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

79–798 PDF 2013

S. HRG. 112–736

EVALUATING CURRENT U.S. GLOBAL FOOD SECURITY EFFORTS AND DETERMINING FUTURE U.S.

LEADERSHIP OPPORTUNITIES

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL

DEVELOPMENT AND FOREIGN 

ASSISTANCE, ECONOMIC AFFAIRS, AND 

INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS 

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

NOVEMBER 28, 2012

Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Relations

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/

FOREI-43947 with DISTILLER

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS

JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts, Chairman

BARBARA BOXER, California 

ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

ROBERT P. CASEY, JR., Pennsylvania 

JIM WEBB, Virginia 

JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire 

CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware 

RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

RICHARD G. LUGAR, Indiana 

BOB CORKER, Tennessee 

JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho 

MARCO RUBIO, Florida 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma 

JIM DEMINT, South Carolina 

JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

MIKE LEE, Utah 

WILLIAM C. DANVERS, Staff Director

KENNETH A. MYERS, JR., Republican Staff Director

——————

SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

AND FOREIGN ASSISTANCE, ECONOMIC AFFAIRS,

AND INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland Chairman

ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey 

CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware 

RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

BOB CORKER, Tennessee 

MARCO RUBIO, Florida 

JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma 

(II)

FOREI-43947 with DISTILLER

C O N T E N T S 

Page

Cardin, Hon. Benjamin L., U.S. Senator from Maryland, opening statement ... 1

Lugar, Hon. Richard G., U.S. Senator from Indiana, opening statement ........... 3

McKenna, Tjada, Deputy Coordinator for Development for Feed the Future, 

Bureau for Food Security, U.S. Agency for International Development, 

Washington, DC ................................................................................................... 6

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 8

Responses to questions submitted for the record by Senator Benjamin 

L. Cardin ........................................................................................................ 61

O’Brien, Paul, vice president for Policy and Campaigns, Oxfam America, 

Washington, DC ................................................................................................... 33

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

Shrier, Jonathan, Acting Special Representative for Global Food Security, 

Deputy Coordinator for Diplomacy for Feed the Future, U.S. Department 

of State, Washington, DC .................................................................................... 13

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

Response to question submitted for the record by Senator Benjamin L. 

Cardin ............................................................................................................ 59

Veillette, Dr. Connie A., independent consultant, senior adviser, Global Agricultural Development Initiative, Chicago Council on Global Affairs, Fairfax 

Station, VA ........................................................................................................... 48

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 50

Walsh, Conor, Tanzania Country Director, Catholic Relief Services, Baltimore, 

MD ......................................................................................................................... 40

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 43

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

Mercy Corps, prepared statement .......................................................................... 58

(III)

FOREI-43947 with DISTILLER

FOREI-43947 with DISTILLER

(1)

EVALUATING CURRENT U.S. GLOBAL FOOD 

SECURITY EFFORTS AND DETERMINING 

FUTURE U.S. LEADERSHIP OPPORTUNITIES 

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 28, 2012 

U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND FOREIGN ASSISTANCE, ECONOMIC AFFAIRS

AND INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, 

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in room 

SD–419, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Benjamin L. Cardin 

(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Senators Cardin, Casey, and Lugar. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BENJAMIN L. CARDIN,

U.S. SENATOR FROM MARYLAND 

Senator CARDIN. Good morning. Let me welcome you all to the 

Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on International Development and Foreign Assistance, Economic Affairs and International 

Environmental Protection. We have to work at shortening the title 

of that subcommittee. [Laughter.] 

Let me thank, first, Senator Kerry for allowing the subcommittee 

to move forward on this very important hearing dealing with global 

food security. 

And I want to acknowledge the extraordinary work that has been 

done by Senator Lugar, a longtime champion on this issue, and we 

thank him very much for his leadership. He has been a tireless 

champion for the hungry, the poor, and the most vulnerable in the 

global community. His advocacy on this issue and so many policies 

that seek to change the world for the better will be sorely missed, 

and I want to again thank him for the work that he has done globally on this issue and the role that the United States has played. 

His cochampion in the Senate has been Senator Casey, and I 

think Senator Casey will be joining us a little bit later on filing the 

Lugar-Casey Global Food Security Act. It was initially filed in 2008 

and again in 2011 to promote U.S. leadership on this issue. 

Last Thursday, most Americans sat down at our dinner tables 

with our families and enjoyed a great Thanksgiving meal, but that 

night, 870 million people around the world went to bed hungry and 

undernourished. Now, quite frankly, that is an improvement. A 

year ago, that number was 1 billion. So we have made progress. 

But global hunger remains an enormous problem. The Millennium 

FOREI-43947 with DISTILLER

2

Development goal of halving the prevalence of undernourishment 

in the developing world by 2015 is within reach. 

In 2009, Secretary Clinton said we have the resources to give 

every person in the world the tools they need to feed themselves 

and their children. So the question is not whether we can end hunger, it is whether we will end it. 

Ending global hunger and poverty is a monumental task. 

Addressing the challenges posed by global food insecurity requires 

a multifaceted approach. It requires strengthening the strategic 

coordination to align the efforts of the private sector, civil society, 

aid recipient governments, and multilateral institutions. It requires 

investments in cutting-edge agricultural and sustainability technologies. It requires policy changes by developing country governments to correct land tenure and natural resource management, 

especially water resources. And it requires a commitment to gender 

integration and the development of programs to support women 

farmers. 

The more I look at this issue, the more I start to appreciate that 

this is solvable, but we have to deal with the land reforms. We 

have to deal with gender issues. We have to deal with water management. Those matters are critically important in the developing 

world. 

Through our Feed the Future initiatives and the G8’s New Alliance for Food Security and Nutrition, I believe we are making 

great strides in global food security. 

Feed the Future focuses on small farmers, particularly women. 

It helps countries to develop their agricultural sectors to generate 

opportunities for broad-based economic growth and trade which in 

turn supports increased incomes and helps reduce hunger. 

G8’s New Alliance is an effort to leverage private sector support 

for agricultural development and food security and includes commitments of $3 billion in private investments from 45 companies. 

But we must make sure that these investments are not at the 

expense of small, local businesses addressing hunger in their own 

community. 

What we are trying to do much bigger than simply giving food 

to the poor and hungry. We are trying to change the economics by 

transforming how people farm and what people eat. Ensuring that 

our world’s most poor and hungry have access to food is important, 

but as we see right here in America, access to food does not guarantee proper nutrition. Studies show that a child’s entire life is 

shaped by whether or not they receive proper nutrition during the 

first 1,000 days from pregnancy to age 2. This has a profound 

impact on children’s ability to grow, to learn, and to contribute to 

their society. That is why addressing undernutrition is key to both 

Feed the Future and the President’s Global Health Initiative. 

But proper nutrition is not just important to individual health. 

It is critical to the long-term health and success of a nation. Poor 

nutrition results in a less healthy and less productive workforce, 

hampering economic development and growth, and ultimately perpetuates the cycle of hunger and poverty for another generation. 

So by investing in agriculture and nutrition, we are investing in 

prosperity and not just other people’s prosperity but our own. In 

our globalized economy, if developing countries do better, we do 

FOREI-43947 with DISTILLER

3

better. We also do better when we make smarter decisions about 

how to spend our critical foreign assistance dollars. After all, as 

USAID Administrator Shah has said, it is 8 to 10 times more 

expensive to feed people when they are in crisis than to help farmers feed themselves and build better resources. 

As you are all aware, Mali, one of the Feed the Future focus 

countries is in the midst of an internal political conflict which has 

exacerbated a food crisis brought on by severe drought in the 

region. The situation in Mali highlights how the tragic convergence 

of conflict, climate, and economic shocks can have dire consequences on human and food security. 

In regions that are prone to these challenges, such as the Horn 

of Africa, we must build resiliency and sustainability into our development programs. One of the ways we can do this is through 

Feed the Future. With world population expected to exceed 9 billion by 2050, transforming how people farm and what people eat 

is the only way, I believe, to ensure food security for future generations. An end to global hunger and poverty will not happen tomorrow, but if we continue to coordinate with our global partners, harness the power of the private sector, and use our development aid 

in the most effective and transparent way, we have a much better 

chance of favorable outcomes. 

I look forward to hearing from the witnesses today about the successes and challenges that we face in global food security initiatives 

and the impact of private sector and NGO’s coordination in ending 

the plight on the world’s poor and hungry. 

I will now yield to Senator Lugar for his opening comments and 

once again congratulate him for his leadership on this issue on 

behalf of the United States. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD G. LUGAR,

U.S. SENATOR FROM INDIANA 

Senator LUGAR. Well, I join the chairman in welcoming our distinguished witnesses and thank him for holding this hearing. 

Our committee has given frequent attention to global food security and I have had the pleasure to work with friends who are committed to this issue, including Senator Casey, who joined me in 

offering the Global Food Security Act in the last Congress. 

In past hearings, I have asserted that overcoming global hunger 

by addressing shortcomings in worldwide agricultural productivity 

and marketing should be one of the ‘‘starting points’’ for U.S. foreign policy. This sometimes surprises people given all the risks and 

dangers faced by our country in many regions throughout the 

world. But I have not advanced this concept casually. 

Nothing is more elemental to human experience and development than having access to adequate and reliable sources of food. 

We live in a world where nearly a billion people suffer from chronic 

food insecurity. Tens of thousands of people die each day from 

causes related to malnutrition. Experts advise us that chronic hunger leads to decreased child survival, impaired cognitive and physical development, and weaker immune system function, including 

resistance to HIV/AIDS. 

These grave humanitarian consequences are sufficient cause for 

us to strengthen our efforts on global food security. But we also 

FOREI-43947 with DISTILLER

4

know that few humanitarian problems, if any, have a greater 

capacity to generate political instability and conflict. Hungry people 

are desperate people and desperation can sow the seeds of radicalism. Our diplomatic efforts to maintain peace will be far more 

difficult wherever food shortages contribute to extremism, conflict, 

or mass migration. Our hopes for economic development in poor 

countries will continually be frustrated if populations are unable to 

feed themselves. 

As a farmer and a member of the Agriculture Committee for 36 

years, I have followed closely developments in agriculture technology and productivity. My concern has been that despite the past 

advancements of the Green Revolution, agriculture productivity is 

not advancing fast enough to meet the needs of a world that is 

expected to exceed 9 billion people by 2050. Demand for food also 

will be intensified by increasing affluence among the enormous 

populations of China, India, and other emerging industrial powers. 

The problems of volatile energy costs, water scarcity, climate 

change, and more resilient pests threaten to severely limit food 

production in many vulnerable regions. 

The global response to this threat has been insufficient. Worldwide funding for agricultural assistance declined sharply after the 

1980s and has not recovered despite some recent progress. The 

trade policies of both developed and developing countries too often 

have focused on protecting domestic farmers rather than creating 

well-functioning international markets. 

My view of the importance of global food security to the United 

States is motivated not solely by problems we can solve, but also 

by the economic and foreign policy opportunities available to us. 

We produce more abundantly than any other country and we are 

on the cutting edge of research and farming techniques that could 

literally save hundreds of millions of people in the coming decades. 

Our farmers, agricultural businesses, NGOs, and research universities should be at the center of global efforts to meet burgeoning 

food demand. 

Following the President’s pledge at the 2008 G8 summit of $3.5 

billion over 3 years toward global food security, the administration 

established the Feed the Future Initiative. Since its inception, the 

program has received nearly $1 billion annually from the Congress, 

and we anticipate continued budget requests at this level. Today 

we have an opportunity for an update on this Initiative, as well as 

a chance to think more comprehensively about a larger U.S. role 

in global food security. 

I will be interested to learn from our witnesses the degree to 

which Feed the Future is demonstrating tangible results in reducing hunger. Is it effectively supporting smallholder farmers, especially women, by encouraging access to land, new technology, and 

agriculture extension services? Additionally, what market development and access opportunities are now available to these farmers, 

and what support are they receiving from their own governments 

which have partnered with the United States through Country 

Investment Plans? Is the initiative successfully engaging our own 

farmers and our agriculture research institutions to achieve greater 

productivity and higher yields in countries struggling with food 

insecurity? 

FOREI-43947 with DISTILLER

5

I also look forward to the recommendations of our distinguished 

second panel on improving Feed the Future and on addressing any 

shortcomings. More broadly, how should the United States structure its future global food security efforts to maximize agricultural 

productivity and support the efforts of U.S. institutions? 

I look forward to our discussion. 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you, Senator Lugar. There is no question 

that this committee and this Congress places a strong priority on 

international global areas with food security. Feed the Future is a 

relatively new initiative that has strong support here in Congress, 

as you pointed out, by the amount that has been appropriated 

every year. 

One of the most important responsibilities of this committee is 

oversight. We strongly support the initiative, but we want to make 

sure the moneys are being used most appropriately, leveraged in 

the best way, and I hope today’s hearing will allow us to focus on 

ways that we can improve the U.S. involvement on global food 

security. 

With that, let me call on our first panel. I am pleased to have 

with us Tjada McKenna, the Deputy Coordinator for Development 

for Feed the Future at USAID’s Bureau for Food Security.

Ms. McKenna coordinates implementation of Feed the Future 

across the U.S. Government, oversees its execution, and reports on 

results, and leads engagement with the external community to ensure that food security remains high on the development agenda. 

Ms. McKenna joined USAID from the Bill and Melinda Gates 

Foundation where she served as the senior program adviser in the 

Agricultural Development Program. In this role, she developed 

grants and strategies to effectively link smallholder farmers in 

Africa and South Asia to markets. 

Ms. McKenna earned a B.A. from Harvard College in government 

and an M.B.A. from Harvard Business School. 

We are also joined by Jonathan Shrier, Acting Special Representative for Global Food Security and Deputy Coordinator for Diplomacy for Feed the Future at the Department of State. Mr. Shrier 

leads diplomatic efforts to advance the U.S. Government’s global 

hunger and food security initiative with particular focus on major 

donor and strategic partner countries, as well as multilateral institutions such as G8 and G20. 

Mr. Shrier previously served on the Secretary of State’s policy 

planning staff of the National Security Council and the National 

Economic Council and at the U.S. States Department of Energy 

where he helped to design and establish the Energy and Climate 

Partnership of the Americas. As a Career Foreign Service officer, 

Mr. Shrier handled international development investment issues, 

in addition to energy, environment, and agricultural policy initiatives. 

Mr. Shrier holds a degree from the National Defense University, 

University of London, London School of Economics, and Dartmouth. 

We will start with Ms. McKenna. 

FOREI-43947 with DISTILLER

6

STATEMENT OF TJADA MCKENNA, DEPUTY COORDINATOR 

FOR DEVELOPMENT FOR FEED THE FUTURE, BUREAU FOR 

FOOD SECURITY, U.S. AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT, WASHINGTON, DC 

Ms. MCKENNA. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Cardin, 

Senator Lugar, and members of the subcommittee. Thank you for 

inviting me to speak with you today. It is an honor to meet with 

you about the U.S. Government’s leadership to reduce global hunger, poverty, and undernutrition through the Feed the Future 

Initiative. 

As the initiative’s Deputy Coordinator for Development, I will be 

focusing on Feed the Future’s development efforts, while my counterpart at the State Department, Jonathan Shrier, will address 

diplomacy efforts. 

Recently we issued the first-ever Feed the Future progress report 

in which we were able to highlight advances to date in our efforts. 

We are proud to report that in our short life we have directly 

helped more than 6.6 million households to improve agricultural 

productivity, and we have reached nearly 2 million food producers 

with improved practices to support higher crop yields and increased 

incomes. 

In addition, Feed the Future supported efforts have reached 

nearly 9 million children with nutrition interventions. But there is 

so much more to do, as you both have stated. 

The U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization recently released a 

report estimating that there are now almost 870 million hungry 

people in the world, 98 percent of them living in developing countries. While these numbers have adjusted down from recent estimates, it is still 870 million too many people. With the growing 

population and ever fewer resources, the time to continue to act is 

now. 

This is exactly what President Obama intended when he asked 

global leaders to join him in confronting global hunger and poverty 

at the 2009 G8 summit in L’Aquila, Italy. There President Obama 

pledged $3.5 billion over 3 years to address this challenge, building 

upon efforts of the previous administration to secure funding for an 

increased focus on global agriculture particularly in Africa. This set 

the foundation for what eventually came to be called Feed the 

Future. 

The U.S. Government’s pledge in L’Aquila leveraged more than 

$18 billion in additional support from other donors, signaling a 

vastly increased global commitment to significantly reduce the 

number of people living in extreme poverty and suffering from hunger and undernutrition. These commitments could not have come 

at a more important time. For more than 2 decades, funding for 

agriculture had been on the decline, leaving the world ill-prepared 

for the challenges of growing food insecurity. In 2007 and 2008, 

soaring food prices set the world on edge, but they also convinced 

global leaders that it was finally time to do things differently. 

Feed the Future expands the United States impact as a political 

and moral force in the fight against global hunger and poverty. 

With a focus on smallholder farmers, particularly women, we support countries in developing their agriculture sectors as a catalyst 

FOREI-43947 with DISTILLER

7

to generate opportunities for broad-based economic growth which 

can support increased incomes and help reduce hunger. 

Agricultural growth is the key to reducing poverty in the developing world. Seventy-five percent of the world’s poor live in rural 

areas in developing countries where most people’s livelihoods rely 

on agriculture. Recent studies from the World Bank established 

that growth in agriculture is on average at least twice as effective 

in reducing poverty as growth in other sectors. 

Feed the Future complements our joint commitment to providing 

food aid and other humanitarian assistance during times of crisis 

by promoting a lasting solution to hunger through a long-term commitment to agricultural growth. Feed the Future also integrates 

nutrition interventions to ensure that our investments lead to both 

improved agriculture and better health and support conflict mitigation and good governance efforts that are required to achieve the 

goals of reducing poverty and undernutrition. 

When Feed the Future began, the President asked that we do 

things differently to get better results for every taxpayer dollar 

invested in this effort. We have taken that directive to heart and 

are proud of the many ways we are working toward that goal. 

First, we are improving collaboration within the U.S. Government, with partner countries, with other donor countries, and with 

stakeholders in civil society and the private sector. It is worth noting that this is the first time we have effectively connected all U.S. 

Government efforts targeted at global hunger and food security. In 

fiscal year 2011, 5 of our 10 interagency partners reported into the 

Feed the Future monitoring system, enabling us to create a governmentwide picture of the results of our combined efforts that are 

reflected in our progress report. 

Second, we are focusing on women and smallholder farmers as 

part of the solution and continuing to work toward equitable land 

rights in the areas in which we work. 

Third, we are working hand in glove with our global health colleagues to better integrate our agriculture and nutrition efforts. 

Fourth, we are focusing on research as a key to transforming 

rural agriculture economies centered on an approach that encourages sustainable and equitable management of land, water, fisheries, and other resources and takes into account the anticipated 

effects of climate change. 

And fifth and most importantly, we are measuring results and 

are holding ourselves accountable through rigorous monitoring and 

evaluation. 

Collectively, these efforts are meant to build upon the long-term 

resilience of communities so that they are able to adapt to and 

recover from the shocks and stresses and move forward with 

enhanced livelihoods. While we cannot prevent future shocks such 

as drought from occurring, we can help make them less devastating 

while ensuring the continuation of long-term growth. 

Feed the Future faces several challenges: ensuring productive 

interagency and donor collaboration; more effective integration of 

agriculture and nutrition; and the threats posed by global climate 

change, to name some examples. Each of these requires considerable effort and time to succeed, and we accept that change does not 

come easily or quickly to any sector. We have been asked to do 

FOREI-43947 with DISTILLER

8

things differently and we are. As time moves on, we expect to execute our development interventions even more efficiently to the 

benefit of millions of smallholder farmers and families worldwide. 

In closing, I would like to thank the Congress for its strong support of this vital initiative and note that we greatly appreciate your 

continued support of our work. Feed the Future is more than an 

initiative. It is part of the lasting architecture of our development 

platform and lays the groundwork for us to be more effective, more 

efficient, and more successful in the work that we do. Feed the 

Future is bigger than any one agency or administration. It is part 

of our global legacy. 

Thank you for inviting us to speak with you today. I welcome 

any questions, comments, and suggestions you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. McKenna follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF TJADA MCKENNA

Good morning Chairman Cardin, Ranking Member Corker, and members of the 

subcommittee. Thank you for inviting me to speak with you today. I am pleased and 

honored to be able to talk to you about the important role that the U.S. Government 

is playing to help reduce global hunger and poverty through the Feed the Future 

initiative, the challenges we face, and our progress thus far. 

The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) recently 

released a report estimating that there are now approximately 870 million hungry 

people in the world, 98 percent of them living in developing countries. While these 

numbers have adjusted down from recent estimates, it is still 870 million too many. 

Compounding this problem, research indicates that by the year 2050, the world’s 

population is projected to increase by 38 percent to more than 9 billion, which, combined with changing diets, will require up to a 60-percent increase in food production to feed us all. We confront these challenges in a world that has less land and 

fewer resources available for production. 

Against this backdrop, at the 2009 G8 summit, President Obama pledged to pro- vide at least $3.5 billion over 3 years—between fiscal year 2010 and fiscal year 

2012—to attack the root causes of global hunger and poverty through accelerated 

agricultural development and improved nutrition. The U.S. Government’s commitment leveraged more than $18 billion in additional support from other donors, creating the financial capacity to significantly reduce the number of people living in 

extreme poverty and suffering from hunger and undernutrition. This commitment 

to the importance of agriculture in sustainably reducing hunger and poverty could 

not have come at a more important time. For more than two decades, funding for 

agriculture had been on the decline, leaving the world ill-prepared to cope with the 

growing challenge of food insecurity. In 2007 and 2008, soaring prices for basic staples coupled with shortsighted policy responses, like export bans and panic buying, 

had set the world on edge. But it also convinced global leaders that it was finally 

time to do things differently. In September 2012, the U.S. Government met President Obama’s $3.5 billion pledge. In fact, we have now obligated $3.786 billion and disbursed $1.134 billion 

against the President’s pledge. And while we are proud of the United States leadership and commitment in this effort, there is still so much more to be done. 

Feed the Future expands the United States impact as a political and moral force 

in the fight against global hunger and poverty. With a focus on smallholder farmers, 

particularly women, this initiative supports countries in developing their agriculture 

sectors as a catalyst to generate opportunities for broad-based economic growth and 

trade, which can support increased incomes and help reduce hunger. While we recognize the importance of providing food aid and other humanitarian assistance during crises to save lives and protect livelihoods, Feed the Future helps promote a 

lasting solution to hunger through a commitment to agricultural growth and other 

actions to prevent recurrent food crises. Feed the Future also integrates nutrition 

interventions to ensure that our investments lead to both improved agriculture and 

better health, and supports conflict mitigation and good governance efforts that are 

required to achieve the goals of reducing poverty and undernutrition. 

When Feed the Future was launched, the President asked that we do things differently to get better results for every taxpayer dollar invested in this effort. We 

have taken that directive to heart, and are proud of the many ways we are working 

toward that goal. 

FOREI-43947 with DISTILLER

9

Just last month, the administration released the first Feed the Future Progress 

Report and Scorecard, which present the progress achieved by Feed the Future from 

May 2009 through May 2012. The Report and Scorecard detail the strides that the 

initiative is making in research and development, leveraging private sector dollars, 

building capacity, and achieving key results to sustainably reduce hunger and poverty. The Progress Report shows that, by marshaling resources for food security and 

by improving the way we do development, Feed the Future aims to reduce the prevalence of poverty and the prevalence of stunted children under 5 years old by 20 

percent in the geographic areas where we work. 

We have already seen many successes. In fiscal year 2011 alone, Feed the Future 

helped 435,728 farmers in Bangladesh learn to apply deep fertilizer placement and 

urea briquettes, improving management practices on 244,605 hectares and leading 

to a 15-percent increase in rice yields. As a result, the country’s Barisal division experienced its first-ever rice surplus. Globally, in fiscal year 2011 we directly benefited more than 6.6 million households, brought 2.4 million hectares of land under 

improved technologies or management practices, and increased investment in agricultural and rural loans by $103 million. 

COLLABORATION

We are improving coordination in many ways. Feed the Future resources are 

aligned with country-led priorities. Donors can achieve more effective and lasting results when they champion the development visions and efforts of partner countries’ 

own governments and citizens. Feed the Future worked with other development 

partners to assist focus countries in creating and implementing their own multiyear 

Country Investment Plans (CIPs) for agricultural development, such as those under 

the Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Program (CAADP). These plans 

are based on transparent and inclusive consensus-building processes, including engagement of the private sector, civil society and other stakeholders, and take into 

account the interests of women and other disadvantaged groups. In addition, these 

country-owned plans lay out priority areas, clear costing and projections of financial 

need, defined targets, and desired results. 

Through Feed the Future, we are working hard to improve collaboration within 

the U.S. Government. Previous GAO reports have concluded that earlier U.S. Government efforts on food security lacked a cohesive interagency strategy. Much of 

Feed the Future’s durability as a new model stems from the creation of an overarching whole-of-government strategy, embedded in the Feed the Future Implementation Guide, to combat food insecurity and undernutrition. Feed the Future has 

been successful in implementing that strategy, joining the resources and expertise 

of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), the U.S. Departments 

of Agriculture, Commerce, State and Treasury, the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC), the U.S. African Development Foundation, the Peace Corps, the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, and the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative. This is the first time that we have effectively connected all U.S. Government 

efforts targeted at global hunger and food security and underpinned our resources 

with rigorous systems to track performance. In fiscal year 2011, five of these agencies reported into the Feed the Future Monitoring System, enabling us to create a 

governmentwide picture of the results of our combined efforts. 

