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

57–606PDF 2010

OVERSIGHT OF THE FEED THE FUTURE INITIATIVE

JOINT HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL 

ORGANIZATIONS, HUMAN RIGHTS AND OVERSIGHT

AND THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AFRICA AND GLOBAL HEALTH

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

JULY 20, 2010

Serial No. 111–114

Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/

(II)

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California, Chairman 

GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York 

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American 

Samoa 

DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

BILL DELAHUNT, Massachusetts 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

DIANE E. WATSON, California 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia 

MICHAEL E. MCMAHON, New York 

THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida 

JOHN S. TANNER, Tennessee 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

LYNN WOOLSEY, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

BARBARA LEE, California 

SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada 

JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York 

MIKE ROSS, Arkansas 

BRAD MILLER, North Carolina 

DAVID SCOTT, Georgia 

JIM COSTA, California 

KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota 

GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona 

RON KLEIN, Florida 

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida 

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey 

DAN BURTON, Indiana 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California 

RON PAUL, Texas 

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona 

MIKE PENCE, Indiana 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

J. GRESHAM BARRETT, South Carolina 

CONNIE MACK, Florida 

JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

TED POE, Texas 

BOB INGLIS, South Carolina 

GUS BILIRAKIS, Florida 

RICHARD J. KESSLER, Staff Director 

YLEEM POBLETE, Republican Staff Director 

(III)

SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS,

HUMAN RIGHTS AND OVERSIGHT

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri, Chairman 

BILL DELAHUNT, Massachusetts 

KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota 

DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey 

THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

RON PAUL, Texas 

TED POE, Texas

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AFRICA AND GLOBAL HEALTH

DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey, Chairman 

DIANE E. WATSON, California 

BARBARA LEE, California 

BRAD MILLER, North Carolina 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

LYNN WOOLSEY, California 

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey 

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska 

(V)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

WITNESSES 

The Honorable Patricia Haslach, Deputy Coordinator for Diplomacy, Office 

of the Coordinator for the Global Hunger and Food Security Initiative, 

U.S. Department of State .................................................................................... 13

The Honorable William Garvelink, Deputy Coordinator for Development, Office of the Coordinator for the Global Hunger and Food Security Initiative, 

U.S. Agency for International Development ...................................................... 19

William H. Danforth, Ph.D., Chairman, Board of Directors, Donald Danforth 

Plant Science Center ............................................................................................ 39

Mr. Gerald A. Steiner, Executive Vice-President, Sustainability and Corporate 

Affairs, Monsanto Corporation ............................................................................ 48

Hans Herren, Ph.D., President, Millennium Institute ......................................... 56

Ms. Evelyn Nassuna, Uganda Country Director, Lutheran World Relief ........... 64

Ms. Jennifer Smith Nazaire, Country Representative, Catholic Relief Services—Rwanda ....................................................................................................... 71

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

The Honorable Russ Carnahan, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Missouri, and Chairman, Subcommittee on International Organizations, 

Human Rights and Oversight: Prepared statement .......................................... 4

The Honorable Donald M. Payne, a Representative in Congress from the 

State of New Jersey, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Africa and Global 

Health: Prepared statement ................................................................................ 9

The Honorable Patricia Haslach: Prepared statement ......................................... 15

The Honorable William Garvelink: Prepared statement ...................................... 21

William H. Danforth, Ph.D.: Prepared statement ................................................. 41

Mr. Gerald A. Steiner: Prepared statement .......................................................... 50

Hans Herren, Ph.D.: Prepared statement ............................................................. 58

Ms. Evelyn Nassuna: Prepared statement ............................................................ 67

Ms. Jennifer Smith Nazaire: Prepared statement ................................................ 73

APPENDIX 

Hearing notice .......................................................................................................... 94

Hearing minutes ...................................................................................................... 96

The Honorable Russ Carnahan: Material submitted for the record .................... 97

The Honorable Ted Poe, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Texas: Prepared statement .................................................................................. 99

Written responses from the Honorable William Garvelink to questions submitted for the record by the Honorable Ted Poe ............................................... 100

The Honorable William Garvelink: Feed the Future Guide: A Summary .......... 102

(1)

OVERSIGHT OF THE FEED THE FUTURE 

INITIATIVE 

TUESDAY, JULY 20, 2010

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL

ORGANIZATIONS, HUMAN RIGHTS AND

OVERSIGHT AND

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AFRICA AND GLOBAL HEALTH, COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS, Washington, DC. 

The subcommittees met, pursuant to notice, at 1:05 p.m., in room 

2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Russ Carnahan (chairman of the Subcommittee on International Organizations, Human 

Rights and Oversight) presiding. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. Good afternoon. My name is Russ Carnahan. I 

want to call this joint subcommittee hearing to order, the joint 

meeting of the Subcommittee on International Organizations, 

Human Rights and Oversight and the Subcommittee on Africa and 

Global Health. 

I appreciate our panels here today. The topic of this hearing is 

Oversight of the Feed the Future Initiative. We are likely, I want 

to say upfront, likely going to be interrupted by votes we think 

around 2 o’clock or 2:30. We will try to get as far as we can 

through the first panel so we can take up the second one as well. 

I want to start with opening statements from our chairs and 

ranking members with us here today, and then we will hope to get 

through our witnesses quickly. 

I grew up on a farm in southern Missouri, and one of the first 

lessons I learned was from loading hay on a farm wagon as a teenager after the first load fell off because we didn’t have the foundation laid properly. I am pleased that today we are able to talk 

about the strong foundation that we are building to address global 

hunger and food security with the administration’s Feed the Future 

Initiative. 

At the G–8 Summit in July, 2009, global leaders committed to 

‘‘act with the scale and urgency needed to achieve sustainable global food security.’’ President Obama pledged at least $3.5 billion for 

agriculture development and food security over 3 years, which has 

helped to leverage $22 billion in international funding. 

It is a moral issue today that 1 billion people, nearly one-sixth 

of the world’s population, suffer from chronic hunger. Each year, 

more than 3.5 children die from undernutrition. 

But fighting hunger is not only a moral issue. Fighting hunger 

also creates jobs for people here at home. In my home State of MisVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:08 Oct 27, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\IOHRO\072010\57606 HFA PsN: SHIRL
2

souri, agricultural exports support around 37,000 jobs, both on and 

off the farm, in food processing, storage, and transportation. 

Through emergency food aid programs, U.S. farmers have benefited 

economically from donating surplus U.S. food. 

Under the Feed the Future framework, the goal is to build the 

capacity for poor economies to produce and purchase local agricultural supplies as well as trade in international markets. The talented employees of Missouri organizations such as Monsanto, the 

Donald Danforth Plant Science Center, the Missouri Botanical Garden, and our local universities are working with farmers and research institutions to increase yields and incomes in Africa, Latin 

America, and Asia. They will have a long-term benefit to the U.S. 

economy as well, growing middle classes in foreign countries to buy 

more U.S. products, and that is good for all of our economy. 

Feeding the future, the goal of this initiative, will be no easy 

task. By 2050, the population is expected to reach 9 billion worldwide. To feed the growing population, farmers will need to produce 

more food in the next 40 years than they have in the past 10,000 

years combined. 

We must catalyze research and innovation to meet this challenge. We will need to focus on breeding, biotechnology, and agronomic practices. Some African producers are reluctant to use biotechnologies due to concerns that some countries in Europe—one of 

its primary export destinations—will not accept genetically modified foods. We must use smart power through our diplomatic and 

trade missions to end unfair trade restrictions. 

The International Organizations, Human Rights and Oversight 

Subcommittee hosted a hearing on ‘‘Women as Agents of Change’’ 

last month. Women farmers produce more than half of all food that 

is grown in the world. It is often cited that women farmers produce 

up to 80 percent of the food in Africa, 60 percent of the food in 

Asia, and women are far more likely than men to spend their income improving their family’s access to health, education, and nutrition. 

This initiative is unprecedented in its focus at lifting the incomes 

of women, and I look forward to hearing more about how the 

metrics will be disaggregated by gender. 

As the administration prepares to invest $3.5 billion in taxpayer 

resources over the next 3 years, I am also concerned about the potential for waste, fraud, and abuse. I have seen far too little contracting and grants managed and far too much corruption and 

waste. I appreciate the ‘‘whole of government’’ approach of this initiative—State, USAID, and Department of Agriculture, Treasury, 

U.S. Trade Representative, and the Millennium Challenge Account, 

all working together. 

However, based on previous oversight hearings and stories of 

‘‘adhocracies’’ out of control, I am skeptical about the ability of 

these agencies to align resources, avoid duplication, conduct international oversight, and successfully manage taxpayer dollars. In 

order to get the most bang for our buck, there is a need for strong 

monitoring and evaluation. 

In a speech May 20, Administrator Shah said this initiative will 

reach 40 million people over 10 years, increasing their incomes by 

more than 10 percent a year; and the U.S. Government expects to 

3

reach 25 million children directly with nutritional interventions 

that will prevent stunting in 10 million children. These are bold 

and worthy goals, but I look forward to seeing how progress will 

be measured and reported. I applaud the initiative of the administration on this critical issue. 

After initial failure at my stacking hay on that wagon years ago, 

I just wanted to make sure the foundation being laid for the future 

of this program is sound. 

I want to now recognize the chairman of the Africa and Global 

Health Subcommittee, Chairman Don Payne of New Jersey, for his 

opening remarks. 

I stand corrected. We are going to recognize the ranking member 

of that subcommittee, my good friend from New Jersey, Congressman Chris Smith. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Carnahan follows:]

4


57606h-1.eps
5


57606h-2.eps
6

Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman—both Mr. 

Chairmen; and I want to welcome our two distinguished ambassadors and look forward to your testimony. 

This is a very important hearing to do the oversight that is necessary on the Feed the Future, a very exciting initiative that hopefully will help bring food and mitigate the global problem, especially in the 20 target countries, where food insecurity is absolutely 

rampant. 

According to the U.N. Food and Agricultural Organization, people are food insecure when they do not have enough physical, social, or economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food to 

meet their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and 

healthy life. The FAO’s 2009 report, The State of Food Insecurity 

in the World, noted that the decline in the numbers of chronically 

hungry people that was occurring some 20 years ago has been reversed, largely due to less available official developmental assistance devoted to agriculture. 

That tragic trend, combined with the current global food and economic crisis, has resulted in an estimated 1 billion undernourished 

people around the world. The majority of those who lack food security, an estimated 642 million, live in Asia and the Pacific. Sub-Saharan Africa also has a large number, at 265 million, and has the 

highest prevalence, at one out of every three persons undernourished. 

