safety Net was designed to fill the food gap during an average 

year. In general the food gap is about 6 months long and USAID and its partner 

PVOs have based their programs on a 6 month hunger period, understanding that 

abnormal years will occur and that actions outside the Productive Safety Net will 


11041001
38

1World Food Programme. 

be necessary in such a year. Unfortunately 2008 has developed into an extremely 

difficult year and the needs are well beyond the capacity of planned Productive Safety Net resources. 

Three factors have combined to make this food crisis much worse than any seen 

in Ethiopia in recent history. Some have used the analogy ‘‘Perfect Storm’’ to describe the situation. I disagree with the term ‘‘storm’’ because storm implies a short 

term, passing event, unfortunately the developing crisis will likely continue for the 

long term. The three major contributors to the current situation in Ethiopia are: (1) 

low crop yields due to inadequate rain, (2) the soaring cost of food and (3) very low 

food supplies in Ethiopia’s Emergency Food Security Reserve. Past emergencies 

were primarily the result of the low availability of food; however this year rising 

food prices and low food reserves are exacerbating the problem. 

Current Drought—Low Yields and Poor Harvest 

In April 2008, the government and its partners released a joint document that set 

out the humanitarian requirements for 2008. This analysis was based on an assessment conducted in November/December 2007. As a result, the government-led multiagency needs assessment estimated approximately 2.2 million people would require 

emergency food assistance in 2008. The situation however deteriorated greatly after 

the April report. 

The performance of the seasonal rains in the highlands including the Belg, (rains 

from March to May) were very poor and the area of farmland planted declined significantly as a result of the lack of rain. Pastoral and agro-pastoral areas also experienced very limited rains resulting in greatly reduced availability of pasture, reduced animal productivity, increased disease and many livestock deaths. Poor rains 

have also affected root crop production in southern Ethiopia where they make a significant contribution to the food security of many communities. 

Rising Food Costs 

The Central Statistical Agency of Ethiopia reports that general inflation is running at over 20% annually and food prices have risen by over 40% in the past year. 

However, the prices of some staples such as wheat and corn have more than doubled 

and the price of cooking oil has increased by about 1⁄3. Local cereal prices have now 

become higher than global market prices. According to the World Food Programme, 

imported wheat is currently cheaper than the local price of maize and sorghum. The 

current local price of wheat is U.S. $660/MT compared to import parity of U.S. $425/

MT.1 In Food for the Hungry program areas corn has increased from $250 per ton 

a year ago to $650 and barley has increased from $150 per ton to $450 per ton. 

These rising food costs are causing great hardships around the country but especially for the urban poor. In an attempt to reduce the impact of the rapidly rising 

food costs the Ethiopian Government has been selling staples such as corn at subsidized prices to the urban poor. 

The Government of Ethiopia has also restricted export of cereals and local purchases by aid agencies, in an attempt to control inflation of prices. It is believe that 

the government is planning to import cereals to be sold in major cities with the intention of stabilizing the market situation in Ethiopia. 

Unfortunately this situation is likely to get worse as the hunger season (April to 

September) progresses. The belg harvest is expected to be very poor which contributes to the expectation that price will remain very high until the next major harvest 

in October. 

Low Stocks in the Emergency Food Security Reserve 

The Emergency Food Security Reserve Agency (EFSRA) was set up in Ethiopia 

as a source of food to be stored and released when emergencies like the current food 

crisis occur. The EFSRA has been every effective and has allowed rapid responses 

to previous food shortages. Government agencies, PVOs, and others borrow from the 

food reserve while waiting for food shipments to arrive from abroad or for food to 

be purchased locally if it is available. 

The EFSRA has been a very important component of the emergency response system in Ethiopia, however this year its stocks are very low. The Government of Ethiopia’s attempt to stabilize food prices is one of the major reasons for the low stock 

levels. As stated above the government has been selling staples such as corn at subsidized prices to the urban poor. These commodities have been sold from the EFSRA 

and this attempt to stabilize prices has resulted in a depletion of inventory. Consequently, there have been ‘‘pipeline’’ breaks in food supplies for both the emergency 

response and the Productive Safety Net. Early in 2008 Food for the Hungry tried 

39

to borrow 8,000 tons from the reserve but was only able to obtain 5,000 because of 

limited stocks. 

The situation is critical. The need for emergency food has increased to over 

400,000 tons and the food reserve is well below its minimum desired level of 100,000 

tons and most agencies are being told food is unavailable for borrowing. 

According to the recent assessments by the government of Ethiopia the total number of individuals that will require emergency food assistance is 10.4 million people. 

Of this total 4.6 million will be individuals who are not involved in the Productive 

Safety Net and will require 5 or 6 months of assistance. The remaining 5.8 million 

people are in the PSNP and will need an extra 3 months of assistance because of 

the failed belg rains (rains from March to May). These numbers are expected to increase after the completion of the Ethiopian government led multi-agency assessment of the belg rains. 

Solutions 

Short Term Needs and Solutions 

The Productive Safety Net has been successful and greatly improved the lives of 

millions of people since its startup in 2005. Because of the USAID Title II funded 

safety net communities and families have been able to build assets, avoid using destructive coping strategies and have moved toward self sufficiency. Unfortunately 

the current food crisis has the potential to undermine the progress that has been 

made over the past 4 years. The PSNP districts that rely on the belg rains are facing an additional 3 months of limited food and will need assistance so that the 

progress made over the past 4 years will not be lost. 

With this need in mind the PVO’s implementing the PSNP with USAID resources 

have prepared a Joint Emergency Operation Program with Catholic Relief Services 

acting as the lead agency. The proposal is base on the Government of Ethiopia’s recent appeal and has been submitted to USAID and is under review. Because of the 

above mentioned factors rapid mobilization of resources will be very important. The 

next few months are critical. 

Long Term Needs and Solutions 

Unfortunately the developing food crisis in Ethiopia and other countries in the 

Horn of Africa will not be quickly resolved. Long term solutions are needed. One 

possible solution is the increased use of monetization of food commodities in the 

Horn. The prices of staples such as wheat, corn and vegetable oil are soaring. Increased monetization of these commodities in the Horn may help to stabilize prices 

over the long run. 

Innovative, long-term food aid programs such as the USAID funded Productive 

Safety Net Program in Ethiopia are needed in other countries. Kenya and Uganda 

would both greatly benefit from a long-term safety net type program. Unfortunately 

Kenya was recently removed from the priority country list and Title II programs in 

Kenya are currently shutting down. Long term food based programs would help address the food crisis and lead to development. 

There also needs to be a renewed focus on increasing yields of small scale agriculture and food security in rural areas of the Horn. High food prices will provide 

farmers the opportunity to increase household income. To accomplish this traditional agriculture and livestock farming will need to be improved through effective 

agricultural extension and marketing. Example programs would be the promotion 

of small scale irrigation for production of high value crops, protecting and improving 

the capacity of the land and improving access to credit in rural areas. 

In conclusion, the developing food crisis in the Horn of Africa is tragic and U.S. 

food aid programs are needed now more than ever. Short-term, timely emergency 

assistance is urgently needed to mitigate the affects of the soaring food costs and 

the current drought. Timely assistance will save thousands of lives. Long-term food 

based developmental assistance is also needed. Increased monetization of commodities in these countries may help to stabilize prices over the long run and the expansion of Title II food aid programs into other countries will help address the food crisis and lead to development.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. Mr. Guroff. 

40

STATEMENT OF AVRAM ‘‘BUZZ’’ GUROFF, SENIOR VICE

PRESIDENT, FOOD SECURITY AND SPECIALTY CROPS

PORTFOLIO, ACDI/VOCA (AGRICULTURAL COOPERATIVE

DEVELOPMENT INTERNATIONAL/VOLUNTEERS IN

OVERSEAS COOPERATIVE ASSISTANCE), WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Mr. GUROFF. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for inviting me to testify. The present world food situation is unarguably in dire crisis. 

Today’s high food prices will add about 100 million people to the 

850 million already food insecure. I presently serve as Senior Vice 

President at ACDI/VOCA where this month we are observing our 

45th anniversary working on worldwide agricultural development 

and food security. 

Twelve years ago I had the honor of serving as National Food Security Coordinator and participating as a member of the U.S. delegation to the World Food Summit in Rome. At that time, the U.S. 

Government joined the international community in committing to 

the reduction by half of the 850 million hungry people in the world 

by 2015. Regrettably, scant progress has been made on that commitment so far. I hope that the current crisis doesn’t prove to be 

yet another opportunity for lofty rhetoric but little political will to 

address this unconscionable condition. 

The Summit did a good job of reaching consensus that the 

achievement of food security will require addressing multiple factors simultaneously. There is, of course, the need to provide emergency assistance, but that must be balanced by, among other 

things, a significant investment in food production and rural income generation. What is often overlooked in the rhetoric of the crisis is that many of the world’s farmers see, in today’s rising food 

prices, unprecedented opportunity if they are able to develop their 

capacity and capture markets. I would like to use this opportunity 

to say a few words about our approach to non-emergency food aid, 

specifically P.L. 480 Title II and Food for Progress programs, which 

are important parts of our portfolio. When possible, we use the 

process known as monetization, the selling of the donated U.S. 

commodities, as a means of promoting entrepreneurship and fair 

competition. We then use the proceeds to fund a wide range of developmental programs that are designed to assist families to become self-sufficient and over time reduce the need for emergency 

food aid. Our programs in places like Uganda and Cape Verde are 

replete with examples of this. 

We need to avoid being too reliant on direct distribution of food 

aid as a response to the current crisis. We support local purchase 

of food aid as a tool in the tool box, but urge that it be employed 

carefully with all the same disciplines that are applied to other 

food aid programs. 

It has now been widely acknowledged that the diminution of development aid devoted to agriculture over recent decades was a terrible mistake. Almost no country has managed a rapid rise from 

poverty without increasing agricultural productivity. The 2009 U.S. 

budget proposes that only two percent of foreign aid expenditures 

be directed to agricultural development, the lowest level of spending in more than a decade. As part of the Coalition for Agricultural 

Development, we are encouraging Congressional appropriators to 

allocate a minimum $600 million for ag development in 2009. 

41

Let me just mention a couple of examples of how the extra 

money should be spent. In Kenya, besides organizing producer 

groups and improving cultivation techniques, we develop market 

linkages and promote inter-firm cooperation. We have helped quadruple yields among beneficiary farmers while reducing costs 40 percent. This has generated approximately $133 million in earnings 

for our 250,000 beneficiary farmers. 

A legacy of our work in Malawi is the National Association of 

Smallholder Farmers of Malawi, NASFAM, a member owned and 

run organization of over 100,000 farm families. It encourages 

smallholders to form village based clubs to increase farming revenues and stimulate economic development. 

Mr. Chairman, in summary, food shortages, lack of empowerment of people to become self-sufficient, high prices and inefficiency 

in the world food economy have been ACDI/VOCA’s 45 year preoccupation. We know that where livelihoods are agriculture based, 

food production is the economy of the economy and fundamental to 

progress and peace. 

To conclude, I reiterate my concern that the global food crisis not 

be just another opportunity for hand-wringing and lofty rhetoric on 

the part of the international community. I hope we will do our part 

by providing robust funding mechanisms to make long-term sustainable agricultural development a priority again. I thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Guroff follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF AVRAM ‘‘BUZZ’’ GUROFF, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, FOOD

SECURITY AND SPECIALTY CROPS PORTFOLIO, ACDI/VOCA (AGRICULTURAL

COOPERATIVE DEVELOPMENT INTERNATIONAL/VOLUNTEERS IN OVERSEAS

COOPERATIVE ASSISTANCE), WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for inviting me to testify. You are to be commended for 

focusing attention on the present world food situation, which is unarguably in dire 

crisis. Most experts are telling us that we face a profound, pervasive and persistent 

problem—and a growing one. Today’s high food prices will add about 100 million 

people to the 850 million already food-insecure, and climate change may put another 

50 million at risk by 2020. 

I presently serve as Senior Vice President at ACDI/VOCA responsible for that organization’s food security and specialty crop programs. This month ACDI/VOCA observes its 45th anniversary working on worldwide agricultural development and 

food security. We were founded in 1963 by U.S. farmer cooperatives in response to 

Congress’s desire to have co-ops play a role in U.S. foreign assistance, and since 

then we have operated in 145 countries on behalf of USAID, USDA and other donors. Andrew Natsios, former USAID Administrator, called ACDI/VOCA the ‘‘premier agricultural development NGO in the world.’’ 

I welcome the opportunity to speak the language of agricultural development to 

you. Permit me to say that, unfortunately, it has almost been a ‘‘lost’’ language in 

the foreign assistance arena. This defies logic, since the main beneficiaries are the 

billion people who subsist on less than a dollar a day, of whom three-quarters live 

in rural areas and depend on agriculture for a living. These rural poor now have 

to spend about half their income on food. And productivity growth in developing 

country agriculture has fallen from three percent per year in the 1970s and 1980s 

to less than one percent today, even in the face of burgeoning populations. This is 

a sorry situation—all the more so because it was largely preventable. 