Feed the Future is showing that interagency partnerships can work and be successful. As the initiative’s Deputy Coordinator for Development, I work closely with 

my counterpart at the State Department, Deputy Coordinator for Diplomacy Jonathan Shrier, to ensure that all of the agencies involved are integrated into the initiative via a cohesive, coordinated strategy both here in Washington and on the 

ground in Feed the Future focus countries. For example, with over half of its total 

investment portfolio supporting food security, MCC’s experience has helped guide 

Feed the Future’s program design, particularly on land tenure and property rights, 

infrastructure, monitoring and evaluation, and gender integration. MCC and USAID 

are working closely to complement and build on each other’s food security investments. In Ghana, for example, USAID will support three MCC-funded post-harvest 

Agribusiness Centers, benefiting about 3,000 farmers. And in Senegal, USAID will 

support MCC’s investment in irrigated agriculture and roads by promoting value 

chains, soil management, access to credit, post-harvest facilities, capacity-training, 

quality standards, and marketing in the same geographical areas. 

We know that neither the U.S. Government nor partner governments can do this 

work alone. Civil society organizations in donor and partner countries bring a 

wealth of ideas, energy, and resources to the fight against global food insecurity and 

undernutrition and are critical to the success of Feed the Future. Their work complements the work of governments, multilateral organizations, and the private secFOREI-43947 with DISTILLER

10

tor—including program implementation, product delivery, advocacy, education, and 

even funding. We value our close relationship with these partners. This relationship 

was highlighted by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who recently announced at 

a Feed the Future event that InterAction, an alliance of 198 U.S.-based organizations, has pledged more than $1 billion of private, nongovernmental funds over the 

next 3 years to improve food security and nutrition worldwide. We look forward to 

working with them on key food security issues. 

Likewise, the importance of the private sector’s role in food security cannot be 

overemphasized. The private sector brings the necessary investment and needed 

technology for countries, communities, and citizens to create opportunities for new 

businesses, stronger farms, and more vibrant markets. Our strategic alliances with 

the private sector align their core business interests with our development objectives. These ‘‘win-win’’ partnerships advance the impact of sustainable development 

and foster private sector-led growth in emerging markets, critical to reducing poverty, fighting hunger, and improving nutrition. The U.S. Government will further 

its partnership with the private sector through participation in the G8’s New Alliance for Food Security and Nutrition, which has already mobilized more than $3.5 

billion in new private sector commitments from more than 70 African and international firms looking to expand their agriculture-related business across Africa. 

The U.S. Government will also mobilize private sector investments through its contribution to the World Bank-housed Global Agriculture and Food Security Program’s 

Private Sector Window, which offers loans, equity capital, and advisory services. 

A FOCUS ON WOMEN AND SMALLHOLDER FARMERS

In addition to improving coordination within and across sectors, Feed the Future 

is doing development differently by integrating important cross-cutting issues in all 

of our work, for example, by focusing on women as part of the solution. Women play 

a vital role in advancing agricultural development and food security. They participate in all aspects of rural life—in paid employment, trade and marketing, as well 

as in tending crops and animals, collecting water and wood for fuel, and caring for 

family members. Yet women have less access than men to land, financing, production inputs, technical assistance, and other resources that could help them become 

better producers and providers for their families. The FAO estimates that if women 

had the same access to productive resources as men, they could increase farm yields 

by 20 to 30 percent, translating to enough food to feed an additional 150 million 

people. To better empower women agricultural producers to reach their full potential, Feed the Future promotes women’s leadership in agriculture, fosters policy 

changes that increase women’s land ownership, and strengthens their access to 

financial services. Through the initiative, female farmers are encouraged to adopt 

new agricultural technology aimed at increasing productivity and reducing unpaid 

work. To measure how well our investments are tracking against this ambitious 

goal, Feed the Future, in collaboration with the International Food Policy Research 

Institute (IFPRI) and the Oxford Poverty and Human Development Initiative of 

Oxford University, launched the Women’s Empowerment in Agriculture Index in 

early 2012. The index is the first tool to measure women’s growing role in decisionmaking about agricultural production; their growing ownership of land, livestock, 

and other resources; their leadership in the community; and their control of time 

and income. 

We also continue working toward equal, nondiscriminatory and secure land rights 

in the areas in which we work. Across the developing world, farmers, particularly 

smallholders, face challenges securing their rights to land and other natural 

resources. This may limit their ability to keep others off their land; limit their 

incentives to improve land or adopt new technologies; limit their ability to leverage 

resources most effectively; and hinder development of shared usage arrangements, 

for example, between herders and farmers. Around the world, weak land governance 

systems contribute to political, social, and economic instability. By formalizing the 

rights of land and resource users and by making land governance systems and institutions more accountable, accessible, and transparent, positive incentives to conserve resources and put them to productive and sustainable use will be created. 

Under Feed the Future, we encourage governments and private sector investors to 

recognize and respect the legitimate rights of individuals, communities, and legal 

entities, whether held formally or through custom, to manage, benefit from the use 

of, and trade rights to land and other resources. Formalizing these rights will foster 

a more secure and stable enabling environment to support economic growth and improved agricultural productivity. The United States has played a leading role on 

international negotiations for political instruments to promote sound resource governance policies; notably, a USAID official served as the international chair of the 

FOREI-43947 with DISTILLER

11

negotiations at the FAO’s Committee for World Food Security for the Voluntary 

Guidelines for Responsible Tenure of Land, Fisheries and Forests. The United 

States is also a leading voice in the development of the Principles for Responsible 

Agricultural Investment. 

HIGHLIGHTING NUTRITION

The Feed the Future initiative also actively integrates nutrition and agriculture 

interventions. Studies show that strong nutrition early in life contributes to human 

and economic capacity through improved learning and productivity, and contributes 

to a robust, capable workforce. Strong nutrition—particularly during the 1,000-day 

window from pregnancy to a child’s second birthday—contributes to economic 

growth and poverty reduction. Strong nutrition also promotes gender equality and 

opportunities for women and girls, lessens susceptibility to other deadly diseases, 

and is critical to national prosperity, stability, and security. Feed the Future supports food value chains that have high nutritional benefits and works with families 

to improve not only agricultural productivity and income, but also dietary diversity. 

We are also working hand-in-glove with our global health teams to identify and 

strengthen linkages between agriculture and nutrition. On a programmatic level, we 

are implementing both Feed the Future and global health activities in the same geographic zones to maximize results. In fiscal year 2011, 8.8 million children under 

5 were reached by Feed the Future-supported nutrition programs. 

We continue to work to improve and increase our impact in this area. During a 

high-level meeting on the Scaling Up Nutrition (SUN) Movement at the U.N. General Assembly this year, USAID Administrator Rajiv Shah announced that the 

agency needed to do more to ensure that the principles and programmatic priorities 

of SUN are fully integrated across all relevant USAID-supported programs in the 

14 countries where SUN, Feed the Future, and global health efforts overlap: Bangladesh, Ethiopia, Ghana, Guatemala, Haiti, Malawi, Mali, Mozambique, Nepal, 

Rwanda, Senegal, Tanzania, Uganda, and Zambia. 

UTILIZING NEW TECHNOLOGY AND RESEARCH

Feed the Future is also focusing on research as a key to transforming rural agriculture economies. We cannot expect to increase global food production by 2050 

without the development of new technologies and practices to produce more with 

fewer inputs. In May 2011, the U.S. Government released a new Feed the Future 

research strategy informed by a consultative, multistakeholder process led by 

USAID, in close collaboration with USDA and university partners. As part of the 

new strategy, Feed the Future has better aligned all U.S. Government agency research programs to improve resource efficiency and generated new relationships 

with the private sector. In one major push, USAID and USDA are working together 

on high-impact research to combat wheat rust, a major threat to wheat production 

worldwide, and aflatoxin, a toxic fungus that infects many crops and causes illness. 

We are moving research results from the laboratory to the field. In fiscal year 

2011 alone, Feed the Future helped 1.8 million food producers to adopt improved 

technologies or management practices that can lead to more resilient crops, higher 

yields, and increased incomes. 

This research strategy takes into account the critical challenge that climate 

change poses to food production around the world. As carbon dioxide concentrations 

rise, global temperatures are increasing, precipitation patterns are changing, and 

ocean acidification is on the rise. These changes are already affecting agriculture 

and food security directly. Feed the Future is working in concert with the U.S. 

Global Climate Change Initiative to develop strategies and undertake research to 

help food producers both reduce greenhouse gas emissions and adapt to climate 

change so that food security can be increased despite changing climate patterns. 

Feed the Future strategies are designed not only to accelerate agriculture-led 

growth and reduce undernutrition, but also to encourage sustainable management 

of land, water, fisheries, and other resources. Poor land use and agricultural practices are common factors that increase the vulnerability of developing countries to 

global threats such as water scarcity and pandemic disease. A core focus of the Feed 

the Future research agenda is sustainable intensification, the concept of producing 

more agricultural output from the same area of land while reducing negative environmental consequences. Feed the Future integrates environmental concerns into 

our investments and builds the capacity of partner countries to take advantage of 

opportunities in effective resource management and proactive adaptation to environmental challenges. Climate-smart agriculture practices like conservation agriculture 

and agroforestry enable the capture and storage of water and nutrients in soil to 

support plant growth and conserve soil. For example, Feed the Future is leveraging 

FOREI-43947 with DISTILLER

12

resources to better inventory and track land resources for agriculture and is building capacities with host governments and other partners to geospatially map land 

cover and land use for integrated management of watersheds. 

We are working to ensure that these great strides achieved in research are sustainable. To do that, it is critical that we work to develop the next generation of 

agricultural leaders. Through Feed the Future’s Borlaug 21st Century Leadership 

Program, the U.S. is helping to train individuals and strengthen developing country 

public and private institutions, enabling them to take advantage of scientific and 

technological breakthroughs to promote innovation across the agricultural sector. 

The program will provide short-term training to over 2,500 students, researchers 

and agricultural leaders; provide fellowships and mentoring to nearly 1,000 agricultural researchers; provide full fellowships to 75 M.S. or Ph.D. students; and improve 

more than 60 institutions in Africa, which will in turn affect over 250,000 students. 

BUILDING RESILIENCE AND SUSTAINABILITY

Collectively, these efforts are all meant to help build up the long-term resilience 

of communities so that they are able to adapt to and recover from shocks and 

stresses and move forward with enhanced livelihoods. A recent DFID study showed 

for every $1 spent on resilience, $2.80 of benefits is gained through avoided aid and 

animal losses. By supporting stronger markets, better infrastructure, and new technologies, Feed the Future will help build resilience and equip communities with the 

tools, the knowledge, and the enabling environment to thrive in times of prosperity, 

and to overcome difficulties in times of hardship. With clear lessons learned from 

our response in the Horn of Africa drought last year, as an agency USAID is doing 

business differently to build resilience among vulnerable communities in the Horn 

and elsewhere to ensure continued growth by bringing our relief and development 

teams together for joint assessments of local needs. USAID’s Bureau for Food Security, which leads Feed the Future, is working closely with the USAID Food for Peace 

program and the Bureau for Democracy, Conflict, and Humanitarian Assistance to 

integrate resilience programming to help communities better prepare for, respond 

to, and bounce back from crises when they do occur. While we cannot prevent future 

shocks from occurring, we can help make them less devastating while ensuring the 

continuation of long-term growth. 

HOLDING OURSELVES ACCOUNTABLE

Finally, Feed the Future is doing things differently by measuring results and 

holding ourselves accountable through rigorous monitoring and evaluation. To do 

this, we have created the Feed the Future Results Framework, which establishes 

the goals and objectives of the initiative, linking standard performance indicators 

to desired results. In addition, the Feed the Future Monitoring System collects information on the Results Framework’s baselines, targets and results. 

Following MCC’s model of conducting rigorous analysis during project design, 

USAID has adopted cost-benefit analysis to help improve resource allocation, quantify the expected benefits of our interventions on households, and identify better 

monitoring and evaluation indicators. We are also committed to implementing impact evaluations to capture what a particular project or program has achieved, test 

causal linkages, and determine to what extent outcomes link to particular interventions. USAID is planning to conduct over 30 impact evaluations of Feed the Future 

investments in agriculture, nutrition, and food security. And we have developed a 

Feed the Future Scorecard document to hold ourselves publicly accountable to doing 

business differently. In the scorecard, we have identified eight strategic areas of performance critical to meeting our global food security targets. Each strategic area has 

specific goal statements describing what we intend to improve as we deliver development aid, and each statement has associated measures and milestones to be met 

by 2015. We share the responsibility of meeting these targets with our partner 

countries and external stakeholders, and we plan to update the scorecard at least 

annually. 

As an initiative, Feed the Future faces many challenges: ensuring productive 

interagency and donor collaboration; more effective integration of agriculture and 

nutrition; and the threats posed by global climate change, to name a few. While we 

acknowledge that all of our work in these areas may not have been seamless or perfect up to this point, we also accept that change does not come easily—or quickly—

to any sector. We have been asked to ‘‘do things differently,’’ and we are. As time 

moves on, we expect to execute our development interventions even more efficiently, 

through the learning processes we have instituted, to ultimately help the many millions of individuals who still go to bed hungry each night. That is our goal, and we 

continue to work toward it with diligence and creativity. 

FOREI-43947 with DISTILLER

13

In closing, we would like to thank the Congress for its strong support of this vital 

initiative. Feed the Future is more than an initiative; it is part of the lasting architecture of our development platform and lays the groundwork for us to be more 

effective, more efficient, and more successful in the work that we do. Feed the 

Future is bigger than any one agency or administration—it is part of our global

legacy. 

Thank you for inviting me to speak with you today, and I welcome your guidance, 

comments and any questions you might have.

Senator CARDIN. Thank you very much for your testimony and 

for your service. 

Mr. Shrier. 

STATEMENT OF JONATHAN SHRIER, ACTING SPECIAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR GLOBAL FOOD SECURITY, DEPUTY COORDINATOR FOR DIPLOMACY FOR FEED THE FUTURE, U.S. 

DEPARTMENT OF STATE, WASHINGTON, DC 

Mr. SHRIER. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Cardin, Senator Lugar, and members of the subcommittee. Thank you for the 

opportunity to speak with you about U.S. diplomatic efforts to combat world hunger and undernutrition. 

As my USAID counterpart has emphasized, global food security 

is high on the international agenda. President Obama and Secretary Clinton have prioritized the issue for humanitarian, economic, and national security reasons. Our food security diplomacy 

facilitates the work of multiple U.S. agencies and ensures that 

leaders around the world stay focused on the fight against hunger 

and undernutrition. 

In Feed the Future focus countries, we help promote policy 

change and keep food security priorities high on national agendas. 

For example, when the worst drought in 60 years struck the Horn 

of Africa last year, Secretary Clinton contacted the leaders of 

Ethiopia and Kenya to press for specific policy shifts that could 

help ensure lasting food security even as we extended emergency 

assistance. We also worked with Tanzania to establish a nutritionspecific line in its national budget to ensure more effective coordination of the country’s national nutrition strategy across agencies. 

We work with strategic partner countries like Brazil, India, and 

South Africa to leverage their food security expertise to benefit 

Feed the Future focus countries. For example, in Mozambique we 

are partnering with Brazil to help farmers grow more vegetables, 

improve post-harvest handling, and support research, and we are 

doing this in cooperation with a major United States university. 

We recently announced new agreements with Brazil to extend our 

collaboration to Haiti and Honduras. 

We also understand that to end world hunger, we need the collective efforts of governments, donors, international organizations, 

businesses, and in particular, civil society. Through our diplomatic 

efforts, we foster collaboration with civil society at home and 

abroad to help achieve Feed the Future’s food security and nutrition goals. 

In 2010, during the U.N. General Assembly meetings, Secretary 

Clinton launched the 1,000 Days partnership which helps mobilize 

governments, civil society, and private sector actors to promote 

action to improve nutrition in the 1,000 days from pregnancy to a 

child’s second birthday. 

FOREI-43947 with DISTILLER

14

In 2011, Secretary Clinton focused her energy on spotlighting the 

role of women in agriculture. 

And this year in September 2012, as a result of our outreach 

efforts, Secretary Clinton was able to announce a $1 billion pledge 

of private, nongovernmental funds for food security investments by 

members of InterAction, an alliance of U.S.-based NGOs. Five 

InterAction members alone pledged more than $900 million toward 

the goal, including Catholic Relief Services, World Vision, Heifer 

International, Save the Children, and ChildFund International. 

U.S. leadership on the L’Aquila Food Security Initiative, known 

as AFSI, has also helped advance food security goals. Thanks to 

congressional support, the United States has been able to meet the 

$3.5 billion pledge for AFSI that President Obama made in 2009. 

This bolsters the resolve of other donors to meet their own financial pledges and maintain strong support for global food security. 

Under the U.S. chairmanship of AFSI in 2012, donors agreed to 

report more detailed information than ever before on their food 

security investments in individual developing countries. 

Our diplomacy also plays a leading role in the U.N. Committee 

on World Food Security negotiations, working through the U.S. 

mission to the U.N. agencies in Rome, the United States guided the 

committee’s process to develop and adopt voluntary guidelines on 

land tenure which also helps to address natural resources constraints and natural resource management. Now we are turning 

our attention to the follow-on effort to develop voluntary principles 

on responsible agricultural investment. 

Food security remains a priority for the Obama administration. 

Feed the Future is one of the premier examples of development 

diplomacy as envisioned in the Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review. Working together across the whole of the U.S. Government with other governments and throughout the international 

community, we are determined to make significant progress toward 

ending hunger and undernutrition in our lifetimes. 

Thank you for congressional support for our food security efforts. 

I look forward to taking your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Shrier follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JONATHAN SHRIER

Good morning, Chairman Cardin, Ranking Member Corker, and members of the 

subcommittee. It is an honor to appear before this subcommittee to testify about the 

U.S. Government’s efforts to help end world hunger and improve food security and 

nutrition around the globe. 

President Obama and Secretary Clinton have prioritized food security on the U.S 

global agenda for humanitarian, economic, and national security reasons. 

As USAID’s testimony notes, the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) estimates that one in eight people worldwide—almost 870 million people—suffer from 

chronic hunger. By 2050, population growth and changing food demands will require 

up to a 60-percent increase in agricultural production, according to the FAO. 

Our best traditions of compassion compel us to act to help end hunger and undernutrition. Because we can help, we must help—that is our moral imperative. But 

ending hunger and undernutrition is also in our national security and economic 

interests. 

As we witnessed in 2008, spikes in food and energy prices threw tens of millions 

of vulnerable people in the developing world back into poverty. High and volatile 

food prices in 2008 touched off demonstrations in dozens of countries, contributing 

to political unrest. We can see how preventing food insecurity becomes a matter of 

national security. 

FOREI-43947 with DISTILLER

15

President Obama and Secretary Clinton have been strong advocates for food security, making the case for increased investments in agriculture and nutrition because 

they can have immediate and long-term impacts in the lives of children, help move 

people out of poverty, create stronger communities and open new markets. Our 

economy’s future growth will depend on growth in the rest of the world. Many of 

our future customers will live in markets outside of our borders, including in emerging economies and low-income countries that have been particularly vulnerable to 

economic shocks. 

The 2009 G8 summit in L’Aquila, Italy, was a pivotal moment for hunger and poverty reduction. There, President Obama rallied Presidents and Prime Ministers as 

well as leaders of key international and regional organizations to join together to 

reverse a three-decade decline in investment in agricultural development and 

launch the L’Aquila Food Security Initiative (AFSI). This initiative was designed to 

attack the root causes of global hunger through accelerated agricultural development and improved nutrition. 

In keeping with the global L’Aquila Food Security Initiative, President Obama 

launched the U.S. Government’s Feed the Future initiative, and he asked that we 

do things differently to get better results for every taxpayer dollar we are investing. 

This means that countries develop their own plans for food security, increase their 

own funding for agriculture, and are accountable for sound plans and actions. It 

means taking a comprehensive approach that focuses on how countries can increase 

their own production, marketing, and nutrition programs, so they can help prevent 

recurrent food crises and do not have to rely on food aid in the future; focusing on 

women as a key part of the solution; integrating natural resource constraints into 

our plans; and measuring results. 

To achieve these goals, Feed the Future leverages the capacity and expertise of 

different agencies across the U.S. Government, including the U.S. Department of 

State; the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID); the U.S. Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, and the Treasury; the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC); the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative; the Overseas Private 

Investment Corporation and others. Working in close coordination with my USAID 

colleague, Deputy Coordinator for Development Tjada McKenna, I act as the Deputy 

Coordinator for Diplomacy for Feed the Future. 

ROLE OF DIPLOMACY IN IMPLEMENTATION OF FEED THE FUTURE

AND OTHER FOOD SECURITY INITIATIVES

U.S. food security diplomacy actively supports the work of multiple U.S. Government agencies to advance our global food security agenda and further our Feed the 

Future priorities. We do this through policy coordination among major donors, strategic partners, and multilateral organizations, ensuring that food security and nutrition remains high on bilateral and global policy agendas. Through our engagement 

with the G8, G20, U.N. agencies, and other economic cooperation platforms, such 

as APEC and Summit of the Americas, we help ensure that leaders stay focused 

on the fight against hunger and undernutrition. 

U.S. leadership in the L’Aquila Food Security Initiative, focusing on sound food 

security policy, innovation, and reliable metrics, has helped advance the initiative’s 

goals. Our ability to fulfill the U.S. financial pledge on schedule by obligating $3.786 

billion over 3 years promotes confidence among other donors to meet their own 

financial pledges and maintain strong financial support for global food security, 

shouldering responsibility along with us. As of May 2012, 4 of the 13 AFSI donors 

had fully disbursed their AFSI pledges, and we expect to announce further donor 

progress at the end of the AFSI pledge period later this year. Under the U.S. chairmanship of the AFSI followup group in 2012, AFSI donors agreed to provide indepth information on how they are investing their food security assistance at the 

individual country level. These detailed materials were published in May and represent a significant advance for transparency and accountability. 

The United States has worked closely with G20 countries, the World Bank, and 

other multilateral organizations and civil society organizations to establish the 

Global Agriculture and Food Security Program (GAFSP), a multidonor trust fund to 

help millions of poor farmers grow more and earn more so they can lift themselves 

out of hunger and poverty. 

In 21⁄2 years of operation, GAFSP has attracted pledges of nearly $1.3 billion from 

nine development partners to help support the food security strategies of low-income 

countries. GAFSP’s Steering Committee, which includes civil society and developing 

country representatives, has also allocated $658 million to support 18 countries in 

Africa, Asia and Latin America. GAFSP financing will help boost the incomes of approximately 8 million smallholder farmers and their families by increasing farm proFOREI-43947 with DISTILLER

16

ductivity, linking smallholder farmers to markets, and helping farmers to mitigate 

the risks that they face. In Sierra Leone, for example, GAFSP financing has underwritten the delivery of improved extension services to farmers to help them boost 

yields in key staple crops. GAFSP has also financed the rehabilitation of 250 kilometers of rural roads in Togo to better connect farmers to local markets and has 

provided 18,000 farmers with better access to improved seed varieties and fertilizer. 

The United States is currently working with other donors—including the Gates 

Foundation and several other development partners—to replenish this successful 

fund. 

The United States also plays a leading role in the U.N. Committee on World Food 

Security negotiations. Over the past 2 years, working through the U.S. Mission to 

the U.N. Agencies in Rome and in collaboration with USAID and MCC, we guided 

the committee’s consultative process to develop Voluntary Guidelines on the Responsible Governance of Tenure of Land, Fisheries, and Forestry in the Context of 

National Food Security that were approved in May 2012. Now, we are turning our 

attention to the follow-on consultative process aimed at developing voluntary, nonbinding principles on responsible agricultural investment. 

We work with strategic partner countries—Brazil, India, and South Africa—to 

leverage the expertise and influence of government, the private sector, and civil society partners in these countries in order to collaborate to improve food security in 

Feed the Future focus countries. For example, we are partnering with Brazil in 

Mozambique to help farmers increase the productivity of their vegetable crops, improve post-harvest packing, storage and processing, and support research on food 

technology innovation. We also recently announced new agreements with Brazil to 

work together in Haiti to improve land use and promote conventional and biofortified crops and in Honduras to increase agriculture productivity, decrease malnutrition, and promote renewable energy. 

At the national level with individual Feed the Future focus countries, we help promote policy changes and keep food security priorities high on national agendas. For 

example, when the worst drought in 60 years struck the Horn of Africa, Secretary 

Clinton contacted the leaders of Ethiopia and Kenya to press for specific policy 

shifts that could help assure lasting food security even as we extended emergency 

assistance. The administration worked with Tanzania to establish a nutritionspecific line in its national budget to ensure effective coordination and implementation of the country’s national nutrition strategy. We have helped countries like Guatemala, Uganda, and Mozambique to introduce new measures to improve financial 

accountability and strengthen their countries’ commitment to nutrition. 

We understand that to end world hunger we need the collective efforts of governments, donors, institutions, businesses, and, in particular, civil society. As Secretary 

Clinton highlighted in her remarks on the margins of the U.N. General Assembly 

this year, ‘‘Civil society organizations are crucial to our success, both in the public 

and private sector; they have longstanding relationships in communities and valuable technical expertise, and they work every single day on their commitment to try 

to make this world a better place for all of us.’’ Through our diplomatic efforts we 

engage and facilitate collaboration with civil society at home and abroad to help 

achieve Feed the Future’s food and nutrition security goals. 