It is disturbing to note that developed countries are not immune 

from this deficiency. We have around 15 million people living in 

our own midst who are food insecure. 

It is shocking to hear that hunger and undernutrition kill more 

people globally than HIV/AIDS, malaria, and tuberculosis combined. Hunger and malnutrition are the underlying causes of death 

of over 3.5 million children every year, or more than 10,000 children every day. 

Poor households in developing countries currently are facing a 

particularly devastating challenge to food insecurity for two reasons. One is the global nature of the economic crisis, which reduces 

the availability of coping mechanisms such as currency devaluation, borrowing or increased use of ODA, or migrant remittances 

that could otherwise be available if only a certain region or regions 

were impacted. 

Another is the food crisis that preceded the economic crisis, 

which has already placed poor households in a very weak position. 

Several initiatives have been announced over the past few 

months to galvanize international action to address this crisis, The 

Global Partnership for Agriculture and Food Security announced in 

Italy by the G–8 in which summit leaders in other countries and 

organizations established the goal of mobilizing more than $20 billion over the next 3 years, in particular to promote sustainable production and world economic growth. Additional countries have 

since pledged an additional $2 billion to this effort. 

Unfortunately, there are reports that up to one-half to two-thirds 

of that commitment is actually existing aid that has merely been 

repackaged; and I would ask our two distinguished ambassadors if 

they could address that issue: How much of this is brand new 

7

money from the United States’ point of view and from the other nation donors? 

The G20 summit held in Pittsburgh in September endorsed the 

initiative and also called for the establishment of a World Bank 

Food Security Trust Fund. The purpose of this fund will be to boost 

agricultural productivity and market access in low-income countries by financing medium- and long-term investments. 

Later that month, the U.N. Secretary General and the Secretary 

of State, Hillary Clinton, issued a joint statement in which they 

agreed to build on support for the global partnership. 

The Secretary of State also released a consultation document at 

the end of September seeking the views of numerous interested 

parties with respect to a proposed strategy to address global hunger and food security. I commend the Secretary for emphasizing the 

importance of input from small-scale farmers and related agricultural producers in that consultation process. 

I would also ask her to be sure to include—and I am sure our 

ambassadors can speak to this—as to whether or not the faithbased organizations, the international nongovernmental organizations, and, of course, always civil society at the indigenous level are 

also contributing, particularly to the formation of the plans at the 

country level. 

Again, I want to thank the two chairmen for calling this hearing 

and yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. Thank you. 

I next want to recognize Chairman Payne. 

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you very much. Thank you for joining us here, 

all of you in the audience, for this very critical and important joint 

hearing, Oversight of the Feed the Future Initiative. 

Let me begin by thanking Chairman Carnahan of the Subcommittee on International Organizations, Human Rights and 

Oversight for initiating this hearing. I also thank our distinguished 

witnesses, and I look forward to a productive discussion. 

The number of people, as we have heard, who go hungry each 

day has climbed to over 1 billion over the last few years. The 

United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon reported the proportion of undernourished people has risen as well. This flies directly in the face of the first Millennium Development Goal to cut 

in half the proportion of hungry people by 2015. Therefore, there 

is perhaps nothing more important we can be discussing today 

than what the United States is doing to address the food insecurity 

of nearly one-sixth of the world’s population. 

Food security is a critical component of development and has always been a top priority of mine as chairman of the Subcommittee 

on Africa and Global Health. The subcommittee has held six hearings, including this one that we are doing jointly, focused on food 

security since 2007. The last such hearing was held last October. 

It also focused on the Obama administration’s Food Security Initiative, now, as we all know, called Feed the Future, which Secretary 

of State Hillary Clinton unveiled at the U.N. General Assembly 

last September. 

In addition to the hearings that we have had, I traveled to the 

Africa Growth and Opportunity Act Forum in August 2009 in 

Nairobi, Kenya, and traveled with Secretary of State Hillary ClinVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:08 Oct 27, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\IOHRO\072010\57606 HFA PsN: SHIRL
8

ton and Secretary of Agriculture Vilsack. As we talked about the 

importance of this program, we visited farms in rural Kenya, visited research institutions in Kenya; and so we know that this is 

really a true priority of this administration. 

I have also requested six GAO reports in recent years to evaluate 

how U.S. funds were be used to address food security around the 

world, and particularly in Africa. I commend President Obama for 

encouraging this bold initiative and Secretary Clinton, who has 

taken this on as a major priority. 

I am also pleased that Ambassador Garvelink and Ambassador 

Haslach at the State Department have been appointed as deputy 

coordinators for this initiative, both with outstanding backgrounds; 

and so I certainly look forward to their announcement of a coordinator but look forward to their leadership in their new roles. 

The Feed the Future Initiative builds upon the commitments 

made at the July 8 G–8 summit in L’Aquila, Italy, where countries 

agreed to $20 billion over a 3-year period. The United States said 

up to $3.5 billion would go toward the Global Partnership for Agriculture and Food Security. Initiatives were to address the root 

causes of hunger that limit the potential of millions of people and 

establish a lasting foundation for change by leveraging our resources with country owned plans and multiple stakeholder partnerships. 

It will also have a strong emphasis on the role of women and empowering them with the education, tools, and assistance they need. 

Women, as we all know, make up a majority of smallholder farmers; and they are the engine for development in every society and 

in particular in rural societies in Africa and the developing world. 

According to the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the 

United Nations, it will take a 70 percent increase in global food 

production to feed the world’s population in 2050, when it is expected to reach 9.1 billion due to both population growth and rising 

incomes. 

According to the FAO, 25,000 people die each day due to hunger 

and related causes. In Africa alone, 265 million people, or nearly 

one-third of the continent’s entire population, suffers from hunger. 

This is simply unconscionable, particularly when the continent possess such vast, uncultivated agriculture resources. 

According to the U.N. Environment Programme, 21 percent of Africa’s land mass is suitable for cultivation. However, only 7 percent 

of this land is currently irrigated. As a result, African countries 

spend billions of dollars on food imports in addition to receiving 

food aid. Moreover, the proportion of the Africa population living on 

less than $1 a day increased from 47.6 percent in 1985 to 59 percent in 2000, certainly going in the wrong direction. 

We can and we must do more to end hunger. Africa has both the 

natural and human resources to dramatically increase agricultural 

production. In fact, 203 million people in Africa, or 56.6 percent of 

the labor force, are engaged in agriculture. We must focus on 

leveraging our resources to ensure our food security. I believe Feed 

the Future is an important step toward achieving food security 

and, therefore, the uplifting of millions of people in Africa and 

around the world. I look forward to continuing to work with the adVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:08 Oct 27, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\IOHRO\072010\57606 HFA PsN: SHIRL
9

ministration to make the dream of food security in the world a reality. 

Again, let me thank the panel for coming and the chairman for 

calling this hearing. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Payne follows:]


57606i-1.eps
10


57606i-2.eps
11

Mr. CARNAHAN. Thank you, Chairman Payne. 

Now I want to recognize the ranking member of the International Organizations, Human Rights and Oversight Subcommittee, Mr. Rohrabacher of California. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

I guess today we are talking about a proposal, Feed the Future, that is proposing a $1.6 billion increase—I guess we will find those 

details out—in current spending, which is a 40 percent increase in 

funds that are directed at aiming to accomplish this goal of feeding 

people who are hungry. 

Let us just note as we begin our discussion, as we should begin every discussion in Congress, is that last year we spent $1.5 trillion 

more than we took in in this government. And for 2 years in a row 

our deficit in this country will be $1.5 trillion, in which all these 

young people out there will spend the rest of their lives paying interest on. 

So as we discuss any issue we have to, especially when there is 

a supposedly 40 percent plus-up, we need to discuss whether or not 

we really should be borrowing more money from China in order to 

give to the recipients of this program. And I will be very interested 

in hearing whether or not that is a justified expense. 

I personally over the years have noted a relationship between 

suffering and poverty and people who are hungry and people who 

live in the worst kind of degradation that there is a relationship 

between their suffering and the level of freedom and integrity in 

their country. If they lack freedom and their government has no integrity, they are much more likely to suffer; and I do not fully appreciate or understand how providing more money for a dictatorial 

regime is going to change that. In fact, a strategy for the future 

may well be that the United States should cut off relations with 

dictatorships left and right and should require a certain level of integrity in a government before we give any money to that government or even involve ourselves in a program aimed at the people 

who live in that society. Because, quite often, as we know, funds 

that are going to make the lives easier on those people who are suffering quite often is stolen from them by their own government. 

Honest government and enterprise, unfettered by corruption, will 

dramatically change the plight of people who linger in this type of 

suffering. I don’t believe transfers of wealth from our richer countries of the world to the poorer countries of the world will change 

their plight at all. 

So I am interested, for example, when we take a look at many 

countries in which starvation is a factor, we can see that a few 

years before certain government people took over that there were 

surpluses of food. I guess Zaire is probably the best example. That 

used to be the breadbasket of Africa and now is rapidly becoming 

a poverty stricken country in which their own people lack nutrition. 

So with these factors it is very easy for us to want to get together 

and express how concerned we are for the poor people of the world. 

And we should be concerned about them. But using that heartfelt 

expression as a means of plotting out a strategy that requires a 

hard-headed approach to actually making things better, I think 

that we are going to have to make sure we take a look when people 

ask us to spend more money and borrow more money from China 

12

in order to do it, whether or not there is enough change in this program to say that it will be successful compared to all the other programs I have seen in the last 22 years that have exactly the same 

purpose but have led to nowhere. 

So, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I will be listening. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. Thank you. 

We have two other members who have joined us who I want to 

recognize each for up to 1 minute. 

Congresswoman Woolsey. 

Ms. WOOLSEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Today’s hearing is important. It is important because food assistance is about so very much more than hunger. Food security can 

derail, actually, our other foreign assistance goals. Kids who are 

hungry don’t learn. Pregnant mothers who are hungry deliver babies who are ailing and who suffer. AIDS patients who are hungry 

can’t process the drugs to keep them healthy. And hungry people 

in conflict zones see increased rates of instability and warfare. 

So ensuring that our food aid gets where it needs to be is essential in meeting our foreign assistance outcome goals. So a healthy 

and safer world for all would be the results of, I hope, what we are 

going to learn from the witnesses today. I look forward to hearing 

from all of you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. Thank you. 

Now I would like to recognize Congresswoman Watson of California for 1 minute. 

Ms. WATSON. Thank you so much. 