Twelve years ago I had the honor of serving as the National Food Security Coordinator and participating as a member of the U.S. delegation to the World Food Summit in Rome. At that time the U.S. Government joined the international community 

in committing to the reduction by half of the 850 million hunger people in the world 

by 2015. Regrettably scant progress has been made on that commitment so far. I 

hope that the current crisis doesn’t prove to be yet another opportunity for lofty 

rhetoric but little political will to address this unconscionable condition. 

The World Food Summit did do a good job of reaching consensus that the achievement of food security will require addressing multiple factors simultaneously. There 

42

is, of course, the need to provide emergency assistance; but that must be accompanied by, among other things, a significant investment in food production and rural 

income generation. Technological advances cannot be overlooked; they were instrumental during the Green Revolution and are just as possible and necessary today. 

Trade policy, as well, is of critical importance; farmers obviously need to be able to 

market their production at a fair price. 

The strategy needs to be a balance between doing what we can—what we must—

in the short-term to avoid starvation, distress and instability, but by all means redoubling our efforts toward sustainable solutions. And, as this Subcommittee surely 

understands, but as is so often overlooked in the rhetoric about the crisis, many of 

the world’s farmers see in today’s rising food prices unprecedented opportunity if they 

are able to develop their capacity and capture markets.

Global food production must grow by 50 percent by 2030 to meet increasing demand, as United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon told world leaders at a 

recent conference in Rome. ‘‘Nothing is more degrading than hunger, especially 

when it is man-made,’’ he said. ‘‘It breeds anger, social disintegration, ill-health and 

economic decline.’’ But will the world’s 450 million smallholder farmers, those on 2 

hectares or less, be part of the solution? We say they must for the sake of widespread food security. Besides, leaving them out would result in greater hunger and 

poverty, and attendant disposal of productive farm assets, poor education, infant 

mortality, disease and massive out-migration from rural areas that would add to 

spiraling problems in overcrowded cities. 

Many of the world’s worst-off need direct emergency food aid. For ACDI/VOCA’s 

part, we are not generally involved in emergency assistance. However, we selectively 

do food distribution in contexts where it makes sense, e.g., supplemental feeding for 

HIV/AIDS-affected households, and mother and child health. 

Others will likely cover food aid distribution more fully. I would like to use this 

opportunity to say a few words about ACDI/VOCA’s approach to non-emergency food 

aid, specifically P.L. 480 Title II and Food for Progress programs, which are an important part of our portfolio. When possible, ACDI/VOCA uses the process known 

as monetization, the selling of the donated U.S. commodities, as a means of stimulating trade within a country. Where appropriate, we design the process so that 

small traders have access to markets. By breaking up the commodities into small 

lots and working directly with local marketers in an auction or another sales process, we stimulate the local market, promote entrepreneurship and fair competition, 

and provide a more efficient and wider distribution of needed foodstuffs. ACDI/

VOCA has considerable experience with P.L. 480 Title II programs in Africa and 

more recently in Haiti. We have monetized on behalf of NGOs such as Catholic Relief Services, World Vision and CARE. We have managed over a million metric tons 

of commodities. 

The second prong of ACDI/VOCA’s food aid approach is the use of the monetization proceeds to improve food security, promote agricultural development, improve 

natural resource management, establish and promote rural micro- and small-business credit institutions, and open up commercial markets for small producers as 

well as programs for people living with HIV/AIDS and their families. In short we 

and other NGOs involved in food aid undertake developmental programs that are 

designed to assist families to become self-sufficient and, over time, reduce the need 

for emergency food aid programs. Our programs in places like Uganda and Cape 

Verde are replete with examples of this. 

We need to avoid becoming too reliant on direct distribution of food aid as a response to the current crisis. We support local purchase of food aid as a tool in the 

tool box, but urge that it be employed carefully with all the same disciplines that 

are applied to other food aid programs. 

Agricultural Development 

It has now been widely acknowledged that the diminution of development aid devoted to agriculture over recent decades was a terrible mistake. Since ACDI/VOCA’s 

roots are in the Green Revolution, we couldn’t agree more. Investment in agriculture 

in recent decades should have been a powerful tool for improving food security and 

reducing poverty. The World Bank calculates that for the world’s poorest, GDP 

growth generated by agriculture is up to four times more effective in reducing poverty than growth in other sectors. Yet the proportion of official development assistance to agriculture has fallen to less than three percent from 18 percent of all aid 

in 1979. 

The World Bank’s 2007 World Development Report posits that almost no country 

has managed a rapid rise from poverty without increasing agricultural productivity. 

Vietnam, a graphic example, has risen from being a food-deficit country to the 

world’s second-largest rice exporter, largely as a result of the development of its 

43

smallholder farming sector. The proportion of people living in absolute poverty there 

has declined from 58 percent to 14 percent. 

The FY09 U.S. budget proposes that only two percent of foreign aid expenditures 

be directed to agriculture. The U.S. commitment to agricultural development has declined from $489 million in 2005 to the current level of $283 million in 2008, the 

lowest level of U.S. agricultural development spending in more than a decade, even 

before adjusting for inflation. ACDI/VOCA is pleased to be playing a leadership role 

in a new broad-based Coalition for Agricultural Development (CFAD) which is encouraging Congressional appropriators to allocate a minimum of $600 million for agricultural development in FY09. This is the first time in history that a coalition of 

U.S. based private sector companies, NGOs, religious groups and others have come 

together to advocate for reversing the decline in U.S. spending for agricultural development. 

Examples 

Let me address how the extra money should be spent. ACDI/VOCA takes a comprehensive value chain approach to agricultural development and examines whether, for example, farmers are organized to understand and capitalize on markets, 

build their internal capacities and take advantage of economies of scale. Do they 

need access to microfinance to pay for fertilizer, seeds and equipment, or can they 

even obtain those essentials? Do they need upgraded technology, land reform, an enabling business environment, infrastructure? We identify constraints and opportunities up and down the respective agricultural value chains and, within our donors’ 

project objectives, act accordingly to develop a sustainable local food system. 

In Kenya, the poorest quarter of the population was spending 28 percent of its 

income and probably more now on maize. Our project there considers the crop’s entire value chain in an effort to improve the lot of smallholder farmers who grow it 

and to provide more food. Besides organizing Kenyan producer groups and improving cultivation techniques, ACDI/VOCA develops market linkages and promotes 

inter-firm cooperation. We have built relations with a diverse consortium of partners 

and established a market information network. This year’s maize business fair in 

Eldoret, where our new 176 page Kenya Maize Handbook was a hot item, drew 

15,000 people, including many key private sector players. ACDI/VOCA has helped 

quadruple yields among beneficiary farmers while reducing costs 40 percent. This 

has generated approximately $133 million in earnings for our 250,000 beneficiary 

farmers. 

Good business principles help make producer groups sustainable. A legacy of our 

work in Malawi, which ended in 2003, is the National Association of Smallholder 

Farmers of Malawi, known as NASFAM, still going strong today. NASFAM is a 

member-owned and run organization that encourages smallholders to form villagebased clubs and associations to increase farming revenues and stimulate economic 

development. The Association has developed farming skills, purchased inputs in 

bulk, built its own warehouses and linked to markets in Africa and Europe for sales 

of its high-value peanuts and bird’s eye chilis. Today NASFAM represents over 

100,000 farm families and has established a commodity exchange and subsidiaries 

that provide business services. 

Organizing for sustainability has been a hallmark of our success in Ethiopia 

where ACDI/VOCA helped revitalize cooperatives and founded second-tier coffee cooperative unions. These unions gained permission from the government to bypass 

the central coffee auction and began exporting on behalf of their members. Increased 

market share and traceability led to further quality improvements. Again, because 

the project addressed the whole value chain, it arranged finance, tractor rentals, 

transportation deals, representation at world coffee fora, etc. Today Sidama and 

Yirgacheffe coffee from these smallholders is recognized by gourmands around the 

world. Ethiopia’s successful coffee growers are well positioned to continue putting 

food on the table even as food prices increase. 

Conclusion 

Mr. Chairman, in summary, food shortages, lack of empowerment of people to become self-sufficient, high prices and inefficiency in the world food economy have 

been ACDI/VOCA’s 45 year preoccupations. We know that more productive farming 

is fundamental to the world’s prospects for progress and peace, and to the extent 

it is market-based, the private sector can and will play a welcome and significant 

role. 

As Senator Lugar said about the food crisis, ‘‘Our response exposes our weaknesses, but it also points the way to needed reforms.’’ Time after time, USAID mission directors have shared with us their frustration over allocations of development 

assistance that de-emphasize agriculture. While the poor suffer from educational, 

44

health and other maladies, I trust we have learned that their foremost need is food, 

and, where livelihoods are agriculture-based, food production is the engine of the 

economy. 

To conclude, I reiterate my concern that the global food crisis not be just another 

opportunity for hand-wringing and lofty rhetoric on the part of the international 

community. I hope we will do our part by providing robust funding mechanisms to 

make long-term sustainable agricultural development a priority again. If ACDI/

VOCA and its partners have the wherewithal to carry on our work, the risk of future food crises of this one’s magnitude will be substantially reduced.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you Mr. Guroff. Dr. Minot. 

STATEMENT OF NICHOLAS W. MINOT, PH.D., SENIOR

RESEARCH FELLOW, MARKETS, TRADE, AND INSTITUTIONS 

DIVISION, INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH

INSTITUTE, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Dr. MINOT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to participate in today’s hearing. Since January 2006, the prices of corn, 

wheat and soybeans on the world markets have more than doubled 

and the price of rice has tripled. In developing countries, food accounts for 40 to 70 percent of family budgets and staple grains represent a large share of food spending, particularly for the poor. Although many farmers benefit, the urban poor and a surprising 

number of rural households are net buyers and therefore are hurt 

by higher prices. The net effect in most countries has increased 

poverty and hunger. 

These price hikes have been catalyzed by various factors including rising cost of oil, biofuel subsidies, depreciation of the dollar 

and export restrictions by some countries. Although the topic is 

complex and beyond the scope of this statement, I would like to 

clarify two points regarding the contributing factors. 

First, although the effect of biofuel subsidies on the global cost 

of food is small, the effect on corn prices and on the cost of food 

for poor people in developing countries is substantial. The Council 

of Economic Advisors confirms estimates by IFPRI, my institution, 

Iowa State University and the World Bank that biofuel demand accounts for at least 1⁄3 of the increase in world corn prices. 

Second, the evidence that speculation in futures markets has 

contributed to high food prices is weak. If speculation were a factor 

we would see rising inventories, futures prices, leading spot prices 

and smaller increases for commodities that do not have futures 

markets. But this is not the case. What are the implications of the 

food crisis for development assistance? I believe that development 

assistance needs to respond in eight ways. 

The most obvious implication is that developing countries and 

international organizations need to devote more attention to and 

more resources to agricultural development. In real terms, donor 

support for agriculture is less than half of what it was in 1982. The 

U.S. Agency for International Development needs to boost its aid 

to agriculture, but this task is complicated by the large number of 

earmarks in the foreign assistance budget. 

Second, there is a need to expand resources available for emergency food aid. According to the USDA, the number of hungry people increased by 122 million, or 14 percent, in 2007 and undoubtedly continues to grow this year. At the same time, high prices 

have dramatically eroded the purchasing power of the budget of the 

45

world food program and other food aid programs. Furthermore, a 

more institutional approach for funding emergency assistance is 

needed, rather than the case by case allocations that are currently 

used. 

Third, there is a need to make better use of existing food aid 

budgets. While other industrialized countries have taken steps to 

untie their emergency assistance, shifting towards local purchases 

and cash transfers, U.S. food aid is still largely, in kind, based on 

U.S. sourced food transported on U.S. flagged ships. This policy 

raises the cost of shipping food aid by at least $70 per ton, according to the GAO, probably higher with the current high fuel prices, 

as well as delaying the arrival of emergency assistance. More flexibility is needed to reduce costs and streamline U.S. response to 

emergency needs. 

Fourth, emergency assistance should be more closely integrated 

with programs to increase agricultural production and invest in 

human capital. One promising approach is a conditional cash 

transfer program that provide cash transfers to poor households on 

the condition that children are kept in school and that family members participate in health and/or nutrition programs. 

Fifth, the most effective long term strategy for addressing the 

food crisis is to invest in agricultural research and development, 

particularly in the staple food crops. Not only is this the right response to the crisis, but it makes good economic sense. Over 250 

economic studies confirm that investments in agricultural research 

in developing countries offer very high rates of return, generally 

more than 30 percent per year. Furthermore, the benefits tend to 

accrue disproportionately to poor farmers and consumers. 

Sixth, investments in agriculture research and development must 

be coupled with efforts to reduce the cost of marketing and storage 

in developing countries. Improvements in the marketing system 

will help distribute surpluses, alleviate local shortages and reduce 

volatility. This involves improved marketing infrastructure, establishing a policy environment that is conducive to the private sector, 

reduction in internal and external barriers to trade and identifying 

better ways to manage risk. 