For example, in 2010, Secretary Clinton launched the 1,000 Days partnership, 

which is helping mobilize governments, civil society, and the private sector to promote action to improve nutrition in the 1,000 days from pregnancy to a child’s second birthday. The partnership helps disseminate research information and the latest innovations in nutrition and best practices. With financial support from the 

Gates Foundation and Walmart and in collaboration with the Global Alliance for 

Improved Nutrition and InterAction, we facilitated the establishment of an organization to promote the 1,000 Days message and support the U.N.’s Scaling Up Nutrition movement. Thanks to these efforts, more and more stakeholders are prioritizing 

nutrition interventions during the critical 1,000 days when adequate nutrition has 

the greatest lifelong impact on a child’s health, ability to grow, learn, and contribute 

to the prosperity of her family, her community, and her country. 

Our diplomatic and development efforts have also focused on spotlighting the role 

of women in agriculture. Women make up the majority of the agricultural workforce 

in many developing countries, but they often earn less because they do not have 

rights to land, access to finance, natural resources, and the best inputs needed for 

production. Research shows that when women’s incomes increase, their families are 

more financially secure, eat more nutritional food, and are less hungry and 

undernourished. Women are more likely to invest their earnings in the health, education, and nutrition of their children. Feed the Future is funding innovative 

approaches for promoting gender equality in agriculture and land use and to integrate gender into agricultural development and food security programs. 

FOREI-43947 with DISTILLER

17

In September 2012, as a result of our outreach efforts, Secretary Clinton 

announced a $1 billion pledge of private, nongovernment funds for food security 

from InterAction, an alliance of 198 U.S.-based NGOs. Five of its member organizations together pledged to contribute more than $900 million toward the total, 

namely Catholic Relief Services, World Vision, Heifer International, Save the Children, and ChildFund International. We look forward to deepening coordination of 

our efforts with civil society partners to achieve greater impact and scale in our food 

security and nutrition efforts. 

Progress in the Feed the Future effort continues. Diplomacy played a key role in 

negotiating with G8 partners in particular in developing and launching the New 

Alliance for Food Security and Nutrition, announced by President Obama in May 

2012. The New Alliance is a shared commitment to achieve sustained and inclusive 

agricultural growth and raise 50 million people in sub-Saharan Africa out of poverty 

over the next 10 years by aligning the commitments of Africa’s leadership to drive 

effective country plans and policies for food security; the commitments of private 

sector partners to increase investments where the conditions are right; and the commitments of the G8 to expand Africa’s potential for rapid and sustainable agricultural growth. 

Food security remains a policy priority for the Obama administration. For us at 

the State Department, Feed the Future is one of the premier examples of development diplomacy as envisioned in the Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development 

Review. The State Department works closely with USAID to align diplomatic and 

development goals, develop the Feed the Future budget, and continue support for 

the work of our partners in advancing our global food security agenda. Working together across the whole of the U.S. Government, with other governments, and 

throughout the international community, we are determined to make significant 

progress toward ending hunger and undernutrition in our lifetimes.

Senator CARDIN. Again, thank you for your testimony and for 

your service. 

We have been joined by Senator Casey, and as I mentioned earlier, we thanked Senator Casey, working with Senator Lugar, for 

his leadership on the Global Food Security Act. It is nice to have 

you with us. 

There is no question that President Obama and Secretary Clinton have made this issue a very high priority, and that is clear in 

policies here in the United States. It is also clear to the international community. 

I tell you, though, it is somewhat disappointing that we have not 

been able to name the coordinator for Feed the Future, and there 

has been a frequent turnover in the position of deputy coordinator. 

And it seems to me that for the stability of the agency, these positions need to be filled, and it is a concern to us that they have not. 

I know that the two of you cannot address that directly, but it has 

to make it more challenging when one position is not filled and the 

other has frequent turnover. 

Ms. McKenna, you mentioned the fact that there was the progress report that identified much of the positive progress that has 

been made in Feed the Future, but it did not identify the challenges. It seems to me that we could spend a lot of time complimenting ourselves on the progress that we have made and we have 

made progress. But what is important is to focus on where we can 

make more progress, the challenges that we have, where do we 

need to put our resources, where do we need to put our priorities, 

where do you need congressional attention. So I want to give you 

an opportunity to share with this committee the challenges that 

you see in Feed the Future and where we can be of greatest help 

in trying to make sure that we can achieve as much as we can and 

leverage the resources as greatly as we can. 

Ms. MCKENNA. Thank you, Senator Cardin. 

FOREI-43947 with DISTILLER

18

In the progress report, we identify our success to date, but we 

also had a section entitled ‘‘How FTF Has Evolved’’ which talks 

about what we are learning and what is ahead. And I think in that 

section is where we try to distill some of the key challenges that 

we have been facing. 

A key focus of our energy has been on monitoring and evaluation 

and being able to talk about the results of our work. In the course 

of doing that, we have also needed to set targets and how many 

people we are going to reach and where our money is going to go. 

So some of the evolutions that we have made include revising—our 

initial estimates were just based strictly on cost, by unit costs, 

what we knew about what it takes for a unit cost to bring a farmer 

out of poverty. Since then, we have been able to refine that, and 

now we have refined our targets to be that we want to reduce poverty by 20 percent in the areas that we work, what we call our 

‘‘zones of influence,’’ and also reduce undernutrition in those areas 

by 20 percent. And so what we have learned is we want to be more 

effectively targeting the poorest populations, focused on lifting 

them out of poverty, and working with that subsegment and looking at M&E specifically with that population. And so that is one 

of the adjustments we have made. 

We also recognize that we need to go deeper to making sure that 

in the field that we are working closely with civil society and that 

they are more effectively integrated into our work. So we talked 

about that and have renewed our focus on working with both U.S.-

based NGOs as well as local civil society organizations and will 

deepen that commitment. 

We also look forward to deepening our work in natural resource 

management and coordinating our efforts on climate change as 

well. 

I think without authorization, we have really been able to still 

set a very strong foundation for Feed the Future in terms of developing a Feed the Future guide, a strategy, a whole-of-government 

coordination strategy that will really stand the test of time. But, 

obviously, there is always more we can do to improve our efforts 

at coordination and to have more agencies reporting in to our 

whole-of-government Feed the Future monitoring system. 

Senator CARDIN. I think there is great interest here on the coordination issues. It is not only among the NGO community that 

you have mentioned, from which you have gotten substantial support, but how is that coordinated and leveraged between the governmental sector. It is also coordination within our own agencies 

with the humanitarian aid and emergency food aid programs that 

we have, how well are they coordinated with Feed the Future as 

to making sure that we are again using the resources in the most 

effective way to leverage, as much as we possibly can. Can you just 

elaborate a little bit more as to what steps you are taking to coordinate these stakeholders? 

Ms. MCKENNA. Yes. In fact, right after our testimony today from 

1 to 5 p.m., Jonathan and I are leading an interagency offsite to 

actually spend more time talking about where we can go deeper in 

these efforts. 

One of the areas that we started that we really started to make 

significant progress on starting last year is in one of the areas that 

FOREI-43947 with DISTILLER

19

you mentioned, which is coordinating the food aid assistance with 

our longer term agricultural development work. ‘‘Resilience’’ is kind 

of the code name that we have for all those efforts, and it has been 

a major focus of our energy this year, focusing on crises in the 

Sahel and also in the Horn of Africa. 

There have been a couple of quick wins that we have been able 

to do in that area that we will continue to build on. One is we put 

crisis modifiers into our longer term growth programs. So when our 

forecast is showing us that a severe weather event is likely to occur 

in an area or something else that would put more people in poverty, we are able to take our emergency assistance funding, put it 

into our longer term Feed the Future funding to specifically 

address those populations and to add in resilience work there. 

Another example of how we have blended the economic growth 

with the communities that are likely to receive food aid as an 

example of our work in Ethiopia where we are working with commercial abattoirs. A lot of the pastoral communities in those 

areas—that pastoralism is a way of life, but by promoting commercial abattoirs and making them available in the areas where those 

pastoralists tend to migrate, we have also now provided economic 

opportunities for those farmers. So we are starting to address it. 

We will get deeper in food aid. 

And across agencies, we are also working to identify which pieces 

really fit into Feed the Future, making sure they are reporting into 

the monitoring system, and making sure those efforts are coordinated at the ground in the same geographic areas. 

Senator CARDIN. Tomorrow there will be a hearing in the Environment and Public Works Committee on Hurricane Sandy, and I 

will be talking about resilience. I think resiliency is very important 

in Feed the Future as to what steps we are taking to deal with the 

realities of the circumstances. As we pointed out, extreme weather 

conditions are having an incredible impact on food security, and we 

have to build that into our programs to make sure that we recognize the realities of what is happening globally if we are going to 

be successful long range in our efforts. 

Mr. Shrier, let me just get you involved here on the gender issue. 

To me, the No. 1 issue in dealing with the long-term sustainability 

is to deal with farmers, women, and the treatment of the developing world on land reform and the manner in which they treat 

women that are providing most of the labor in agriculture today. 

Can you just share with us—I know Secretary Clinton has been active in this regard—but how that is being integrated into the food 

security issues? 

Mr. SHRIER. Absolutely. Thank you for that question, Senator 

Cardin. 

So you are right. In many developing countries, women do make 

up the majority of the agricultural workforce. In several subSaharan African countries, it is as high as 60 or 70 percent of the 

agricultural labor. But the challenge is that in many of these countries, women do not have equal access to the best inputs, the best 

improved seeds, fertilizers, access to resources such as land or financing. And research has demonstrated that if that access were 

equalized, you could see increases in productivity of 20 to 30 

FOREI-43947 with DISTILLER

20

percent, and if you globalized that, that could amount to well over 

100 million additional mouths being fed. 

So this is something that we have to focus on, and that is why 

it is integrated throughout our Feed the Future work in the programs that we have got designed country by country. It is also an 

area where we are looking for better ideas, and so last year, 

Secretary Clinton and Administrator Rajiv Shah from USAID 

launched a new intensified research effort to attract the best innovations for improving the role of women in agriculture and improving policies and other techniques to improve gender treatment and 

gender equality in areas ranging from productivity technologies to 

land access and land tenure, as you mentioned. 

Senator CARDIN. I would just urge us to put as much of a spotlight on this as possible. I think it is important that the international community knows that this is an issue that the United 

States is going to maintain a continued interest in. 

Senator Lugar. 

Senator LUGAR. Ms. McKenna, a key component of the Feed the 

Future program is the partnerships that the United States has 

with each of the 19 focus countries through the negotiation of 

Country Investment Plans. I would like to ask you, first of all, how 

did we determination which 19 countries we would deal with? I 

understand plans have now been formulated with all 19 after considerable negotiation. But describe, if you will, the challenges of 

those negotiations as well as challenges that remain really after we 

believe we have something on paper with each of the 19. 

Ms. MCKENNA. Thank you. 

We spent a lot of time in the early life of the initiative focusing 

on that because we felt like it would lead to better results. And so 

we are really proud of our work working with 19 focus countries. 

As you know, focus countries are where we really have committed to deep levels of investment with those governments. And 

we chose those 19 countries based on a few factors. One was the 

level of need, so looking at absolute levels of hunger and poverty 

in those countries. The other is how agricultural growth really 

would provide economic stimulus in those countries as often indicated by percent of those populations that rely on agriculture. The 

third factor that is most important was our opportunity for partnership with those countries because we did see this as deep partnership, and we looked at the country investment plan process as 

a part of developing that process. 

Africa really took the lead in this area through their CAADP, 

their Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Program, 

which set continental standards for how investment plans should 

be developed in terms of consulting with local society, civil society, 

private sector, other actors. And we worked closely with governments to make sure those happened. 

What we have done with our funding to provide the proper incentives to help that happen was we really have focused our funding 

in specific areas of the country where we believe we can have the 

greatest impact, as well as on specific value chains and activities. 

And I have made that clear and made sure that almost all of our 

funding is focused on those few things instead of providing out too 

thin. 

FOREI-43947 with DISTILLER

21

We use evidence-based and results-based ways to evaluate how 

we are doing in those countries every year which includes how the 

country is following up on its commitments to support this with 

their own budgets, policy changes that they are making. For example, one of the things that we need to evaluate now is Mali. Senator 

Cardin mentioned some of the instability in Mali right now and 

how it affects it. So we will undergo a process to review them as 

a focus country, determine what to do with those resources. So 

there is a constant look at where we are in that country and a constant view of this as a partnership where both sides need to keep 

their sides of the agreement. 

Senator LUGAR. Are those negotiations or agreements a matter 

of public record? Are there press accounts in the countries of our 

work, as well as the decisions made by their leadership? 

Ms. MCKENNA. Yes. In developing the country investment plans, 

part of the requirement for that is that there are public sessions 

on what those plans are and public consultations. And there has 

been great media fanfare in all of those activities. 

In addition, as we go forward executing our work, we make

sure that the public understands exactly where we are working,

what we have committed to working in. Our Web site—

feedthefuture.gov—goes into that extensively, but we also take 

every opportunity in-country to reach out to stakeholders and to 

continue to remind them of what our priorities have been and how 

we have been working with the government and other actors to fulfill them. 

Senator LUGAR. Let me switch for a moment to the research component of Feed the Future, which is approximately $120 million 

annually. I understand that a large focus of this includes research 

on new seeds that may be more productive generally, as well as 

under varying climatic conditions. 

Now, are genetically modified organisms a part of the research 

agenda for Feed the Future? If so, how are GMO’s being received 

in Feed the Future countries? 

Ms. MCKENNA. Part of our job is to really bring the best of what 

the American people and the American public have to offer to our 

work, and research and our innovations in science and technology 

are a key part of that. Our research agenda is really focused on 

looking forward toward sustainable intensification of production, 

looking at the effects of climate change, and anticipating what the 

needs of populations will be and leveraging what we have done in 

the United States, as well as our research abroad. 

We view genetically modified crops and biotechnology as part of 

a tool kit of solutions that can provide better—for example, increased resistance to drought or climate change activities or better 

yields or reduced use of certain pesticides and chemicals in production. So we encourage the governments in the countries that we 

work with to look at the range of things in their tool kits which 

would include biotechnology products and to make their own decisions about what is appropriate for their country. But we certainly 

support that research and we certainly believe it is part of a tool 

kit that a country and that farmers, in particular, need to thrive 

going forward. 

FOREI-43947 with DISTILLER

22

Senator LUGAR. I raise the question because specifically I have 

had debates over it with German parliamentarians or even in 

Ukraine in which they have stoutly affirmed no GMO. Furthermore, they will not accept crops from Africa that have any trace of 

GMO. The influence there has been profound. So we are not simply 

talking about something that is a little bit of research here or 

there. If we are really serious about yields and about a large 

change for the single woman farmer dealing with bad seed and bad 

fertilizer and bad transportation, this is why I asked the question. 

And I hope that there has been acceptance in these 19 countries. 

Has there been resistance? Are they contaminated by the European 

influence or anybody else? 

Ms. MCKENNA. So I would like to assure you we support both the 

research but we also support the building of institutions that can 

understand those activities that can develop the proper regulatory 

environments to welcome those products in and that can also help 

to inform the public on the right things. Of course, you will always 

have opponents who make their voices heard in those countries, 

but we believe that our approach of providing the countries and the 

scientific institutions in those countries with information and providing that information also to smallholder farmers are one of the 

key antidotes to those other outside pressures that those countries 

face. 

Senator LUGAR. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator CARDIN. Senator Casey. 

Senator CASEY. Thank you so much, Senator Cardin. I want to 

thank you for calling this hearing and for highlighting this issue, 

the issue of food security. We do not talk about it enough in the 

Senate, and I am grateful that you are demonstrating continued 

leadership on this issue. 

And, Senator Lugar, it has been great to work with you on these 

issues over at least the time I have been here, 6 years now. We are 

going to miss your voice in the Senate, but I know that voice will 

not be quiet. I think if people in both parties can agree on one 

thing—and there are maybe more than one. A few things we all 

agree on, but I think it is a commitment that we need to make on 

an issue like this that can be bipartisan. And you provide us with 

that inspiration, and your work in this area and your public service 

will continue to inspire us. So we hope when you think we are not 

paying enough attention, that you knock on our door and remind 

us. But we are looking forward to working with you in your next 

chapter and are just so grateful for the work you have done. 

I wanted to emphasize—or I should say maybe just to focus for 

a moment on the private sector aspects. I know it was covered in 

the testimony. This is an era of our history where often if it is a 

government-only approach to an issue or a challenge or a priority, 

there is a segment of society, I guess, that would denigrate that, 

that if it is government that is doing it, somehow it is not going 

to meet the objectives we all hope for. I think that is unfair. And 

I have worked in two levels of government, State government and 

the Federal Government. So I take umbrage with that. But I do not 

think we should ever miss an opportunity to have partnerships 

FOREI-43947 with DISTILLER

23

where the private sector can work with any level of government or 

nonprofit organization. 

So this is one area where I think, as good as the work is by the 

Federal Government, the State Department, USAID, any other 

part of our Government, I think it is good to have private sector 

involvement. And I know from the testimony that that was highlighted with regard to the New Alliance, the $3 billion in private 

investment from 45 companies. So that is good news and we should 

encourage that and support that. 

I guess some questions have been raised about what that means 

in the real world of getting the job done on the food security objectives we have here. One concern that has been raised is that civil 

society groups in various countries would be excluded, and I want 

to have you comment on that. 

But also one question that we have is what assurances are there 

that donors and governments in Feed the Future countries will 

sustain that investment in smallholder agriculture. So if you can 

focus on that. 

And then finally with regard to the U.S. and G8 donors, how do 

we ensure that the New Alliance will ensure civil society organizations, farmers’ groups, women’s groups, small cooperatives, small 

and medium-sized enterprises that they will all be included or integrated within the overall strategy? 

So I think the two or three questions I set forth apply to both 

of our witnesses, but maybe, Ms. McKenna, if you want to start to 

address it. 

Ms. MCKENNA. Certainly. I have been privileged to be able to put 

a lot of my energy into some of the private sector outreach components, so I am really happy to talk about that. 

The private sector that is interested in working in these areas, 

both international private sector, but also local private sector—for 

them, these are long-term commitments. When you talk to them, 

there is a universal recognition. We need to be good corporate citizens. We need the smallholders to develop to be future customers 

of ours, but to also be great suppliers. So I think our intrinsic 

interests are all aligned. They may speak different languages. The 

private sector may not speak in the same language as the civil society or government, but part of our job has been to translate and 

to bring those communities together and we have happily done that 

particularly through the New Alliance. 

The first step in that is really providing transparency in what is 

going on. I think in the examples that we have seen as being harmful or not in people’s best interest are things that are not done in 

a transparent manner. So by having the New Alliance really focus 

on companies and letters of intent, we have brought those interests 

and intents to light, made that transparent, but also have fostered 

a public dialogue between those companies, the governments, and 

also helping them to connect to the farmers in the communities in 

which they want to serve. 

Each of the private companies that work with us agreed to work 

around the spirit and the principles of responsible agricultural 

investment. They have all come to us with questions on how to do 

that and how to work with that. And I think part of our work as 

donors is helping them to understand what that means and 

FOREI-43947 with DISTILLER

24

providing our development expertise with their innovation and investment that they want to bring to those areas. 

We also have encouraged countries to set up structures where 

they can interact effectively with the private sector, as well as civil 

society and smallholders and others in those conversations. Examples of that are Ethiopia has created an agricultural transformation agency that is working across its government sectors but also 

is responsible for bringing other stakeholders into the conversation. 

And Tanzania has a southern agricultural growth corridor, and 

they have an ownership group that is actually kind of coowned 

with government, local farmer organizations, and others to bring 

that together. So that is the kind of work that we are encouraging. 

In terms of civil society, we absolutely want to include them. And 

I think what we are doing and the work we are focused on is making sure that they are included at the local level on the ground. We 

do a lot of consultation in Washington. We have required it of our 

missions to do more of that local consultation, and we are looking 

at ways to create handbooks or best practices for them to do even 

better jobs of that going forward. But the goal is to make sure all 

voices are heard and that these things are done in a transparent, 

open manner, and then that is what we continue to work toward. 

The New Alliance itself—a lot of what we have done with the 

New Alliance—we have really tried to drive it down to the local 

level because that is really the best way to get to small farmer 

organizations, to local society and that. So we have country cooperation frameworks where governments have laid out on paper 

what their policy changes would be. Private sector companies, 

through the form of their LOI’s, talk about what commitments they 

want to make, and then donors actually have articulated what commitments they want to make. And by making that all public in 

these cooperation framework documents, we are asking everyone to 

hold us accountable for what we say in those documents for each 

of those sectors. So I think the focus really is on transparency, 

accountability, and developing mechanisms on the ground for those 

conversations to continue to happen. 

Senator CASEY. I know I am out of time for this round, but 

maybe we can get back to it in the next round. 

Senator CARDIN. Well, thank you. 

I want to observe that I think one of the most significant hearings this full committee has ever had is when we had Bill Gates 

and Bill Clinton before us. Their testimony was incredible about 

the ability of the NGO community to deal with humanitarian 

issues. I remember the questioning dealing with how they handle 

corruption in a country and when it becomes difficult to get the aid 

to the people, what is their policy. And their policy was pretty 

clear. They will not be there. If the aid cannot get to the people, 

they are not going to feed the corruption of local officials. 

Senator Lugar and I have joined together on a transparency initiative to make sure that the wealth of a country goes to its people 

and does not to feed corruption. 

What steps are you all taking to make sure that we are not 

advancing corrupt regimes by giving them the resources, to make 

sure that the funds, in fact, are getting to the people? And are we 

FOREI-43947 with DISTILLER

25

prepared to leave a country if we cannot effectively help the 

people? 

Mr. SHRIER. Thank you, Senator Cardin. Perhaps I will say a few 

words and then invite my USAID colleague to add. 

So corruption is a great challenge in economic growth and development. 

Senator CARDIN. I am looking at the list of countries, and some 

of them have real challenges as far as governance is concerned. 

Mr. SHRIER. Right, and so one of the considerations when we 

were selecting countries for the focus country list in Feed the 

Future was the ability of the government in that country to work 

with us as a partner to deliver results. Not every government on 

the list is perfect. There is room for growth, to be sure. But we certainly considered these issues and designed our programs based on 

that consideration so that in many places we do work through implementing partners instead of, or in addition to, government agencies. Implementing partners can be local organizations or local 

firms that provide these sorts of services. And so we can thereby 

be better assured that the money we deliver is producing real 

results. And over time, we also work with these governments 

through other programs beyond the Feed the Future effort itself to 

improve the control of corruption. 

There is a significant U.S. effort governmentwide on anticorruption, which we could provide you further information on. 

Senator CARDIN. I would welcome that. 

I understand we want to be engaged in these countries. We want 

to take steps to make sure that the aid gets to the people, but if 

you reach a point where that is not possible, are you prepared to 

leave? 

Mr. SHRIER. So you cited, Senator Cardin, the example of Mali 

where we have essentially put our operation on hold while the situation is so unsettled. So that is an example of us looking at reality 

and making an adjustment as a result. 

Ms. MCKENNA. May I add that we are particularly focused on 

their governance and their policy work in agriculture. And so part 

of our funding—a lot of it is directly with smallholders, but there 

is always part of it that was working with local systems or local 

institutions that would be in charge of executing some of those programs and building their capacity to make sure that things happen 

correctly. Before we work through any local systems, we also have 

a whole audit and measurement process to make sure that those 

local systems can effectively use that money, have systems for monitoring and control of those funds. And so we are very cognizant of 

that and make sure that our efforts in agriculture and food security 

either are working through other implementing partners or that we 

are building and strengthening and monitoring the government 

systems or the local systems that would handle those funds. 

Senator CARDIN. We fully understand the more that we can get 

prosperity in a country, the better chance we have of good governance. If you do not have good governance, it is hard to get the prosperity to the people. It is a circular problem. We understand that 

and we have got to enter someplace. 

But I just urge you to follow the leadership of Congress here on 

transparency. We have got to be very open as to the circumstances 

FOREI-43947 with DISTILLER

26

in the countries we are operating in, and if we cannot effectively 

get aid, we have to be prepared to leave rather than to help finance 

a corrupt regime. Obviously, we have humanitarian concerns. We 

want to make sure we move forward with humanitarian concerns, 

but we want to make sure that these systematic changes that are 

made are going to lead to good governance and we cannot be party 

to helping to finance corrupt regimes. 

Senator Lugar. 

Senator LUGAR. I noted in the Feed the Future publications a 

map of the 19 countries, which is very helpful in identifying precisely what we are talking about today. And these countries, just 

for the benefit of everyone in the room, are not only in Africa but 

in Latin America and in Asia so that there is quite a cross-section 

of different kinds of governments and backgrounds. 

Even more interesting was the progress scorecard in which you 

cited accountability. You have really tried to put something down 

on paper. And it will be very interesting to watch the development 

of those figures and the projections, the hopes really for the 2012 

fiscal year as compared to the 2011 which you have. 

I am curious as to what kind of extension programs are being 

developed. Clearly that component of education, research, the 

reaching out in a practical way might offer some continuity to 

these trends and attract young people, middle-aged people, whoever, to really take on something beyond the planting function and 

the maintaining of existence. What can you report about those 

sorts of programs? 

Ms. MCKENNA. Well, we know from our experience here in the 

United States that extension networks are very important, and 

part of our work in Feed the Future with getting technologies to 

smallholders, obviously extension remains important in that work. 