I also want to thank you and Chairman Payne for this meeting 

that will look at the Feed the Future Initiative. 

The Feed the Future Initiative, released this May, builds on the 

principles for sustainable food security endorsed at the 2009 World 

Summit on Food Security, investing in country led plans, a comprehensive approach to food security, strategic coordination, 

leveraging multilateral institutes, and delivery on sustained and 

accountable commitments; and I want to commend our world’s 

leaders for establishing these guiding principles. 

Food is a basic human necessity and human right. But ensuring 

the world’s poor are finally food secure will require a multifaceted 

solution. This includes biotechnology that will help crops grow in 

stressed environments. It also means technical assistance in teaching farmers sustainable farming practices. Food security also includes building roads so farmers can get their foods to market before they rot. For the millions of urban poor, it means ensuring access to reasonably priced fresh produce. 

It is very, very important that we take time out to find out how 

we can capture the bodies and minds of people when you feed them 

and they can be secure that they will have another meal, rather 

than trying to do that with guns and bullets. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. Thank you. 

I would like to now introduce our administration witnesses. For 

the first panel, Ambassador Patricia Haslach serves as Deputy Coordinator for Diplomacy in the Office for Coordinator for the Global 

Hunger and Food Security Initiative at the State Department. 

13

Prior to her current position, she served as Assistant Chief of 

Mission for Assistance Transition at the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad. 

From 2007–2009, she served as Ambassador to the Asian-Pacific 

Economic Corporation Forum and headed the Friends of the chair 

Group for Food Security. She also served as the Director, Office for 

Afghanistan, from 2002 to 2004. She began her career with the 

Federal Government at the U.S. Department of Agriculture. 

Joining her is Ambassador William Garvelink. He serves as Deputy Coordinator for Development at the Office of Coordinator for 

Global Hunger and Food Security Initiative at USAID. He is a 31-

year veteran of USAID, who most recently served as U.S. Ambassador to the Democratic Republic of the Congo. He is a member of 

the Senior Foreign Service, with the rank of Minister Counselor. 

Before joining AID in 1979, he was a professional staff member on 

the Subcommittee on International Organizations—this committee. 

So welcome back. 

I am pleased to recognize Ambassador Haslach to start. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE PATRICIA HASLACH, DEPUTY COORDINATOR FOR DIPLOMACY, OFFICE OF THE COORDINATOR FOR THE GLOBAL HUNGER AND FOOD SECURITY 

INITIATIVE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

Ms. HASLACH. Thank you, Chairmen Carnahan and Payne, 

Ranking Members Rohrabacher and Smith, and members of the 

committee. Thank you for this opportunity to speak with you about 

the Feed the Future, the administration’s global hunger and food 

security initiative. 

Ambassador Garvelink and I began our work as deputy coordinators this past May. As the Deputy Coordinator for Diplomacy, I 

oversee donor coordination as well as engagement with bilateral 

and multilateral partners and international organizations. 

Let me begin by providing some background for Feed the Future. 

President Obama, Secretary Clinton, and USAID Administrator 

Shah have articulated a new vision for development for the United 

States, one that embraces development as a strategic, economic, 

and moral imperative that is as central as diplomacy and defense 

to solving global problems and advancing America’s national security. 

The strategy for Feed the Future exemplifies this new vision for 

development. It starts with the recognition that food security is not 

just about food but it is also about security—national security, economic security, environmental security, and human security. 

In addition to alleviating instability fueled by hunger and desperation, investing in farmers, especially women, can lead to greater economic growth and prosperity for all. At the same time, by creating vibrant markets, our efforts benefit American companies and 

other enterprises seeking customers and investment opportunities 

abroad. 

My full written statement has been submitted for the record. 

Here I would like to briefly review the diplomatic components of 

Feed the Future covered in greater detail in my written statement—donor accountability, donor coordination, and whole of government action. 

14

First, in the year since global leaders announced their renewed 

commitment to agricultural development and food security at 

L’Aquila’s G–8-plus summit, we have made significant progress in 

holding donors accountable. For example, we participated in a G–

8 accountability report, issued a few weeks ago, which includes the 

description of the $22 billion in donor pledges spurred by L’Aquila. 

Countries, including the United States, Australia, Spain, and Canada submitted significant portions of additional resources to food 

security. 

The report also illustrates the limited capacity of some countries 

to commit new resources, highlighting the critical importance of 

strategic coordination to achieve greater efficiency and greater impact. 

Perhaps most importantly, our work around accountability emphasizes that this is not just a U.S. initiative but rather a global 

initiative. Other countries recognize that it is in our collective interest to tackle the root causes of hunger and poverty. 

Beyond donor accountability, we have increased donor coordination at country, regional, and global levels. Developing countries 

have initiated inclusive multi-stakeholder processes to develop comprehensive national agriculture and food security investment plans. 

These plans improve coordination efforts, maximize synergies 

among governments, development partners, civil society, and the 

private sector. In Africa, the comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development program has played the leading role in the investment 

plan process. 

This past June, Ambassador Garvelink and I traveled to participate in one of the high-level CAADP events where 12 African countries and the regional body Economic Community of West African 

States presented their country investment plans. The meeting at 

Dakar, Senegal, had high-level participation from 13 developing 

partner nations, dozen of institutions, including the Rome-based 

agencies, the multilateral development banks, and representatives 

from civil society and the private sector. 

In Asia, the U.S. provided critical support to Bangladesh. And I 

was recently in Manila, where I attended an Asian event hosted by 

the Asian Development Bank, where they, too, are starting to 

focus, like Africa, on the issue of food security. 

At the global level, we have worked with the G20 countries and 

the World Bank and other organizations to set up the Global Agriculture and Food Security Initiative. The U.S. pledge of $475 million has mobilized pledges and contributions to this. We continue 

to seek further contributions. 

Finally and most importantly, I would like to highlight how 

whole of government action is integral to Feed the Future. We have 

a working committee from State, USAID, USDA, the Millennium 

Challenge Corporation, Treasury, Peace Corps, and others in regular meetings. We are one team for Feed the Future. The members 

of the interagency team bring their expertise to bear on our shared 

task of sustainably reducing poverty and hunger. For example, we 

are drawing on USDA’s experience and expertise in agriculture statistics to help establish the baselines in order for us to be able to 

monitor this. Finally, we are working with MCC to identify places 

15

where our programs can build on their existing investments in infrastructure and land tenure. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Haslach follows:]


57606a-1.eps
16


57606a-2.eps
17


57606a-3.eps
18


57606a-4.eps
19

Mr. CARNAHAN. Thank you. 

Next, Ambassador Garvelink. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE WILLIAM GARVELINK, DEPUTY COORDINATOR FOR DEVELOPMENT, OFFICE OF THE 

COORDINATOR FOR THE GLOBAL HUNGER AND FOOD SECURITY INITIATIVE, U.S. AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT 

Mr. GARVELINK. Thank you. 

Chairman Carnahan, Chairman Payne, Ranking Member Rohrabacher, Ranking Member Smith, and other members of the subcommittee, thank you for holding this hearing on this important 

challenge of feeding the world’s population. 

My full written statement has been submitted for the record. 

However, I would briefly like to highlight a few points. 

A primary goal of the President’s Feed the Future Initiative is 

to accelerate progress toward the Millennium Development Goal. I 

spent much of my career in the U.S. Government working on humanitarian issues and know firsthand the value of U.S. leadership 

in delivering food aid to alleviate the most acute suffering, but addressing hunger over the long term requires that we rebalance our 

efforts, with greater emphasis on sustainable development solutions. We know that assistance, while essential, cannot bring about 

development in the absence of favorable domestic policies, international trade flows, private as well as public investment, and 

technology and innovation that create opportunities for lasting economic growth. 

Through Feed the Future we will be approaching the issue of 

hunger and poverty in a comprehensive way consistent with the 

United States’ commitment to preserving and accelerating the momentum toward the MDGs. 

In lieu of getting too deep into the details, I would like to offer 

for inclusion in the record the Feed the Future Guide, which outlines the strategic approach and implementation structures of the 

initiative. Let me outline, however, three key aspects that are truly 

transforming our approach. 

First, as Ambassador Haslach mentioned, is the coordination and 

country led planning process. These reviews represent a big step 

forward in the leadership and accountability of both developing 

countries and donors alike. We are looking to invest in areas where 

the United States has a comparative advantage and to collaborate 

and not duplicate efforts. The result is a roadmap that leverages 

international investment, mobilizes partner country resources, and 

helps ensure that food security resources are managed transparently and responsibly. 

In Rwanda, for example, this coordinated and country led process 

already has mobilized 90 percent of the investments outlined in the 

government’s country investment plan, a plan for agricultural development that made hard choices about priorities, given scarce resources, and will now link those choices to results. 

The second area critical to the new approach within Feed the Future is combating child and maternal undernutrition. Each year, 

more than 3.5 million children and tens of thousands of mothers 

20

die from undernutrition, which costs developing countries up to 3 

percent of their annual Gross Domestic Product. 

Women are a pivotal force behind achieving a food-secure world. 

In most developing countries they produce between 60 and 80 percent of the food; and when gains in income are controlled by 

women, they are more likely to be spent on food and children’s 

needs. By investing more in women and addressing undernutrition 

holistically, we can amplify benefits across families and generations. 

The third area is innovation. Drawing on America’s long tradition of development through innovation, we are making significant 

progress in agricultural research. We know that investing in agricultural research today contributes to the growth and resilience of 

the food supply tomorrow. We will focus globally, addressing some 

of the gaps in the international research system, and nationally on 

constrained country systems to strengthen research and extension 

to allow science, technology, and innovation to better address local 

needs and to adapt and deliver new advances to the hands of small 

farmer producers. 

Our commitment to sustainability and innovation will be underpinned by a relentless commitment to measuring results. To this 

end, we will upgrade our institutional capacity to monitor and 

measure development outcomes as well as support and learn from 

best practices and evaluation. 

Finally, I will mention that U.S. Agriculture, through a rich history of sharing expertise and investing in development, has a significant opportunity to expand partnership with the developing 

world as we move forward with this exciting initiative. The health 

and prosperity of the world’s poor and vulnerable and, by extension, our own security and prosperity will ultimately be determined 

not by the promises we make but by the results we generate together. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Garvelink follows:]

21


57606b-1.eps
22


57606b-2.eps
23


57606b-3.eps
24


57606b-4.eps
25


57606b-5.eps
26

Mr. CARNAHAN. Thank you both. 

I want to start off the questions with Chairman Payne. I want 

to yield 5 minutes to Chairman Payne. 

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you very much. 