Seventh, completing the Doha Round of trade liberalization 

would make the global agricultural system more resilient to shocks. 

Additional discipline on export restrictions is needed, either as part 

of the Doha Round or as a separate agreement. 

Finally, it is a mistake to think that one can design, in advance, 

the optimal long term agricultural development strategy. Agricultural policy and public investments must adapt in response to 

evolving conditions, and analysis provided by local researchers is 

more likely to be accepted, particularly if it concerns politically sensitive topics such as food prices. Thus it is essential that developing 

countries improve their own capacity to collect information, analyze 

data, diagnose problems and identify policy solutions. This concludes my statement. I would be pleased to answer any questions 

you may have. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Minot follows:]

46


11041002
47


11041003
48


11041004
49


11041005
50


11041006
51


11041007
52


11041008 11041009
53


11041010 11041011
54

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Dr. Minot. Mr. Dillaha. 

STATEMENT OF THEO A. DILLAHA III, PH.D., P.E., PROFESSOR 

OF BIOLOGICAL SYSTEMS ENGINEERING AND PROGRAM

DIRECTOR, SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL

RESOURCE MANAGEMENT (SANREM) COLLABORATIVE

RESEARCH SUPPORT PROGRAM (CRSP), OFFICE OF

INTERNATIONAL RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND

DEVELOPMENT, VIRGINIA POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE AND 

STATE UNIVERSITY, BLACKSBURG, BLACKSBURG, VA 

Dr. DILLAHA. Thank you Chairman McIntyre and——

The CHAIRMAN. Dr. Dillaha, sorry. Thank you. 

Dr. DILLAHA. That is fine. Thank you Chairman McIntyre, Members of the Subcommittee. I speak today as a University Faculty 

member representing Virginia Tech and its Office of International 

Research Education and Development. Personally, I have been engaged in international development for a few decades as a Peace 

Corps volunteer, an ACDI/VOCA volunteer, an Engineers without 

Borders volunteer, a university faculty member and currently I 

serve as the Program Director of the USAID funded Sustainable 

Agriculture and Natural Resource Management Collaborative Research Support Program, one of the CRSPs. There are eight other 

CRSPs. Our primary objective is to build developing country capacity to address their own food security needs. We do this by working 

in partnership with the host country’s scientists and institutions. 

And we also develop new technologies to help USAID, ACDI/VOCA 

and others that are engaged in addressing agricultural problems in 

developing countries. 

To improve U.S. food assistance, I would recommend the following three short-term actions. Fully fund the World Food Programme and other USAID—other U.S. programs, and improve the 


11041012
55

effectiveness of these programs by removing earmarked and tied 

aid requirements. This has been mentioned previously. I would also 

request that we reconsider some U.S. policies, such as our biofuel 

program and a 1986 Bumpers Amendment, which contribute to the 

food security crisis. I would also recommend facilitating the immediate provision of seeds and fertilizers for countries that are most 

affected by the food crisis. 

To improve U.S. agricultural development assistance, I recommend the following, intermediate term actions to help developing countries solve their own problems and improve food security. First, we need to expand agricultural research and development capacity in developing countries. We can do this by restoring 

funding for USAID’s Collaborative Research Support Program, the 

CGIAR and other international agricultural research centers, the 

USDA Foreign Agricultural Service and other U.S. agricultural 

university engagement programs with their developing country 

partners. In particular we need to support long-term collaborative 

research programs which build developing country agricultural research and development institutions. 

Second, we need to expand agricultural education programs for 

host country nationals to increase the capacity of food-insecure developing countries to solve their food security needs through education of their scientists and policy makers and we need to do this 

at U.S. universities. Adequate funding is needed for programs such 

as the USAID Collaborative Research Support Program, Fulbright 

Humphrey, Borlaug and numerous programs that work in this 

area, the USDA Foreign Agricultural Service and particularly the 

establishment of these long term partnerships between U.S. agricultural universities and developing country institutions that is 

being discussed. 

Long-term U.S. training has decreased dramatically since 1980 

from approximately 15,000 host country students to less than 1,000 

last year. This is a disaster for developing countries and it also decreases U.S. influence abroad. We need to support the replication 

of the U.S. Land-Grant University model abroad. Combining agricultural research, teaching, and extension missions into a university led system is largely responsible for the success of the U.S. 

and, even now, the Indian agricultural systems. This system, or 

something like it, should be supported in other countries. 

Most importantly, as we have heard repeatedly today, we need 

to dramatically increase agricultural development assistance. A disproportionate amount of U.S. foreign assistance supports temporary emergency food aid. We must increase agricultural development assistance so that developing countries can feed themselves. 

We also need to restore the agricultural development capacity of 

USAID. We can do this by recognizing that, as it has been pointed 

out several times today, that agricultural development is the first 

step in economic growth by establishing agricultural production 

and food self-sufficiency as a USAID priority. It is not now. By doubling USAID and other U.S. foreign agricultural assistance support, by fully staffing USAID and hiring program managers with 

agricultural expertise, and it sounds like we are making some 

progress in that area, and by doubling USAID central funding for 

56

agricultural programs and by providing increased flexibility for 

those funds by reducing Congressional earmarks. 

Finally, we need to fully implement Title XII of the Foreign Assistance Act, which calls for full participation of U.S. agricultural 

universities and USAID efforts to improve world food production 

and nutrition. 

In conclusion, I thank the Committee for giving me the opportunity to testify. There are no quick-fix silver bullets or easy answers to the current food security crisis. Solutions will take time, 

but the time to act is now. Please make sure that U.S. food aid and 

foreign agricultural assistance investments benefit both the U.S. 

and our developing country host partners by ensuring that each investment reduces developing country dependence on foreign food 

aid, builds developing country capacity to solve their own problems 

and strengthens positive attitudes in developing countries regarding U.S. policies, actions and intentions. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Dillaha follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THEO A. DILLAHA III, PH.D., P.E., PROFESSOR OF

BIOLOGICAL SYSTEMS ENGINEERING AND PROGRAM DIRECTOR, SUSTAINABLE

AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT (SANREM) COLLABORATIVE

RESEARCH SUPPORT PROGRAM (CRSP), OFFICE OF INTERNATIONAL RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND DEVELOPMENT, VIRGINIA POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE AND STATE

UNIVERSITY, BLACKSBURG, BLACKSBURG, VA 

Thank you, Chairman McIntyre and distinguished Members of the Subcommittee, 

for inviting me to participate in today’s hearing. I welcome this opportunity to testify before you on the need for a new approach to U.S. food aid and foreign agricultural assistance. 

I am speaking today as a faculty member representing Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University and its Office of International Research, Education, and 

Development (OIRED). OIRED manages a research portfolio of over $46 million in 

44 countries around the world. Current research projects involve forestry and natural resource management, integrated pest management, sustainable agriculture, 

watershed management, and micro-enterprise development and higher education capacity-building projects Haiti, Nepal, and Oman. Twelve full-time faculty and nine 

staff members support these efforts in partnership with over 40 U.S. university 

partners and a similar number of developing country institutions. The majority of 

these activities involve agricultural development and are funded by USAID. Personally, I have been engaged with the issues of international development for over 3 

decades as a Peace Corps volunteer, a U.S. university faculty member involved in 

agricultural development and environmental protection, and currently as the Program Director of the Sustainable Agriculture and Natural Resource Management 

Collaborative Research Support Program (SANREM CRSP) managed by OIRED and 

sponsored by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). The 

SANREM CRSP is a long-term, $2.4 million per year program that sponsors applied 

research to develop new knowledge and technologies to improve agriculture and natural resource management. 

Even before the current global food crisis, there were numerous calls for reviewing 

and improving the effectiveness of U.S. food aid and foreign agricultural assistance 

programs. Now with the food crisis and the potential for pushing at least 100 million people in developing countries back into poverty due to rising food prices, the 

need for program reform is even greater. I urge you and other Members to act 

quickly and responsibly to address this crisis. My recommendations are based on my 

personal experiences in international development and discussions and with colleagues involved in international development as well as developing country scientists, policymakers, and aid recipients. 

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

Immediate 

1. Fully fund the emergency food assistance programs of the World Food Programme and USAID’s other Food for Peace activities, improve the effectiveness 

57

of these funds by removing earmarked and tied aid, and support World Food 

Programme and USAID efforts to purchase food locally where possible. Wherever possible, require strong linkages between emergency food assistance and 

agricultural assistance programs.

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

The practice of reducing foreign agricultural assistance programs to provide 

emergency humanitarian relief is self-defeating and delays and/or inhibits developing country self-sufficiency in food production. After the successes of the 

Green Revolution we assumed that the ‘‘food’’ problem was solved and funding 

to increase agricultural productivity to keep pace with growing populations and 

demand declined dramatically. Today, we are faced with recurrent food crises 

in many developing country populations and with current policies and aid programs, no long-term solutions are in sight.

3. Assess and change policies contributing to the global food security crisis 

whose humanitarian and economic costs outweigh their benefits. Key policies 

that need to be reviewed include:

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

Current short-term U.S. goals for biofuel use are not reasonable in light of 

their effects on food prices. Deadlines need to be scaled back until biofuels 

can be supplied without competing with food crops; subsidies for biofuel 

based on food crops should be reduced or eliminated; and non-food crop 

biofuel research (e.g., cellulosic ethanol) should be greatly expanded. While 

I congratulate the Committee for recognizing the importance of 

transitioning to advanced biofuel through the introduction of a new producer credit for cellulosic ethanol and for providing mandatory funding for 

cellulosic infrastructure expansion, there is certainly more that needs to be 

done. For one, a 6¢ reduction in the ethanol blenders credit does not do justice to the immediate need to move U.S. biofuel production away from an 

unsustainable corn based system.

• Repeal the 1986 Bumpers Amendment, which prohibits the use of foreign

assistance funds in developing countries on crops that if exported, would

compete with U.S. agricultural commodity exports.

This regulation is hampering agricultural development and U.S. influence 

in some of the poorest countries. Recognition that it is not helpful for development is illustrated by the fact that it is slowly being relaxed, e.g., U.S. 

assistance to cotton production in West Africa.

4. Facilitate the immediate provision of seeds and fertilizer for countries most 

affected by the food crisis by using ‘smart’ subsides friendly to market development in the upcoming planting seasons. 

Intermediate to Long Term 

Increase the ability of developing countries to feed themselves and reduce their 

dependence on external food aid through capacity building. 

From the U.S. university perspective, the major agricultural development problem 

and a fundamental cause of the current food security crisis is the lack of effective 

capacity of developing country institutions and personnel to solve local problems and 

to work with U.S. and other international scientists and development specialists on 

more complex problems. Local capacity building is the cornerstone of sustainable development. Efforts to build local capacity and solve local problems have been hampered because:

• U.S. universities have had few effective and stable long-term developing country 

partners with which to build capacity and few resources to do so.

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

new, innovative and collaborative research.

• U.S. universities simply cannot return again and again each time a new challenge appears to rebuild developing country problem solving capacity that was 

lost and that is continually needed for responding to evolving needs before they 

become critical.

5. Expand agricultural research: For the past forty years, the Green Revolution 

and other public and private sector agricultural research allowed food production to keep pace with population growth and increasing demand and saved 

58

100s of millions of people from starvation. As a result, governments, policymakers, and others concluded that the ‘‘food problem’’ was largely solved and 

that the remaining issues were rather marginal technology transfer, distribution, and marketing problems. Resources for new technology development and 

systems-related research declined in real dollars. As a result, agricultural production is not keeping pace with rising demand, food prices are increasing dramatically, and the numbers of people in poverty and at risk of malnutrition and 

starvation are increasing.

Needed investments in agricultural research include:

• Reversing declines and restoring funding for USAID’s Collaborative Research Support Programs, the Consultative Group on International Agri

cultural Research (CGIAR) and other international agricultural research

centers, the USDA-Foreign Agricultural Service, and other programs that

engage U.S. universities agricultural research and education in developing countries.

• Long-term research programs with well-defined goals rather than shortterm projects. Long-term programs not only solve current food production

problems, they also build human and institutional capacity to solve

future problems.

• Creation of developing country agricultural research institutions (national

and/or regional) that can address local and regional agricultural research

needs.

To solve the food security crisis, researchers from the U.S., other developed 

counties, and our developing country partners must work together to provide 

unbiased scientific knowledge, which policymakers and development specialists 

can use to address the food security crisis. Critical issues include:

• New agricultural production technologies and methodologies;

• Sustainable food production given accelerating soil, water, and ecosystem

deterioration;

• Lack of well-trained local researchers;

• Extension services for technology innovation and transfer;

• Economics (poverty cycle, markets, infrastructure, trade issues including

U.S. domestic agriculture policy);

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

• Impacts of global warming and climate change;

• Control of invasive species and plant pests;

• Biotechnology;

• Outmoded land tenure systems;

• Gender and resource access issues;

• Corruption and governance issues;

• HIV/AIDS and other diseases;

• Increasing population pressure;

• Food aid and delivery mechanisms;

• Food transport systems; and

• Ecosystem services.