We have a multifaceted, multipronged approach to extension incountry. One, we work very hard to leverage U.S. universities and 

our own U.S. knowledge and that. So there are a lot of programs 

that we do both at USAID but also with USDA and others where 

we are connecting those universities and institutions to extension 

services in countries. 

Senator LUGAR. Have you been able to identify specific universities in some of your literature and which countries or with whom? 

Ms. MCKENNA. Yes. We can make that available and send you 

a report on that. But we have extensive partnerships with U.S. 

universities, and extension is one of those areas where the common 

thread that you will see across many of those partnerships. 

[The submitted written report from USAID follows:]

UNIVERSITIES THAT WE WORK WITH

Aquaculture & Fisheries CRSP 

Oregon State University (Lead University): Global 

Purdue University: Ghana; Kenya; Tanzania 

Virginia Tech: Ghana; Kenya; Tanzania 

Auburn University: Uganda, South Africa 

Alabama A&M University: Uganda 

University of Georgia: Uganda, South Africa 

University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff: Tanzania 

University of Rhode Island: Vietnam, Cambodia 

University of Connecticut–Avery Point: Vietnam, Cambodia 

University of Hawaii–Hilo: Nicaragua, Mexico 

FOREI-43947 with DISTILLER

27

Louisiana State University: Nicaragua, Mexico 

University of Michigan: Nepal, Bangladesh, Vietnam, China 

University of Arizona: Mexico, Guyana, Indonesia 

Texas Tech University: Mexico 

North Carolina State University: Philippines, Indonesia 

Dry Grain Pulses CRSP 

Cornell University: Kenya 

Iowa State University: Uganda, Rwanda, Tanzania 

Kansas State University: Zambia 

Michigan State University (Lead University): Angola, Mozambique, Honduras, 

Ecuador, Rwanda, Tanzania 

Penn State University: Malawi; Mozambique; Honduras; Tanzania 

Texas A&M University: Kenya; Zambia; South Africa 

University of California–Riverside: Senegal; Burkina Faso; Angola 

University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign: Burkina Faso; Niger; Nigeria 

University of Puerto Rico: Honduras; Angola; Haiti 

Horticulture CRSP 

Cornell University: Bangladesh; India 

Michigan State University: Benin; Kenya, India, Nepal, Sri Lanka 

Ohio State University: Bolivia; Chile; Ecuador; Guatemala; Honduras; Peru, Nicaragua, Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda 

Purdue University: Kenya; Tanzania; Zambia 

Tennessee State University: Cambodia; Thailand; Vietnam 

University of California–Davis (Lead University): Bangladesh; Cambodia, Vietnam, 

Kenya; Nepal; Rwanda; Tanzania; Uganda, Benin, Gabon, Ghana, Democratic 

Republic of the Congo 

University of Hawaii–Manoa: Cambodia; Vietnam 

University of Wisconsin–Madison: El Salvador; Guatemala; Honduras; Nicaragua 

Integrated Pest Management CRSP 

Clemson University: Indonesia; Philippines; Cambodia 

Michigan State University: Tajikistan 

Ohio State University: Global; Kenya; Uganda; Tanzania 

Penn State University: Bangladesh; India; Nepal 

Virginia State University: Kenya; Tanzania; Uganda; Ethiopia 

Virginia Tech (Lead University) 

Adapting Livestock Systems to Climate Change CRSP 

Arizona State University: Nepal 

Colorado State University (Lead University): Kenya 

Emory University: Kenya; Ethiopia 

Princeton University: Kenya 

South Dakota State University: Mali, Senegal 

Syracuse University: Senegal 

Texas A&M University: Mali 

University of California–Davis: Tanzania 

University of Florida: Niger; Tanzania 

University of Georgia: Mali 

University of Louisiana–Lafayette: Nepal 

Utah State University: Nepal 

Peanut CRSP 

Auburn University: Ghana 

Cornell University: Haiti 

New Mexico State University: Uganda; Kenya 

North Carolina State University: Ghana, Burkina Faso 

Purdue University: Brazil 

Texas A&M University: Ghana; Mali; Burkina Faso 

University of Alabama: Ghana 

University of Connecticut: Uganda; Kenya 

University of Florida: Bolivia, Ghana, Mali, Burkina Faso, Guyana, Haiti 

University of Georgia (Lead University): Uganda; Ghana; Mali; Burkina Faso, 

Kenya 

Virginia Tech: Uganda; Kenya 

FOREI-43947 with DISTILLER

28

Sorghum, Millet and Other Grains (INTSORMIL) 

Kansas State University: Botswana; El Salvador; Mali; Nicaragua; Nigeria; Senegal, 

Ghana, Burkina Faso, Niger, Kenya, South Africa, Tanzania 

Ohio State University: Tanzania; Zambia 

Purdue University: Botswana; Burkina Faso; Mali; Niger, Nigeria, Senegal, South 

Africa, Ethiopia, Kenya, Tanzania 

Texas A&M University: Costa Rica; El Salvador; Guatemala; Haiti; Honduras; Nicaragua; Panama, South Africa 

University of Nebraska–Lincoln (Lead University): Ethiopia; Mozambique; Tanzania; Uganda, Zambia 

West Texas A&M University: Botswana; Mali; Mozambique; Niger; South Africa 

Sustainable Agriculture & Natural Resource Management CRSP 

Kansas State University: Ghana; Mali 

North Carolina A&T State University: Cambodia; Philippines 

Penn State University: Bolivia, Ecuador 

University of Hawaii–Manoa: India; Nepal 

University of Denver: Bolivia, Ecuador 

University of Tennessee: Lesotho; Mozambique 

University of Wyoming: Uganda; Kenya 

Virginia Tech (Lead University): Ecuador, Bolivia, Haiti 

Nutrition CRSP 

Tufts University (Lead University): Nepal, Uganda, Malawi 

Harvard University: Nepal, Uganda 

Johns Hopkins University

We have also been looking at the use of information technology 

and looking at kind of mobile-based extension or other Internetenabled extension where you can provide other types of services to 

smallholders like market-based information or climate or weather. 

And we recently launched another Information and Communications Technology, ICT, and extension challenge. 

We also have a farmer-to-farmer program which we have had for 

quite a while. It connects U.S. farmers directly on the ground to 

farmers. 

Also, Peace Corps is one of our partner agencies in Feed the 

Future, and those provide great front-line resources for both nutrition education as well as agricultural education. And we have supported them to increase the number of agriculture volunteers 

directly supporting Feed the Future. 

Senator LUGAR. In testimony we have had before this committee 

from the Gates Foundation, they emphasize, in addition to all we 

have talked about thus far, the whole problem of transportation; 

transportation both of crops once the farm gets beyond merely sustaining a single family and markets, at least some way in which 

there might be some change in the economic circumstances of the 

farmer if the produce can get to a market and money can get back 

to the producer in the process of all of this. 

Are these areas that you are also looking at? Are they a part of 

the Feed the Future program? 

Ms. MCKENNA. Yes. Very similar to the Gates Foundation, we 

really try to look across the whole value chain, and looking at 

things around post-harvest storage and value addition are critical 

parts of that. There are two examples we can give of that, and one 

of them brings in the private sector. 

We have a partnership between PepsiCo, the World Food Programme, and USAID and the Government of Ethiopia where they 

are taking chickpea, which is a local crop which is highly used in 

that diet, and they have created a higher value-added opportunity 

FOREI-43947 with DISTILLER

29

for that in creating a chickpea smush for chickpeas as a food aid 

product. And so they are working with local processors that are in 

the rural communities to provide markets for those chickpeas so 

that the farmers—to kind of alleviate some of the transport issues. 

But it also provides better research and technology to those farmers because they have to use better varieties of chickpeas, and with 

the value addition, they can get better prices and more local markets for those. So that is one example. 

Another piece of work that we have is with General Mills and a 

program they have started called Partners in Food Solutions where 

they have brought together expertise from other companies and 

created a volunteer technical advisory force that really works with 

processors in rural communities to help them improve the efficiency so that they can buy more crops. But they also work to help 

them improve storage practices, storage warehouses, and other 

pieces like that. 

We also have university partnerships, for example, with Purdue 

where they have a chickpea storage, these triple bag storage products that then can be used in rural communities. 

So we really are very focused on that side of the value chain. It 

is easier to talk about the smallholders, but the smallholders need 

the transport exactly like you said and post-harvest storage and 

other things and we look to address that. 

Senator LUGAR. I appreciate your mentioning Purdue because we 

have had strong ties there in that outreach. So you are most 

thoughtful. [Laughter.] 

Mr. Shrier, before you try to respond to this, let me just add one 

further question while I have some time here and that is the nonemergency programs are a part of Feed the Future. Describe what 

these are and what sort of progress is being made in the so-called 

nonemergency area. 

Ms. MCKENNA. So a lot of our work on Feed the Future builds 

on prior work. Prior to Feed the Future, we always had the nonemergency food aid program through our Food for Peace Division. 

We took lessons learned from those programs. For instance, in 

Mozambique, some of those programs are working with cashew 

farmers to provide higher value crops for more vulnerable areas. 

There also has been work with risk insurance for more vulnerable 

areas that are prone to disasters. 

Senator LUGAR. Like Indiana this year in the drought. 

Ms. MCKENNA. Yes, exactly. 

So Feed the Future has really built upon and expanded that 

work and those lessons. So we look at that nonemergency portfolio 

as very complementary and a key partner of ours in our work. 

Senator LUGAR. Mr. Shrier, did you have a comment? 

Mr. SHRIER. Yes. I just wanted to say, Senator Lugar, that in addition to the issues of transportation and market linkages that Ms. 

McKenna mentioned, we also do work on trade and promoting 

trade liberalization and trade facilitation in Feed the Future 

regions. And so our regional strategies, in particular, work at helping countries to remove border checks and other barriers to trade, 

to improve the standardization of standards and regulations across 

countries in a given region so that interregional trade can expand, 

FOREI-43947 with DISTILLER

30

as well as international trade more broadly. So that is another key 

to the challenge of food security. 

Senator LUGAR. It is just critically important. The balancing of 

trade in food by the international trading system is a major factor 

in hunger, and I am delighted you are working on it. 

Thank you. 

Senator CARDIN. Senator Casey. 

Senator CASEY. Thanks very much. 

I wanted to return to an issue that Senator Cardin raised initially with regard to women and in these countries where it is particularly difficult to put in place strategies to allow them to be 

more a part of the effort to get the results that we want. In particular—and you may have addressed this in your testimony. I just 

wanted to press on this a little bit. The Women’s Empowerment in 

Agriculture Index. If you could just, A, describe what that index is 

and, B, highlight for us the use of that to date so far as kind of 

a measuring tool. 

Ms. MCKENNA. We are very proud of that index. We developed 

it in cooperation with Oxford University, their human poverty lab, 

and the International Food Policy Research Institute, IFPRI. 

So the Women’s Empowerment in Agriculture Index is the first 

of its kind and it is to really measure changes in women’s 

empowerment in the agriculture sector. And so it really looks at, 

I believe, five factors that are critical to that. One is women’s role 

in household decisionmaking around agricultural production, women’s access to productive capital like loans and lands. One of the 

things we have seen in the past is as soon as a crop becomes more 

profitable or a cash crop, it becomes the man’s crop, no longer a 

woman’s crop. So making sure that women still have control of that 

and are able to be the ones who are the signatories on loans and 

land decisions is quite important. 

Adequacy of women’s income to feed their families. So that is 

women controlling the income once it comes in the household which 

has been an issue in the past. 

Women’s access to leadership roles in the community. When I 

managed grants at the Gates Foundation, I would notice—in the 

early days before we got better at this, we would notice that when 

you looked at all the farmer members that are signed up for your 

project, it was all the men, but yet it was all the women out in the 

field doing the work. So basic things like making sure—but if those 

women’s names were not on the rolls as the member, they were not 

getting the checks and the income from that activity. 

So the index looks at those and women’s labor and time allocations. I think one of the errors of the past is that we did not—we 

introduced new technologies, but it was the women in the field that 

had to do that work. So you have to really be sensitive that you 

are introducing technologies and applications that are actually decreasing the amount of time that they have to spend in the field 

more than increasing it. 

So the Women’s Empowerment in Agriculture Index really takes 

all those dimensions into consideration and disaggregates the data. 

So going forward, we are launching it in all of our Feed the Future 

focus countries and our zones of influence, and going forward, we 

will be able to look at that and say, OK, our work is doing well 

FOREI-43947 with DISTILLER

31

on this aspect of the indicator, but there are still issues with women’s access to land or loan. How do we improve that? So I think 

it will allow for much more productive targeting and much more 

effective work going forward. 

We have had a lot of inquiries from other organizations as to how 

they can actually be a part of the index and how they can adapt 

it. So IFAD, the U.N. Rome organization, International Fund for 

Agricultural Development, has looked into how they use it and a 

few other organizations are working with us to see how they can 

also incorporate the index into their activities. 

Senator CASEY. I mean, do you have examples that you have 

employed to describe the impact of this kind of an index or the utilization of it? 

Ms. MCKENNA. When we launched the index, some of the early 

pilots showed some interesting learnings. I think, for example, in 

Bangladesh, they noticed there was one part of the index where in 

the areas where we were working, that number was not right. I 

believe it was around the women’s access to productive capital, but 

I would have to get back to you to validate that. That then, by even 

just the pilot studies that we have launched in some of our locations, has allowed us to do some better targeting and program 

development in those areas. And I think we will have more examples like that going forward that we will be able to speak to and 

refer to in our work. 

[The written information supplied by USAID follows:]

One of the most advantageous benefits of the Index is that it can serve as a diagnostic tool to help us better understand the most binding constraints that are impeding women’s engagement in the agriculture sector and, perhaps the growth of 

the agriculture sector itself. Due to the fact that 10 different indicators are collected 

to calculate the Index, it offers the ability to look across a number of areas and identify which are most hindering equality and empowerment. 

USAID/Bangladesh was able to employ the WEAI after they conducted their full 

baseline, which included the Index. Overall, they found the greatest constraints for 

gender equality and women’s empowerment were: (1) lack of control over use of income; (2) little control over productive resources; and (3) weak leadership in the 

community. Although much of the programming had already been designed by the 

time the mission got the results of the WEAI, they were able to look back at some 

of the components of programs they had planned and see how they would affect 

those three constraints. While they have not made drastic revisions to programs 

based on the WEAI, they have been able to expand or make use of project components that will address those constraints. They also used the information to inform 

the design of one project set to start in FY 2013 that works with women raising 

poultry and links them with inputs and resources to better engage in the poultry 

value chain.

Senator CASEY. Mr. Shrier, this is a broader question. Maybe you 

could particularize it for this issue or for any issue. But the broad 

question is this. Sometimes it is in the testimony. Sometimes we 

ask about it; sometimes we do not. But one of the purposes of having hearings like this is for you to tell us what you hope Congress 

would do to make—not to make your life easier necessarily—that 

is probably impossible—but to put in place legislative strategies 

that would further the goals of Feed the Future. 

Now, I realize that sometimes the best thing for the Congress to 

do is to provide resources as best we can and to get out of the way 

and let these programs develop on their own. But is there anything 

legislatively that you would hope that we would be able to do in 

the next year or so in addition to the obvious questions of dollars 

FOREI-43947 with DISTILLER

32

and appropriations, but just any kind of legislative piece that 

would be helpful? I know that is kind of broad and you can certainly amplify it through a written response. 

Mr. SHRIER. Thank you, Senator Casey, for that question and 

that offer. 

I guess what I would say as an initial response—and I think we 

may want to get back to you with a more complete written 

response. But the world committed at the L’Aquila summit to 

respond with the scale and urgency needed to achieve sustainable 

global food security. That is not going to be something that is 

accomplished in 3 years or 5 years or 10 years. It is accomplishable 

in our lifetimes, but it will take a sustained effort and that 

requires sustained resources certainly but also sustained attention. 

And so the work of this committee and of Congress more generally 

in keeping the issue of food security high on the U.S. agenda has 

been important to our diplomatic efforts to keep the world focused 

on this challenge. So we have moved from the days when food security and agricultural development was something that was discussed in technical meetings or by specialized ministries to a world 

where this is the stuff of Presidents and Prime Ministers’ meetings, 

of summits in the G8, the G20, and through the major institutions 

of the international system. So having the backing that we have 

already had from Congress over the years will continue to be crucial to that effort. 

Senator CASEY. So keep it as a front burner issue. 

Mr. SHRIER. Absolutely. 

Senator CASEY. Thank you. 

Mr. SHRIER. Thank you. 

Senator CARDIN. I think that was a very important point. Thank 

you, Senator Casey, for raising that. 

Let me thank our panelists. Thank you again for your service. 

We will now move to the second panel. 

Without objection, I am going to include in the record a statement made by Mercy Corp. 

Senator CARDIN. Our second panel includes our private sector 

stakeholders. We are pleased to have Paul O’Brien who is vice 

president for policy and campaigns of Oxfam America where he 

oversees the policy and advocacy work, including teams focused on 

agriculture and climate change, aid effectiveness, extractive industries, humanitarian response, and U.S. regional programs. 

Prior to joining Oxfam, Mr. O’Brien lived in Afghanistan for 5 

years where he worked in the Office of the President and the Ministry of Finance as an advisor on aid coordination, development 

planning, and policy reform. Prior to that, he worked for CARE 

International as the Afghanistan advocacy coordinator and African 

policy advisor. 

He is the cofounder of the Legal Resources Foundation in Kenya 

and founder of the Human Rights Research and Advocacy Consortium in Afghanistan. 

Mr. O’Brien has his law degree from Harvard Law School and 

has published on humanitarian policy, human rights, and emerging 

trends in development. Welcome. 

Conor Walsh is the Tanzania Country Director for Catholic Relief 

Services. I always like to have Catholic Relief Services present 

FOREI-43947 with DISTILLER

33

since they are a strong presence in my own State of Maryland in 

Baltimore. 

In Tanzania, Mr. Walsh leads a team of more than 90 staff and 

oversees a wide array of relief and development programs which 

ultimately benefit close to 400,000 Tanzanians. Since joining CRS, 

Mr. Walsh has served in a number of posts, including Angola, 

Haiti, Honduras, and Nicaragua. He has extensive experience overseeing programs in food security, agroenterprise, health, emergency 

assistance, and human rights. 

Mr. Walsh holds a master’s degree in international development 

from Columbia University. 

Connie Veillette is the independent consultant and senior adviser 

to the Chicago Council on Global Affairs’ Global Agricultural Development Initiative. Working in the area of international development for more than 20 years, Dr. Veillette served as a specialist 

in foreign assistance at the Congressional Research Service for 5 

years. As a staff member of this committee working for Senator 

Lugar, she led the committee’s report, ‘‘Global Food Insecurity: Perspectives from the Field,’’ which served as the basis for the LugarCasey Global Food Security Act introduced in the 111th Congress. 

As an independent consultant currently working with the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, she continues to follow and evaluate 

the work of the U.S. Government in the field of global food security 

and would be available to address the effectiveness of Feed the 

Future initiatives, including its research component. 

It is a pleasure to have all three of you present. As you have 

heard from the first panel, this has been a high priority of the administration and a high priority of Congress. It is critically important that we work together with the private sector. We welcome 

your observations as to how well the program is working to carry 

out its goals and whether it could be more effective. 

With that, let me first call on Mr. O’Brien. 

STATEMENT OF PAUL O’BRIEN, VICE PRESIDENT FOR POLICY 

AND CAMPAIGNS, OXFAM AMERICA, WASHINGTON, DC 

Mr. O’BRIEN. Thank you, Senator Cardin and Senator Lugar, 

both for this hearing and for your ongoing leadership on the issue. 

We are, as Oxfam working in 90 countries, big supporters of 

Feed the Future for many of the reasons discussed today. Particularly the focus on agriculture and as a flagship for how the United 

States ought to be doing development in the world, we think it is 

defining the rules across the board. 

You, Senator, asked us to have a robust discussion around challenges, and I would like to offer three challenges that I think Feed 

the Future is going to be facing in the years to come and on which 

your leadership will be critical and on which we hope to see the 

administration lead also. Those challenges speak generally to the 

tensions between Congress’ responsibility to track tax dollars while 

also embracing the idea that local leaders must lead. I would like 

to speak to that. The challenge of recognizing the role of the private sector without leaving them to an unregulated free-for-all, and 

the challenge of tackling climate change not just as a technical 

problem but as a political issue. 

FOREI-43947 with DISTILLER

34

So on the first threat or challenge, the development community 

woke up some time ago—I would loosely say 10 years ago—to the 

reality that we—collectively as donors, as NGOs—are not collectively going to be capable of lifting 870 million people out of hunger 

or any significant number. In the end of the day, that challenge 

will ultimately fall to the institutions on the ground, the governments, the private sector actors, and the communities that must 

engage this issue themselves. That is old news, but it presents a 

set of challenges for us as a development community and in the 

Rome Principles, we see those challenges articulated. 

We know that if we want those countries to lead, those communities, those private sectors, we must invest with and through 

them. We must challenge them on the outcomes, not on inputs. We 

must give them long-term challenges to succeed. And that is something on which Feed the Future has been both courageous, articulate, and insightful. 

But across the U.S. Government that raises a particular tension 

because we are asking you as Congress to authorize and the 

administration to spend tax dollars through other institutions. 

Many in my community think that we are going too far in supporting local leadership and that ultimately we are going to see 

some of those moneys wasted because, as you pointed out, we face 

corruption and sometimes a lack of capacity in the countries where 

we have decided to invest. 

We went out and surveyed how the United States is doing in its 

effort to invest more through local institutions, and here is what 

we found. There has been a real change in the conversation 

between local stakeholders, local governments but sometimes civil 

society and the United States. They feel that we are listening better, talking more, engaging more. However, when we asked them, 

Are you seeing an increased ability to influence U.S. Government 

funding and how it is spent? two-thirds said not that much over 

the 5 years that we asked, meaning we are listening better, they 

are feeling better informed about what the United States is doing, 

but still a significant proportion of them feel they do not exercise 

enough influence in directing our assistance. 

So while many in our community and I think some Members of 

Congress will say we may be going too far in putting local institutions, local governments, local communities in charge of their own 

development, our sense is we have not yet gone far enough, but 

Feed the Future is on exactly the right track by trying to do that. 

USAID is on exactly the right track with USAID Forward. 

And just on your question of corruption, Senator, I would like to 

say as you well know, the challenge we all have to crack that circle 

you talked about is that in each of the 19 countries, there are corrupt individuals who have no real interest in reducing hunger in 

their own countries, but there are also reformers and leaders in 

government and civil society who want to get political legitimacy, 

who want to prove both to the international community and their 

own people that they are willing to take this fight on. And if we 

can parse out the societies and find out where the corruption is and 

is not and strengthen the reformers and the moderates and those 

more committed to the governance you talked about, we can actually crack that circle. So that is all I will say on that. 

FOREI-43947 with DISTILLER

35

On the second question which is the role of the private sector, 

I think we all for the same reasons, resource constraints and the 

breadth of the challenge, recognize that the private sector is profoundly important in moving forward our efforts to address food 

insecurity. And we think Feed the Future has been very strong on 

that and we embrace the New Alliance. But, of course, we all recognize that the way this is going to work effectively for people in poverty is the way we regulate the private sector. And one concern 

that I wanted to bring to your attention there that we think Feed 

the Future could be a leader on: land. 

Over the last 10 years, there has basically been a land free-forall globally, 227 million hectares sold off to investors, often leading 

to women, children, and men being thrown off their land without 

adequate compensation or consultation. What can we do, what can 

Feed the Future do, what can USAID do to incentivize the right 

regulatory regime to get this under control before too many smallholder farmers get removed from their land? 

The FAO has put out a set of guidelines, voluntary guidelines, 

on land tenure. We think if Feed the Future explicitly embraced 

and funded efforts to adopt those guidelines by governments, by 

others, they could move the discussion on land tenure significantly 

forward and get some better regulation around what we see as a 

land free-for-all. The New Alliance—we think it is going in the 

right direction, but let us remember these are large corporations 

who have different interests at heart. So while they think about 

what they want more broadly, which is higher profits and better 

production of food to meet the needs of their shareholders, which 

is their legitimate interest, can we get them to align what they are 

doing transparently—and we embrace that idea—with the needs of 

smallholder farmers on the ground? And that is the tension there. 

What can we get the New Alliance companies to say about embracing the importance of smallholder farmers and the role of the Rome 

Principles, which is not clearly aligned with the way the companies 

have been talking about it. So those would be our proposals for 

cracking that challenge on Feed the Future. 

Finally, climate change. It is great to hear that we are now having a robust discussion not about whether it is a problem but how 

we resolve it. And none too soon. We think that since 1980, corn 

production has reduced by 5 percent globally as a consequence of 

climate change, meaning the impact of climate change has been 

about 5 percent of production. In southern Africa because of climate change, we expect corn may be—there may be 30 percent less 

corn as a consequence of climate change in southern Africa. Big 

numbers. 

It is good to see Feed the Future focus and invest in the technologies that we are going to need, better and more improved 

seeds, better water management. But we all know that technologies are probably going to be insufficient to tackle what is happening with our weather. We are going to need political commitments 

to and institutions that are explicitly capacitated and committed to 

addressing climate change. So we would be looking to see Feed the 

Future be more explicit not just about the technological dimensions 

and challenges of climate change but also the political and institutional challenges of getting countries to accept that they are going 

FOREI-43947 with DISTILLER

36

to be having to adapt their agricultural economies to climate 

change over the next few decades. 