I certainly look forward to be working with you as you move forward on the new initiative. 

Let me just ask this. The Feed the Future Initiative is taking a 

‘‘whole of government’’ approach. How will the State Department 

coordinate with other agencies responsible for programs and activities related to international agriculture development, nutrition, and 

food security, such as USDA, MCC, Department of Treasury, and 

USAID? And, specifically, what will be the mechanism for interagency coordination and implementation of projects on the ground, 

which is also important to get an organization here, but then how 

do we translate that in individual countries? And what, if any, are 

the funding implications for a whole government strategy? 

I will ask either one of you or both of you to comment. 

Ms. HASLACH. I would like to concentrate on the overall U.S. 

whole of government approach, and I would like to ask if Ambassador Garvelink could address the country led process. 

Feed the Future will be led by the U.S. Global and Food Security 

Coordinator. The Coordinator will provide strategic policy and 

budget direction that spans the whole of U.S. Government and resources for Feed the Future. 

The goal is to have this Coordinator in place at some point, but, 

in the meantime, Ambassador Garvelink and I are moving forward 

on setting up a one team for Feed the Future that includes colleagues from—expertise from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Treasury, from the Peace Corps, from the Millennium Challenge 

Corporation, and others. 

We meet regularly, and we have staff that coordinate regularly 

on the Feed the Future Initiative. We do not see ourselves in fact 


57606b-6.eps
27

as separate agencies any longer. We see ourselves as part of one 

team, the Feed the Future team. 

Thank you. 

Mr. GARVELINK.

Thank you. 

If I could just add a couple of comments about how this program 

operates on the ground. 

The countries where we are going to provide assistance under 

Feed the Future develop a country investment plan, and that is a 

plan that is put together by the government with participation of 

all stakeholders, civil society, NGOs, other organizations that explains how they will address agricultural food needs in their country. That plan is evaluated by the U.S. Government in the particular country. 

In each country where we are going to provide assistance, we 

have a country coordinator; and that country coordinator represents all of the United States Government agencies that would 

be involved in responding in that country. Some countries have the 

Millennium Challenge Corporation; some don’t. But the country coordinator in the countries we are interested right now is the 

USAID Mission Director for the time being. That individual will coordinate with Department of Agriculture, with Treasury, with 

USDA, and any other U.S. Government agencies that are operating 

in that country and design a plan that is supported by the entire 

U.S. Government to help meet the needs identified in the country 

investment plan. 

Mr. PAYNE. One last question, since the time is running out. 

USAID, as you know, over the recent past, last 10 years or so 

or more, has relied heavily on contractors. The offices have shrunk. 

Is there a goal to go back to trying to have staff persons from 

USAID, U.S. Department of State that can do the jobs, rather than 

contracting out, which we find is just done whether it is in developing countries and even in the Middle East or Afghanistan or 

Iraq. It is the contractors we hear about. I wonder, do we have any 

expertise or are we going to develop this? 

Mr. GARVELINK. As you may know, the expertise in agriculture 

has declined over the past 20 or 30 years in USAID and in other 

development agencies. I think it was the shock to the international 

community of the dramatic increase in food prices in 2007 and 

2008 that made us all realize that we may have made a mistake 

by not continuing to emphasize agricultural development. So, as a 

result of that, we are working very hard right now to expand the 

U.S. Government’s expertise in agriculture. 

So, to meet the demands of this new initiative, we are turning 

to AID for their agricultural experts, and we are recruiting more 

through their new entry program. We are working very closely with 

the USDA and their experts. And we are working with personal 

services contractors to fill gaps as well. We are working very hard 

to increase the number of agricultural specialists so we will have 

sufficient numbers over the years to reestablish ourselves as a 

leader—the U.S. Government as a leader in agricultural development. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. Thank you. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

28

I now want to recognize the gentleman from California, Mr. 

Rohrabacher, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. So is this $1.6 billion of new money that you 

are looking for for the program? 

Ms. HASLACH. President Obama was seeking $3.5 billion over 3 

years. So this is part of that pledge and commitment that we made 

at L’Aquila a year ago. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. That is $3.5 billion of new money? 

Ms. HASLACH. Correct. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Taking the money we have already allocated 

year after year after year after year for helping people in poor 

countries. This is new money on top of that. 

Ms. HASLACH. This is a budget request for a new initiative that 

hopes to bolster contributions from other contractors as well. It is 

not just a U.S. initiative or commitment. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I got you. Again, what countries have been 

targeted for this? 

Mr. GARVELINK. Well, the initial set of countries where we are 

looking at—and there is a system that was undertaken to identify 

these countries in terms of the need, the poverty level, the commitment of the government, involving the stakeholders and these sort 

of things. There are 20 countries that have been identified initially. 

Twelve of them are in Africa. Four of them are in Asia. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Maybe you can read them off right now. 

Mr. GARVELINK. It is Ethiopia, it is Kenya, it is Liberia, it is 

Rwanda, it is Tanzania, it is Mali, Malawi, Mozambique, Zambia, 

Ghana, and Senegal. And I think those are the 12. Those are the 

ones in Africa. Uganda is another one. 

And in Latin America it is Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua and 

Haiti. 

Then in Asia it is Bangladesh, Nepal, Cambodia, and Tajikistan. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. What was the one before Tajikistan? 

Nepal. Didn’t quite catch that. 

So countries like Ethiopia, which is first on your list, I know 

there are several members of this committee who worked with me 

on Ethiopia and found that government to be totally unacceptable 

to democratic standards. They used aid that we gave them, especially some foreign aid with Jeeps and guns, not to defend their society but instead to overthrow the results of an election and put all 

the people who won the election in jail. Now why do we think that 

a country like Ethiopia, which obviously has a lot of problems with 

oppression—or I don’t know what rank they rank with the State 

Department, but it seems at least unacceptable to the two of us on 

this committee—what makes you think that they are going to do 

good by their own people? 

Ms. HASLACH. Congressman, this is a country led initiative, but 

it is not just the country that is involved in this process. It is a 

consultative process that involves all stakeholders, civil society, 

woman farmers, as well as other partners in international organizations; and good governance is something that is also taken in 

consideration before financial commitments are made. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I would suggest that without good government all of the rest of it is meaningless. So all of the great words 

that we have heard today, and very inspiring words about this new 

29

project, if it is not based on something we are going to work with 

good government—because bad government will undo everything 

you are saying. Now, again, is this $3.5 billion that we are going to give a portion of it to the people of Ethiopia, who are being oppressed by 

their own government, I might say a corrupt government that has 

taken property from its own people in an unlawful way—is that 

worth—the results, you think, are going to be worth borrowing that 

money from China in order to give to the Government of Ethiopia 

so that these young people here will be paying for the rest of their 

life on the interest on what we are borrowing? 

Ms. HASLACH. Ethiopia has been identified as one of the possible 

focus countries, but there are a number of steps that the country 

will need to take in order to get to the point. They, first of all, have 

to have a country investment plan, which they do not have yet. But 

we do have some successful examples of countries that have moved 

forward with a country investment plan, and a good example of 

that would be Ghana. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I would just like to note again that my own trepidation is about 

borrowing more money in order to provide direct food aid to countries in which are run by questionable governments. And almost all 

the people who are in real abject poverty find themselves under the 

rule of a government that is corrupt and nondemocratic. So I am 

skeptical that this would be a program that would be worth borrowing more money from China in order to finance. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. Thank you. 

I now recognize myself for 5 minutes. 

I guess I want to thank the witnesses for their overview and 

really making the point that this is more than just about food. It 

is about security in so many aspects—national security, economic 

security, human security, environmental security. 

But I do want to follow up on my colleague Mr. Rohrabacher’s 

question. And that is, we do have a responsibility in these economic 

times, but especially to be sure that we are getting value for these 

investments, and certainly we have listed a number of values that 

are important to us. But I would like you both to describe metrics 

that can be in place to measure how well we are making progress 

in these goals and oversight mechanisms to be sure we are watching that this is being done in an effective way. 

Ms. HASLACH. Thank you. 

The results framework and the monitoring and evaluation components events of this program are critical. We couldn’t agree with 

you more. We are working very closely with people who have 

worked for the Millennium Challenge Corporation and other such 

initiatives to set up a very tight monitoring and evaluation system 

based on—first of all, based on good data. And we are getting a lot 

of assistance from the interagency on this. In fact, the U.S. Department of Agriculture and institutes like IFPRI and others are providing us with good baseline data so we can be able to evaluate 

this. 

We are building teams both at the country level and as well in 

Washington to do this, and this will be part of our Feed the Future 

30

guidelines. If you go on our Feed the Future Web site, 

feedthefuture.gov, we will be adding to that a comprehensive assessment of how we will be doing monitoring and evaluation. 

Let me also point out that we have turned to our partners in the 

field, civil society and nongovernmental organizations who have 

been working at the country level and can provide us with a lot of 

guidance and insight. When we published the Feed the Future 

guide, it was a consultative process; and in fact we have been getting very, very good feedback from interaction in all the members 

of the nongovernmental organizations. They have actually been assisting us in helping to set this up. 

Gender is important. There are a number of different crosscutting issues that we are going to need to measure, and so we are 

committed to do doing that. We couldn’t agree with you more that 

we want to see the resources spent properly. 

And this is not an entitlement program. Just because a country 

may be listed as a potential to receive funding under this initiative, 

there are a number of steps that the country has to take in order 

to get the resources. And if the resources are being misspent, they 

will be redirected to a country that is deserving and is part of this 

process. 

Thank you. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. Certainly, there is a case to be made that this 

could help leverage better results at the country level and leverage 

better collaboration and resources. 

But I guess the other question I had was with regard to measures to hold the other participating countries involved to that $22 

billion commitment that has been made. Certainly that is important based on the U.S. commitment. But what efforts are under 

way to be sure that those other countries are held to their commitments? 

Ms. HASLACH. Well, I am sure you saw that there was a recommitment at this year’s G–8 that in fact the donors would live up 

to their pledge made last year for the full $22 billion. But we see 

that just as the starting contribution. In fact, we have been seeking 

contributions to the Global Agriculture and Food Security Trust 

Fund that is being managed by the World Bank; and we very 

happy that a number of countries—Canada and Spain and others—

and South Korea—have joined us in this multilateral trust fund. So 

every time we meet with the donors, every time we attend a function, we press them to live up to their commitments. And we mean 

new commitments, not recycled monies. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. If I could real quickly, because my time is running out, but very quickly, on the question of being sure that we 

are using the latest in innovations and technology to incorporate 

into these efforts, I would like you to elaborate on that. 