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

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

• the USAID Collaborative Research Support Programs,

• U.S. programs such as the Fulbright and Humphrey Fellow and Scholar

Programs,

• the USDA-Foreign Agricultural Service, and

• long-term partnerships between U.S. land-grant universities and colleges

and developing country educational, research, and extension organizations.

Prior to 1990, the U.S. was the world leader in educating developing country 

scientists and policy makers; however, U.S. efforts in this area have declined 

59

dramatically. Long-term training in the U.S. decreased from approximately 

15,000 per year in the 1980s to approximately 1,000 last year. Long-term degree 

training in the U.S. also benefits the U.S. by exposing future developing country 

leaders to the U.S. system and creating leaders who understand and are supporters of U.S. policy and actions. The decrease in training of Africans has been 

particularly devastating for agriculture in Africa, as a significant portion of U.S. 

educated African scientists and policymakers have either died of AIDS or retired. Because of the decrease in training, there is now a dearth of qualified 

people for agricultural research, development, and leadership positions. In Africa, China has replaced the U.S. as the premier leader in long-term higher education, and we have lost one of our most effective means of influencing future 

African leaders.

7. Support for the U.S. land-grant university model under Title XII: Combining 

agricultural research, teaching, and extension missions into a university led 

system has been largely responsible for the success of U.S. agriculture. A similar system based on the U.S. model is also largely credited with the success of 

agricultural development efforts in India. This success is due to the following 

factors:

• The U.S. land-grant university approach to agricultural development facilitates communication and collaboration among the three

necessary components of agricultural development: research, education,

and extension.

• Through this integration, research and education are grounded in real

world problems identified through agricultural extension programs, and

extension programs in turn benefit from the cutting-edge university research and teaching methods.

In the developing world, the three missions are generally housed in different 

ministries, greatly complicating collaboration internally and externally.

U.S. land-grant universities and colleges and their world class researchers, educators, and extension specialists are ideal mentors for developing country universities wishing to adopt this model. They can build human capacity (long-term 

degree training and faculty development) as they advise and helped integrate 

the agricultural research, education, and extension missions in developing country institutions based on the land-grant model.

The U.S. land-grant university model with long-term partnerships between U.S. 

land-grant universities and colleges and developing country ‘‘land-grant’’ type 

institutions are natural partners for solving the immediate as well as emerging 

problems in agriculture and natural resource management. Together they can 

leverage many more resources to support joint efforts and thereby magnifying 

the impacts of U.S. foreign assistance.

8. Dramatically and sustainably increase agricultural development assistance:

The U.S. devotes too high a proportion of its foreign assistance budget to temporary emergency food aid. More resources should be devoted to developing 

country capacity building to enable them to solve their own problems.

Food aid is a double edged sword; it relieves immediate hunger, but it can create dependency and more threateningly, it can disrupt local food markets, lower 

local food prices, and make local food production unprofitable. Many developing 

country officials indicate that their people would be much better off if food aid 

were reduced and resources were shifted to agricultural development assistance 

so they could feed themselves. For example, Ethiopia, a chronically food insecure U.S. aid recipient, receives approximately $12 in food aid for each dollar 

of agricultural development assistance. Food aid and development assistance 

are related in their consequences but should be funded separately.

9. Restore the agricultural development capacity of USAID by:

• Recognizing that agricultural development is necessary as the first step

in economic growth and a precursor to industrialization.

• Establishing agricultural production and food self-sufficiency as USAID’s

priority in developing countries that are food insecure.

• Double USAID and other U.S. foreign agricultural assistance support of

rural infrastructure; water and irrigation services; developing country ag

ricultural education, research, and extension services; and post-harvest

management in countries that have supportive agriculture policies that

favor economic growth.

60

• Improving the effectiveness of USAID agricultural assistance programs

by fully staffing USAID and by hiring program managers with

expertise in agriculture and natural resource management.

As noted by Peter McPherson, former USAID Administrator, and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, USAID human resources have declined 

dramatically. Since 1980, permanent American USAID employees have 

declined from 4,058 to 2,200 and permanent foreign officers from about 

2,000 to 1,000. In terms of all permanent USAID employees, USAID 

staff has dropped from a high of 15,000 during Vietnam to about 3,000 

in the 1990s. In addition, there has been a dramatic loss of technical 

expertise. For example, USAID now has only two engineers, 16 agriculture experts and 17 education experts. So the combination of reduced staff overall and the loss of technical expertise puts the agency 

in the difficult position of trying to manage projects and programs with 

technical expertise and numbers of staff that are substantially inadequate. We need to rebuild human capacity for our international work 

(Secretary of Defense Robert Gates).

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

USAID has much less flexibility today to respond to new problems and 

the needs of countries as the countries define them because of excessive 

congressional and executive earmarks and directives (sometimes exceeding 100% of appropriated funds). There is insufficient funding and 

budget flexibility to respond to opportunities or to leverage resources 

from others. Congress must provide direction to USAID for appropriated monies, but with greater flexibility within the context of the appropriation process and oversight (Peter McPherson).

• USAID agricultural development assistance should be a mix of shortterm, intermediate, and long-term agricultural development programs

overseen by USAID staff with appropriate disciplinary expertise.

Because of staff cuts, USAID has moved from an implementation to a 

contracting agency, which farms out large portions of the foreign aid 

program. It is increasingly difficult for USAID to provide proper technical oversight to these contracts. I have been told that because of staff 

shortages, USAID program officers are currently managing on average 

four times more funding than USAID policies call for. This makes technical oversight difficult. As an example, I recently conducted a training 

program for USAID staff in Washington on payments for environmental services. At one point I apologized that my program speakers 

were all economists. One of the USAID participants quickly responded, 

‘‘Don’t worry about that; we are also almost all economists.’’ USAID 

needs more staff and more appropriate disciplinary diversity.

10. Full implementation of Title XII, the Famine Prevention and Freedom from 

Hunger amendment to the Foreign Assistance Act, which identifies a leading 

role for U.S. universities to work with USAID to achieve the goals of ‘‘ensuring 

food security, human health, agricultural growth, trade expansion, and the wise 

and sustainable use of natural resources’’—agriculture in all its dimensions—

through research, education, extension/outreach, and policy formulation.

Over the years, the scope and level of activities carried out by USAID through 

U.S. universities that have been characterized as ‘‘Title XII activities’’ has declined dramatically. The early members of the Board for International Food and 

Agricultural Development (BIFAD) had a broad and bold vision of their role and 

were supported in that view by the USAID administration of the time. They envisioned a huge potential in the application of university-led cutting-edge research and technical assistance in solving food and nutrition problems around 

the world (Deborah Ruben, 2008 Title XII Activity Report). 

Conclusions 

In conclusion, I would like to thank the Committee for giving me the opportunity 

to testify. I hope that my testimony has been useful and will assist the Committee 

in playing a leadership role in the discussion and reform of U.S. international food 

aid and foreign agricultural assistance. There are no silver bullets or easy answers 

to the current food security crisis. Solutions will take time, but the time to act is 

now. Please make sure that U.S. food aid and foreign agricultural assistance investments benefit both the U.S. and our developing country partners by assuring that 

each investment:

61

• reduces developing country dependence on foreign food aid,

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

• strengthens positive attitudes in developing countries regarding U.S. policies 

and actions.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Thank you to all of our witnesses. 

Dr. Minot, you mention in your testimony the need for more institutionalized system for funding emergency assistance. As we have 

heard today and has been referred to, emergency assistance is designed by nature to be somewhat ad hoc because of the fact that 

it, indeed, is an emergency. What systems or procedures do you 

suggest should be institutionalized to make the assistance more 

available when it is needed in times of emergency? 

Dr. MINOT. Well, I think—and first of all, I think it needs to be 

internationally coordinated because this is something that where 

the risks of shock occurring, there may be several famines or several emergencies in a given year. It is much more difficult for one 

country, even the United States, to respond to multiple crises at 

the same time, than it is—it would be easier for the industrialized 

countries, as a whole, to respond to this crisis. So, first of all, some 

sort of international cooperation would be required. Second, some 

sort of—it is basically an insurance scheme. You have a situation 

where countries are willing to contribute a certain amount per 

year, but they want to make available a larger sum on this occasional, sort of, crisis situation, particularly when there are multiple 

crises—multiple emergencies that occur in a year. Those are the 

two key elements that would be required for a more institutionalized approach to emergency assistance. 

The CHAIRMAN. I know that we are moving close to votes and I 

want the many Members of the panel to have an opportunity to ask 

questions so that we will be able to complete this before the set of 

votes come on the House floor. So I now move to the Ranking Member for any questions she may have. 

Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Several of you have cited the lack of current agricultural production and reminded of the gains that have been 

made through the green revolution. Zimbabwe is always on my 

mind and could you just address government policies and what effect they have had. You know, you think of Zimbabwe being the 

bread basket of Africa and the enormous ability there to grow food 

and now it is just—I mean, it is devastated in every way. Could 

one of you, or all of you, comment on that? Whichever or whomever 

would like. Yes, go ahead. 

Mr. GUROFF. I mentioned in my statement about the World Food 

Summit and the fact that there are, by consensus, a variety of 

things that have to happen all at once if a country is going to become food secure. And one of those factors, and a big one in the 

Zimbabwe case, is clearly the enabling environment for success in 

that area. There is no amount of food aid, there is no amount of 

technology that can overcome bad government practices and the absence of an environment for private investment, which is also a 

critical factor. So the answer, unfortunately, is a broad political 

one, in that case, that as I said—no amount of aid is going to overcome. 

Dr. MINOT. Let me just—I certainly agree with my colleague’s 

comments. I spent 2 years in Zimbabwe in the early 1990s and am 

62

very aware of, certainly, the potential of the country, both in terms 

of agricultural production and as a vibrant member of the international community. The case of Zimbabwe highlights the fact that 

technical assistance and technology and developmental assistance 

is not always sufficient. It also highlights the need for assistance 

in the area of democracy and governance. It may be that the situation in Zimbabwe could not have been prevented by assistance in 

this area, but it certainly highlights the importance of good governance and transparency. Thank you. 

Mr. CALLAHAN. Representative Musgrave, I might just have one 

quick point on that, as well. Having been in Zimbabwe earlier this 

year, and then most recently in Sudan last month, that certainly 

civil society is a crucial area, in Zimbabwe they are now exporting 

some of their highest producing farmers to Zambia and other countries due to the insecurity in the area and the lack of continuity. 

It is difficult for people to plant crops if they don’t know if they are 

going to be owning that land or be able to harvest them down the 

line. In addition to that, even food aid has become more and more 

difficult in the capturing of trucks and things that are going to certain areas to be used for political use, but I think we should use 

Zimbabwe as an example. Certainly in southern Sudan and other 

countries where there isn’t stability, now is the time for us to address some of those concerns in civil societies so that we don’t have 

a crisis down the line in other countries as we do in Zimbabwe. 

Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and 

thank you, witnesses. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Mr. Pomeroy 

Mr. POMEROY. What a terrific hearing. Mr. Callahan, I want to 

commend your testimony. We can almost feel the emotional impact 

of the trip you had into the feeding stations through your testimony for us. It certainly has created, in my own mind, a notion 

that we better take a trip there. I think that if these Committee 

Members could, similarly, see what you have seen, we might have 

a different notion about all of this. I am absolutely convinced that 

there are strategies that can profoundly improve our international 

food aid, that don’t. On the other hand, we are bound against the 

very interest we are elected to represent, the well being of our 

farmers and so to those of you that—and I have heard a couple of 

statements. I think biofuels or some of the other ways we have 

structured our food assistance, we just have to reverse course on 

these. In other words, seek to dramatically reduce commodity 

prices so that we can do more relative food aid. Well, that is a 

structure that we are not going to really embrace here in the Agriculture Committee. We are trying to improve the financial circumstance of those we represent, but we are completely convinced 

this does not mean we are trying to starve the world. And so, trying to work through how we build capacity, how we drive innovation, how we expand global ag extension, how we weave in food for 

school attendance. These are strategies that are win-win strategies 

and these, in my opinion, needs to be—if you are going to think 

about it practically and strategically and what is going to be politically, most likely, to prevail needs to be the key points of advocacy 

by the hunger community, and we are ready to partner with you 

on that. I am not going to partner with you on taking down comVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:33 Jul 24, 2009 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 I:\DOCS\110-41\51037.TXT AGR1 PsN: BRIAN
63

modity prices. The market is, ultimately, going to sort that out. As 

we look at so many issues, so little time to try and get our hands 

around, I am interested in what seems to be working. You know, 

what are best practices that we might identify, pull and export. 

And Mr. Guroff, you allude to some of them in your testimony. 

What factors are common to the success stories you have seen that 

we might learn from and, maybe, do a better job of incorporating 

into our policies? 