So thank you very much for your time on those issues. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. O’Brien follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF PAUL O’BRIEN

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you and Ranking Member Corker for holding this 

hearing on the Feed the Future Initiative. I greatly appreciate the opportunity to 

testify before this subcommittee. This is an important moment to provide oversight 

to the Feed the Future Initiative and the administration’s approach to addressing 

global hunger. 

Oxfam America is an international relief and development agency committed to 

developing lasting solutions to poverty, hunger, and social injustice. We are part of 

a confederation of 17 Oxfam affiliates working in more than 90 countries around 

the globe. We are also a campaigning organization meaning that through policy 

engagement and advocacy, we tackle the root causes of hunger and poverty in order 

to help people create an environment in which they can claim and exercise their 

rights. 

On the issue of agriculture and food security, Oxfam’s GROW campaign is active 

in the United States and more than 40 other countries to build a more fair global 

food system where everyone has enough to eat always. 

In the United States, Oxfam America’s work to promote a more equitable and just 

food system spans a broad number of issues from addressing policies that drive food 

price volatility such as biofuels mandates and commodity speculation to promoting 

positive public and private investments in the agriculture sector to meet the needs 

of small-scale food producers. We are also undertaking research and policy analysis 

on the Feed the Future Initiative aimed at strengthening U.S. foreign assistance 

programs focused on agriculture, food security, and adaptation to climate change. 

Our view is that the Feed the Future Initiative marks an important shift for the 

U.S. Government—and USAID in particular—in terms of how it works and the emphasis it accords to the critical issue of agriculture. Food insecurity is a major global 

challenge and the Feed the Future Initiative, if sustained, can contribute to lasting 

reductions in poverty and hunger. I will highlight three areas—civil society engagement; integration of climate change adaptation and natural resource management 

into Feed the Future country investments; and promotion of strong and secure land 

tenure and property rights systems—that we feel are crucial areas where the Feed 

the Future Initiative shows promise, but where work remains to be done. 

I. SUPPORT FOR THE FEED THE FUTURE INITIATIVE

We strongly support the efforts made by the current administration to bring 

renewed focus and attention to agriculture and food security. After achieving significant increases in agricultural productivity during the 1960s and 1970s, official 

development assistance to agriculture exhibited a steady decline for more than two 

decades from the mid-1980s to the first half of this decade. In 1986, agriculture 

made up almost 10 percent of total official development assistance globally. By 2006, 

that share had shrunk to less than 2 percent. The sudden and dramatic price spike 

in 2008 has led to a significant reinvigoration in aid to this sector. Importantly, it 

is not only donors that have returned to focus on agriculture. In 2003 African countries agreed, in what is known as the Comprehensive African Agriculture Development Program (CAADP), to a target of allocating 10 percent of government budgets 

to agriculture. 

For the vast majority of the more than 870 million people around the world who 

suffer from hunger, food and agriculture production is a key livelihoods strategy. 

Most of these food producers are women who struggle with unequal access to resources to grow enough food to feed their families and earn enough money to pay 

for basic necessities. Investing in agriculture is thus an important strategy to reach 

people living in poverty. In doing so, public and private investments in agriculture, 

when appropriately designed and targeted can be a driver of pro-poor economic 

growth and development. GDP growth generated by agriculture is at least twice as 

effective in reducing poverty as growth generated by other sectors. 

In reflecting on early outcomes achieved since the Feed the Future Initiative was 

announced, it is important to recognize first and foremost that the true impact of 

the investments being made now in agriculture and food security will take years to 

be fully realized. The process of energizing rural economies, spurring agriculture 

development and sustainably reducing hunger cannot be achieved over night or over 

the course of only one growing season. They will take years to be fully realized. 

FOREI-43947 with DISTILLER

37

One of the most important lessons to take from the Feed the Future Progress 

Report is that the quick wins are possible, but translating positive outputs into 

long-term positive outcomes in terms of higher incomes and improved food security 

and nutrition is a much longer process. We urge Congress to find creative solutions 

to ensure that the framework for poverty reduction developed in the Feed the 

Future Initiative, specifically the emphasis on supporting small-scale food producers, is sustained in this and future administrations. 

II. CHANGING HOW USAID WORKS

Consistent with Principles agreed upon at the G8 summit in 2009, the Feed the 

Future Initiative seeks to change the way U.S. foreign assistance operates and the 

way the U.S. Government delivers aid. The Rome Principles as they are known commit G8 donors to better alignment with country strategies, deeper engagement with 

civil society actors, improved coordination and collaboration with other development 

actors and stakeholders and a sustained and holistic approach that addresses both 

short- and long-term challenges to hunger. 

A practical and important outcome of the U.S. commitment to the Rome Principles 

is an emphasis on aligning resources and programs provided by the U.S. Government with the priorities and strategies developed by national governments. In African countries, this means ensuring investments align with country agriculture investment strategies (CAADP plans in Africa). Placing greater control of development 

objectives, strategies and resources with developing country governments, when 

responsibly done, is an important step toward bolstering country ownership of the 

development process. 

To further bolster this process and to ensure Feed the Future programs are responsive to the needs of small-scale producers, the U.S. has committed to greater 

consultation and engagement with in-country stakeholders including, and from our 

perspective importantly, civil society—especially farmer-based organizations and 

associations representing the needs and interests of women food producers. 

Oxfam research suggests that the emphasis on consultation is being taken seriously and that as a result missions in focus countries are changing the way they 

do business. To examine this issue, Oxfam has undertaken research in seven countries, where researchers interviewed nearly 250 development stakeholders to ask 

two questions:

• How is the U.S. Government implementing new foreign aid reform initiatives 

to improve aid delivery? 

• What effects have these changes created in their early stages of implementation 

among the different development stakeholders in countries?

What we found is a significant improvement in the way the United States engages 

with civil society and other stakeholders. Whereas 4 years ago meetings with the 

representatives of the U.S. Government may have been hard to come by, 77 percent 

of our surveyed stakeholders say that now they are meeting with officials more frequently. And 74 percent of respondents told us that the quality of the interactions 

is better. 

When done right, these interactions can lead to better outcomes and more mutually beneficial results. But it is clear from our research that although there is an 

improvement in the quantity and quality of interactions between U.S. officials and 

in-country stakeholders, it is not yet translating into changing the types or focus 

of U.S. investments. In our survey, 65 percent of local stakeholders felt their influence over what the U.S. funds has either decreased or not changed at all over the 

past 4 to 5 years. Consultation and engagement thus remains a work in progress. 

The potential for improvement is strong, not just because USAID is taking the 

Rome Principles seriously, but also because other reforms within the agency have 

embraced many of these same principles and ideas and are turning them into improved practice at the mission level. In this regard, it is important to highlight one 

effort—implementation and procurement reform (IPR)—which is encouraging the 

agency to link more with local actors, learn from their experience, offer support that 

can build their capacity and create partnerships for lasting solutions to hunger and 

poverty. 

Implementation and procurement reform aims to place a greater share of USAID’s 

investments directly with country governments, local businesses, and local organizations. In so doing, this increased engagement can strengthen the capacity of governments as well as local civil society and businesses while also increasing the breadth 

and depth of U.S. partnerships. Greater competition created through IPR can drive 

innovation and results and ensure the most efficient and effective use of government 

resources. In this way, IPR is helping to take the concept of consultation and build 

on it to create true partnerships. 

FOREI-43947 with DISTILLER

38

Oxfam applauds the commitment to country ownership and partnership embraced 

by the Feed the Future Initiative and IPR. Specific benchmarks and indicators 

should be developed and monitoring and reporting on local partnerships should be 

incorporated into the Feed the Future Progress Scorecard. Doing so will promote 

greater accountability and sustainability of this initiative. 

III. RENEWING FOCUS ON CLIMATE ADAPTATION AND NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

As the experience of extreme droughts in both East and West Africa have demonstrated, climate change compounded by natural resource degradation, poses a key 

challenge and is the basis of a substantial portion of the risk farmers around the 

world face. Information contained in the Feed the Future Guide indicates a clear 

recognition of the importance of addressing these challenges. The Guide observes 

that the sustainability and resilience of agriculture production depends on a ‘‘largescale systems approach to environmental and natural resource management’’ including addressing climate change. 

Assisting small-scale food producers adapt to climate change and better manage 

natural resources is essential to the long-term success of the Feed the Future Initiative and efforts to promote sustainable development. As the lead implementing 

agency for both Feed the Future and the Climate Change Initiative, USAID can do 

more to ensure climate change and natural resource management (NRM) considerations are fully mainstreamed into agriculture development programs. 

Without efforts to help farmers adapt to climate change, current levels of agriculture productivity will decline as extreme weather events such as droughts and 

floods increase, dry seasons become longer and hotter and rainfall patterns become 

increasingly erratic, affecting rain-fed agriculture production. Projected impacts of 

climate change on crop yields, which in the tropics and subtropics could fall 10–20 

percent by 2050, could leave an additional 25 million children undernourished by 

2050 in developing countries. The long-term decline in productivity will be punctuated by catastrophic crop losses caused by extreme weather events. This summer’s 

historic drought affecting the Midwest, for example, is expected to reduce the U.S. 

corn harvest by 20 percent on a yield-per-acre basis. 

For food producers, climate adaptation requires developing the tools and knowledge and building the capacity to address current hazards and manage risk and uncertainty associated with weather. Much of the focus of current efforts within FTF 

to address natural resource management and climate change, especially as highlighted in the Progress Report, is on identifying appropriate technical solutions such 

as improved seed varieties and better water management techniques. But there is 

also a need to implement programs that address power dynamics that shape access 

to natural resources essential for smallholder agriculture. People living in poverty, 

women especially, lack equal access to natural resources or decisionmaking power 

regarding their use. Women produce over half the world’s food yet own less than 

10 percent of the land. It is estimated that if women had equal access to resources 

(natural and otherwise), they could increase on-farm yields by 20 to 30 percent. 

USAID can improve upon current Feed the Future activities by providing more 

regular training and technical support to mission staff to enable them to more systematically integrate consideration of the socioeconomic dynamics that shape climate change vulnerability and resilience into project planning and monitoring. Such 

an approach would reemphasize the focus on the particular challenges women face 

not just as food producers but also as consumers and potential stewards of natural 

resources. 

The expected impact of climate change is compounded by the fragile and deteriorating natural resource base, which in many countries is resulting in diminished 

water resources, depleted soils and reduced forests among other environmental pressures. In Africa alone, 650 million people are dependent on rain-fed agriculture in 

fragile environments that are vulnerable to water scarcity and environmental degradation. Without sustained attention to address this challenge, the goals of Feed the 

Future are not achievable. 

Better guidance and training for missions can help to address this challenge and 

can also help USAID to better manage the synergies and tradeoffs between improved yields and productivity, on the one hand, and the integrity of the ecosystems 

on which successful farming depends, on the other. Complementary information to 

guide decisionmaking can be developed through the use of continuous monitoring 

and learning. Better monitoring and evaluation systems need to be put in place that 

can be used to attribute outcomes to specific interventions and investments in order 

to capture a more comprehensive understanding of how investments to address natural resource management and climate change adaptation are impacting environmental sustainability, 

FOREI-43947 with DISTILLER

39

IV. MAKING PRIVATE SECTOR INVESTMENTS WORK FOR SMALLHOLDERS

Agriculture represents one of the best opportunities for the estimated 1.5 to 2 billion people currently living in rural food producing households to sustainably escape 

hunger and poverty. Small-scale food producers themselves are the most significant 

source of investment in agriculture in most developing countries. Supporting the 

development of policies and investments to benefit small-scale producers as entrepreneurs is critical. Too often, however, small-scale producers are not considered to 

be investors at all, and policies promulgated in developing countries marginalize 

them or create incentives geared to supporting commercial level investments that 

can compete with or displace small-scale producers. This is a critical set of issues 

that Feed the Future must address. 

As Oxfam has documented, not all investments in agriculture have positive outcomes for people living in poverty. With regard to large-scale land acquisitions, for 

example, Oxfam and many other organizations have raised concerns that the recent 

wave of investments in land in developing countries has included many instances 

of dispossession, deception, violations of human rights and destruction of livelihoods. 

In a recent Oxfam report, ‘‘Land and Power: The Growing Scandal Surrounding the 

New Wave of Investments in Land,’’ we documented five cases of land grabs that 

have hindered not helped development and poverty reduction. And this is just the 

tip of the iceberg. The Land Matrix Partnership has documented deals completed 

or under development amounting to nearly 49 million hectares of land since 2000, 

mainly by international investors, with most occurring in recent years. Our report 

and subsequent work on the problem of ‘‘land grabs’’ has sought to highlight the 

need for measures—norms, standards, and protections—to defend the rights of people living in poverty. 

I highlight this issue for two reasons. First, Feed the Future will be less successful if attention is not paid to the importance of land rights—security of tenure, 

access to and control over land—in development outcomes. This is especially important for women, who often face legal and social barriers to controlling the land they 

farm. In an analysis of Feed the Future in Guatemala conducted by Oxfam, one of 

findings was that the impact of the initiative is partially limited by the fact that 

investments are not addressing structural issues including highly unequal access to 

land. This finding is underscored by World Bank analysis from 73 countries which 

found that countries which start with a more equitable distribution of land have 

economic growth rates two to three times higher than those with initially higher 

inequality. 

Second, in a number of ways the U.S. has taken an active role both in addressing 

land issues and in the promotion of private investment in agriculture. Much of this 

work is positive, but in other areas, Oxfam has raised concerns with the administration. 

Let me be clear: private investments—especially those made by national companies based in developing countries, small- and medium-sized enterprises, and smallscale producers themselves—can, and should be, promoted in the development process as the primary engine of sustainable job creation and broad-based economic 

growth. There is a need to increase investment that not only promotes agriculture 

in a way that ‘‘does no harm,’’ but in a way that ‘‘does more good.’’ What must be 

achieved through positive agricultural investment is inclusive economic growth, environmental sustainability and long-term poverty reduction. And such investments 

need not include taking direct control over land. 

It is worth highlighting that the U.S. has provided significant recent leadership 

to improve the environment for the effective governance of land tenure, and in so 

doing lay the foundation for responsible agriculture investment. Over the past few 

years, the U.S. support has been instrumental in the development of a landmark 

set of guidelines and best practices to assist countries in protecting and promoting 

land rights. ‘‘The Voluntary Guidelines on the Responsible Tenure of Land, Forests, 

Fisheries in the Context of National Food Security’’ can serve as an important set 

of benchmarks and standards to guide national law, policy, and practice by governments and investors. U.S. Government staff chaired the negotiations, which have 

been lauded as highly inclusive and participatory. The result of this process is broad 

support for the Voluntary Guidelines which were adopted at the Committee on 

World Food Security earlier this year. 

Now that the Voluntary Guidelines have been finalized, the next step is for countries to review existing laws and policies and take any necessary steps to ensure 

coherence. To do this, U.S. agencies’ development portfolios—whether they are part 

of Feed the Future or not—should review their own policies to ensure they meet the 

standards set out by the Voluntary Guidelines. 

FOREI-43947 with DISTILLER

40

This is especially important for agencies and offices with investment or lending 

portfolios, such as the Overseas Private Investment Corporation and the Export/

Import Bank. This process should also ensure application of the Voluntary Guidelines to companies and investors that do business with these agencies. 

The other step the United States can take is to support implementation of the 

Voluntary Guidelines, through bilateral foreign assistance as well as by providing 

funding to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, which is 

leading support for the implementation effort. Early piloting experience, which will 

include building technical resources and capacity-building at the country level, is a 

crucial step toward building a body of knowledge about how to effectively utilize the 

Voluntary Guidelines as a tool for improving the enabling environment in which 

tenure rights’ holders have better, more secure access to land and natural resources. 

The Voluntary Guidelines figure prominently in another initiative tied to Feed the 

Future and launched earlier this year at the G8. The New Alliance is an effort to 

link donors, developing countries, and private sector actors in new partnerships to 

contribute to a goal of lifting 50 million people out of poverty. At this point six countries—Ethiopia, Ghana, Tanzania, Mozambique, Cote D’Ivoire, and Burkina Faso—

and more than 80 companies have joined the New Alliance. In forming each partnership Cooperative Framework Agreements have been developed, which include 

specific policy commitments by developing country governments, target funding levels for public sector investments by G8 countries and investment targets by companies seeking new market opportunities in African agriculture. Each Cooperative 

Framework Agreement includes a specific endorsement of the Voluntary Guidelines. 

Oxfam welcomes the endorsement of the Voluntary Guidelines in the New Alliance, but has raised a number of other concerns regarding this initiative. For example, G8 leaders have indicated that commitments made as part of the New Alliance 

will be consistent with existing agriculture investment plans and have reiterated 

that the Rome Principles such as consultation and civil society engagement apply 

as well. In practice, the application of these principles has been weak. Not only does 

this threaten the credibility of this initiative, it threatens to undermine the trust 

built up over the last several years between USAID, governments and stakeholders. 

Compounding this concern, available information regarding the nature of investments proposed by companies demonstrates a mixed commitment to targeting smallscale producers. It is crucial that in promoting private sector investments, the New 

Alliance and Feed the Future more generally, prioritize integration of and support 

and protections for small-scale producers. 

We urge Congress to use its oversight authority to ensure the New Alliance is developed in a manner that is coherent with the public sector investments supported 

through the Feed the Future Initiative. The U.S. Government must ensure a balanced approach to hunger and poverty reduction, encouraging and supporting both 

public and private investments in the agriculture sector. Small-scale producers must 

remain at the center of this effort. 

I thank the committee for the opportunity to share Oxfam’s views and I am happy 

to answer questions you may have.

Senator CARDIN. Thank you for your testimony. 

Mr. Walsh. 

STATEMENT OF CONOR WALSH, TANZANIA COUNTRY 

DIRECTOR, CATHOLIC RELIEF SERVICES, BALTIMORE, MD 

Mr. WALSH. Thank you very much, Chairman Cardin and Senator Lugar. Thank you for this opportunity to address the subcommittee and to participate in this important hearing on U.S. 

global food security efforts. 

As you noted, I am here today to represent Catholic Relief Services. We were established by the U.S. Conference of Catholic 

Bishops and we are the international relief and development 

agency of the U.S. Catholic Church. On behalf of CRS, we appreciate the opportunity to provide our assessment of Feed the Future. 

CRS supports Feed the Future and we recognize the historic 

nature of this initiative. We support the country ownership model 

Feed the Future seeks to achieve and the whole-of-government 

approach it is using to marshal U.S. resources. 

FOREI-43947 with DISTILLER

41

We also commend the administration for rallying G8 donors to 

support the country development plans of the Feed the Future 

focus countries. 

I would also like to add that the Feed the Future team in Tanzania has done a fine job in executing this comprehensive and integrated approach to development. The Feed the Future staff there 

are highly experienced development professionals who are genuinely committed to building the country’s agricultural sector and 

bolstering its food security. 

Having said that, we do believe that Feed the Future as a whole 

can be strengthened in three ways. No 1, it can sharpen its focus 

on poor farmers. No. 2, it should balance the funding instruments 

that are used to deliver its assistance. And No. 3, it can improve 

the degree and the quality of participation by civil society in its 

design and its implementation. 

Turning to the first point, in Tanzania CRS is actually a partner 

in Feed the Future. We are implementing a subcontract that 

focuses on poor and vulnerable groups. These groups tend to be 

smallholder farmers who operate on a subsistence level, and our 

work helps to prepare them for the market by building their assets 

and their skills. 

Taken overall, however, Feed the Future in Tanzania has not 

really focused very much on the vulnerable groups. Instead, the 

bulk of Feed the Future resources have gone to regions of the country that are relatively better off, and within these regions substantial resources have gone to farmers who are already involved in 

commercial production. While such investments are called for by 

the Tanzanian Government’s national agricultural investment plan, 

which Feed the Future supports, we are concerned that focusing 

only on areas prioritized by the plan risks marginalization of the 

more vulnerable. 

Some of the work being carried out under Feed the Future has 

great potential to improve smallholder farmers’ ability to farm profitably and to improve the livelihoods of the poor. This work 

includes trade policy reform, rural infrastructure, food processing, 

nutrition work, and research on seed and plant varieties. Care has 

to be taken to ensure that improvements in these areas reach the 

poor. 

More importantly, though, we feel strongly that there should be 

more Feed the Future projects in Tanzania and in other Feed the 

Future countries that work directly with smallholder farmers and 

other vulnerable groups and in particular with women. These 

projects should focus on building their skills and their capacity to 

be self-sufficient. From our perspective, the measure of success in 

tackling hunger is tied directly to whether smallholder farmers

are producing more food, are earning more income, are able to provide a healthy diet for themselves and their children, can maintain 

and build up productive assets like farm tools and livestock, and 

whether they can afford to keep their children in school. These are 

the indicators that matter in the fight against hunger and they 

should be at the top of Feed the Future’s objectives. 

My second point relates to the funding mechanisms that are used 

to implement Feed the Future programs. Feed the Future programs are implemented either through contracts or through cooperFOREI-43947 with DISTILLER

42

ative agreements. Private volunteer organizations like CRS mostly 

undertake cooperative agreements as opposed to contracts for a 

variety of reasons that are discussed in more detail in my written 

testimony. I would like to take this opportunity to highlight just 

one of those points. 

Cooperative agreements give organizations more flexibility in the 

way programs are designed and implemented. It allows organizations like CRS to leverage private donor funding, and it helps us 

incorporate our experience into program design. More importantly, 

though, the flexibility that is inherent in cooperative agreements 

better allows us to respond to realities on the ground and to adjust 

strategies as conditions change. There is perhaps a general 

assumption that contract mechanisms allow the donor to achieve 

desired results within a shorter timeframe and at lower cost, and 

this may be true if you are building a bridge or constructing a 

highway. But our experience has shown that the path to development cannot be neatly designed like a blueprint for a construction 

project. Development consists of changing behaviors, attitudes, 

practices, and relationships within groups of society. This is a fluid 

process and implementation, therefore, must be adaptable and cooperative agreements are far better suited for this purpose. 

The reason I bring this up is because our observations suggest 

that in many Feed the Future countries, USAID has relied heavily 

on contracts to achieve development goals. While this is not as true 

for Tanzania, the country that I am coming from, it is a common 

occurrence across a number of Feed the Future countries. The practice has discouraged PVOs like CRS from contributing as implementers of the Feed the Future program. In doing so, Feed the 

Future has not had the full benefit of the substantial experience 

the PVO community brings to implementing highly successful food 

security programs. If Feed the Future is serious about having a 

lasting impact and reducing hunger, there should be a better mix, 

a better balance of contracts and cooperative agreements across all 

Feed the Future countries. 

My third and final point relates to the input in Feed the Future 

program design and country development plans in the field. We 

believe that in general Feed the Future feedback mechanisms need 

to be strengthened to ensure that the program can take advantage 

of knowledge and capacities that were built in other food security 

programs. 

My experience in Tanzania regarding input mechanisms is 

mixed. On the positive side, CRS participated, along with several 

other dozen NGOs and other stakeholders, in a feedback session to 

validate and review the Feed the Future strategy, and the mission 

also engaged at times with a number of civil society groups to 

obtain input and advice, including the Agricultural and Non-State 

Actors Forum which represents a number of smallholder farmers. 

All of this is positive. 

However, we feel a more regular mechanism for obtaining feedback should be put in place. This could take the shape of an advisory council or just holding regular meetings with civil society 

groups, including local and international NGOs, faith-based groups, 

and other stakeholders, to discuss the country implementation 

plan, the investment plan, and to identify best practices and scale 

FOREI-43947 with DISTILLER

43

1Food for Peace is also referred to as Title II, or Title II of P.L. 480. Food for Peace Funding 

is split between emergency food relief, and nonemergency programs that fund development food 

assistance activities. 

up successful efforts. USAID could also undertake a mapping exercise of previous projects in Feed the Future countries to build on 

those experiences. What is important is that PVOs, local NGOs, 

and others have a means to communicate their experience and 

knowledge to Feed the Future and that planners make every effort 

to incorporate and/or learn from the information provided. 

In conclusion, Chairman Cardin, thank you again for this opportunity to present testimony before the committee, and I would be 

happy to answer any questions you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Walsh follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CONOR WALSH

I would like to thank Chairman Cardin and Ranking Member Corker for calling 

this important hearing on U.S. Global Food Security Efforts, with a focus on the 

Feed the Future Initiative. I am Conor Walsh and am here today to represent 

Catholic Relief Services (CRS). I have been with CRS for 17 years, and currently 

serve as the Country Representative for Tanzania. On behalf of the organization, 

we appreciate the opportunity to provide our assessment of U.S. Global antihunger 

efforts, and in particular Feed the Future. 

ABOUT CATHOLIC RELIEF SERVICES

Catholic Relief Services is the relief and development agency of the U.S. Catholic 

Church. CRS was originally formed by U.S. Catholic Bishops during World War II 

to aid in the resettlement of war refugees in Europe. Today, our work focuses on 

aiding the poor overseas, using the gospel of Jesus Christ as our mandate. The 

Church’s social teaching informs the work of CRS and guides us to aid the poorest 

people in the poorest places, without regard to race, creed, or nationality. 

The Catholic Church has broad and deep experience combating poverty and hunger around the world and CRS has direct experience as an implementer of U.S. foreign assistance programs. The U.S. Bishops and CRS have close ties to the Church 

in developing countries, and CRS often partners with institutions of the local Catholic Church to implement programs. By partnering with Church institutions, CRS is 

often afforded the opportunity to work with communities inaccessible to the local 

government or other actors. 