Mr. GARVELINK. Well, it is our view that to expand agricultural 

production, as you have mentioned with the growing population, 

one of the ways not to do this is to tear down the rain forest in 

other parts of—places in Africa, which they tend to do to expand 

agriculture, but to increase innovation and use science and technology to expand the productivity of the land already under cultivation. 

31

So we are working very closely with the Department of Agriculture and their various research institutes to draw on the expertise that U.S. scientists have—the discoveries and innovations that 

U.S. Scientists have developed for the United States. And there are 

a lot of those innovations that can be transferred to developing 

countries in the developing world. 

There are programs that have been undertaken with Monsanto, 

with General Mills, with the Soybean Association, and other organizations to promote agricultural development and innovations in 

seed and other techniques that are being used throughout this initiative and will be highlighted whenever possible and relied on, 

largely from the Department of Agriculture and their experts. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. Thank you. 

I am going to next yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New 

Jersey, Mr. Smith. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Ambassadors, for your testimony. 

Jennifer Nazaire, the country rep for Catholic Relief Services, 

points out in her testimony that CRS has had a 50-year commitment to food security and other important issues in Rwanda and, 

I would note parenthetically, just about anywhere else where CRS 

is involved, where people are suffering. And she points out there 

is a key role for faith-based organizations and international NGOs 

to play. 

She points out as well—and I hope you don’t hold it against 

her—when we find out there are cuts to the funding, she points out 

with regard to Rwanda, she was at the first signing of the Feed the 

Future ceremony on December 7th and 8th in ’09 and there were 

no specifics on how we or even the local civil society partners would 

be involved in the government’s plan for ag transformation to improve food security. 

She stated,

‘‘The only interaction I had with the U.S. Government delegation at this meeting was at coffee breaks during which I approached them and introduced myself. I asked whether there 

was an opportunity for international NGOs to meet with some 

of the delegation outside of meeting hours, but there was no 

follow up.’’

She points out that, in her view, USAID and other donors tend 

to see CRS and other international NGOs as mostly focused on subsistence and safety net ag and not cutting-edge leaders in integrated food security programing. However, international NGOs are 

doing significant amounts of these programs and have been doing 

it for decades. 

My first question would be: What role do you see? Why were they 

seemingly excluded from this country led planning process? And if 

you can provide either now or for the record exactly how are international NGOs, faith-based organizations, civil society CSOs, and 

the private sector being included in the country-led planning process in the 20 targeted countries. If you could provide for the committee how each of those are being integrated, it would help us in 

our oversight. 

Secondly, with regard to the 20 targeted countries, I am fully 

aware of the four criteria. I think they are good criteria that you 

32

have laid out. But could you provide to the committee a detailed 

country by country analysis as to exactly how the 20 were selected 

and how this integrated analysis is done so we can really look and 

say, okay, pick out a country. This is the process they went 

through. It helps us, again, to do our oversight. 

And then, what countries are or were on the bubble, like number 

21, 22, 23, given more money or maybe a different set of circumstances, they too might get the additional benefits of the Feed 

the Future. 

And, finally, with regards to the Food for Peace initiative for which the administration requested $1.69 billion for Fiscal Year 

2011, how is that going to be integrated, or coordinated is probably 

a better word, with Feed the Future in the 20 targeted countries? 

Will it be working in a side-bar way? Will it be part of the countryled planning process? How does that all mesh together so we don’t 

have a stovepipe type operation? 

Mr. GARVELINK. Well, first of all, we will be glad to provide all 

of that information and we should be able to do that for you very 

quickly. I cannot comment specifically on the situation in Rwanda 

because I wasn’t there. But a very important element of this process is the role of NGOs and civil society throughout all these planning stages and in coordination with our people on the ground and 

with our people here. 

As a matter of fact, at 10 o’clock this morning I was meeting 

with Interaction on these very issues of how we involve NGOs more 

deeply in our programs back here, in our activities back here, and 

with our missions on the ground with the country team in the various embassies and U.S. missions. So it is a very critical element 

to what we are doing, and we are insisting on that as we move 

through the approval process for these countries to receive higher 

amounts of resources from the U.S. Government, a critical element 

of this is to involve all stakeholders, and that is the private sector, 

that is civil society, that is NGOs, that is faith-based organizations, 

all these organizations together. So I can’t comment exactly on 

what happened in Rwanda, but it is a very high priority and integral part of this whole process. 

Mr. SMITH. I would respectfully ask you to look into the Rwanda 

situation, if you could, and get back to us. I would appreciate it. 

Ms. HASLACH. I was actually the attache in India, so I very much 

value their contributions. So we will definitely get an answer to 

you. With regard—and we will get you more specifics about this, 

Congressman. But let me just say very briefly how countries were 

selected, and it is a combination of things. It is an art maybe, not 

a science, but it is based on, first of all, the level of need, the opportunity for partnership, that is very key, potential for agriculturalled growth, opportunity for regional synergies. That is one area we 

didn’t discuss today, but the regional component is important. Resource availability. So those are the key areas, and we will get back 

to you on that. 

But I also want to stress, just because we have identified 20 potential countries doesn’t mean that every one of those countries is 

going to actually be able to meet the bar. This is a pretty high bar 

for countries to achieve. There is phase 1 and phase 2. Phase 1 is 

sort of the capacity-building level where we are trying to help them 

33

get to phase 2. But unless they commit to the process themselves 

and unless it is a consultative process, they will not get to phase 

2. So this is important. It is a little bit different than assistance 

programs where you commit the resources and they are there for 

life. 

I would also like to say that we are continuing to support for additional agriculture development and nutrition programs in up to 

38 other countries. So what we are really talking about is having 

some kind of an impact in 60 countries. And I mentioned the strategic partners. We are also focusing on regional organizations such 

as ECOWAS and ones in Latin Americans and Asia as well. Thank 

you. 

Mr. SMITH. Just a very quick follow-up on Mr. Rohrabacher’s 

comment on Ethiopia. And I would hope, both Mr. Payne and I, 

Chairman Payne, when he was chairman and when I chaired the 

African committee, I introduced the Human Rights in Ethiopia Act. 

We are very concerned, and I think I speak for many members of 

the panel. President Meles certainly has crushed or tried to crush 

opposition opponents. He has thrown them into jail. We have never 

got an accounting for the killings that took place in Addis after the 

elections which were far less than free and fair. But I would be 

very interested, the NGOs that don’t get funded in a country-led 

plan unless we put maximum pressure to make sure that certain 

faith-based as well as politically disenfranchised NGOs are included. Because, otherwise, if left up to him, they will be excluded. 

Thank you. 

Ms. HASLACH. Thank you, Congressman. Perhaps, I would like to 

point out that the countries right now that we are working the 

closest with are Haiti, Bangladesh, Ghana, Rwanda, and Tanzania. 

Thank you. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. Thank you. And next I would like to recognize 

Congresswoman Woolsey for 5 minutes. 

Ms. WOOLSEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to dig just 

a little bit deeper on the sentiments of the questions that the last 

two members have asked. 

Just in general, how are you going to implement this so that we 

can ensure that Feed the Future just doesn’t add another layer of 

bureaucracy to this need? I guess, with the Washington Post showing us what has happened to our intelligence overhead, we have to 

be so careful that we make sure. 

And in answering that, this is kind of a two-part question. You 

talked, you mentioned over and over about the NGOs being included in how the programs will be set up and what this will mean. 

How about the women that are the real deliverers of agriculture, 

the farmers themselves, and the people? I mean, tell us—give us 

an example of sitting down with women and talking to them about 

how this is all going to come about together. 

Ms. HASLACH. Congresswoman, first of all, we really appreciate 

your support here on this. 

Maybe take the first question. I just finished a year in Iraq, and 

one of the most successful programs we had at a provincial reconstruction team up in the Kurdistan region was actually a project 

that we ran with women where we provided—AID provided microfinance loans, and they set up a dairy, a small dairy operation and 

34

used the milk products and sold the yogurt and made cheese. And 

these were widows; these were women that didn’t have any other 

form of support. So I think these are the types of programs that 

we are aiming at. 

And I share your concern that we are creating yet another bureaucracy. In fact, when we come to meetings we tell everyone to 

check their agency and their cell phones at the door, because the 

stovepiping is what contributes, I think, to a lot of the duplication. 

I saw it in Iraq when I was sent there basically to try to get everyone to work together as one team, as opposed to having one group 

over here working on a democracy in governance program and another group in another part of the embassy working on a democracy in governance program. So our aim is to work together as one 

Feed the Future team. Thank you. 

Mr. GARVELINK. If I could just add a comment or two about what 

is going on or will go on, on the ground, in the various countries. 

Our country team at the U.S. mission will manage this process, 

and the lead person is our Feed the Future coordinator, at this 

point in time USAID directors. And they will make sure that everybody, like we are trying to do here, is working together and not duplicating or leaving any gaps in the programs that are being put 

together. And they will work very closely with the host government, but they also work with the civil society that is on the 

ground there. They meet regularly with those individuals and work 

very closely with them, whether it is CRS or World Vision or some 

of the—Lutheran World Relief or some of the other organizations. 

There is regular meetings between the U.S. country team there 

and those operations. And so they will be watching these programs 

very closely and monitoring them, and the Feed the Future initiative will be part of the larger U.S. Government assistance program 

in that country. It is not a parallel activity, or it is—it will be integrated into the ongoing activities that we have in the country. So 

on the ground it will not really be an additional layer; it will be 

an additional facet to our assistance program. 

Ms. WOOLSEY. So how are you hearing from the people? I mean, 

that is not their representatives. The people themselves, how are 

they bringing them into, whatever situation, sit down and talk 

about it this? 

Mr. GARVELINK. Well, again, that works—the country team that 

is out there, the USAID mission, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the Millennium Challenge Corporations, in addition to 

meeting with the government officials, they meet at the local level 

and community level. Having been an aid mission director myself 

a few years ago, you actually go to the communities, talk to the 

people under—if you are going to design your programs right, you 

want to know what they need and you want to hear it from them, 

not what you think officials in the capital city would like but you 

have got to talk to the people on the ground, in the villages who 

you will be providing assistance to, to get it right. 

So our teams do in fact meet with the women on the ground and 

talk about, in Africa where they don’t own land and they don’t have 

access to credit and they don’t have access to extension agents and 

women are not trained regularly as extension agents and that is 

something we want to change. So you have got to hear directly 

35

from them what their needs and concerns are. And that is going 

on through our U.S. missions in the countries where we are designing these programs. 