Mr. GUROFF. I appreciate the question. There was discussion 

during the first panel about sustainability and one of the core elements of what we do at ACDI/VOCA is work at the local level to 

build cooperatives, to build associations, to build linkages that will 

be there long after we have gone. And this is—if there is anything 

that runs through our development efforts consistently it is this 

sort of development of human infrastructure, if you will. I referred 

to the hundreds of thousands that are benefiting from that organizational linkage and putting those groups to: linking them up in 

various stages of the value chain like NASFAM in Malawi; like the 

organizations that we have nurtured in Uganda; making small 

grants in Rwanda or Cape Verde with the resources made available 

through Title II programs. Taking what I have always referred to 

as the alchemy process of taking North Dakota wheat and turning 

it into road building and community organization and agricultural 

development around the world is a magical thing to me in the 10, 

12 years I have been in this business. And I see this, as I say, 

working, essentially, through local organization building. 

Mr. POMEROY. Dr. Dillaha, as part of the land-grant university, 

you talked earlier about the potential of trying to expand. We don’t 

have enough folks to help. We have had, basically, USAID shrink 

to, it is a contracting agency, and in order to deal with staffing up, 

we are going to have to leverage some resources that are otherwise 

available. You fall pretty quickly on the land-grants there. What do 

you think, from your position, is the capacity that could be marshaled in a useful way from land-grants? 

Dr. DILLAHA. I think there is a huge potential, and once again 

somebody mentioned earlier that Peter McPherson, through his 

role is the chair of the NASULGC is working with Members of Congress and others on some long-term programs that would establish 

partnerships between major U.S. agricultural universities; and either universities in different developing countries, or maybe a regional university that would represent a group of developing countries that would build up their capacities to educate people, to conduct research to address their problems. But, probably, more importantly is adapting their extension services to actually get the 

knowledge that we transfer from here that is developed there collaboratively, to get it out. One of the biggest problems that we have 

in many of the developing countries is they have educational institutions, they have agricultural research institutions, and they have 

extension services and they are all separate and they do not communicate. They do not work like the model we have. So I as an educator or researcher, I benefit from working with extension workers because I learn what the real problems are out there and then 

we integrate that into our teaching and our research programs. 

Then it also gives the opportunity for the extension workers to 

64

learn more about our research programs and the new knowledge 

that is generated so they can get that out there. That model just 

does not exist in innate places. There were attempts to establish 

this in the past and there wasn’t long-term support to maintain 

these efforts. 

Mr. POMEROY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your indulgence. 

The CHAIRMAN. Yes. Thank you very much. Thank you, Dr. 

Dillaha. Mr. Smith. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I guess I apologize for arriving late, I am trying to get a grasp of what all has been said 

and try not to repeat things. I would offer some comments first and 

that is that it is a relatively short period of time that we have gone 

from a surplus of some grains to, many would say, a premium. 

How can we explain that other than—I can’t help but think that 

there are causes greater than and certainly have a greater impact 

than simply biofuel production. I can offer those, but in the interest 

of time I would prefer to hear from you, but the fact is when we 

hear about our current situation not being sustainable I would say 

neither is $2 bushel corn sustainable. When you look at the bigger 

picture of production and the cost inputs and otherwise—I don’t 

need to repeat prior information. I also think about GMOs and I 

think the important role that GMOs have played in, literally, feeding the world. Dr. Barnes, could you, perhaps, express your association’s perspective on GMOs and perhaps how useful they are, or if 

you are not an advocate of GMOs, could you explain that. 

Dr. BARNES. Thank you for the question. Speaking for myself, 

and my organization, I would say that I advocate GMOs. Getting 

the proper GMO to the situation, say in Africa or to Ethiopia where 

I worked, would take some work, but Ethiopia needs improved productivity. It needs new options. The farmers there need new options and as my colleague from Virginia Tech said, extension work 

needs to be done. Well we need to give the right tools to the people. 

Genetically modified corn or wheat would be very helpful in Ethiopia if it fit the agricultural and environmental situation, so I fully 

support the idea. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you. Dr. Dillaha, could you elaborate, perhaps, 

on the acceptance? I would say GMOs are, maybe, accepted a little 

more today than just a couple of years ago. Could you speak to the 

acceptance worldwide, or to the science and those who may still 

fight GMOs, are they coming around? 

Dr. DILLAHA. I don’t know that I would have any more knowledge than you would. I think that the thing that we need to remember when we think about biotechnology and GMOs is they are 

not a silver bullet. It is just like the green revolution. The green 

revolution only worked in some parts of the world where there was 

adequate management skill, adequate water, adequate access to 

fertilizer and things like that. If we just introduce better seed, we 

are not, necessarily, going to get any increases in production and 

things like that. We have to have all of these other enabling factors. We have to look at farming systems. We have to look at the 

markets that have been mentioned and things like that. Certainly 

there is opposition to GMOs and some types of biotechnology in different parts of the world, but it is certainly a valuable tool that we 

65

have in our tool box to address the problems that we are talking 

about. 

Mr. SMITH. Okay, thank you. And let me just say that last year 

when I traveled to Ethiopia, I must say that I was impressed and, 

actually, inspired by the interaction of USAID, Catholic Relief 

Services—by not only their interaction, but how they are bringing 

a better way of life to those folks that most Americans don’t identify with. The increment of improved living is huge and I commend 

those agencies involved and certainly thank you. Thank you, Mr. 

Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. Mr. Callahan, you had 

mentioned the long term nature of the food crisis and how we are 

only at the beginning. Based on what you have seen, do you think 

the situation will be improved or worse a year from now? 

Mr. CALLAHAN. From what we are doing, we need to make some 

significant efforts or the situation will be worse a year from now, 

so we are very concerned about it. I think the publicity that we are 

currently receiving; the fact that the Congress has acted and the 

U.S. Government has shown great leadership; the fact that the 

World Bank is getting involved; and the fact that a lot of other 

foundations such as Gates and others are participating, is very 

helpful to the cause. But I still see there are a lot of gaps, there 

are a lot of people in isolated areas that won’t be reached by some 

of the quicker initiatives. As we have mentioned at this meeting—

longer term agricultural production investments are going to be 

necessary or the situation will continue to be difficult and worse 

than it is today. 

The CHAIRMAN. What is your answer to that, Mr. Guroff? Is it 

going to be worse or better a year from now? 

Mr. GUROFF. I think, as I said in my testimony, it depends on 

political will at this point. I think the jury is out on the question. 

We have made some progress in the farm bill, in terms of protecting non-emergency programs, which down the road will help us 

to avoid similar emergencies. But it is just a step in the right direction. It needs to go further. There has been no answer in terms of 

the Emerson Trust and replenishment, and as so many have said 

investment in agricultural development—if we can’t really ramp 

that up, we are not going to be doing our parts, and as I said, it 

is the international community as a whole. Certainly the U.S. can’t 

do it all, but the U.S. can certainly point the way and show that 

there is political will. Otherwise, I think we will see a worse situation a year from now. 

The CHAIRMAN. Okay. Dr. Barnes, your answer to that question? 

Is it going to be better or worse a year from now, and why? 

Dr. BARNES. Well I think, as we have all said, this is a long-term 

problem and I believe, at best, we can hope things will have perhaps bottomed out in a year from now. I feel that the global economic situation that we are facing took a long time to develop. It 

just didn’t happen overnight and it is going to take a while to correct itself. So for the poor in the world and the hungry in the world 

I think this is going to be lasting a few more years. I hope it bottoms out in the next year and we can begin to make progress, but 

on the whole, I feel this is here for the long run and in the next 

year things will be about the same. 

66

The CHAIRMAN. All right, thank you, sir. We are getting ready 

to have votes at any moment now. Mrs. Musgrave had to leave a 

few moments early, but in our discussion, the question that I have 

just asked that three of you have answered, I would like you three 

to put your statement in writing and perhaps to expand upon it, 

if you like. I would also like Dr. Minot and Dr. Dillaha to answer 

the same questions and put that in writing. We would like, as you 

know, to be able to have any expanded comments and the answer 

to that question within 10 business days from today. Normally it 

is 10 calendar days, but I am giving you 10 business days since 

earlier in the panel we asked you to be able to give any extended 

remarks within 10 business days, so we will make that consistent. 

That would be 2 weeks from today, 2 calendar weeks from today. 

The record will remain open to allow any supplementary written 

responses, specifically to the last question I ask. I would like all 

five of you to answer. Mrs. Musgrave has an intense interest in 

your answer as well, and unfortunately, had to leave a few moments early. 

Also, if there are any other questions that any Members have 

that they would like to submit to you, I encourage them to do so, 

immediately, within the next day or 2 so that you can also answer 

those questions within the 10 business days. Thank you all for your 

attendance. I thank the audience for their patience and thanks to 

the staff, Kim and Aleta, particularly, I want to say thank you and 

thanks to the minority staff, as well. This hearing of the Subcommittee on Specialty Crops, Rural Development and Foreign Agriculture is now adjourned. May God bless you. 

[Whereupon, at 11:51 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]

67

1OECD (2008). Environmental Performance of Agriculture in OECD Countries Since 1990,

Paris, France, www.oecd.org/tad/env/indicators.

SUBMITTED STATEMENT OF ROBERT PAARLBERG, PH.D., B.F. JOHNSON PROFESSOR OF

POLITICAL SCIENCE, WELLESLEY COLLEGE

In the developing world, advocates for high-yield farming have recently been on 

the defensive. The current spike in world food prices has raised a possibility that 

modern farming in developed countries may be close to exhaustion due to environmental limits. A global project called the International Assessment of Agricultural 

Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD), sponsored by the 

World Bank and the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, concluded 

earlier this spring that modern high-yield farming had led to land degradation, 

unsustainable water use, excessive fertilizer applications, inappropriate use of pesticides, and a loss of biodiversity. The implied conclusion was that poor countries 

in the developing world should stay away from modern high-yield farming and place 

much greater emphasis on agro-ecological approaches, organic farming, or ‘‘traditional knowledge.’’

This conclusion would take the developing world in exactly the wrong direction. 

The record shows that high-yield farming in rich countries today is actually friendlier to the rural environment (per bushel of production) and hence more sustainable 

than low-yield farming, and it is becoming more so every day as technology continues to evolve. The popular impression that modern farming will ruin the environment dates from Rachel Carson’s 1962 book Silent Spring, a description of the 

health and environmental damages done by the use of DDT in farming. Yet this impression is now out of date. Thanks in part to Carson’s book chemical use in American farming is now more tightly restricted (DDT has not been used for nearly 4 

decades) and numerous other regulatory and technical advances (such as conservation tillage) have dramatically reduced environmental damage even as yields have 

continued to increase. 

And, there is no end in sight to this important progress. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) has just published an important review 1 of the ‘‘environmental performance of agriculture’’ in the 30 most advanced 

industrial countries of the world, those with the highest yielding farming systems. 

The new data show that between 1990 and 2004 total food production increased in 

volume by another five percent, while adverse environmental impacts were diminishing in every area. 

• The area of land taken up by agriculture declined four percent.

• Soil erosion from both wind and water was reduced.

• Water use on irrigated lands declined by nine percent.

• Energy use on the farm increased at only 1⁄6 the rate of energy use in the rest 

of the economy.

• Gross greenhouse gas emissions from farming fell by three percent.

• Herbicide and insecticide spraying declined by five percent.

• Excessive nitrogen fertilizer use declined by 17 percent.

• Biodiversity improved, as increased numbers of crop varieties and livestock 

breeds came in use.

The OECD countries registered this strong performance even while continuing to 

carry a disproportionate production burden. They are home to only 18 percent of the 

world’s citizens (and a much smaller fraction of the world’s farmers) yet they 

produce 36 percent of the world’s annual cereal crops, 40 percent of the world’s 

meat, and 47 percent of the world’s milk. 

What has made these reduced impacts on the environment possible is not a move 

away from high-yield farming, but instead a move toward ‘‘precision farming.’’ 

Farmers are now conserving water with drip irrigation systems and laser-leveled 

fields. Farm tractors now have satellite-linked Global Positioning System (GPS) 

monitors and Geographical Information System (GIS) maps that can tell exactly 

where they are in a field (within 1 square meter) and precisely how much water 

or fertilizer that part of the field needs. In the United States, genetically engineered 

seeds have allowed farmers to control pests and weeds with fewer chemical sprays 

and less soil tillage, leading also to less burning of diesel fuel and more sequestered 

carbon. 

It is low-yield farming, not high-yield farming, that does greatest harm to the environment. In America it was in the 1930s, when wheat yields were less than half 

the current level, that farmers plowed fragile dry lands on the southern plains, and 

68

then watched the soil blow away creating an infamous ‘‘Dust Bowl.’’ In the decades 

that followed, improved seeds and new fertilizers made good lands much more productive, so fragile lands no longer had to be plowed. As a consequence total U.S. 

farm output doubled after 1950, even as the land area being farmed declined by 25 

percent. 

When developing countries embrace modern farming they make comparable land 

conservation gains. In India in 1964, before the introduction of modern seeds and 

fertilizers, farmers produced 12 million tons of wheat on 14 million hectares of land. 