CRS presently operates in almost 100 countries and serves about 100 million 

people annually. Our programs address food security, agriculture, HIV and AIDS 

treatment, health, education, civil society capacity-building, emergency relief, and 

peace-building. In addition to partnering with Church institutions, CRS works with 

a variety of other partners to implement our programming, including other Private 

Voluntary Organizations (PVOs), U.S. and foreign-based non-governmental organizations (NGOs), local and national governments, international organizations like the 

World Food Programme, and national and local nonprofit organizations in the countries and regions where we work. 

CATHOLIC RELIEF SERVICE’S RESPONSE TO GLOBAL FOOD INSECURITY

Improving food security for the poor and most vulnerable overseas has long been 

a major priority of CRS. We use a variety of funding sources for this work, both 

public and private. 

Historically, most U.S. Government funding for food security has been in the form 

of food aid. As a result, food aid is the largest portion of CRS’ public funding for 

development and emergency food security programs. We receive funding from 

sources like the Food for Peace nonemergency account administered by the U.S. 

Agency for International Development (USAID),1 as well as U.S. Department of 

Agriculture’s (USDA) McGovern-Dole Food for Education and Food for Progress programs, which allows CRS to conduct a wide range of agriculture and food security 

initiatives. These include helping smallholder farmers boost agricultural yields, introduce new crop varieties, establish value chains, and train farmers in necessary 

skill sets to become profitable and engaged in formal markets. CRS food security 

programming also includes village run savings and loan associations, which link to 

our agroenterprise activities. Additionally, CRS has long engaged in mother and 

FOREI-43947 with DISTILLER

44

2 InterAction is an alliance of U.S.-based international nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) 

focusing on overseas disaster relief and development. 

child nutrition programs that provide nutritious foods and educate mothers in better 

health and nutrition practices for their children. 

In addition to public donor funding, CRS raises substantial private funds which 

we dedicate to food security programs. We regularly leverage these private resources 

with public donor funding. Every year during Lent, CRS conducts a program called 

‘‘Rice Bowl’’ in Catholic parishes and with other partners across the U.S. to educate 

Catholics about global hunger and generate funds for food security projects. In a 

new program called ‘‘Helping Hands,’’ CRS collaborates with Stop Hunger Now, a 

private food aid organization, to conduct food packing events that provide food for 

the most vulnerable abroad. And recently, through leadership from InterAction,2

U.S. PVOs have pledged a combined $1 billion in private funding over the next 3 

years to food security programming, with CRS making up $150 million of this 

pledge. 

CRS presently operates in 17 of the 20 Feed the Future countries, and in 8 of 

these countries—Ethiopia, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Malawi, Mali, Tanzania, 

and Zambia—we implement major food security programs. 

GENERAL OBSERVATIONS CONCERNING FEED THE FUTURE

CRS supports the Feed the Future Initiative. Prior to the Obama administration, 

the vast majority of U.S. foreign assistance efforts directed to food security were 

funded through U.S. food aid programs. While these programs were and continue 

to be a critical part of U.S. foreign assistance, they were never funded commensurate to the level of need. Now, through the President’s comprehensive approach to 

eradicating global hunger, Feed the Future, coupled with existing U.S. food aid programs, we have begun to see more attention to, and more appropriate levels of funding for, food security programming. 

The administration has promoted Feed the Future as a ‘‘whole of government’’ initiative to provide a country-led, comprehensive approach to improving food security. 

We understand the enormity of this challenge. A truly comprehensive approach requires a wide range of stakeholders including the global donor community through 

the G8 and G20 processes, as well as multilateral organizations, regional governing 

and economic communities, recipient countries, beneficiaries, and aid implementers. 

The whole of government vision requires pulling together new and existing programs and funding mechanisms to achieve common food security objectives. Appreciating these challenges, we offer the following thoughts on specific aspects of Feed 

the Future from the perspective of our field offices and provide suggestions for how 

to strengthen its impact on the world’s most vulnerable communities. These suggestions deal with (1) the focus of Feed the Future programming, (2) the funding instruments used by Feed the Future, and (3) the ability of organizations like CRS 

to provide input and advice on the implementation of the Feed the Future Initiative. 

THE FOCUS OF FEED THE FUTURE

As indicated in its October 2012 Progress Report, the Feed the Future Initiative 

intends to reduce global hunger largely through increased agriculture-driven economic growth for smallholder farmers and resilience programs for populations at 

risk of food crises. These are laudable goals that CRS fully supports because we also 

believe the key to tackling global hunger is to increase food security for the poorest 

people in the poorest countries. In Feed the Future countries, some smallholder 

farmers need direct assistance to boost agriculture production and additional skills 

to connect them to market-driven, value chain development efforts. However, we are 

concerned that some Feed the Future efforts risk placing too little emphasis on 

smallholder farmers and other vulnerable groups. 

Possibly driven by pressures to show results quickly and demonstrate the impact 

of scarce development funds, some Feed the Future investments appear focused on 

improving the capacity of existing commercial agriculture producers, sometimes at 

the expense of addressing the needs of smallholder farmers and other vulnerable 

populations. Commercial producers often already have access to assets and credit, 

and sit at the higher end of value chains to produce significant quantities for local 

consumption and export. They already consistently sell products of reliable quality 

in attractive packaging, meeting domestic, regional, and international certification 

standards. While CRS supports efforts to build a strong commercial agriculture sector in the developing world, building the capacity of existing and relatively successful commercial agricultural producers will not necessarily improve the lives of the 

poorest, who are the most food insecure. Support must be delivered equitably across 

FOREI-43947 with DISTILLER

45

all segments of the agricultural sector—big, medium, and small—and opportunities 

must be made for smaller producers to work on an equitable basis with the other 

parts of the agricultural value chain. Otherwise, the food produced will have little 

impact on food security, especially if it is for export, is not distributed well within 

a country, or remains too expensive for the poor to buy. As examples, we have observed Feed the Future programming that is biased toward medium- and large-scale 

producers, instead of smallholder farmers, in Tanzania and Guatemala. 

In Tanzania, CRS is a subcontractor to ACDI/VOCA under the ‘‘NAFAKA’’ contract. Our work within this project is directly linked to vulnerable groups, but overall is a very small part of the Feed the Future programming in Tanzania. The bulk 

of Feed the Future resources have gone to agricultural producers targeted by Tanzania’s national agricultural investment plan, the Southern Agricultural Growth Corridor of Tanzania (SAGCOT). SAGCOT seeks to concentrate public, donor, and private sector investments in a corridor spanning the country’s center, starting from 

its western border with Zambia and stretching across to Dar es Salaam. These regions targeted by SAGCOT already are relatively better off economically compared 

to other parts of the country, and beneficiaries within this corridor are relatively 

wealthier farmers, some of whom are already involved in large-scale commercial 

production. We have raised concerns with the USAID mission that not enough 

attention is being placed on smallholder farmers, the bulk of whom are in northern 

areas of the country. The mission has been sympathetic to these concerns and is 

beginning to place more emphasis on addressing the needs of vulnerable groups. 

However, we feel there continues to be a bias in favor of wealthier areas and farmers because of a development approach that assumes that benefits reaped by larger 

producers will eventually cascade down to smallholder farmers and vulnerable 

groups—which is a problematic assumption. We fear that if the benefits of Feed the 

Future continue to be spread unevenly in Tanzania, the results will ultimately 

exacerbate rather than alleviate income disparities, thus contributing to political 

instability. 

In Guatemala, Feed the Future is focused on three main goals: (1) market-led, 

value-chain agricultural development, (2) strengthening the health care sector, and 

(3) prevention and treatment of undernutrition. All three Feed the Future components are aligned toward complementary goals and target the same regions of the 

country. CRS currently operates in Guatemala implementing a 6-year Food for 

Peace development food assistance program that contributes to these goals by supporting nutrition interventions for mothers and children under 2, and by linking 

farmers at the bottom tier of producers into the Feed the Future supported value 

chain programming. But we see that the value chain, market-led agricultural development efforts have focused mainly on improving the capacity of the better-off, commercial agricultural producers in these areas to produce for and connect to national 

and international markets. While we ultimately expect to graduate 700 farm families into the Feed the Future value chain program, there are still over 20,000 

smallholder farmers in these regions that we are not working with, and who could 

also benefit if Feed the Future provided them the necessary support. 

Feed the Future must do more to directly address food insecurity of the poor at 

the same time it works to strengthen existing commercial agricultural producers. In 

particular, Feed the Future can and should do more to target smallholder farmers 

who make up lower level producers. These farmers have little access to credit, own 

small parcels of land or work land in a communal fashion, produce primarily for 

themselves and for local consumption, and use less mechanization, less certified 

seed, and less fertilizer in their agricultural production. From our perspective, the 

measure of success in tackling hunger is whether smallholder farmers are producing 

more food, are earning more income, have better access to credit, are able to provide 

a healthy diet for themselves and their children, can maintain and build up productive assets like farm tools and livestock, and whether they can afford to keep their 

children in school. 

BALANCING OF FUNDING INSTRUMENTS

As a whole of government initiative, Feed the Future brings together funding 

from traditional food aid programs, as well as the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC), the Global Agriculture and Food Security Program (GAFSP), nutrition 

funding within the Global Health Initiative, and other specialized programs, to 

achieve a common set of goals. However, Feed the Future’s core funding comes out 

of the Development Assistance account within USAID and is administered by the 

Bureau of Food Security (BFS). As reported in the 2012 Feed the Future Progress 

report, this core funding will be a little over $950 million in FY 2012. 

FOREI-43947 with DISTILLER

46

We believe Feed the Future programs have largely been awarded as contracts,

as opposed to cooperative agreements. We began tracking funding mechanisms used

by BFS in 2011 using information available on www.usaspending.gov and 

www.foreignassistance.gov. Our findings showed that there was about a 2-to-1 ratio, 

in terms of dollars, going into contracts over cooperative agreements. We attempted 

to repeat this analysis for 2012, however we learned from USAID that not all data 

concerning Feed the Future funding is publicly available, thus skewing our results 

for 2012. Nevertheless, our offices in Feed the Future countries have reported to us 

their experiences. From this, we understand that Feed the Future funding in Zambia and Tanzania has balanced contracts and cooperative agreements. In contrast, 

funding in other Feed the Future countries, like Ghana and Uganda, has been 

mostly in the form of contracts. 

The distinction between contracts and cooperative agreements is an important 

one. When faith-based groups like CRS undertake U.S. funded foreign assistance 

projects, the awards are generally in the form of cooperative agreements. There are 

a few main reasons behind this:

• First, we seek funding based not by the potential profit to be made via government contracts, but instead by the number of people we can help to live better, 

more dignified lives. This conscious choice is reflected in our accounting systems 

as well as our project management structures, which are aligned with the regulations and requirements of cooperative agreements. • Second, cooperative agreements generally entail a contribution to the program 

funding by the implementing organization—in our case, we are able to leverage 

substantial private donor funding to compliment the resources provided by 

USAID. • Third, cooperative agreements give both USAID and implementing organizations more flexibility in the way programs are designed and implemented. This 

flexibility allows funding recipients to contribute their considerable expertise to 

program design, to better respond to realities on the ground, to adjust strategies 

as conditions change, and to operate in ways that do not impede on our core 

principles or violate tenets of our founding faiths. • Fourth, the award terms and governing regulations of cooperative agreements 

allow for meaningful engagement and mutual ownership of program goals and 

results by local partner organizations and host communities, who are primary 

stakeholders of capacity-building organizations such as CRS, and whose empowerment is a prominent goal of USAID FORWARD. • Last, there is a general assumption that contract mechanisms allow the donor 

to achieve desired results within a short period of time and according to precise 

specifications, designs, and cost estimates. However, our experience has shown 

that the most lasting impacts are achieved through development interventions 

that are long-term and painstakingly implemented through multiyear investments in physical resources as well as human capital that build the skills and 

capacity of beneficiaries and local partners. Fighting poverty is not like building 

a bridge or a school, but rather consists of a process aimed at changing behaviors, power relationships and distribution of resources, building the capacities 

of local organizations and communities for lasting change.

As noted earlier, CRS currently has a Feed the Future subcontract in Tanzania, 

and we also are implementing a Feed the Future cooperative agreement in Zambia 

and work as a subrecipient to CARE for a cooperative agreement in Ethiopia. Nevertheless, the heavy reliance on contracts by Feed the Future has greatly discouraged 

PVOs from contributing as implementers of Feed the Future programming. This is 

regrettable because these organizations have much to offer Feed the Future countries. U.S. PVOs have deep experience in implementing highly successful antihunger 

programs, and in many cases within the Feed the Future target countries. PVOs 

have been working directly in poor communities on food security programming for 

years, giving them on the ground relationships and networks that can be leveraged 

to further program goals. PVOs tend to collaborate with each other, both in program 

implementation and in after program learning, allowing our community to identify 

and perfect models that move very poor people up the economic ladder. In fact, there 

is a rich body of demonstrated success within the PVO community that can easily 

be scaled up and incorporated into the larger Feed the Future country-led approach. 

As just one example, CRS has recently completed the Global Development Alliance 

program ‘‘ACORDAR’’ in Nicaragua, where we worked with smallholder farmers to 

build their entrepreneurial skills, increase food production, and help them engage 

in formal markets, thereby bringing them to the next level of market-readiness and 

commercial farming. Through a balance in funding instruments, Feed the Future 

could do more to harness this expertise that PVOs offer. 

FOREI-43947 with DISTILLER

47

3 Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP) is an entity of the 

African Union, and consists of African countries that have pledged at least 10 percent of their 

annual budgets to agricultural investments. CAADP has played a significant role in facilitating 

the writing of country development plans used to guide Feed the Future funding. 

INPUT IN PROGRAM DESIGN AND COUNTRY DEVELOPMENT PLANS

In addition to contributing to Feed the Future as an implementer, CRS and other 

nonprofit organizations have also attempted to share our experiences and expertise 

by providing input into Feed the Future planning and program design. 

CRS began engaging with the current administration on food security when the 

Obama transition team started conducting outreach sessions. We have often participated in Feed the Future meetings here in Washington, DC, with the administration. USAID–Washington, USDA, and the State Department should be complimented for their outreach efforts and open door policy. We would also like to voice 

our appreciation for their efforts to develop Feed the Future progress indicators 

across implementing agencies. This is difficult, but very important work, as it creates a truly results-based framework and standardizes it across assistance programs. In the field, CRS has had more varied success engaging those charged with 

Feed the Future implementation. 

In Zambia, our office has indicated that the USAID mission has been very good 

at engaging U.S. PVOs and local NGOs in both Feed the Future strategy development, and bringing their input into the Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP) discussions regarding Zambia.3

In Tanzania, CRS, and several dozen NGOs and other stakeholders participated 

in a feedback session with consultants hired to design and validate the Feed the 

Future strategy. It was unclear how the input provided was used. Participants 

called attention to the need to include smallholder and vulnerable farmers in actions 

specifically designed to address their needs, and to the complexities of promoting 

nutritional and agricultural productivity objectives under one strategy. CRS subsequently organized a meeting for local NGOs and international PVOs with the 

USAID Feed the Future team which was a very helpful opportunity to learn more 

about the Feed the Future plan, but by then the program had been fully designed 

and most of the grants and contracts awarded. While the Feed the Future team 

seemed genuinely interested in engaging with civil society actors, including vulnerable groups, it also appeared they were uncertain how to achieve this. No continuous consultations or mechanisms for obtaining such feedback are in place, except 

for biannual partners meetings which do not lend themselves to open dialogue and 

discussion since they are generally formal presentations from the various contractors and grantees as opposed to discussion opportunities. 

In Kenya, we took the initiative to assemble a group of U.S.-based PVOs and Kenyan NGO partners to engage USAID and the Government of Kenya on food security. 

We were united in seeking greater input into Feed the Future planning and the 

wider country-led approach. This effort, however, has not reaped any significant 

changes that we can see. 

In Ghana, the U.S. Alliance to End Hunger used funding from a private grant 

to assemble U.S. PVOs (including CRS) and Ghanaian NGOs to engage the Government of Ghana and USAID and give input on Feed the Future implementation. CRS 

also organized a stakeholder meeting with several food security focused groups, 

farmers organizations, and other local NGOs to review actions on Ghana’s country 

plan. These efforts have resulted in constructive dialogue, but more dialogue and 

learning needs to occur. For instance, while Food for Peace activities are no longer 

funded in Ghana, there is a wealth of information from past Food for Peace programming, that should be gathered and institutionalized for lessons learned. Such 

experience can certainly inform and improve Feed the Future programming in other 

countries. 

In general, our experiences in the field tell us that most Feed the Future countries do not regularly seek input from either U.S.-based PVOs who have implemented food security programming for many years, or from local NGOs that have 

both a stake in the development of their country, and something to offer to further 

this goal. In the instances where we have organized our communities to provide 

such information, we have seen, at best, mixed acceptance of our advice. 

We feel that Feed the Future’s lack of engagement with PVOs and local organizations to seek their input represents another missed opportunity for Feed the Future 

to meet its goals by building on the successes of past programs PVOs have implemented. Several Feed the Future countries either currently receive, or have in the 

recent past received, food aid funding directed at assisting smallholder farmers and 

other vulnerable populations. As noted above, PVOs have a tremendous amount of 

FOREI-43947 with DISTILLER

48

experience implementing these programs, and have both lessons learned and best 

practices that can be scaled up to great effect. We believe, however, the sharing of 

this information must be done in a more systematic and regular way. 

We recommend that Feed the Future establish a permanent and effective mechanism for U.S.-based PVOs and local NGOs to communicate their experience and 

knowledge to Feed the Future, and that Feed the Future planners make every effort 

to adopt, incorporate, and learn from the information we provide. While we have in 

mind a mechanism for ongoing dialogue to achieve this, we also recommend USAID 

undertake a mapping exercise of recent food security interventions in Feed the 

Future countries. This will help Feed the Future identify what has been done to 

date, and could very well lead to the adoption of lessons learned and best practices 

that were achieved by past programs. 

CONCLUSION

Chairman Cardin, Ranking Member Corker, thank you again for this opportunity 

to present testimony before the subcommittee. I hope the observations and assessments we have provided concerning Feed the Future prove useful to you as you provide oversight of the initiative. To summarize the main points we covered:

• We support Feed the Future’s efforts to develop commercial agriculture sectors, 

but believe that additional emphasis must be placed more on directly helping 

smallholder farmers and other vulnerable populations; • Feed the Future should work to better balance the mix of contracts and cooperative agreements, so that organizations like CRS, which have experience implementing food security programs, can better bring their experiences and resources to Feed the Future efforts; and • Feed the Future must more systematically and regularly capture input from 

U.S.-based PVOs and local NGOs, to effectively utilize these experiences to inform Feed the Future planning.

As you continue your oversight of U.S. Food Security efforts and of the Feed the 

Future Initiative, we hope you will continue to look to CRS to offer ongoing assessments of USAID programs. Feed the Future is a welcomed departure from the past 

as it seeks to address the complexities of global hunger through a comprehensive 

approach that brings all stakeholders into the process. It is our conviction that U.S.-

based PVOs and other civil society stakeholders should and will play a key role in 

that process.

Senator CARDIN. Thank you very much for your testimony. 

Dr. Veillette. 

STATEMENT OF DR. CONNIE A. VEILLETTE, INDEPENDENT 

CONSULTANT, SENIOR ADVISER, GLOBAL AGRICULTURAL 

DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVE, CHICAGO COUNCIL ON GLOBAL 

AFFAIRS, FAIRFAX STATION, VA 

Dr. VEILLETTE. Thank you. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today and thank you for the attention that the subcommittee 

is bringing to this important issue. 

I join my colleagues in this panel in arguing for a more concerted 

effort in achieving global food security. The Obama administration 

deserves much credit for prioritizing this issue in its Feed the 

Future initiative and its leadership at G8 and G20 meetings. 

The challenge of achieving food security for the approximately 

870 million people who live with chronic hunger has thankfully 

enjoyed bipartisan support, beginning with the Bush administration’s initiative to end hunger in Africa and increases in development assistance for agriculture that began in 2008. The LugarCasey global food security bill also had bipartisan support in the 

Senate. 

As we have heard today, the Feed the Future initiative seeks to 

increase productivity and incomes among some of the poorest and 

least productive populations in Africa, Central America, and South 

Asia. While this is necessary, it may not be sufficient given anticiFOREI-43947 with DISTILLER

49

pated global trends. I would like to identify three trends that will 

put incredible pressure on farmers around the world going forward 

and then comment on how Feed the Future can help address these 

trends. 

I would also like to alert you that there will be a forthcoming 

report from the Chicago Council on Global Affairs that will discuss 

these trends in more detail and that will be made available to the 

committee in early December. 

First, the global population is projected to increase by 28 percent, 

reaching 9 billion people by 2050. The Food and Agriculture Organization estimates that cereal production will need to increase by 

60 percent to keep pace with that demand. Increasing the productivity of the least productive, largely smallholders in sub-Saharan 

Africa and South Asia, is an important component, but they alone 

will not be able to feed the world. All farmers in every part of the 

world will need to grow more to meet that demand. 

Second, wealthier populations demand a more protein-rich diet. 

We anticipate that populations will become more prosperous in the 

decades ahead. Because the livestock industry is a cereal-intense 

one, this suggests that demand for feed grains will increase commensurately. 

Third, climate change and weather variability will result in productivity losses in many of the current bread baskets of the world. 

Whether one believes climate change is manmade or a naturally 

occurring cycle, it still requires adaptation, new seeds that are 

drought and heat resistant, more efficient use of farm inputs and 

water resources, and techniques that protect the environment while 

not contributing further to greenhouse gas emissions. 

These three trends, population growth, changing diets, and climate change, suggest that the current call for a 60-percent increase 

in production may be a best-case scenario. Farmers will need to 

produce more on existing cultivated land and do it more efficiently, 

something that has been called resilient intensification. 

These challenges are not for the United States to solve alone, but 

American farmers and businesses benefit from a more prosperous 

global system. To address these challenges, we must prioritize 

science and be more supportive of a greater role for the private sector and increase trade flows. The scope of U.S. food security programs needs to be widened accordingly. 

The United States is no longer the global leader in agriculturerelated science, research, and development, but is being outpaced 

by countries such as Brazil, China, and India. Earlier investments 

made American farmers some of the most productive in the world. 

The benefits of the Green Revolution allowed productivity to triple 

even as the world’s population doubled. Research investments 

made in the United States with the land grant universities in the 

lead benefit American farmers and consumers and also have spillover effects globally. 

U.S. assistance to build the capacity of foreign universities and 

research facilities has also dropped off, meaning that U.S. scientists lack partners in developing countries to tackle such issues 

as plant disease and pests that cross national borders with increasing frequency. 

FOREI-43947 with DISTILLER

50

The private sector is increasingly investing in developing countries as they seek new markets and suppliers, but businesses avoid 

areas that lack a governance framework that protects property 

rights, as we have discussed earlier, and that allows for rampant 

corruption. 

Local businesses are also less likely to expand or create new ventures in areas where financing and infrastructure are lacking. Agriculture can help create vibrant rural economies, but businesses 

that support or benefit from agriculture need some degree of confidence that their investments will produce a return. 

Likewise, trade barriers both globally and regionally need to be 

lowered. Cross-border trade is burdened with corrupt or untrained 

officials, outdated regulations, or poor infrastructures in many 

developing countries. 

Additionally, differing standards and approval processes for the 

importation of improved seed, for example, mean that African 

farmers often are unable to access the inputs that would make 

them more productive. 

The challenge of feeding 9 billion people has not been a focal 

point of Feed the Future. However, its scope will need to be broadened if we want to prevent more people from falling into poverty 

from recurring bouts of price volatility if food supply is not able to 

keep pace with growing demand. And while the administration has 

recently recognized the role of the private sector and trade, there 

is a lot more work that needs to be done to fully develop and integrate these aspects into a U.S. food security program. 

I appreciate this opportunity to testify. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Veillette follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DR. CONNIE A. VEILLETTE

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today on global food security. I would also 

like to thank the subcommittee for their ongoing attention to this issue. 

I join my colleagues on this panel in arguing for a more concerted effort in achieving global food security. The Obama administration deserves much credit for 

prioritizing this issue in its Feed the Future initiative and its leadership at G8 and 

G20 meetings. The challenge of achieving food security for the approximately 870 

million people who live with chronic hunger has thankfully enjoyed bipartisan support beginning with the Bush administration’s initiative to End Hunger in Africa 

and increases in development assistance for agriculture that began in 2008. The 

Lugar-Casey Global Food Security bill also had bipartisan support in the Senate. 

As we have heard here today, the Feed the Future initiative seeks to increase productivity and incomes among some of the poorest and least productive populations 

in Africa, Central America, and South Asia. While this focus is necessary, it may 

not be sufficient given anticipated global trends. 

I would like to identify three trends that will put incredible pressure on farmers 

around the world. Then, I will comment on how Feed the Future can help to address 

these trends. A forthcoming report from the Chicago Council on Global Affairs will 

elaborate on these trends and possible solutions, and will be shared with the subcommittee in early December. 

First, the global population is projected to increase by 28 percent, reaching 9 billion people by 2050. While this projection may seem like a time too distant in the 

future to have much urgency, the long lag time in bringing new technologies on line 

demands that attention be given now to increasing productivity. For example the 

Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) estimates that cereal production will need 

to increase by 60 percent by 2050 to keep pace with demand. Especially disconcerting, global annual productivity has stagnated since the 1980s with some 

exceptions in China, India and Brazil. 