Ms. WOOLSEY. Thank you. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. Thank you. Next, I want to recognize Congresswoman Watson from California for 5 minutes. 

Ms. WATSON. Thank you very much. I just want to spread some 

good news about something my dear friend said referring to Ethiopia. 

We just came back several months ago, and we worked on the 

ground with civil society with an organization called IP, Light 

Years IP (Intellectual Property). And as you know, they have four 

different levels of coffee beans there. We didn’t go through government, but government officials came to visit our conference for 3 

days. And what we did with the farmers, we trained them how to 

brand, how to copyright, how to negotiate, you know, how to get 

their product out there and receive the benefit back. They were getting something like $2 per bushel. 

But I say that if you work with civil society, you work with the 

NGOs, I think our resources go further, because they are, in many 

cases, native people or people who have worked with the native 

people and they understand best how to serve their own communities and they know how to train and teach. And working with 

them I find has been very helpful. 

As I understand, the initiative is divided into two parts. Is that 

correct? The food initiative for each of the host countries? Phases. 

Ms. HASLACH. Yes. 

Ms. WATSON. And there is a planning phase and there is an implementation phase. Am I following the instructions, from my staff 

in the back, correctly? And I think the administration budget justified included the funding required for each host country and each 

phase. The $1.6 billion request for the Feed the Future for Fiscal 

Year 2011, however, does not include additional funding for food 

aid through global health and child survival programs or Food for 

Peace nor food aid earmarked for the NGOs. 

So can you give us some kind of timeline how that is moving? 

And how does phase 1 take into account the food from each of the 

different funding streams? And how long are the phases, say, phase 

2? And how do you tend to implement? 

Ms. HASLACH. The overall budget request is not just specifically 

for the 20 countries. It also includes our strategic partners. It is 

also for regional organizations. It is also for research, and it is also 

our contribution for the Global Agriculture and Food Security Trust 

Fund. So it is not specifically just for the 20 countries. 

Also, phase 1——

Ms. WATSON. Would you be able to add countries as per need? 

Ms. HASLACH. Yes. Or subtract if we don’t see—if countries don’t 

submit a country investment plan. 

With regard to phase 1 and phase 2, we can get you much more 

detail about this. But, basically, phase 1 is looking at the foundation, is looking at the capacity building, looking at policy reforms, 

looking at sort of the nonphysical infrastructure aspects of it. 

In order to graduate to phase 2 with the full country investment 

plan, that is when the price year projects kick in, roads, irrigation 

36

systems, these types of things. And we want to leverage our other 

programs with a country as an MCC program, for example, we 

want to make sure that we are not building the same road or other 

donors or the trust fund isn’t financing a project. So it requires 

very, very close coordination on the ground. And we on the ground 

and depending on the country they will call them an agricultural 

working group, a donor working group. They work with the government. 

But, again, that is where the consultation process is taking place. 

That is where civil society, women, farm groups, private sector are 

supposed to be included in that process. And when we were in 

Ghana—sorry. When we were in Senegal for this recent meeting 

that was co-hosted by ECOWAS and Spain, 12 countries submitted 

their country investment plans and some were in various stages of 

development. 

Ms. WATSON. Was Liberia? 

Ms. HASLACH. Liberia was there. So what is important is the 

country submits this country investment plan that is part of this 

consultative process. But then, afterwards, once the plan was submitted then these groups got up, and each one had a long period 

of time in order to critique the country investment plan. So this is 

all part of the process. 

Ms. WATSON. Well, I just want to give you a big, shall I say, a 

shout out for support with what you are doing. We just left a conference where President Johnson Sirleaf was, and my organization 

just gave $0.5 million to build a women’s cooperative. You know 

the women that sit by the side of the road and they bring in the 

produce and so on? We want to build a infrastructure and we want 

to them bring all their intellectual property in and we want to assist them. And I tell you, she is doing a fantastic job. 

So there, it is the NGOs, it is all civil society working with the 

government. And I do take heed that, if the government is corrupt, 

we could run into some problems. But what I am experiencing is 

that some of the countries are starting at the top and giving a 

green light, so to speak. And so I would be really interested in giving the information back that was asked for. 

I see my time is up, but I am very interested in this program. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for having this hearing today, and we 

are going to track it very closely. 

Mr. GARVELINK. If I could take a minute and add one comment. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. The gentleman is recognized. 

Mr. GARVELINK. Thank you. You mentioned that the account for 

Feed the Future was separate from the Food for Peace and emergency food aid budget, and I just want to emphasize that that is 

true. The Feed the Future is not a substitute for the emergency 

food aid programs that we have run for many years through the 

office of Food for Peace and NAID. 

For example, unfortunately, the need for emergency food aid is 

going to continue; and while we are focused on 20 or so countries, 

there are a lot of other ones that are not as fortunate as these 20 

and they facing emergency situations. So, for example, in 2009, we 

provided about—the U.S. Government provided 2.6 million metric 

tons of emergency food aid to about 44 different countries. 

37

That will continue, and the Feed the Future initiative will work 

very closely with emergency food aid so that they reinforce each 

other and help folks move from the emergency situation beyond to 

development issues. But the emergency food aid will continue. 

Ms. WATSON. Mr. Chairman, may I take 1 more minute? I just 

have to say these things. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. Without objection, I will recognize you for one 

more follow-up. And then I will do the same for Mr. Smith as we 

wrap up. 

Ms. WATSON. Thank you. We all are concerned about what is 

happening in Haiti. And one of the biggest issues is that there is 

food and food product in storage not getting out to the people. And 

what we are understanding is there is now a lack of coordination. 

So I heard that Haiti was on the list, and that I hope that the 

works that you are doing will help in terms of coordinating this 

and getting food out to—there are youngsters in orphanages that 

are starving, and there are warehouses because of some kind of bureaucratic blocking are not giving permission to get that food out. 

So that doesn’t make sense to me. And I am hoping that as we 

gather in the information about the process, that we can really address Haiti. Thank you for the additional time. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. Thank you. And again, without objection, I want 

to recognize Mr. Smith for some quick follow-ups. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you. Just two quick questions. One would be 

on results with regards to evaluation. Will there be a focus on 

household level and not just on production? Yes? Secondly, with regards to DR Congo. And Mr. Ambassador Garvelink, I know that 

you served at DR Congo for 3 years. Yesterday, I met with your 

predecessor Ambassador Roger Meece, who as we all know is the 

special rep for the U.N., and wish him well in that very difficult 

job. 

I visited DR Congo and met with a group of farmers in the capital, Goma. And one of the farmers told me, ‘‘I can grow anything. 

I just can’t get it to market.’’ And when I saw the roads that he 

had to take to get his produce to market, you know, his produce 

spoils. There is just no way of doing it in any kind of way en 

masse. Is the DR Congo on that potential list? They have had elections. They have made some strides. Obviously they still have a 

ways to go. But if you could speak to that. 

Mr. GARVELINK. Unfortunately, it is not just the roads. There are 

blockades along the way where fees are collected. And for those 

reasons, as we talked about earlier, governance and the government’s commitment to agricultural development is a critical element of identifying the countries that are considered for this initiative. And much to my personal regret, having spent 3 years there, 

they are not on the list. 

Mr. SMITH. And one last point. While I was there, I learned that 

the Chinese government was spending billions on roads, but also 

had an agreement that any minerals they find in proximity to 

those roads become theirs, or at least their ability to extract it. And 

one parliamentarian told me with a bit of a smile on his face, 

‘‘Yeah, that is why the roads are a little bit zigzagged, because they 

are trying to incorporate the find.’’

38

From a strategic point of view and in terms of investing in people—obviously, they have suffered so much, lost so many people 

through years of warfare. Might the DR Congo be at least considered a candidate? 

Mr. GARVELINK. Well, just a couple of comments. We have a 

small agriculture program going on in the Congo where we are confident through NGOs that we can reach the people that we have 

to reach through those organizations. But there is also in the eastern part of the country—in Goma, there is a fairly large emergency 

assistance program that will address the needs of the folks caught 

in the middle of the conflict and that sort of thing, but it is not part 

of this initiative. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. For one additional follow-up, I am going to recognize Mr. Rohrabacher for 1 minute. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Did you say that Cambodia was on that list 

as well? Do you know much about the Hun Sen regime in Cambodia? Would you call that an honest government? Something that 

if you managed to do something to help further promote the people 

that it will permit the benefits to go to the people rather than 

being taken away by the corrupt dictatorship in Cambodia? Hun 

Sen is a tough guy. I mean, he is a gangster. And so are the people 

in Ethiopia. 

Look, it is one thing that we can all proclaim how much we want 

to help people. And I think it is really important that the United 

States maintain itself as a good country as well as a free country, 

and we are good because we care about people. But borrowing 

money from China in order to promote something in a country run 

by Hun Sen or these guys in Ethiopia. And I don’t know about 

these other countries. I think that we are saddling our young people with debt for the rest of their lives in order to do something 

like this makes no sense. Thank you. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. Thank you. And I want to take care of a piece 

of housekeeping business. I know that Ambassador Garvelink 

asked that the Feed the Future guide be included in the record. 

Without objection, it will be. And also, just thank you, for the work 

you are doing, the goals—the multilevel security goals—involved in 

what you do, the levers that we have high hopes that this program 

will create. But we do want to continue to work with you, watch 

this closely, have you back—the new coordinator—here when the 

yet to be named coordinator—we hope to have him here before the 

committee as well. Thank you very much. 

If we could have the second panel come up. We are going to jump 

into our second panel, if they could come forward. I want to welcome our second panel and do some quick introductions. 

Beginning on my left is Dr. William Danforth. He is currently 

the chairman of the board of directors of Donald Danforth Plant 

Science Center. He also serves as chancellor emeritus of Washington University and chairs the Coalition of Plant and Life 

Sciences. He became Washington University’s 13th chancellor in 

1971 and served until his retirement in 1995. Dr. Danforth received his B.A. from Princeton University, his M.D. from Harvard 

Medical School in 1951, and is a native of St. Louis, Missouri. 

Next, Mr. Gerald Steiner is Monsanto’s executive vice president 

of sustainability and corporate affairs. He leads the company’s 

39

global Government and Public and Industry Affairs teams across 

70 countries where Monsanto does business. He is also co-founder 

and board member of the Global Harvest Initiative, a public-private initiative whose mission is to sustainably double agricultural 

production by 2050. He received a B.S. degree in agriculture economics from the University of Wisconsin and an MBA from Washington University. 