Following an uptake of new seeds and fertilizers, yields increased dramatically so 

by 1993 India was able to quadruple its wheat production while increasing its 

cropped wheat area by only 60 percent. M.S. Swaminathan, the Indian crop scientist 

who led this ‘‘green revolution’’ later commented: ‘‘Thanks to plant breeding, a tremendous onslaught on fragile lands and forest margins has been avoided.’’ 

The goal of environmentalists today should be to help farmers in Africa make a 

similar transition toward more productive cropping techniques. Roughly 60 percent 

of all citizens in sub-Saharan Africa are farmers, and most have no irrigation, no 

improved seed varieties, no nitrogen fertilizers, and no veterinary medicine for their 

animals. Their crop yields are only 1⁄10 as high as in Europe and only 1⁄3 as high 

as in the developing countries of Asia, and despite their best efforts production has 

fallen behind the rate of population growth. On a per capita basis, production in Africa today is actually 19 percent below where it was in 1970. 

Some (including those who influenced the ISTAAD assessment) like to peddle a 

romantic notion that Africa should stay away from high-yield farming and embrace 

pre-modern ‘‘organic’’ production methods instead. Yet most of Africa’s smallholder 

farmers today are de facto organic (since they use little or no nitrogen fertilizer) and 

the outcome is anything but romantic. A majority of smallholder farmers in Africa 

are women who earn only about $1 a day, and 1⁄3 of them are malnourished. Nor 

are they succeeding as stewards of the environment. The nutrients in their soils become exhausted from constant cropping without fertilizers, so they must move on 

to clear new lands. Land clearing for low-yield agriculture has become the cause of 

approximately 70 percent of all deforestation in Africa. High-yield farming based on 

modern agricultural science may not be romantic, but it remains the best option 

available for increasing both the production of food and the income of farmers, at 

least cost to the natural environment. 

What is it that holds poor farmers in Africa back from moving toward higher crop 

yields and a better-protected rural environment? In my new book Starved for 

Science: How Biotechnology is Being Kept Out of Africa (Harvard University Press) 

I show that farmers in Africa suffer from low productivity because most are laboring 

without any of the essentials of modern farming. No fertilizers, no hybrid seeds, no 

irrigation, no electrical power, no veterinary medicine. Only four percent of farmland in Africa is irrigated. Farmers in Africa use only about 1⁄10 the amount of fertilizer per acre as farmers in the industrial world. 

It would be easier for farmers in Africa to get access to these essential technical 

supports if governments in Africa invested more in agricultural development. In recent years governments in Africa have dedicated only about five percent of their 

public spending to any kind of agricultural development, far too little for a sector 

employing 2⁄3 of their citizens and in such great need. Because of inadequate rural 

infrastructure investments, most farmers in Africa are significantly isolated from 

the modern economy. Seventy percent of rural dwellers live more than 2 kilometers 

(a 30 minute walk) from the nearest all-weather road, so most household transport 

still takes place on foot. High transport costs drive up the price of fertilizer deliveries and drive down farm profits from commercial sales. Rural infrastructure and 

agricultural research need public sector leadership, but government spending on 

farm-to-market feeder roads has been marginal and agricultural research has been 

particularly neglected. 

At an African Union (AU) meeting in 2003 in Maputo, governments in Africa 

pledged to increase their budgetary spending on agriculture to ten percent by 2009, 

in support of a new Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme 

(CAADP). Helping governments in Africa to reach this goal should be the first priority of U.S. development assistance in the region. Unfortunately, USAID support 

for agriculture in Africa has been shrinking rather than growing for the past 2 decades. As late as 1980 a full 25 percent of all U.S. official development assistance 

went to agriculture, but as of 2007 only one percent of USAID spending went for 

that purpose. When the aid-dependent countries of Africa see the donors pulling 

money away from agricultural modernization, they are inclined to do the same. 

Weak donor support has been particularly damaging to agricultural research investments in Africa. We know that agricultural research has big payoffs in Africa. 

Colin Thirtle, Lin Lin, and Jenifer Piesse have calculated that the weighted average 

69

rate of return to agricultural R&D spending in Africa’s farm sector has been a respectable 22 percent. In its 2008 World Development Report the World Bank has estimated, from a review of 188 different studies carried out in Africa (between 1953 

and 1997) that the average rate of return on agricultural research investment in 

Africa is above 30 percent. Yet investments in agricultural research have been badly 

neglected. In one sampling of twenty-seven countries in sub-Saharan Africa in the 

1990s, public spending on agricultural R&D had declined in half. Between 1981 and 

2000, per capita spending on agricultural science in Africa overall actually declined 

by 27 percent. 

This abandonment of agricultural research in Africa was caused, in significant 

measure, by a collapse in donor support. Between the mid-1980s and 2004, annual 

USAID funding for agricultural R&D in Africa dropped by nearly 3⁄4, down to a negligible $15 million for the entire continent. African governments were unable to 

make up for this decline in external assistance so their own spending on agricultural research was cut back. 

Why was external assistance to African farming cut back so sharply? One reason 

was an illusion, created by low international food prices in the 1980s and 1990s, 

that the world’s food production problems had all been solved. In truth, food production problems in Africa were worsening in the 1980s and 1990s, and between 1991 

and 2002 the number of undernourished people in the region increased from 169 

million up to 206 million. Nearly 1⁄3 of all men, women, and children in sub-Saharan 

Africa became malnourished, even at a time when world food prices were low. Price 

levels in the international marketplace have always been a poor indicator of actual 

circumstances in the African countryside. 

The current run-up in international crop prices has brought renewed attention to 

food and farming issues, but so far the response of the U.S. Government has been 

to stress short-term food aid needs over long-term investments in agricultural development. Roughly 85 percent of the new funding pledged by President Bush in response to the world food crisis this year has been for food aid. Financing food aid 

is important, but what poor farmers in Africa need for the longer run is higher farm 

productivity. This will require revived international support for adequate local public investments in things like rural roads, rural irrigation and power, rural schools, 

rural clinics, and most of all local agricultural research. The bulk of Africa’s food 

crisis comes not from the high cost of imported food but instead from the low productivity of Africa’s own smallholder farmers. The current interlude of high food 

prices has revived interest in international food and hunger issues, which is a good 

thing. If the current crisis can be leveraged to revive USAID’s traditional mission 

in supporting farm productivity gains in poor countries, then something even better 

will have been achieved. 

SUBMITTED STATEMENT OF DR. CARY FOWLER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, GLOBAL CROP

DIVERSITY TRUST

On behalf of the Global Crop Diversity Trust I would like to thank the Committee 

for the opportunity to submit this testimony, and in particular for the Committee’s 

recognition of the importance of the Trust’s work through the authorization in the 

farm bill of the appropriation of $60 million to fund the United States’ contribution 

to the endowment of the Trust. 

Background 

The recent food price crisis has thrown into sharp focus many of the development 

challenges we face to ensure food security: population growth, little new land, water 

shortages, uncertain energy supplies, and climate change. These mean that soon our 

crops must produce more food, on the same amount of land, with less water, with 

more expensive and less secure supplies of energy and fertilizer, under climactic 

conditions which farming has never experienced. 

There is no possible scenario in which we can continue to grow the food we require 

without crop diversity. But this diversity is at risk, dying even in the gene banks 

where it has been placed for safekeeping. Individual varieties, such as the 200,000 

varieties of wheat, have different traits for drought or heat tolerance, nutritional 

quality, disease resistance and every other possible characteristic. Crop diversity is 

therefore the raw material for improving and adapting crops to meet all future challenges. 

But securing crop diversity is a unique challenge because:

• There is complete agreement regarding its paramount importance—it is the biological foundation of all agriculture, everywhere.

70

• There is total global interdependence—no country in the world is self-sufficient 

in the genetic diversity of the crops which feed its people.

• The solution is available and simple—all the political agreements are in place, 

the science is understood, the institutions exist. Only the finance is missing.

• There is only one organisation working worldwide to solve this problem—the 

Global Crop Diversity Trust.

Therefore, full funding of the Global Crop Diversity Trust’s endowment will guarantee that the genetic diversity of the world’s main food crops will be secured, conserved and available—forever. 

Global Crop Diversity Trust 

The Trust is an independent international organization, established in 2004. Its 

founders were the international research centers of the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR), and the Food and Agriculture Organisation 

of the United Nations, both of which recognized the urgent need for a dedicated 

organisation to undertake a task which was beyond the mandate of either 

organisation. 

Since at least the 1980s, crop yield improvements have been the single greatest 

contributor to increased production. But the rate of increase has been dropping 

steadily. Not coincidentally, since 1980 the share of overseas development assistance 

for agriculture has plummeted from more than 16% to less than 4% of Official Development Assistance. 

These cuts impact not only research, but the conservation of the raw material for 

much research—the collections held by gene banks. The crop research called for so 

frequently, in particular with regard to fostering a second green revolution in Africa 

or adapting agriculture to climate change, is based on the material found in gene 

banks, the most important of which internationally are held by research organizations. The lack of security of funding threatens these, with implications for agriculture everywhere. The Trust will, once fully endowed, fund the maintenance of the 

world’s most important gene banks so that the fluctuations of individual research 

budgets have no impact on the crucial collections of crop diversity. 

The Trust has already raised $143 million, from developed and developing country 

donors as varied as the United Kingdom, India, Australia and Ethiopia, as well as 

from philanthropic foundations and corporations. The U.S. was one of the first countries to announce support for the Trust, prior even to its formal establishment as 

an international organization. This early vote of confidence was vital to encouraging 

other donors, who have since come through very strongly. As other countries have 

stepped forward top fund the Trust, the U.S. is now one of the Trust’s smallest donors. In a reversal of the earlier situation, now the lagging contribution by the U.S. 

has the potential to undermine confidence in the Trust, and consequently future 

fundraising.

‘‘To ensure that the most critical collections of rice, wheat, corn, potatoes and 

the other staple crops that feed the world continue to be protected, the Global 

Crop Diversity Trust deserves continued support.At a time when science is providing the keys to understanding how best to use the contents of these precious 

food crop gene banks in order to benefit humanity and the environment, the 

collections themselves are under threat. The Global Crop Diversity Trust will 

help protect these irreplaceable sources of global biodiversity, ensuring that 

their promise is fully realized.’’

Dr. Norman E. Borlaug, 

Nobel Peace Prize Laureate, 2007 Recipient of Congressional Gold Medal. 

The Work of the Trust 

The Global Crop Diversity Trust is the sole worldwide response to the under-funding crisis facing gene banks, offering a clear and achievable solution. The Trust will 

ensure the conservation and availability of the vast genetic diversity of our food 

crops. Although less than 4 years old, the Trust has already raised $143 million, 

and has launched a comprehensive programme to:

• regenerate and safely duplicate threatened, and unique, collections (the Trust 

is already funding regeneration activities in 45 collections in 32 countries);

• upgrade key gene banks holding multiple globally important collections;

71

• safely duplicate collections at the Svalbard Global Seed Vault (the Trust has 

organised and funded the shipment of over 100 million seeds to this unique 

back-up facility in the Arctic);

• develop information systems for better management of, and dramatically improved access to, collections-specifically:

» the Trust is funding the development of a version of USDA’s gene bank management software which can be rolled out for free to developing countries; and

» the Trust is also developing a system to enable plant breeders to search collections globally, by trait, over the Internet, which will massively expand the 

ability of scientists to research and access useful traits;

• screen collections for traits essential to meet climate change and other challenges, for example the Trust has just entered into partnerships with institutions in 15 countries to support screening of collections of banana and plantain, 

barley, chickpea, coconut, cowpea, grasspea, lentil, maize, millet, rice, sweet potato, taro, wheat, and yam; and

• develop improved conservation methods for difficult-to-conserve crops of particular importance to the poor in tropical countries, such as cassava, yam, and 

sweet potato.

This programme can be seen as preparing a ‘global system’ for the conservation 

and availability of crop diversity, whose permanent maintenance the Trust will fund 

through its endowment. The Trust has also already started funding vitally important collections from its endowment—effectively providing grants which will last in 

perpetuity and therefore removing all funding uncertainty from vital collections. In 

2008, long-term grants drawn from the Trust’s endowment will already total $1.95 

million and will provide security to cassava, wheat, barley, faba bean, lentil, pearl 

millet, banana, bean, grass pea, sorghum, yam, forages, rice, and the management 

of the Svalbard Global Seed Vault. 

Long-Term Funding for a Long-Term Task 

The conservation of crop diversity is by its nature a very long-term task, requiring 

consistent and reliable funding. Uncertainties in funding for gene banks place collections at risk, and even short-term interruptions in funding can result in the loss 

of unique material. The current funding approaches—a reliance on annual funding 

from central treasuries and on traditional 3 to 5 year grants—are failing, despite 

the importance to development of a well-funded system of gene banks worldwide. 