Increasing the productivity of the least productive—largely smallholders in subSaharan Africa and South Asia—is an important first step to reducing poverty and 

FOREI-43947 with DISTILLER

51

hunger, but these farmers will not be able to feed the world. All farmers in every 

part of the world will need to grow more to meet that demand. 

Second, wealthier populations demand a more protein-rich diet, as has been demonstrated in emerging economies. We anticipate that populations will become more 

prosperous in the decades ahead. Because the livestock industry is a cereal-intense 

one, demand for feed grain is likewise expected to increase. 

Third, climate change and weather variability will result in productivity losses in 

many of the current breadbaskets of the world. Whether one believes climate change 

is man-made or a naturally occurring cycle, it still requires adaptation—new seeds 

that are drought and heat resistant, more efficient use of farm inputs and water 

resources, and techniques that protect the environment while not contributing to 

greenhouse gas emissions. The effects of global warming are projected to significantly reduce agricultural productivity by as much as 16 percent by 2080, and by 

as much as 28 percent in Africa. 

These three trends—population growth, changing diets, and climate change—suggest that current calls for a 60-percent increase in production may be a best-case 

scenario. 

If we are unable or unwilling to overcome these three challenges, the world may 

become politically, economically, and ecologically more unstable. There is a link 

between rising food prices, the global economy, and political unrest. If supply does 

not keep pace with demand, high food prices will push millions more into poverty. 

As food takes up a larger portion of consumers’ budgets, there are less discretionary 

funds left for other necessities. Sharp increases in food prices have added fuel to 

the fire among populations that may already be suffering from unrepresentative or 

unresponsive governments. 

From an environmental perspective, agriculture both suffers from, and contributes 

to, climate change, producing between 15 and 25 percent of greenhouse gas emissions. Farmers of all sizes will need to adopt new approaches and techniques. With 

limits on the availability of arable land and continuing pressures on water resources, farmers will need to produce more on existing cultivated land and do it 

more efficiently, something that has been called resilient intensification. 

These challenges require that the global agriculture system, one in which evidence shows is becoming increasingly fragile, must be seen as one system with 

interrelated parts rather than as a zero-sum scenario. These are not problems that 

the United States can, or should, solve on its own, but American farmers and businesses would benefit from a more prosperous global system. 

Investing in agriculture has been shown to reduce poverty by increasing family 

incomes and revitalizing rural economies in developing countries. It results in more 

affordable food for both rural and urban consumers. Focusing on women farmers has 

been shown to improve the health and productivity of their children. 

For these investments to be effective, the United States must prioritize science, 

research, and development, and be supportive of a greater role for the private sector 

and increased trade flows. These areas are all ones in which the United States has 

comparative advantages, but the scope of U.S. food security programs needs to be 

widened accordingly. 

The United States was once the global leader in science and agriculture-related 

research and development, but it is no longer. Those earlier investments made 

American farmers some of the most productive in the world. The benefits of the 

Green Revolution since the 1960s allowed productivity to triple even as the world’s 

population doubled. But since the 1980s, investments in the agricultural sciences 

have fallen with the United States being overtaken by China, Brazil, and India. 

Research investments made in the United States, with the land grant universities 

in the lead, benefit American farmers and consumers, and also have spillover effects 

globally. There are roles for both advanced breeding techniques—GM technologies—

as well as traditional breeding for improved seed varieties. Much progress needs to 

be made in standardizing evidenced-based approval processes for all types of scientific advances. 

U.S. assistance to build the capacity of foreign universities and research facilities 

has also dropped off, meaning that U.S. scientists lack partners in developing countries to tackle such issues as plant disease and pests that cross national borders 

with increasing frequency. The spread of disease and pests, and issues of food safety 

take on greater importance given their rapid transmission around the world. 

Increased opportunities for exchanges of students and faculty between U.S. and foreign educational institutions would greatly aid the caliber and effectiveness of 

research efforts. 

The private sector is increasingly investing in global agriculture as businesses 

seek new markets and suppliers. But, businesses avoid investments in areas that 

lack a governance framework that protects property rights or that allows rampant 

FOREI-43947 with DISTILLER

52

corruption. The World Bank’s Doing Business index lists just seven African countries above the median suggesting the necessity of focusing on the factors that will 

contribute to business expansion and job creation. 

Local businesses are also less likely to expand or create new ventures in areas 

where financing and infrastructure are lacking. Agriculture can help create vibrant 

rural economies, but businesses that support or benefit from agricultural investments need some degree of confidence that their investments will produce a return. 

U.S. food security and development strategies should more fully integrate market 

analysis to identify barriers to investment. Current strategies by the Millennium 

Challenge Corporation and the Partnership for Growth model, while requiring analysis to identify obstacles to economic growth, are often lacking the perspective of 

local and international business that could be helpful in facilitating greater private 

investment. 

Likewise, trade barriers—both globally and regionally—need to be lowered. It is 

often easier to export to Europe than to a neighboring African country because 

cross-border trade is burdened with corrupt or untrained officials, outdated regulations, or poor infrastructure that impedes the flow of commodities. The World Bank 

estimates that just 5 percent of grain or cereal imports to African countries originates from the continent. 

Additionally, differing standards and approval processes for the importation of 

improved seed, for example, mean that African farmers often do not have access to 

inputs that would make them more productive. Further, in a world that is more susceptible to weather variability, commodities need to more easily move from surplusproducing regions to those suffering shortages. The goal should be to eliminate the 

need for food aid except in cases of disaster, but this requires a strong global trading 

system. 

The challenge of feeding 9 billion people has not been a focal point of Feed the 

Future. However, its scope will need to be broadened if we want to prevent more 

people from falling into poverty if food supply does not keep pace with growing 

demand. And while the administration has recently recognized the role of the private sector and trade, there is a lot more work that needs to be done to fully develop 

and integrate these aspects into a U.S. food security program. 

Feeding a growing world and eliminating hunger are daunting challenges. During 

this period of budget austerity, targeted investments in science, research, and development can be catalytic drivers that also have domestic benefits. Additionally, supporting business and facilitating trade can be accomplished through policy reforms 

and do not require large budgetary resources.

Senator CARDIN. Well, let me thank all three of you. 

There seems to be a common theme here that you are all very 

supportive of the programs that we have and the resources we are 

making available, but each of you believes we could do things a lot 

better. And that was, I think, the point of our questioning in the 

first round, that there is strong support in Congress on both sides 

of the aisle to deal with global food security. These initiatives, we 

believe, are extremely important, but we do believe we can do 

things better. 

Mr. O’Brien, I was particularly impressed by your original observation that we are listening better but we are not acting. We hear 

the different concerns. I am curious as to whether you believe that 

also applies to Government listening to the nongovernmental 

sector. 

Mr. Walsh, you mentioned a very important point in Tanzania 

about focusing on perhaps the easier issues and not the more vulnerable people, which is consistent with the local plan but may not 

be in the best interest of the goals of our programs. 

So are we running against a traditional bureaucratic problem of 

turf or is it more of a political problem of how we want to make 

sure that accountability is maintained? Can you sort of give us 

your best judgment as to where you think the major obstacles are 

to advance the causes that each one of you have laid out which is 

more empowerment locally, dealing with priorities on research, 

FOREI-43947 with DISTILLER

53

dealing with the more vulnerable people? Where do you think is 

the easiest way for us? What are the areas that we need to work 

on to be able to achieve those objectives? 

Mr. O’Brien, you may start. 

Mr. O’BRIEN. Thank you, Senator. 

Let me come at it this way. Is the Government listening to the 

nongovernmental sector? Yes, but the nongovernmental sector’s 

blessing and curse is that we have a wide diversity of opinions on 

what ought to be the right direction of things. 

And I think at some level the key challenge for us on Feed the 

Future is where is the future of development going to have to be 

to tackle the challenges of tomorrow. We believe at Oxfam that 

Feed the Future and leaders such as yourself are making exactly 

the right call by saying it is not about us anymore. It is about taking some risks to invest in the local institutions that are going to 

drive solutions in the long term. 

Of course, we would love to do nothing other than measure inputs and outputs on a 1-year-to-year basis and make sure we controlled every single dollar because then we could report back to the 

American people on exactly what has happened to their money. But 

what we have found from decades of development is that being that 

risk averse is not delivering the long-term food security and array 

of other solutions we need across the development spectrum. So we 

have to take some risks. 

The important thing to do is to be very smart about those risks 

when you are dealing with corrupt environments where some 

actors are going to work well with the dollars you give them and 

others are not, and we are going to need very thoughtful leadership 

in Congress to say in the end of the day we need to have exit strategies from these environments. For that to happen, we need leaders to lead, and they cannot lead if we do not trust them to lead. 

So we are going to have to make some calls in that regard. We cannot protect every dollar the way we would like to if all we cared 

about was finding out where it went. 

Senator CARDIN. Mr. Walsh. 

Mr. WALSH. If I may, I guess I would say there are two issues 

at play that explain why the focus on the poor might be lost in 

Tanzania and in other countries. I think, on the one hand, there 

might an assumption that by boosting food production, ultimately 

it is going to benefit the entire country sort of as a side effect, and 

that is a problematic assumption. I think that it is necessary to 

look beyond the raw figures of how many tons of maize are harvested. You have to see who is doing the planting, who is doing the 

harvesting, and who is selling it, where is it going. I think that 

there is a strong possibility that the food will be exported and that 

the vulnerable will be kept out of that altogether. So it is important to keep the focus on the role that the smallholders play in the 

entire production and value chain. 

On the other hand, there is a lot of pressure that the missions 

are under to show the results in the short term. We think that the 

congressional oversight is correct, but they also, I think, are under 

pressure to show that the Feed the Future initiative is paying dividends in the short term. And that is also something that I think 

we need to manage and keep in mind that the benefits do take 

FOREI-43947 with DISTILLER

54

time to cascade down to all of the levels of the pyramid, if you will, 

and by exerting too much pressure and demanding too many quick 

results, we again risk losing focus on the longer term benefits that 

food security will ultimately pay but that take time to develop. 

Senator CARDIN. Dr. Veillette. 

Dr. VEILLETTE. Let me say that I think a major impediment is 

one that we do not still know the full effects and that is climate 

change. We are pretty sure it is happening. I do not care really the 

need to identify why, but we need to be able to adapt to it. What 

we do not know is what is the full effect going to be. We anticipate 

that hot areas are going to get hotter, that wet areas are going to 

get wetter, that it is going to hurt those countries that are most 

vulnerable right now to chronic hunger, that crops are going to 

move north. We are going to see a change in the pattern of where 

we grow crops and when we grow them. Corn farmers in the Midwest are planting corn a full month earlier than they did even 4 

years ago to avoid the onset of very hot weather. 

So because of that, we need to take into account not just the 

science of dealing with climate change but also trade. Going forward, having an open trading system is going to be more important 

than ever because we are going to have to move areas that are producing a surplus in food to those that have the deficit. And as that 

system gets more and more gummed up, we are going to continue 

to see price volatility and we have got to be able to smooth that 

out. 

Senator CARDIN. Let me just make an observation. I think the 

points you raise are very important points. It makes it easier for 

us if we have ways of judging the activities and governance of a 

country. That is why EITI was an important initiative dealing with 

extractive industries. It was not as strong as a lot of us would like, 

but it was a unified way that we could judge progress being made 

in a country in dealing with a specific issue that was a large source 

of funding for corrupt governments. We in the United States have 

strengthened that with Senator Lugar’s help with the transparency 

initiatives that we have been able to do on the extractive industries 

through their stock listings. All of that, I think, helps us give 

confidence. 

We need the same thing in agriculture. The index we were talking about earlier as it relates to women is an important factor so 

that we can judge progress being made. And when we have those 

factors, it takes pressure off the specific program accountability 

issues which can interfere with other goals that you all have mentioned. 

Dr. Veillette, I could not agree with you more on resiliency and 

adaptation. We absolutely need to deal with that. We also need to 

deal with climate change. I think we need policies that can really 

help us in dealing with the food security issues that you have mentioned. I think your comments are extremely helpful and I thank 

you very much for your testimony. 

Mr. Lugar. 

Senator LUGAR. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think the 

panel has been terrific in trying to illustrate that we all start with 

the humanitarian idea of feeding the world and we describe the 

population now and cite 2050 and 9 billion people and a deficiency 

FOREI-43947 with DISTILLER

55

of 870 million and so forth presently. But then it becomes more difficult after our idealism is expressed. Now, Feed the Future tries 

to deal with 19 countries, not all of the countries of the world. 

We have some of the problems that have been expressed today 

in the United States. We are a very productive nation, but fortunately through our food stamp program and school lunches and 

various other activities, we try to meet the needs of 20 million to 

30 million Americans. It is not the lack of food in the country but 

the problems of poverty and distribution and income. These are difficult problems even for ourselves with whatever transparency we 

have. 

Now, we try to translate this in the Feed the Future Initiative 

to 19 countries, set up agreements, some degree of transparency. 

But having said that, the facts are that there are other players. I 

think, Mr. Walsh, in your testimony you mention—as well as did 

you, Mr. O’Brien—the purchase of land, 227 million hectares and 

so forth, but then even within specific countries perhaps landowners or corporations or investors, consolidate and leave the single farmer or the poor farmer out of the process. If this occurs even 

in national scope, which we did not get into with the first panel, 

but it is very clear that China, for example, has taken hold of land 

either by purchase or rental in African countries, maybe elsewhere, 

millions of acres or hectares and is shipping the food back to 

China. It is a situation in which that government has said we have 

got a big problem, and we do not have enough land, or we are not 

producing enough here. 

I was surprised that the Chinese were farming in Russia in border areas with the permission of the Russians, an unusual predicament strategically in the history of the world. But, nevertheless, 

first things first. I guess the payment has been sufficient to come 

in there and take it out. That is the same, as far as the Chinese 

are concerned, with coal and with other mineral resources. 

So even as we are trying to think about equities, we also have 

world politics and countries that have their own situations. 

Now, beyond that and this situation of trying to think about how 

the single farmer or the small farmer deals with this, the facts are 

that in our country consolidation of land proceeds, and this 

enhances productivity. For example, to take a local situation in 

Indiana, many young farmers coming out of Purdue University do 

not have enough money to buy a great deal of farmland, but they 

do need maybe 2,000 acres to farm to make use of the best machinery that we now have available to amortize those situations. So 

they rent from people who are by and large elderly folks or some 

not living in the State anymore. Eventually they make money, and 

they buy land and so forth. But it is a situation in which—these 

are tradeoffs. On the one hand, the use of the machinery, the 

planting, fertilizer, all this type of thing goes much better with the 

bigger machinery, but it takes a lot of acreage and bigger farms 

and consolidation. Where this leaves the small farmer is hard to 

tell. 

As we draw criteria for the 19 countries in Feed the Future, we 

look at our own situation, and it is one in which I think Mr. Walsh 

has stressed the equities of how the poor are managed right along 

with the efficiencies of this thing. But these are extremely difficult 

FOREI-43947 with DISTILLER

56

tradeoffs getting back to the overall idea of the population rising, 

and we need 50 or 60 percent more of this or that. 

Then Dr. Veillette, as well as some of us, emphasized the climate 

change problem. Now, here my experience as a farmer this year 

was that my corn crop was almost wiped out. I was not unique in 

Indiana. That was true of several other States adjoining us and out 

into the Midwest. We had crop insurance, a governmental situation 

in which we bought the maximum amount to begin with, thank 

goodness, so that at least there is some return from that land. 

But we are talking about the small farmer facing not only the 

formidable problems I have already expressed but climate change 

and wipeout and no crop insurance. You really are up against it 

because this is not a governmental problem anymore. It is a global 

problem, and it is one in which we have really got to do something 

about climate change. The international efforts to do this in any 

systemic way certainly are lacking. 

Now, I pose all of this to you to ask what can we reasonably 

anticipate from Feed the Future given this global set of problems? 

Is it good government? Well, that is a part of it. The extension programs, some education. But at the same time, I am amazed that 

they are hoping maybe for 20 percent increases in some of their 

goals, not 100 percent, and this is from a pretty low base. That is 

why I am hoping there is some realism as to what Feed the Future 

can do as we have criteria here in the Congress trying to evaluate 

them. 

Does anyone want to hazard an opinion about any of the above? 

We covered a lot of territory. 

Mr. O’BRIEN. Sure. I am sure we all would like to say a brief 

word because they were great questions, Senator. Two brief points 

from me. 

Oxfam has invested in microinsurance programs in the horn in 

Africa which are weather indexed. We think they are working. And 

we are working with Ethiopian insurance companies because it has 

got to make business sense over the long term. But you have got 

to have the right regulatory regime for that national level insured 

to feel confident that this is a future business proposition for them 

that is going to be viable once the aid money diminishes. And so 

again, it is about creating that institutional infrastructure. 

On the land question, I would suggest that Feed the Future 

would do well to learn lessons from the work that you have led on 

the EITI. In the end of the day, if we can get better regulation of 

land transactions with more transparency, more consultation, better governance, and ideas around what kind of regulatory regime 

is going to manage it—none of us want to end investments in land. 

Farmers want to be able to sell their land, but we want responsible 

investments. And some of the work that you have done, I think, 

has broken new ground on how this can work not just for extractive industries but for resources like land where the end result is—

and what we most care about—these smallholder farmers that are 

getting removed from their land get adequately compensated and 

consulted in the transactions. 

Mr. WALSH. Maybe I can take this opportunity to mention something that I did not have a chance to cover in my testimony, and 

it has to do with climate change. I think that is absolutely a vital 

FOREI-43947 with DISTILLER

57

and critical issue that Feed the Future needs to place far more at 

the center of its overall strategy than it currently has because it 

is such a cross-cutting issue and because it requires such a comprehensive approach. The good thing about Feed the Future is that 

it is integrated and that it does allow for so many different aspects 

of food security to be addressed, whether it is nutrition, whether 

it is policy, whether it has to do with the production of new and 

more resilient crops. 

Climate change, however, is getting sidelined, I believe, in Tanzania and I think in other Feed the Future countries as well. Yes, 

it is cross-cutting. So it is in there. The assumption seems to be it 

is in there somewhere, but it is not really being funded and it is 

not really being addressed in as central a way as it needs to be. 

I am talking about activities that need to be funded such as soil 

conservation and conservation farming which contribute to the 

resilience of farmers, as well as possibly mitigation of climate 

change. 

These are activities that are not new. They are not something 

that we need to completely invent from scratch. I think some of the 

technologies exist now that simply need to be rolled out more and 

that small farmers have a very good opportunity to participate in. 

But it is not currently an activity that is stand-alone or a significantly funded activity in Feed the Future, and I think that needs 

to be bolstered with funding as well as in the strategy itself. 

Dr. VEILLETTE. I think it would be reasonable for Feed the 

Future to put a greater focus on the type of governance issues that 

would provide a better environment for businesses to be able to 

grow and invest. And I am not just talking about international or 

U.S. businesses but those local businesses that can revitalize rural 

economies. Part of that is policy reforms, regulatory modernization, 

anticorruption issues. 

Related to that is the issue about land grabs. Land titling and 

land tenure is not very strong in many of these countries. However, 

there has been a study done that in countries where there is strong 

land titling and land tenure, there have been the least amount of 

these large land deals. So obviously that is a key component to 

tamping that down. 

And then I also would reemphasize that there is a global governance issue. It is not just the governance of the countries that we 

are dealing with, but it is our trade regimes. It is how we can bring 

about some better harmonization and standardization in how we 

treat food safety issues, how we treat the approval process for 

advances in science and technology. 

Senator LUGAR. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator CARDIN. Well, again, let me thank our witnesses. This 

will not be the last of our interest in overseeing how this program 

is working. It is a major part of our international development 

assistance, and it is a major concern of the U.S. Senate. So this will 

be a continuing interest and we will be continuing to follow up and 

asking your help in trying to evaluate how we can do a better job 

on global food security for many reasons. 

Thank you all very much. 

FOREI-43947 with DISTILLER

58

Senator CARDIN. And with that, the subcommittee will stand 

adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:57 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MERCY CORPS

Mercy Corps greatly appreciates Chairman Cardin’s and Ranking Member Corker’s decision to hold this important hearing focusing on global food security. Mercy 

Corps currently works in 44 countries providing development and humanitarian 

assistance, and the obstacles that vulnerable populations face in accessing adequate 

food are consistent challenge across most of the places that we work. In places as 

diverse as Mali, Yemen, Haiti, Kyrgyzstan, and many others, we work with communities to improve their productivity, access to nutritious food, and resilience to 

shocks. We appreciate the U.S. Government’s renewed commitment to improving 

agriculture development, which is often the backbone of economies in the poorest 

countries in the world. We would like to take this opportunity to highlight successful agriculture development programs and encourage Congress and the administration to take specific steps to solidify important development reforms and gains. 

FEED THE FUTURE SUCCESS: TITLE II NON-EMERGENCY PROGRAMMING

One of the cornerstones of Feed the Future (FtF), and one of the great success 

stories of U.S. Government food assistance programs, is Title II ‘‘non-emergency’’ 

programs, which work to prevent and alleviate the kinds of food emergencies that 

require the majority of Title II food aid. These multiyear programs authorized by 

the farm bill and appropriated through agriculture appropriations bills help the 

poor become more resistant to shocks, ultimately reducing the need for emergency 

food assistance, particularly in areas that see cyclical or recurring food emergencies 

such as the Horn of Africa and the Sahel. 

Title II non-emergency programs fill the gap between emergency relief programming and development assistance, and so are a vital step in helping communities 

transition from being food insecure to improving long-term agriculture development 

and becoming self-sufficient. For example, Mercy Corps implemented a non-emergency Title II program in Northern Uganda that supported families displaced by the 

Lord’s Resistance Army conflict to rebuild their farms and livelihoods upon their return from displacement camps. This multiyear program provided the flexibility to 

support families and help them recover from crisis, while at the same time helped 

them to build a strong foundation for their long-term economic development, reducing the need for families to be dependent on emergency assistance. 

The funding mechanism for Title II non-emergency has been a source of controversy at times because it shares a funding stream with Title II emergency funds, 

and because non-emergency programs rely in part on ‘‘monetizing’’—or re-selling—

U.S. food commodities to finance program activities. Mercy Corps believes that 

increased use of the ‘‘Community Development Fund’’ mechanism within Feed the 

Future provides an important way to address both concerns. The administration has 

already begun using CDF cash resources, in a limited way, in place of monetization 

within some Title II programs. This both give USAID greater flexibility to scale up 

emergency response without undercutting non-emergency resource levels, and reduces reliance on monetization to fund program activities. This approach should be 

expanded in coming years. 

LOCAL AND REGIONAL PROCUREMENT

Among the best tools available to the U.S. Government to provide urgently needed 

food assistance to respond to crisis is Local and Regional Procurement (LRP). We 

strongly support this important type of programming under Title II and believe it 

should be robustly funded. With support from USAID and USDA, Mercy Corps has 

used LRP approaches to deliver life-saving food assistance to over 1 million people 

and strengthened markets in 11 countries in Africa, Asia, South America, the Caribbean, and the Middle East through local and regional procurement programs. The 

2008 farm bill increased support for LRP, authorizing a pilot program to implement 

and study LRP activities in both emergency and non-emergency settings. 

Rigorous research by GAO and Cornell University show that LRP delivers food 

assistance quickly, effectively, and efficiently while also helping to protect and rebuild resilient market systems. Researched of the LRP pilot showed savings in both 

FOREI-43947 with DISTILLER

59

money (50 percent savings for unprocessed grain and some pulses) and time (an increase of 62 percent in timeliness), adding an important and versatile tool which 

can be used to reach people in need. Section 3207 of the Senate farm bill makes 

permanent the authority for LRP projects at USDA at an annual authorized level 

of $40 million. We encourage Congress to permanently authorize LRP at the Senate 

level in the farm bill and for this subcommittee to examine ways in which this authority can be expanded. 

FEED THE FUTURE-REACHING THE MOST VULNERABLE

We appreciate the U.S. Government’s ‘‘Whole of Government Approach’’ to Agriculture and would like to encourage Congress and the administration to look closely 

at funding under this initiative to ensure that it adequately focuses on the needs 

of those most vulnerable smallholder farmers, especially women farmers. Recently 

USAID published a FtF Progress Report showing the collective progress of the administration’s food security initiatives. We commend this important first step and 

recommend Congress and the administration continue to partner on FtF to improve 

transparency and accountability through expanding the FtF Progress Report to 

show account specific (i.e., DA, MCC Title II) results that highlight how FtF programs are reaching intended beneficiaries and in particular, vulnerable populations. 

HOW CAN CONGRESS FURTHER ADDRESS GLOBAL FOOD INSECURITY?

Congress can do its part to support the Feed the Future Initiative by:

• Passing a farm bill that reauthorizes Title II non-emergency assistance, supporting reforms to international food aid that allows for greater use of cash, especially the use of Local and Regional Procurement; • Supporting the Senate SFOPS levels for FtF in FY 2013; • Support the Community Development Fund provision in the FY 2013 Senate 

SFOPS bill that allows for Development Assistance funds to be used toward the 

Safebox authorization level; and, • Require a supplemental report to the recent FtF progress report, which shows 

results disaggregated by FtF account, and require account and country specific 

disaggregated reporting in any future progress report. • Require appropriate environmental indicators of USAID agricultural investments to be monitored and reported in any future FtF progress report.

Chairman Cardin and Ranking Member Corker, thank you again for holding this 

important hearing and your continued work and partnering with the administration, we know that FtF can help address food insecurity, one of the greatest needs 

of this century. 