Next, Dr. Hans Herren. He was appointed Millennium Institute’s 

president in May 2005. Previously, he was director general of the 

International Center for insect physiology and ecology in Nairobi, 

Kenya. Dr. Herren was the recipient of the 1995 world food prize, 

the highest award given to an individual for advancing human development by improving the quality, quantity, and availability of 

food in the world. Dr. Herren earned his Ph.D. at the Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich, Switzerland. 

Next, Ms. Evelyn Nassuna. Welcome. Ms. Nassuna is the Uganda country director for Lutheran World Relief, an organization that 

works with local implementing partners around the world to seek 

lasting solutions to rural poverty. She manages the LWR’s Uganda 

portfolio of agriculture, health, and livelihood development work. 

Previously, she worked for Catholic Relief Services in Law and Advocacy for Women in Uganda. She is a native of Uganda, holds a 

bachelor of law from the University in Tanzania and a master’s degree from Georgetown University Law in Washington. 

And, finally, Ms. Jennifer Smith Nazaire has been country representative of Rwanda since August 2008, joined Catholic Relief 

Services in 1993. She has worked in Morocco, Haiti, and Cameroon, 

holds a bachelor’s degree from Mount Holyoke College, a master’s 

from Johns Hopkins School of International Studies, and was also 

a Peace Corps volunteer in Cameroon. 

Welcome to all of you. We are really looking forward to this second panel. And we will recognize Dr. Danforth to kick this off. Welcome, Dr. Danforth. 

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM H. DANFORTH, PH.D., CHAIRMAN, 

BOARD OF DIRECTORS, DONALD DANFORTH PLANT 

SCIENCE CENTER 

Mr. DANFORTH. Thank you, Mr. Chairmen, Chairman Carnahan, 

Chairman Payne, Ranking Members Rohrabacher and Smith. I appreciate this opportunity to share my vision with you. 

We started our plant science center in St. Louis because we saw 

an historic opportunity to further important basic human rights; 

enough nutrition to sustain life and health, and a liveable environment for one’s family. We saw that these goals could be pursued 

in partnership with national and international organizations. And 

we believe and do believe that the stars are aligned for success for 

several reasons: One, thanks to decades of Federal investment, we 

have the scientific biologic tools. Second, we have two strong Federal programs, the Agricultural and Food Research Initiative, 

AFRI, that is part of the new congressionally mandated National 

Institute for Food and Agriculture in the USDA. And, second, the 

Agency for International Development works effectively with international organizations to bring them some of the boons of modern 

science to people who need it most. 

40

Thus, in my view, we have the tools and we also have problems 

that need solutions. We have heard earlier 1 billion people will go 

to bed hungry tonight. On an average, every 6 seconds a child will 

die causes related to malnutrition. So we feel a sense of urgency. 

Moreover, the population of the world is growing, as are the demands on farmers for greater production per acre with less input 

of water and fertilizers. We think that biotechnology is part of the 

solution. 

As I say to our St. Louis friends, we with our skills are at the 

right place at the right time. It is up to us to make the most of 

our opportunities to do something wonderful. And I appreciate your 

interest here for nothing, so great can happen without the support 

and help of the Federal Government. 

I will tell you a bit about how our plant science center is just one 

example of what can take place. We are not for profit, dedicated to 

using plant science for human betterment. More specifically, we 

want to help feed the hungry and promote better human nutrition 

and to preserve and enhance the environment, to feed the world 

with its expanding population and greater per capita consumption 

of food without ruining the environment. That will require that, by 

2050, farmers will have to double the production per acre with less 

use of water and fertilizer. The traditional method of adding more 

acreage won’t work. That land just doesn’t exist. 

Our work with cassava will provide you with specifics. Cassava 

is a root crop with limited market or money-making potential in 

the developing world, but is the third largest source of calories in 

the developing world. Seven-hundred million people rely on a cassava as a major source of food. It offers a lot: Rich in calories, 

grows in poor soils, withstands drought. It is a food security crop. 

Families can preserve the roots in the ground and dig them up 

when they are hungry. But cassava has problems. Crops can be 

devastated by virus diseases. While there are lots of calories, it 

lacks vitamins, minerals, and proteins. Children are especially subject to protein deficiency and vitamin A deficiency, two conditions 

that can lead to disability and early death. 

We have two separate projects. Our longest one is to increase the 

resistance to cassava mosaic virus and, more recently, the devastating brown streak virus that destroys crops. So far, the results 

of field tests in Uganda look good. 

More recently, thanks to the Gates Foundation, we have been 

making cassava more nutritious. To date, we and our partners 

have quadrupled the levels of protein and iron and increased the 

amount of vitamin A by 30-fold. But doing science is only part of 

our effort. With the funding of the Gates Foundation, we created 

a new biosafety resource network. The goal is to assure research 

projects that are part of that foundation’s Grand Challenge, Global 

Health Initiative, deal properly with biosafety regulatory issues, 

and the technologies are socially and culturally appropriate. We 

work with African scientists to train young people to be scientists. 

Finally, I would say that Federal support for these timely efforts 

is very important to make the most of today’s opportunities. And 

I particularly note the importance of the Department of Agriculture 

with its new agriculture and food research initiative and the agency for international development. 

41

I have with me an article from the New York Times that is quite 

interesting and I would like to submit it, if I may, for part of the 

record. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. Without objection. Thank you, Dr. Danforth. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Danforth follows:]


57606c-1.eps
42


57606c-2.eps
43


57606c-3.eps
44


57606c-4.eps
45


57606c-5.eps
46


57606c-6.eps
47


57606c-7.eps
48

Mr. CARNAHAN. And we will next go to Mr. Steiner. 

STATEMENT OF MR. GERALD A. STEINER, EXECUTIVE VICE–

PRESIDENT, SUSTAINABILITY AND CORPORATE AFFAIRS, 

MONSANTO CORPORATION 

Mr. STEINER. Thank you. And good afternoon, Chairman 

Carnahan and members of the committee. Thank you for inviting 

me to testify on an exciting new initiative, Feed the Future. I am 

going to present a summary of my written testimony. 

For us, Feed the Future is exciting because it recognizes the 

power of millions of farmers to meet the world’s growing demand 

for food and fiber and fight poverty at the same time. Farming is 

diverse and it is local, and there is no single way to accomplish the 

goal described. There is no silver bullet that, if you do just one 

thing, we can meet this problem and fix it. I find in my travels 

around the world that farmers are often underestimated, and we 

really believe that farmers should have more and better choices so 

that they can select what they see as best. 

Now, I grew up on a small Wisconsin dairy farm, and I really 

loved watching things grow. And, Chairman, I stacked many loads 

of hay myself and I understand the importance of stacking the 

foundation very firmly. Today, I love working for Monsanto. We are 

a company that develops some of the tools that helps farmers 

produce more on every acre, do it with less risk, and with a smaller 

environmental footprint. As a company, we are wholly focused on 

agriculture. It is our only business. That gives us great opportunity 

and it also gives us great responsibility, and we are committed to 

improving agriculture’s ability to meet the demands that are placed 

on it by the growing population that has been talked about here 

and the environmental challenges. 

This is an immense challenge, and no one can achieve it by 

themselves. We actively partner with other people including on-theground NGOs. Together, we believe we can build systems that 

begin with access to more choices and tools like improved seeds, 

fertilizer, extension, and have to end with a functioning market 

and a road to get the commerce there. In other words, these are 

exactly the type of systems that are envisioned in Feed the Future. 

For Monsanto, doing our part means investing in cutting-edge innovation to develop better seeds, seeds that farmers can see for 

themselves and choose when they see that they make sense. Now, 

this private sector investment requires predictable science-based 

regulatory systems and reasonable laws to protect these kinds of 

new inventions. We have 400 people who live and work in Africa, 

and we are proud that our local business in a country like Malawi 

was able to contribute to the improvements in food security that 

they have made over the last 5 years, and we believe that these 

situations ultimately are addressed by having a strong local business sector, and that is crucial to accomplishing the mission. And 

sometimes a humanitarian action is also needed to get it started. 

We are engaged in a variety of public and private partnerships 

around the world both in the market development side as well as 

accessing better seeds. One of the most significant on the accessing 

better seeds is a 2-year-old program called the Water Efficient 

49

Maize for Africa, or WEMA. Its goal is to increase the drought tolerance of white maize in Africa where it is the key stable crop. 

Now, to maximize the performance and deliver the best locally 

adapted drought tolerant seed for these farmers, we have donated 

access to our best locally adapted hybrid germplasm, new breeding 

tools that we developed for our commercial business, and biotechnology-based genes that we think are going to help in drought. 

Nothing is held back in meeting this challenge. We believe WEMA 

will result in seeds that perform just as well in good conditions but 

achieve 20 to 35 percent more yield when we have moderate 

droughts. And the yield protection provided by these seeds then 

makes it less risky for farmers to invest in fertilizer, meaning more 

farmers will use it and the entire local community will benefit from 

the increased production and increased consistency. 

The design around WEMA follows the principles that are laid out 

in Feed the Future. It is led by a local organization in Africa, the 

African Agricultural Technology Foundation based in Kenya. It directly engages the five partner countries and their ag research systems. CIMMYT, which is the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center and home of the late Dr. Norman Borlaug. And 

while these scientists are out there working in the field developing 

this product, they are also developing their capacity. In fact, there 

is a brand-new team of 60 scientists that are out there today that 

are up and operating. This new kind of unprecedented partnership 

makes excellent and efficient use of public resources, and I believe 

it is part of the future. 

In closing, the beauty of helping with better seeds, whether they 

are conventional, hybrids, or biotech, is that they can be used by 

and benefit every farmer, from the woman in Burkina Faso, farming an acre with a hoe, to the Iowa farm family using GPS-guided 

tractors on thousands of acres. The promise of an improved seed 

is portable, it is scale neutral, and it is built in. Our focus is on 

what works in the field. 

Feed the Future contains the seeds for real progress also in helping them meet some of these most pressing needs and greatest opportunities, and we stand ready as one of many partners to help 

it grow. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Steiner follows:]

50


57606d-1.eps
51


57606d-2.eps
52


57606d-3.eps
53


57606d-4.eps
54


57606d-5.eps
55


57606d-6.eps
56

Mr. CARNAHAN. Thank you. Dr. Herren. 

STATEMENT OF HANS HERREN, PH.D., PRESIDENT, 

MILLENNIUM INSTITUTE 

Mr. HERREN. Chairman Carnahan, members of the committee, it 

is a pleasure to be here today, and thanks for the invitation. 

The Feed the Future Guide, I think, is a very forward-looking 

document, and again which demonstrates a strong will to move forward in terms of the global food security. I would have called this 

Nourish the Future rather than Feed the Future, because I think 

we have to think also of nutrition security and not only food security in the future. 