There is a focus from most donors on short-term impact, though shortfalls in gene 

bank funding can reduce options for agriculture forever. In the long-term nature of 

gene banks’ work, a 3 to 5 year grant provides very little meaningful security. Only 

an endowment fund can provide the requisite guarantees of truly long-term funding, 

which will insulate the vital work of gene banks from budget cuts and changes in 

funding fashions, while still exposing them to the rigours of effective project management, external review and proper accountability. 

The Congress endorsed the Trust’s mission and the need to fund it through a permanent endowment when it enacted section 3202 of the 2008 Farm Bill. Section 

3202 authorized the appropriation of $60 million over 5 years to fund the U.S. contribution to the Trust endowment. 

The appropriation of funds for the Trust endowment is a concrete contribution to 

one of the most important issues facing agriculture—the conservation of its biological base. Globally, current arrangements for conserving crop diversity are failing to 

provide adequate security for this vital resource.

• The international community therefore funds the conservation of crop diversity 

in a patchwork of individual commitments and arrangements, yet does not have 

the reassurance that the job is being done.

• The Trust, as the sole dedicated worldwide funding organization for the conservation of crop diversity, is uniquely placed to allow donors to view this work 

globally, rather than through disparate institutions across the globe.

• The Trust allows donors to apply rigorous standards to donations whilst avoiding the competition and duplication inherent in current funding arrangements.

• The Trust allows donors to remove funding uncertainty from the conservation 

of crop diversity as a whole, while reinforcing the need for individual institutions to perform.

• The Trust will promote the effective, goal-oriented, economically efficient and 

sustainable global system which the conservation of crop diversity requires.

72

‘‘Low agricultural productivity in sub-Saharan Africa is due, in part, to the 

limited use of agricultural inputs, such as fertilizer and improved seed varieties, and the lack of modern farming practices.’’

‘‘The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) funding to address 

food insecurity in Africa has been primarily for emergency food aid, which has 

been crucial in helping to alleviate food crises but has not addressed the underlying factors that contributed to the recurrence and severity of these crises.’’

Government Accountability Office (May 2008). 

What Sets the Trust Apart? 

In a world where there are many important, and apparently overwhelming, issues 

demanding attention, it is important to note how the Trust differs from other organizations competing for donations.

• Its mission is achievable. It is rare that the world faces a major problem which 

has highly disturbing implications but an identifiable and achievable solution. 

This is precisely what the Trust offers; a costed, measurable plan, relying on 

existing institutions and simple proven technologies.

• It is the only solution. Crop diversity is disappearing, even in the gene banks 

built to protect it, and there is no organization apart from the Trust tackling 

this problem worldwide. The Trust offers a unique opportunity to put in place 

a rational and cost-effective system for the conservation of the resources which 

underpin all agriculture and the world’s future food supplies. 

U.S. Funding for the Trust 

Sixty million dollars has been authorized for the Trust in the 2008 Farm Bill. The 

Trust hopes to make significant strides towards this target in the early period of 

the Bill, due to the twin imperatives of the urgency of delivering its mission, and 

the importance of establishing clear support from the U.S. in the eyes of other potential donors. 

In this regard, we urge the Congress to ensure that the precious and irreplaceable 

resource of our crop diversity is preserved through the provision of funding for the 

Trust from funds provided in the FY 2008 supplemental appropriations provided for 

agricultural development. In addition, we urge that funding for the Trust endowment be provided within the FY 2009 Foreign Operations appropriations at a level 

which would ensure fulfillment of the $60 million Trust authorization within the 5 

year timetable approved by this Committee and enacted by Congress.

‘‘Since crop gene banks around the world are so critical for sustaining the 

U.S. food supply system and a major sector of the U.S. economy, full support for 

the Global Crop Diversity Trust and its conservation goals is essential.’’

Safeguarding the Future of U.S. Agriculture,

University of California, 2005. 

The Global Crop Diversity Trust is extremely grateful to the Committee for the 

chance to present this testimony, as the Committee considers the complex issues 

surrounding agricultural development assistance and food aid. We will of course 

welcome the opportunity to respond to any questions that the Committee may have 

in this regard. 

SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL SUBMITTED BY SEAN CALLAHAN, EXECUTIVE VICE

PRESIDENT, OVERSEAS OPERATIONS, CATHOLIC RELIEF SERVICES

CRS Expectations About the Global Food Crisis Next Year 

Summary: Encouraging signs indicate that the rapid, upward trend in food prices 

is abating. However, major multilateral organizations and think tanks point out 

that this is a long-term crisis.

• Vulnerable countries and volatile markets need to be monitored closely, and the 

U.S. response needs to be expanded geographically and even modified to better 

address the needs on the ground. The real danger in this situation is the prospect of high fuel and food prices putting extreme pressure on societies already 

vulnerable to political or environmental shocks.

73

• Countries hardest hit will be food and fuel importing nations with low per capita incomes. Slowing food price increases, or even a leveling off, will not be 

enough to overcome the extreme vulnerability throughout much of the developing world.

• Congress should continue leadership that it has shown in the Trade Title of the 

2008 Farm Bill and the FY 2008–2009 Supplemental Appropriations bill.

• CRS has outlined additional steps in this prospective review for consideration 

by the House Agriculture Committee. In particular, CRS urges Congress to conduct both oversight hearings and overseas fact-finding trips.

Expected Short-term Trends: The current global food crisis stems from increased costs in the commodity, fuel, and credit markets. A critical factor in this 

ongoing crisis is the ability of countries to buffer the most negative economic effects 

as they arise. While OECD countries are tightening their belts, developing economies have less room for maneuver, and the most vulnerable countries have virtually 

no flexibility to handle severe economic stress and hunger. 

The course of the global food crisis over the next 6–12 months will depend upon 

the political will of all nations to employ real remedies for the causes of food insecurity. Evidence of economic resilience in major economies, greater global political stability, downward pressure on oil prices, and resolution of international financial turbulence would all help maintain food price stability. Given this long list of contributing factors, food prices do appear to be stabilizing at significantly higher levels 

than in 2006. See charts below. 

Although strong wheat production has led to falling prices, maize sells at double 

the previous levels and rice prices remain historically high. Poor harvests, climate 

change, low grain stocks, and increased demand for animal protein and biofuels all 

contribute to the continuation of high commodity prices. Record prices for energy 

and fertilizer, both key inputs to global agriculture prices also exacerbate the food 

price crisis. Current threats to oil production from hurricanes, insecurity in Nigeria, 

and uncertainty about Iranian policy hold prices at record levels. 

Price Graphs for Key Food and Fuel Commodities 2007–2008

Scenario’s over the next 6–12 months: In Africa, secondary shocks are developing in the Horn for Africa with poor harvests resulting from drought. Zimbabwe’s 

ongoing political instability reinforces the food crisis. In the Caribbean, Haiti is undergoing a series of problems caused by both drought and political unrest. In South 

Asia, the success of Pakistan’s political transition remains in doubt, causing particular uncertainty about food security in the most economically-vulnerable areas. 

In all of these cases, the double-jeopardy effects of high food and fuel costs, plus 

additional political shocks make poor populations extremely vulnerable. 

The Multilateral Assistance Outlook: The World Bank has launched a special 

request for Ethiopia at $200 Million, but even if successful, this approach cannot 

be easily be replicated for all the other countries. In an alternative approach the 

World Bank is calling for a ‘‘Global vulnerability fund’’ to provide a new channel 

for investment in crisis areas, but there is little new money to fund this idea. Agencies such as World Food Programme are looking to the Middle East for new funds 

and the Saudi Government has given $500 million to date. Other UN Agencies are 

also undergoing planning efforts, but how these will be manifested and at what 

funding levels remain unclear. Unfortunately, many other donors are only seeking 

to reshuffle existing development aid rather than adding new resources to keep pace 

with rising food insecurity. 

Recommendations: What we see in our field programs across the developing 

world is that the current food aid structure lacks certain provisions to maximize the 

already generous resources provided by the American people. The following list of 


11041013
74

recommendations for the Subcommittee provides steps to address both short and 

long-term aspects of the crisis.

• Feeding the poorest of the poor—Establish a global social safety net program to be administered by FFP with approximately $50 million per year of Title II resources. The multi-year unconditional social safety net programs would target 

people most vulnerable to food insecurity. In addition to the current food aid 

programming objectives, these safety net resources would be used to preserve 

the human dignity of the most vulnerable and expand outreach to the most vulnerable, those who suffer from the most severe forms of chronic hunger. These 

same people are currently victims of geography, as they are outside of the Food 

for Peace’s regular programs.

• Providing PVOs more resources to complement Title II food aid—Establish a 

cash pipeline for FFP (outside of P.L. 480, Section 202e) to use in both emergency and development programs (this would be either through funding authorized by the Foreign Affairs Committee, the Agriculture Committee or both). The 

funds would be made available from outside current P.L. 480 legislation but 

would be used by Food for Peace to supplement food aid resources. Such cash 

resources would tackle hunger more broadly than the current resources allow, 

by employing voucher programs and agriculture development activities, which 

require more appropriated funding than allowed under Title II.

• The widespread suffering in the current crisis points to a complex of food security factors:

(1) availability of food (including food aid); and

(2) access to and affordability for vulnerable populations (targeted food 

vouchers); as well as

(3) boosting agricultural production (through input vouchers).

Such effective interventions apply across the range of countries suffering from 

this crisis. Providing more commodity food aid is clearly not enough. Food for 

Peace needs to build a more flexible and comprehensive response to world hunger.

• Creating a Mechanism for Government to Government Technical Assistance on 

Agricultural Policy—Amend the farm bill to provide government to government 

technical assistance on agricultural policy by creating a mechanism for USDA 

representatives (and U.S. Land-Grant partners when appropriate) to provide 

short and long-term technical assistance to developing country governments suffering from the food crisis. Areas of assistance could include specific areas as 

follows:

—Creating or strengthening government social safety net programs, using 

experts from U.S. Government WIC, food stamp and school feeding programs.

—Land tenure structures to allow owners of farms large and small to enjoy 

free-title to their land and enter into the formal agricultural economy.

—Strengthening farm credit systems through technical expertise from the 

U.S. Farm Credit Administration to establish or strengthen legal environments for agricultural credit as well as assistance to improve the ability of 

nations to carry out agricultural credit programs that reach farmers and 

agribusinesses of all income levels.

—Research and extension technical assistance through the USDA Agricultural Research Service, the Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service as well as U.S. Land-Grant partners to help countries build 

or strengthen national research and extension structures.

• Monitoring Title II Safe box Programs—Provide oversight to Food for Peace as 

it carries out expanded development food aid programs as a result of new provisions called for in the current farm bill. Currently, Food for Peace operates development food aid programs in about 18 countries, while the World Food Programme and the World Bank estimate that countries hit especially hard by this 

long-term price crisis number over 30. Both need to coordinate on how to 

achieve food aid effectiveness. The Agriculture Committee can provide crucial 

oversight to this process.

• Supporting House efforts to increase investment in agricultural production, agroenterprise, market infrastructure—In addition to the suggestions for expanded 

authority and funding for Food for Peace, Members should support expanded 

appropriations for USAID/EGAT to increase funding for interventions that will 

75

expand global food availability and decrease the vulnerability of the poorest producers and most vulnerable urban populations.

The matrix below offers a birds-eye view of possible trends and responses in the 

nest year,

Scenarios Outcomes Interventions 

The current situation is 

one of high fuel and 

food prices, leading to 

increased vulnerability, 

especially in net importing countries with 

large low income populations. 

• Declining urban poor 

purchasing power 

• Food reductions in 

rural areas 

• Reduced ability of governments to support 

vulnerable communities 

• Reduced demand for 

fuel and oil based products 

• Food transfers to most 

vulnerable urban 

groups 

• Input support to farmers 

• Link production to 

markets 

• Use local procurement 

methods to meet urban 

and rural needs 

• Improve market information systems

Hopeful: In 6 months 

time lowering fuel 

prices and increasing 

global production will 

led to falling fuel and 

food prices. 

• Stabilizing commodity 

prices 

• Fuel costs fall to below 

$100/barrel levels 

• Food prices begin to 

fall 

• Food transfers to most 

vulnerable urban 

groups 

• Input support to farmers 

• Monitor markets

Less Hopeful: In 6 

months time with continued high fuel and 

food prices, many governments will be unable 

to continue subsidies to 

fuel and food or support 

to vulnerable populations. 

• Continued pressure on 

food prices, combined 

with hungry periods, 

requires increased levels of intervention in 

affected countries 

• Food transfers via food 

vouchers for urban and 

rural poor to access 

food 

• Rural farmers to access 

inputs to boost production 

• Voucher based local 

procurement to buy 

initial increase in production to avoid production losses 

76


11041014
77


11041015
78

SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL SUBMITTED BY ANDREW BARNES, PH.D., DIRECTOR OF

FOOD SECURITY, FOOD FOR THE HUNGRY

‘‘Based on your experience, what do you think the food security situation 

will be a year from now, either globally or in areas with which you are 

especially familiar?’’