RESPONSE OF ACTING SPECIAL REPRESENTATIVE JONATHAN SHRIER TO QUESTION

SUBMITTED BY SENATOR BENJAMIN L. CARDIN

Question. Which agencies and programs of the United Nations, particularly the 

Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and World Food Programme (WFP), are 

critical partners in U.S. efforts to improve food security? How are Feed the Future 

and other U.S.-led initiatives partnering with the U.N. and other international 

humanitarian organizations to reduce hunger and poverty?

Answer. The U.S. Government works closely with U.N. agencies as a member and 

partner to help advance global food security goals and align food security activities 

under the donor principles adopted at the U.N.’s World Summit on Food Security 

in Rome in 2009. This alignment is reflected in the Feed the Future Presidential 

initiative, which emphasizes country ownership; fosters strategic coordination 

among donors, governments, multilateral organizations and the private sector; addresses the root causes of hunger and poverty; and through our diplomatic engagement supports efforts to increase the effectiveness of U.N. institutions and encourage donor accountability. 

As a leading member on the Executive Boards of the World Food Programme 

(WFP), the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), and the international Fund 

for Agricultural Development (IFAD), the United States is helping to shape the priorities, policies, and approaches of these organizations so they are aligned with 

donor principles and Feed the Future’s approach. 

The U.S. Government also plays a leading role in high-level negotiations related 

to food security, including the post-2015 Millennium Development Goals process and 

the U.N. Committee on World Food Security. In October 2011, for instance, a U.S. 

official was elected as vice chair of the committee, and another U.S. official served 

as the international chair of the committee’s consultative process to develop VolFOREI-43947 with DISTILLER

60

untary Guidelines on the Responsible Governance of Tenure of Land, Fisheries, and 

Forestry in the Context of National Food Security that were approved in May 2012. 

The U.S. Government is also preparing to participate in the follow-on consultative 

process aimed at developing voluntary, nonbinding principles on responsible agricultural investment and will provide technical assistance to the country chairing that 

2-year process. 

The United States has been a strong supporter of the work of the U.N. High Level 

Task Force on Global Food Security established by Secretary General Ban Ki-moon 

to strengthen coherence among U.N. agencies in confronting the challenges of global 

hunger, food insecurity, and undernutrition. For example, Secretary of State Clinton 

launched the 1,000 Days partnership in 2010 to mobilize action by governments, private sector firms, and civil society organization in support of the Scaling Up Nutrition movement established by Secretary General Ban. 

The FAO, the World Food Programme (WFP) and the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) have vast experience and expertise to tap. The leaders 

of these agencies have all expressed support for the G8 New Alliance for Food Security and Nutrition, for example, and the President of IFAD serves on the leadership 

group established to oversee the New Alliance. These agencies have committed to 

coordinating and aligning their investments in support of compacts and investment 

plans for the Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Program (CAADP). 

These compacts and plans define evidence-based agricultural and food security roadmaps for achieving the Millennium Development Goal of halving poverty and hunger, and provide country-specific frameworks for all new and ongoing investment in 

agriculture and food security. Similar national strategies are also in design or in 

place in Asia and Latin America to ensure efficiency and greatest impact at the 

country and regional level. 

FAO, WFP, and IFAD have also been strong partners in supporting the work of 

the Global Agriculture and Food Security Program (GASFP), the multidonor trust 

fund housed at the World Bank. These U.N. agencies are part of the steering committee of the Public Sector Window of GAFSP, which mobilizes and consolidates 

grant funding that is additional to current programs in order to help support strategic country-led and regional programs that are the result of country and regional 

consultations. 

More broadly, the FAO has well-developed technical and normative capabilities, 

which can assist food insecure countries develop policy and technical responses to 

their food security and nutrition gaps. The United States works with the FAO to 

harness its scientific and technical expertise to combat plant and animal pests and 

pathogens that impact agricultural productivity and small farmer income. We also 

work with FAO to promote ways to link poor farmers to markets through the provision of improved seeds and inputs, technical expertise, assistance in meeting international standards, and market information. We are working with FAO through the 

G8 and G20 to build in mechanisms to monitor and respond to volatility in food 

prices. The G20 has launched the Agricultural Market Information System (AMIS) 

and the Rapid Response Forum, which allow policymakers to track food production 

data from around the world and create a forum to share information and formulate 

policy responses in the event of global food crises. The United States, represented 

by a USDA official, is currently chairing the G20 AMIS effort, which is housed at 

the FAO. 

The United States is the largest donor to the WFP in the form of in-kind food 

aid and cash-based assistance to respond to crises around the world. The WFP also 

has experience in market development through local and regional purchases that 

can be leveraged by implementers of similar programs. Work with WFP is not only 

focused on saving lives but increasingly also on building household and community 

resilience to better withstand future shocks. For example, a unique, trilateral partnership between PepsiCo, USAID, and the WFP provides a nutritionally fortified 

feeding product while helping to build long-term economic stability for smallholder 

chickpea farmers in Ethiopia by involving them directly in PepsiCo’s supply chain. 

In addition to the U.N. system, the United States has also worked to advance food 

security and nutrition objectives through the international organizations involved in 

agricultural research, notably the Consultative Group on International Agricultural 

Research (CGIAR); the multilateral development institutions, and global and regional policy platforms such as the G8, the G20, and APEC. All of these multilateral 

institutions extend U.S. influence and impact far beyond what could be accomplished through U.S. efforts alone, making them critical partners in the fight 

against hunger and undernutrition. 

FOREI-43947 with DISTILLER

61

RESPONSES OF TJADA MCKENNA TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED

BY SENATOR BENJAMIN L. CARDIN

NUTRITION—INTEGRATION OF FEED THE FUTURE AND GHI

Question. Feed the Future and GHI report that their joint efforts have led to 

reductions in the share of underweight and stunted children in 18 countries.

• Please describe the distinct nutrition-related activities by GHI and Feed the 

Future and how these efforts are coordinated at each stage (planning, implementation, monitoring, and evaluation)?

Answer. Nutrition is the key point of intersection between food security and 

health and improving nutrition is a high-level objective of both the Global Health 

and the Feed the Future Initiatives. USAID provides global technical leadership 

assistance to priority countries in both initiatives to facilitate the planning, introduction, and scale-up of high-impact nutrition activities. USAID’s nutrition portfolio 

is integrated across multiple initiatives and funding streams. Integrated programing 

is essential to address the immediate causes of child undernutrition—food and nutrient intake and health, and the underlying causes—such as access to food, maternal and child care practices, water/sanitation, and health services. The high level 

of integration makes sense programmatically, but makes reporting more complex. 

Feed the Future works with the Global Health Initiative to ensure that USG nutrition investments have maximum impact on our target populations. Through both 

initiatives, we implement nutrition strategies that are based on country-specific 

needs and opportunities. We build the capacity of health systems to screen and treat 

undernutrition and use local food products to do so. We leverage existing community 

workers—both health workers and agriculture extension workers—to deliver nutrition education at a local level. We also empower women in both initiatives by increasing access to new farming skills, agricultural inputs, health knowledge, and 

quality health services as a way of reducing poverty and improving their and their 

children’s health and well-being. 

Investments include expanding the evidence base for nutrition to guide policy 

product development, and strengthen nutrition programs; building capacity to design, implement, and report on food and nutrition programs and strengthen coordination and integration; and introducing or expanding comprehensive evidence-based 

packages of interventions to prevent and treat undernutrition. These packages of 

interventions include social and behavior change communication to improve nutrition practices, diet diversification, and delivery of nutrition services including nutrient supplementation and management of acute malnutrition. 

Given the close linkages between agriculture and nutrition, we are implementing 

Feed the Future and Global Health activities in a highly coordinated manner in 

order to maximize results. A great example is Nepal, where we are working with 

Save the Children and several local partners to improve the nutritional status of 

women and children under 2 years of age in 25 districts by focusing on health behaviors, dietary quality, dietary diversity, health services, and coordination. Another 

great example is Ghana, where USAID is supporting the integration of community 

management of acute malnutrition (CMAM) into the Ghana Health Service. CMAM 

is proven to reduce mortality from severe acute malnutrition to under 5 percent. In 

addition, it allows 80 percent of children to be treated in their homes. USAID is also 

supporting innovative approaches in local production of ready-to-use foods. 

For Feed the Future, we have developed and rolled out a comprehensive results 

framework that focuses our efforts across the global initiative on two top-line results: reducing poverty and undernutrition. We have a range of activities that feed 

into this, but the results framework is a critical innovation to align our programs 

and demonstrate how they contribute to our top-line goals. USAID nutrition reporting for Feed the Future and the Global Health Initiative use many of the same indicators, such as the prevalence of underweight children under 5 years of age and the 

prevalence of wasted children under 5 years of age, and prevalence of underweight 

women. These are collected in the Feed the Future Monitoring System (FTFMS) for 

review by both the Global Health Initiative and Feed the Future. 

TITLE II NON-EMERGENCY ASSISTANCE PROGRAMMING

Question. Title II nonemergency programs are a unique type of development program that have had wide ranging successes in the developing world, including improving livelihoods for smallholders, mitigating stunting of children and supporting 

local markets function more efficiently. What lessons learned is USAID taking from 

successful Title II nonemergency programs and incorporating into USAID development programming?

FOREI-43947 with DISTILLER

62

Answer. Feed the Future coordinates closely with USAID’s Office of Food for 

Peace (FFP), which manages the programming of Title II nonemergency resources. 

In general, Title II nonemergency food aid programs are community-based programs 

targeted to very poor or extremely poor households—‘‘the poorest of the poor.’’ Many 

of these households depend on agriculture for livelihoods—either from farming their 

own land or working on someone else’s land. However, despite this focus on agriculture, these households are often unable to meet their family’s basic food and 

nonfood needs for 12 months of the year. Constraints, such as limited land size and 

labor availability, reliance on less productive technologies and practices, and poor 

access to markets and inputs, make it very difficult for these communities and 

households to break out of poverty. Title II nonemergency programs work at a local 

level providing a safety net for these extremely vulnerable households and have a 

proven success record in many underserved communities around the world. 

Many Feed the Future programs focus on value chains and aim to address constraints to agricultural productivity both within targeted geographic areas and, in 

terms of policy, at a national level. For example, if a lack of access to fertilizer and 

improved seed is a significant constraint to productivity, Feed the Future engages 

the host government and other interested partners to identify key challenges and 

develop solutions. These could include creating a regulatory framework to allow for 

greater private sector participation in seeds markets or developing a network of 

agrodealers that can provide improved seed and fertilizer to farmer groups. Postharvest loss is another good example. While Title II nonemergency programs often 

work at the household level to reduce post-harvest loss and improve food safety 

through better drying and storage technologies, Feed the Future programming targets the next level up—working with the private sector and farmer groups to develop regional initiatives, such as creating a warehouse receipts program capable of 

serving thousands of communities so that we can have impact in reducing poverty 

at a significant scale. 

There is inherent complementarity in these programs—with Title II nonemergency programs providing assistance to acutely vulnerable populations and 

Feed the Future assisting communities at scale to participate in commercial agriculture in order to escape poverty over the long term. The USAID Bureau for Food 

Security, which supports the implementation of Feed the Future, and the USAID 

Food for Peace Office are working to ensure the complementarity of their respective 

programs. 

Feed the Future has learned much from FFP’s decades of experience and has 

adopted a number of strategies from FFP, including an expanded focus on the resilience of vulnerable communities to the shocks that exacerbate food insecurity. For 

example, in order to combat the recent crises in the Horn of Africa and the Sahel, 

Feed the Future programs include both longer term investments like increasing the 

commercial availability of climate-resilient crops and reducing trade and transport 

barriers, as well as direct funding for Community Development Funds (CDFs). 

CDFs play a catalytic role in bridging humanitarian and development assistance. 

CDF investments fund community-based interventions aimed at increasing the economic and nutritional resilience of the rural poor and accelerating their participation in economic growth, while simultaneously freeing up more Title II resources for 

emergency needs. The FY 2012 and FY 2013 Feed the Future requests expand this 

effort. These programs bridge humanitarian and development objectives through 

expanded support for productive rural safety nets, livelihood diversification, microfinance and savings, and other programs that reduce vulnerability to short-term 

production, income, and market disruptions. As part of the Horn of Africa and Sahel 

Joint Planning Cells, Feed the Future will reduce vulnerability to food insecurity 

in the Horn of Africa and the Sahel by fully integrating long-term economic development assistance with short-term emergency relief and harnessing science and technology to help populations adapt to increasingly erratic production seasons. 

Feed the Future has also learned from FFP that it must focus on the importance 

of women and women’s nutrition in combating food insecurity. Feed the Future 

works to ensure that women have access to increased incomes to improve family 

diets; that agriculture delivers more nutritious food, not just productivity gains; and 

that we build preventative approaches to break the cycle of undernutrition that contributes to poverty. 

In addition, some of the indicators of success we monitor include the prevalence 

of underweight women and the recently launched Women’s Empowerment in Agriculture Index (WEAI) to measure changes in women’s empowerment in the agriculture sector. The index is being used in Feed the Future focus countries and is 

being incorporated in all Feed the Future population-based baseline surveys. Another pilot program launched in FY 2012 was the Evidence and Data for Gender 

Equality (U.N. EDGE) Initiative, a new partnership between the U.S. Government 

FOREI-43947 with DISTILLER

63

and the U.N. that seeks to accelerate existing efforts to generate comparable gender 

indicators on health, education, employment, entrepreneurship, and asset ownership. 

Finally, Feed the Future has learned from FFP that micronutrients, not just an 

overall availability of food, must be a part of food assistance. A number of Feed

the Future programs fund the research of vitamin-rich crop varieties that provide 

needed vitamin A, zinc, and iron. For example, Feed the Future’s Harvest Plus program field-tested vitamin A-rich orange-flesh sweet potato (OFSP) and iron- and 

zinc-rich beans in Uganda. In Rwanda, five new iron-rich bean varieties were released. Children and women are the main beneficiaries of these new bean varieties, 

which will provide up to 30 percent of their daily iron needs. 

LEVERAGING U.S. NGOS’ COMMITMENT AND EXPERTISE

Question. At the U.N. General Assembly, U.S.-based nongovernmental organiza- tions (NGOs), led by Interaction, pledged more than $1 billion of private, nongovernmental funds over the next 3 years to improve food security and nutrition worldwide.

• What are USAID and the State Department doing to partner with U.S. NGOs 

to ensure coordination of effort and leveraging their expertise in international 

agricultural development?

Answer. We know that sustainable development goals cannot be achieved by our 

efforts alone. As President Obama, Secretary Clinton, USAID Administrator Shah, 

and other leaders have stated, for our development efforts to be successful, we must 

work across sectors and across borders. The more these efforts are coordinated, the 

greater impact they will have. The $1 billion pledge of private, nongovernmental funds over 3 years reflects the 

importance that U.S.-based civil society organizations attach to food security and 

the crucial role they play in the effort to end world hunger. U.S. and partner 

government efforts can be multiplied by NGOs’ contributions and expertise. We will 

continue to work with InterAction and their member organizations as they work to 

meet this commitment and we will all work to align our efforts behind shared, country-led objectives. 

Our NGO partners have been helpful advocates and conveners, bringing together 

governments, the private sector, and other civil society organizations in unique partnerships to further our collective progress against global food insecurity and undernutrition. For example, in 2010, Secretary Clinton and leaders from Ireland, the 

United Nations, and many other NGOs launched the 1,000 Days partnership in 

2010 to mobilize governments, civil society, and the private sector to improve nutrition in the critical 1,000 day window of opportunity from pregnancy through a 

child’s second birthday. 

NGOs serve as implementing partners in many Feed the Future programs. NGOs 

also help to advance food security objectives as a result of their local ties. They are 

able to reach communities that can be challenging to access and understand local 

needs on the ground; this expertise helps to ensure programs are tailored to specific 

communities and can achieve maximum impact. In Senegal, for example, in collaboration with local partners, Feed the Future is engaging over 350 community nutrition volunteers who teach families to prepare nutritious meals and practice good 

hygiene. This program helps farmers improve agricultural practices in over 80 community demonstration gardens. By identifying locally grown, nutritious foods, these 

workers are helping reduce micronutrient deficiencies in children in over 350 

villages. 

Valuable feedback from our NGO partners has been a key consideration in the 

evolution of Feed the Future including in the design of approaches and interventions. With this in mind, we have focused on the importance of gender equality in 

addition to the need for expanded opportunities for women and girls; increased our 

strategic focus and programming on climate resilient agricultural development; increased program integration between nutrition and agriculture; expanded financial 

inclusion programming (e.g., microcredit), especially for women and the very poor; 

and deepened our focus on water issues though the expansion of small-scale water 

management technologies, promotion of water-use efficiency and drought tolerance 

of major cereal crops, and support to several of the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research centers located around the world. 

In addition, Feed the Future focus country investment plans, which are countryled multiyear investment plans for food security, were formed in consultation with 

civil society. This has helped ensure that each country investment plan represents 

a national, comprehensive strategy for significantly reducing hunger and poverty 

and improving food security in a particular country. 

FOREI-43947 with DISTILLER

64

1http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTARD/Resources/MissingFoods10lweb.pdf. 

We are committed to ongoing engagement with local and international NGOs as 

we strive to achieve Feed the Future’s key objectives: to reduce poverty and undernutrition. Feed the Future interagency partners are developing an action plan to 

strengthen engagement with NGOs and civil society organizations. This plan will 

encourage broad-based dialogue; foster creation of new partnerships among donors, 

the private sector, and partner governments; and promote best practices. 

POST HARVEST LOSS

Question. Post-harvest loss and commodity spoilage are significant challenges in 

the harsh climates of the developing world.

• What efforts are currently underway to mitigate post-harvest losses by providing materials and technical assistance related to improved storage? 

• Are concerns about commodity losses a driver of FTF policy, and to what extent 

do the economic impacts of those losses affect FTF decisions with respect to resource allocation and budget planning? 

• Is USAID working with any specific project, or with any NGO or private sector 

company that focuses on safe storage techniques, and if so, what is the nature 

of the engagement and are the results proving to be positive in terms of loss 

mitigation and improved ability to bring products to market?

Answer. Addressing the challenges posed by post-harvest loss and spoilage is critical to fighting food insecurity. According to a recent World Bank/FAO report, ‘‘[t]he 

value of postharvest grain losses in sub-Saharan Africa [are estimated] at around 

$4 billion a year. . . . This lost food could meet the minimum annual food requirements of at least 48 million people.’’ 1 Feed the Future programming targets postharvest loss in its focus countries in a number of ways, across agricultural value 

chains prioritized by the beneficiary governments and as part of the Feed the 

Future multiyear strategies. 

At the household level, Feed the Future programs work on improved drying and 

household storage methods to help families avoid losses post-harvest. This work is 

coordinated with Food for Peace programs. At the community level, Feed the Future 

works on mobilizing private finance by providing credit guarantees, which support 

the development of small and medium agroenterprises that focus on storage, transport, and food processing. Feed the Future programming also works with the private 

sector and farmer groups to develop regional initiatives like warehouse receipts programs capable of serving thousands of communities with storage access and confident proof of ownership when they store their crops. 

Under Feed the Future, USAID also works with interagency partners to address 

post-harvest loss issues. In Ghana, USAID supports three MCC-funded post-harvest 

Agribusiness Centers, benefiting about 3,000 farmers. In Senegal, USAID supports 

MCC’s investment in irrigated agriculture and roads in the Senegal River Valley 

and the Southern Forest Zone by promoting value chains, soil management, access 

to credit, post-harvest facilities, capacity training, quality standards, and marketing 

in those same areas. 

Addressing post-harvest losses was a frequently identified strategic focus in all of 

our Feed the Future focus countries’ multiyear strategies and implementation plans. 

These strategies form the basis of initial program planning and budget allocation 

of Feed the Future funding. Post-harvest loss is also prominently featured in our 

focus countries’ Country Investment Plan (CIPs), which are country-led multiyear 

investment plans for food security efforts formed with input from the NGO community, other donors, and the private sector. 

The Feed the Future research agenda also focuses on mitigating post-harvest 

loses. Our efforts to increase legume productivity, for example, include the development of disease- and stress-tolerant, high-yielding varieties of protein-rich legumes. 

They also emphasize improved market linkages, post-harvest processing, and integration of legumes into major farming systems to improve household nutrition and 

incomes, especially for women. 

For example, with our assistance, in Maguiguane, Mozambique, the Ministry of 

Agriculture is helping farmers improve post-harvest packing, storage, and processing of their produce through a new vegetable processing and distribution center, 

which benefits 480 farmers. Techniques, models, and knowledge learned from this 

processing and distribution center are provided to Mozambique’s national agricultural research institute (IIAM). Meanwhile, the Support Program for Economic and 

Enterprise Development (SPEED) program works on policy changes that promote 

transportation, port modernization, and electrical infrastructure. 

FOREI-43947 with DISTILLER

65

In another example, Feed the Future is investing in projects specifically targeted 

at post-harvest handling and storage issues in Rwanda. In Rwanda post-harvest 

losses for beans and maize are currently estimated to be as high as 30 percent. In 

FY 2011, Rwanda’s Post-harvest Handling and Storage (PHHS) project, implemented by NGOs Carana and ACDI/VOCA, leveraged $387,000 in private sector 

funds to support the establishment of post-harvest handling and storage centers. 

Through the project, a 3,000 ton storage facility will impact more than 10,000 

smallholder farmers. During the same period, 59 producer unions, trade/business 

associations, and community-based organizations received direct assistance from the 

PHHS project. As a result, a majority of participant farmers reported receiving better prices for their products due to increases in quality and not one of the more than 

22,000 farmers trained in post-harvest handling practices reported produce rejected 

by buyers. 

Safe storage and infrastructure issues in many of our focus countries will remain 

serious issues for some time to come, but we are committed to continue working on 

them as a means to create sustainable food security, increased health outcomes, and 

poverty reduction. 

PROGRESS REPORT DATA

Question. Although respecting Feed the Future’s whole of government approach, 

it would be valuable to see the progress of the USAID Development Assistance 

funds for Feed the Future separated from other accounts, such as MCC and title 

II nonemergency. It would also be helpful to publish country specific results. This 

would help make a better case to Congress and the American taxpayer for funding 

allocations, and clarify how each account is being used allowing for data to be 

shared so different programs can learn cost saving measures from each other.

• Is disaggregated Feed the Future data publicly available for the different accounts that contribute to Feed the Future? If yes, where can it be found? • If there is no disaggregated Feed the Future data publicly available, would 

USAID consider publishing a supplemental report to the progress report showing disaggregated results for each account? • Once disaggregated by account, would USAID consider publishing country specific results to see progress in each Feed the Future country? 

• While we would appreciate USAID publishing these supplementals as soon as 

possible, in the long term, and consistent with USAID’s aid transparency initiative, this data would ideally be publically available for third parties to analyze. 

Will USAID be providing more specific project level funding and results data 

to AIData2.0 or the Foreign Assistance Dashboard?

Answer. The Feed the Future Monitoring System (FTFMS) was created to compile 

results from several agencies and includes comprehensive indicators for Feed the 

Future that are being used by the five U.S. Government agencies that are supporting Feed the Future activities. The U.S. Agency for International Development, 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Millennium Challenge Corporation, the Global Agriculture & Food Security Program, and the International Fund for Agricultural Development reported in FY 2011. As a whole of government initiative, each agency 

contributes its expertise to support the initiative’s mission; some agencies work on 

implementation and others collaborate on policy and technical issues. All aspects of 

the initiative are vital to its success; however, much of the data in the FTFMS focuses solely on the implementation side of the initiative, and does not reflect the 

policy or technical contributions. As a result, the information in its disaggregated 

form would not reflect the full contribution of all partner agencies. Feed the Futurewide results do appear in the Feed the Future Progress Reports. 

However, USAID is using this rigorous and specific system to hold itself and its 

partners accountable for real impact and results and has reallocated budgetary resources in line with this evidence. We are adding U.S. African Development Foundation and more comprehensive Peace Corps results in FY 2012. FTFMS tracks the 

57 FTF indicators, including the eight Whole-of-Government indicators reported on 

by at least two agencies (see chart, Annex 1). The whole-of-government indicators 

have been developed or adapted based on consultations with all agency partners. 

While the Feed the Future Progress Report strives to give a picture of the aggregate of our work, it does not provide country-by-country results. We are currently 

in the process of receiving and reviewing the data for FY 2012 for each country. 

Once that process is complete and the information is cleared internally, we will update our Feed the Future Country Snapshots, which have previously been made 

available to interested Members of Congress and their staff. We will forward these 

updated snapshots to you as well when they are completed. (Please see Annex 2 for 

last year’s submission.) 

FOREI-43947 with DISTILLER

66

Finally, AIData2.0 and the Foreign Assistance Dashboard are currently not able 

to present project-level data for Feed the Future. We do maintain and update a variety of outlets that help offer more frequent updates, such as www.feedthefuture.gov, 

social media platforms, and a monthly newsletter. In addition, we are currently 

funding 20 independent impact evaluations of our work around the world. Individual missions plan to fund another 15–20 independent impact evaluations which 

will be conducted by third parties.

[EDITOR’S NOTE.—Annex 1 could not be duplicated in the printed 

hearing but will be maintained in the permanent record of the committee. It can also be viewed at http://www.feedthefuture.gov/resource/summary-chart-feed-future-indicators. 

Annex 2 was too voluminous to include in the printed hearing. 

It will be maintained in the permanent record of the committee.]

Æ

FOREI-43947 with DISTILLER