The food security situation is areas of Africa that are generally food insecure will 

not be greatly improved in a year’s time. In the best of times these food insecure 

countries struggle to meet their food needs. In Ethiopia food needs of the chronically 

food insecure are supported by hundreds of thousands of tons of imported foods annually. Much of this food is supplied by the United States through Title II. The cost 

of buying that food, transporting it to Ethiopia and trucking it to its final destination has approximately doubled in the past year; making food aid a very costly 

intervention. 

The factors contributing to the rapidly rising food prices are well know and included:

• Supply and demand for food. The population of the world is increasing at faster 

rate then global food production. Also the middle class is expanding in developing countries such as China and India and these upwardly mobile people are 

eating more per capita and are enjoying different foods, both of which are contributing to greater demand for food. This increase in demand seems to be permanent.

• Rising fuel costs. The rapidly growing middle class in China and India are purchasing more automobiles driving up the demand for fuel and therefore the 

price of fuel. This trend is not likely to change and therefore, it appears that 

the high cost of fuel is here to stay.

• Loss of crop land. The planting of land with non-edible biofuel production has 

reduced food production in some countries. The increased interest in the planting of biofuels is based largely on government policies which are not likely to 

change rapidly.

All these factors contribute to the very high price of Title II food. The American 

taxpayer can only bear so much. Title II programs are being closed in a number 

of countries due to the raising costs of the program. Hard choices must be and have 

been made. Should the U.S. Government fund Title II programs in Kenya or Ethiopia? Someone will lose out, and countries such as Kenya will not be receiving Title 

II food aid in the future. 

The poor in Kenya will not see a great improvement in their food security situation in the next year or so. On the contrary they may be in worse condition than 

they currently are. It takes a couple of years to recover from a bad drought and the 

associated loss of productivity. In the past when food aid was less expensive it was 

more plentiful and could reach more people. The dwindling availability of food aid 

will make the effects of current drought even more difficult to recover from. 

The above mentioned factors that contribute to the current global crisis did not 

suddenly develop because a rapid change in the global economy or a sudden change 

in global food policy. The current global food supply and demand ‘‘equation’’ did not 

spring up over night. Long term population trends and a long term ‘‘disinterest’’ in 

improving agricultural productivity have contributed to the problem. These trends 

will not change over night. Even if the governments of the world decided to immediately double funding for research to increase agricultural productivity it would 

still take a number of year to see the results. The fuel shortage and the associated 

high cost of fuel are the consequences of long term population growth, a greater demand for fuel and stagnant oil production. The growing middle class of the developing world will continue to want vehicles and the change to more fuel efficient vehicles will take time. High fuel prices may be here to stay. The large increase in 

the use of farmland to produce biofuels is affecting the availability of food. Government policies promoting biofuels will be hard to overturn in spite of the global need 

for food. 

All these issues will make the ‘‘food crisis’’ long term in many countries which are 

chronically food insecure. This is especially true for the urban poor. Before the ‘‘global food crisis’’ large portions of their incomes were devoted to purchasing food and 

these people ‘‘lived on the edge’’. With today’s prices many of them are falling off 

the edge. Even if food prices over the next year or so decline somewhat from their 

current highs these urban poor will still be desperate and be among the world’s 

chronically food insecure. 

Unfortunately, the current situation appears to be long term and will increase the 

length of the list of those who cannot feed themselves adequately. The consequences 

79

of this situation may include forcing a young girl into prostitution to support her 

family on the personal level or anarchy on the national level. This is a rather 

gloomy perspective but one that does occur daily in the first case and may occur 

in the second case if global food prices do not come down.

ANDREW BARNES, PH.D.,

Director of Food Security,

Food for the Hungry. 

SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL SUBMITTED BY NICHOLAS W. MINOT, PH.D., SENIOR

RESEARCH FELLOW, MARKETS, TRADE, AND INSTITUTIONS DIVISION, INTERNATIONAL

FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE

July 29, 2008

At the July 16 hearings of the Subcommittee on Specialty Crops, Rural Development and Foreign Agriculture, Representative Mike McIntyre asked the witnesses 

to respond to a follow-up question: ‘‘Based on your experience, what do you think 

the food security situation will be a year from now, either globally or in areas with 

which you are especially familiar?’’ This note is a response to his question, with emphasis on the impact in low-income countries. 

The food security situation in July 2009 will depend on a number of factors including the trend in commodity prices over the next 12 months, the response of governments and international organizations, and the response of individual farmers 

and consumers in developing countries. 

Commodity Prices 

It is very difficult to predict commodity prices, but we can draw some clues from 

the expected duration of the factors that have pushed these prices up. Wheat prices 

have been driven up by depreciation of the dollar and modest supply shocks, but 

a major factor has been restrictions on exports by Russia, Argentina, and other 

countries. It is likely that production will increase this year and next in response 

to higher prices. The USDA is predicting a record wheat crop for 2008–2009, based 

on a strong U.S. harvest and a possible end to the drought in Australia. It is quite 

possible that some of the major exporters will relax their restrictions on exports. 

Earlier this month, the Senate in Argentina rejected the President’s plan to continue taxing agricultural exports, which will probably mean increased supplies of 

wheat and soybeans on the world market. Indeed, world wheat prices have declined 

about 25% from their peak in March, though they are still far above the 2007 average. 

Rice prices have been increased by depreciation of the dollar, strong demand, and 

export restrictions by India, Vietnam, Egypt, and other countries. However, talk of 

creating a rice exporters cartel has been dropped, and the 2008 harvest is forecast 

to be 2.3% higher than last year, though much of it will not hit the market until 

the second half of the year. In response to these factors, the price of Thai Super 

A1 broken rice has also declined 28% from its peak in May, though still much higher than in January of this year. 

The price of corn, on the other hand, is supported by the strong demand for animal products and for ethanol, the latter linked to the high price of oil. Although the 

European Union is scaling back its biodiesel subsidies because of its effect on oilseed 

prices, political support for ethanol subsidies in the United States remains strong, 

so it is less likely that corn prices will fall over the next 12 months unless oil prices 

do. 

In summary, the prices of wheat and rice have already fallen from their peaks 

earlier this year, but are expected to remain significantly above the 2007 levels over 

the next 12 months. The price of corn will depend on the price of oil and U.S. ethanol policy, but is less likely to fall over the next 12 months. A global recession 

would reduce commodity prices quickly, but in this case the cure may be worse than 

the disease. 

Food Security 

Farmers that are able to produce marketable surpluses of the wheat, rice, and 

corn will benefit from the high prices, though the gains will be partially offset by 

higher fuel and fertilizer prices. These farmers represent 20–40% of the rural households in most low-income countries in sub-Saharan Africa and Asia. The urban poor 

and rural agricultural laborers spend a large share of their income on staple foods 

and depend entirely on the market for their food supplies, so their losses, as a percentage of income, are the greatest. Small-scale farmers that are net buyers also 

lose, though the loss is partially offset by the fact that they meet some of their food 

80

requirements from their own production. Other urban households also lose, though 

their higher income protects them to some degree. 

Assuming that commodity prices remain high by historical standards (even if they 

decline somewhat from the current levels), the effect on food security 1 year from 

now will be mixed. On the one hand, households will respond to the higher prices. 

Consumers will shift to staple crops that are not internationally traded (such as cassava, sweet potatoes, yams, sorghum, and millet) because their prices have not increased as much. Farmers will shift to producing these basic grains in response to 

the higher prices. For example, the FAO expects rice production to grow 3.6% in 

sub-Saharan Africa and 7.4% in Latin America and the Caribbean. It is also possible 

that the high food prices will slow or even reverse urban migration in some countries, as household respond to the high prices by returning to agricultural production. These responses by consumers and producers will reduce the negative impact 

of the high prices on food security. 

On the other hand, many poor households will be forced to pay for food by pulling 

their children out of school, postponing health care, and reducing other non-food 

spending. If this is not enough, they may be forced to sell off assets, such as animals, consumer goods, or even land, to cover the cost of food purchases. If this is 

not enough, they may be forced to eat less, with dire consequences for nutrition and 

productivity. Obviously, the latter two responses cannot be sustained over time. 

Households that sell their assets this year to purchase food may have nothing left 

to sell next year. Furthermore, if they sell productive assets such as oxen this year, 

it will reduce their income next year. Likewise, the condition of people that start 

to eat less this year will worsen over time. Because of these cumulative factors, it 

is quite possible that the food security situation in 2009 may be worse than this 

year, even if food prices remain at current levels. 

The response of the international community may represent the ‘‘tie breaker’’ between these two opposing factors. If food aid deliveries can be maintained or increased in volume terms and if social protection programs (like conditional cash 

transfer programs) can be expanded, it will help households avoid liquidation of 

their assets and malnutrition, reduction in school enrollment, and malnutrition. 

This will provide time and energy needed to adapt to the higher food prices. Support 

for agricultural development, particularly agronomic research on staple grains, will 

not improve food security by 2009, but it is an indispensable part of the long-term 

recovery of the balance between food supply and demand. 

The biggest danger, in my view, is that the political will in both rich and poor 

countries to expand support for food and agriculture will dwindle when grain prices 

are no longer rising, even if they remain two- to three-times higher than in 2006. 

RESPONSE TO QUESTION SUBMITTED TO THEO A. DILLAHA III, PH.D., P.E.,

PROFESSOR OF BIOLOGICAL SYSTEMS ENGINEERING AND PROGRAM DIRECTOR,

SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT (SANREM) 

COLLABORATIVE RESEARCH SUPPORT PROGRAM (CRSP), OFFICE OF INTERNATIONAL

RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND DEVELOPMENT, VIRGINIA POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE

AND STATE UNIVERSITY, BLACKSBURG, BLACKSBURG, VA 

Question. ‘‘Based on your experience, what do you think the food security situation will be a year from now, either globally or in areas with which you are especially familiar?’’

Answer. My best professional judgment is that is that there is a significant 

risk that the food security situation will be more serious next year. My judgment is based on the following factors: 

Factors that will potentially worsen the food security situation (in no particular 

order):

• U.S. and European biofuel programs will require for grain to supply increasing 

biofuel factories. For example, current U.S. ethanol capacity as of July 24, 2008 

is 9,407.4 million gallons per year and an additional capacity of 4,208 million 

gallons per year is under construction, a 45% increase in production. The vast 

majority is reliant on corn as a feedstock. According to the USDA, U.S. corn ethanol production currently uses 30% of the global change in total wheat and 

coarse grains production from 2002/03 to 2007/08. This has decreased wheat 

and coarse grains supplies and increased prices by varying estimates, but the 

estimates are generally in excess of 25%. EU diesel programs have a similar 

effect.

• Increasing meat consumption: Globally, meat consumption is increasing at a 

rate of 2.1% per year while global grain production is only increasing by 1.2%. 

81

Meat requires 2.6 lbs grain/lb meat (chicken) to 7.0 lbs grain/lb meat. Consequently, unless growth in meat consumption decreases, there will be less 

grain for other uses, which will make grain scarcer and more costly.

• High energy prices: Increases costs of production by increasing fertilizer, production, and transport costs. I have no idea where energy costs are going.

• Grain reserves: Many countries maintain grain reserves for food security reasons. Theses have been depleted this year and countries will be trying to rebuild 

reserves, which will tend to increase prices.

• Weather: Agricultural droughts are expected to continue in many parts of the 

world.

• Speculation: I don’t know.

Factors that will potentially improve the food security situation (in no particular 

order):

• High commodity prices should increase production.

THEO A. DILLAHA, PH.D., P.E.,

Program Director SANREM CRSP, 

Office of Int. Res., Edu., and Development, 

Virginia Tech. 

RESPONSE TO QUESTION SUBMITTED TO AVRAM ‘‘BUZZ’’ GUROFF, SENIOR VICE

PRESIDENT, FOOD SECURITY AND SPECIALTY CROPS PORTFOLIO, ACDI/VOCA

(AGRICULTURAL COOPERATIVE DEVELOPMENT INTERNATIONAL/VOLUNTEERS IN

OVERSEAS COOPERATIVE ASSISTANCE) 

Question. Based on your experience, what do you think the food security situation 

will be a year from now, either globally or in areas with which you are especially 

familiar? 

Answer. That will largely depend on the political will of the international community. High food and energy prices will be with us for some time to come. Some of 

the adverse effects of this are yet to be felt—not just hunger, but malnutrition and 

morbidity rates will continue to rise. Productive assets will in some cases be sold 

off in lieu of farming income. Also, continued societal unrest could exacerbate the 

crisis. 

At the same time, rising food prices present an unprecedented opportunity if 

farmers in the developing world are able to develop their capacity and capture markets. Some of the greatest productivity gains could come in regions that are now 

the least advanced. However, 1 year is a short timeframe for building the capacity 

of people to produce their own food, which is the most sustainable and cheapest 

method of addressing world hunger and poverty. 

Still, the market will respond over time and food shortages will abate. The extent 

to which the U.S. and other donors provide increased emergency and agricultural 

development assistance, as well as adjust trade and price control policies, to help 

avert future crises will be critical to how much better or worse things will get over 

the next few years.

Æ