The five principles by which this initiative will be implemented 

look interesting, and certainly but also need to be looked at a bit 

more closely. In particular, the issue of this country-owned plans, 

and I think in particular, the issue of how are the countries able 

to do the planning and confer and defend their own ideas later on. 

And I think that has been shown in the past to be a problem and 

I think also in the future, unless some steps are being taken to 

help countries with developing those plans, in particular with capacity building to get in that direction so they can do their own, 

make their own decisions and confer with plans which are acceptable. 

The policy approach, which consists of sustainable agriculture 

and small-scale farmers, again, that is good, which is lined out, but 

I think it is falls short on some key issues which are the center of 

a new paradigm for sustainable agriculture. What has been outlined as the way forward again is more of the same, more seeds 

and fertilizer. And there is very little talk about actually looking 

at the system, because the problems in agriculture are systemic 

problems in agriculture and beyond agriculture, which I think have 

to be addressed. And they cannot be sold with the quick fixes as 

in the past we have done already. 

And as the cochair of the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development, these 

are the book here, 2,000 pages total which have been written by 

400 people is not even mentioned in the report. And here we have 

basically analyzed the last 50 years of agricultural knowledge, 

science, and technology and look 50 years forward. It is quite interesting that even though there are summary for decisions-making 

which are very small, some 20 pages to read, have not found their 

way into the initiative. Which, by the way, was funded by the 

United States for $250,000, had three government members writing on it, 56 U.S. authors were also part of this exercise. So it is 

a bit unfortunate that all the wisdom which has been accumulated 

there in particular looking at sustainable agriculture issues have 

not been taken into account. 

We also make a point that the multi-functionality of agriculture 

is very important, and we have to look at agriculture in the environment where it is done, and it is very site specific so one size 

doesn’t fit all at all. And I think that is something, when we look 

at science and technology how this could be helping, we have to be 

very careful that this is done actually locally rather than just in 

one place and transferred to another. 

57

One issue also which doesn’t appear and which relates to actually the issue of nutrition security is the issue of diversity. And, 

again, here I think the report doesn’t address the issue of more diversified food plants which need to be grown and worked and developed, and I think that is something which cannot be done simply and needs to be done at the country level by the people, and 

because they are very dependent on the different environments. 

And I think we know what works. There are many technologies 

developed already in Africa manage to push-pull, and you can look 

it up, or biocontrol which have saved the cassava crop. With $20 

million, we save 200 men and people’s livelihood and 20 million 

lives. I have done this myself, so I know what is going on and how 

we can change things in Africa. And it cannot be done with quick 

fixes. Again, I think we have to think about the system and see 

how we can work with the system rather than with just a silver 

bullet approach. It is a matter of price also to make sure that some 

of the solutions I think which can be implemented right now are 

already. 

They could go with much less cost and time delay than to develop new varieties, when actually we know that what exists already can quadruple minimum or maybe more in a very sustainable way the production, agricultural production in Africa and farm 

productivity, rather than just more yield of a specific crop. 

So I think that we do have solutions. We want to make sure that 

they get implemented rather than to look again for silver bullets. 

Thank you. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. Thank you, Dr. Herren. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Herren follows:]

58


57606e-1.eps
59


57606e-2.eps
60


57606e-3.eps
61


57606e-4.eps
62


57606e-5.eps
63


57606e-6.eps
64

Mr. CARNAHAN. Now I would like to recognize Ms. Nassuna. 

STATEMENT OF MS. EVELYN NASSUNA, UGANDA COUNTRY 

DIRECTOR, LUTHERAN WORLD RELIEF 

Ms. NASSUNA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the respective subcommittees for this opportunity to speak about Lutheran World Relief’s work with small-scale farmers in Uganda, as 

well as my initial thoughts on the impact that Feed the Future can 

have on that work. 

Some of you are probably familiar with LWR, but many of you 

I suspect are not. So let me begin by telling you a bit about us. 

LWR is a relief and development organization support by U.S. 

Lutherans, church bodies, private foundations, and a small number 

of government grants. We are also supported by some remarkable 

U.S. farmers who work with the Foods Resource Bank to use their 

farms to raise funds to support in farmers in developing countries. 

In Uganda and around the world, LWR works through local 

NGOs and grassroots organizations to seek lasting solutions to 

rural poverty. Guided by a philosophy and framework of accompaniment, we seek to empower local communities by emphasizing 

shared values and jointly developed objectives. I have personally 

been blessed to offer LWR in Uganda since 2004. 

One of the organizations I have had the privilege to work with 

in Uganda is LWR partner Gumutindo Coffee Cooperative Enterprise. A few years ago, the story of Gumutindo could easily have 

been a story of failure. In 2006, Gumutindo recorded a loss of 

$2,000. Coffee bean quality was low, production was weak, and 

farmer members lacked technical knowledge to produce hearty 

crops. LWR worked with the organization to put in place better financial systems and provide the resources to help train the farmers. Now, Gumutindo has become a booming cooperative. Its coffee 

beans are high quality, its production is efficient. Membership has 

grown to 10,000 farmers. And, in 2008, made a profit of $250,000. 

The very banks that refused to work with the cooperative in 2006 

are now calling Gumutindo and offering loans. 

But real success is not in numbers, it is in its members. Like 

Mrs. Masifa Bisaso. Mrs. Bisaso is a widow and a coffee farmer 

who once struggled to produce enough income from her coffee trees 

to feed her family. As a result of her own hard work and training 

from Gumutindo, Mrs. Bisaso has seen a remarkable transformation in her farming enterprise. She says her trees look better 

and she is commanding a higher price for her crop, but she is especially excited by high increased yield which is more than 30 percent 

larger than last season. 

With her new income, Mrs. Bisaso is investing in a diversified 

diet for her family by purchasing a cow and two goats. She is also 

paying school fees for a granddaughter and saving to buy a pulping 

machine which will help further increase the value of her coffee 

beans. 

In the Wakiso district, LWR works with a Ugandan NGO and a 

certified microfinance institution calls Voluntary Action for Development to provide access to credit, training, and technology for ten 

cooperatives of maize, bean, and mushroom farmers. Mrs. Namuli 

Kate is one of the farmers. 

65

A subsistence farmer for the last 10 years, Mrs. Kate was struggling to provide food and education for her three children. With the 

help of VAD, she recently decided to focus on growing produce to 

provide income as well as food for her family. After being trained 

in new farming techniques, bookkeeping, and marketing, Mrs. Kate 

was able to take out a small loan to cultivate two acres of improved 

maize. After selling her crop to a local school, she was able to pay 

off part of her loan, send her children to school, and invest in a 

local poultry project. 

With more than 1 billion suffering from hunger, the world can 

learn much from the experiences of Mrs. Bisaso, Mrs. Kate, 

Gumutindo, and VAD. Key lessons include the need to focus on 

small producers, empower women, strengthen organizations, and 

consult with the affected communities. 

One of the things I didn’t tell you in connection with the story 

of Mrs. Kate is that much of the food accessible in rural Africa is 

produced by farmers just like her. I have seen American farms, so 

I know that her two acre maize patch might not seem much to you, 

but you cannot overlook her or her maize patch if you want to help 

Uganda. What she does is a mainstay of our economy, and the primary source of our food. Working with small-scale producers to increase yields and create value-added products, two important components of Feed the Future, is the way forward for Uganda. 

Feed the Future has also identified gender as one of its cross-cutting priorities, and I strongly with this strategy. Although women 

like the two I have told you about do most of the farming in Africa, 

they face significant disadvantages compared to men. Challenges 

include access to land ownership, education, and credit. So I look 

forward to seeing increased efforts to make agricultural inputs and 

extension services more accessible to women. 

At the same time, I hope Feed the Future will be careful not to 

overlook the husbands, fathers, and brothers of these women. Before starting a new project to help women, it is also important to 

consult with the men to find out what it would take them to make 

them supportive of the project. When men are included in the process and see that what the women are doing is helpful to their communities, they will support progress instead of opposing it. 

Another big challenge for Feed the Future will be to scale up 

work that is already proving successful. LWR, for example, has 

helped tens of thousands of Ugandan farmers, but there are more 

than 30 million people in our country, the majority of which derive 

all or part of their livelihood from agriculture. And helping rural 

communities is in a developing country is challenging. Each farm 

is different and each community is distinct. The only thing you can 

count on is the fact that the travel to reach them will be difficult. 

Supporting organized groups of farmers is the key to scaling up 

successfully. Feed the Future is a new initiative, and so the impulse may be to start new groups and organizations, but I encourage you to focus on the groups that are already there. They may 

be poorly governed and have little bookkeeping or business knowledge, but as demonstrated by our work with Gumutindo, there is 

great potential to turn these groups into good development partners, with built-in community support, who can provide technical 

education, collective purchasing arrangements, collective credit arVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:08 Oct 27, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00071 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\IOHRO\072010\57606 HFA PsN: SHIRL
66

rangements, savings opportunities for thousands of farmers at a 

time. But the most important lesson I can offer you from my work 

in Uganda is that Feed the Future must find a way to ensure that 

national governments in charge of developing country plans consult 

with the intended beneficiaries and their local civil society organizations. In Africa, this means more farmers with limited resources 

and little time to spare. Civil society organizations are equally 

stretched, and with many staff members holding two jobs to just 

make ends meet. But these people and organizations must be involved if country investment plans are to be effective, accepted, and 

incorporated broadly. 

Governments must have the financial support and the incentive 

to consult with farmers. In most cases, they cannot do this by email or even by phone. Government officials must meet in person 

with small farmers and civil society groups, and provide adequate 

time for meaningful consultation. Very literally, this means government officials making trips, or supporting the travel of small farmers and civil society groups to hold consultation. Something as simple as providing translation is easily overlooked and also critical to 

consultation success. But this too calls for financial support. 

I trust these efforts will be made, but at the end of the day, Feed 

the Future must ensure that national governments fulfill their consultation requirements by refusing to push forward country plans 

that do not include the input of affected communities and local civil 

society. 

My final thought on Feed the Future is simply that you should 

give this program the time and the support it needs to succeed 

while still remaining vigilant in your roles as overseers. In the agriculture sector, results are rarely immediate, and if they are, you 

may want to question them. 

Mrs. Bisaso and Mrs. Kate did not improve their livelihoods overnight, and, to be honest, they still face challenges. But they have 

more stable access to food than ever, and their diets and those of 

their families continue to improve. This important progress came 

as a result of their own hard work and a little support from people 

in the United States. Your continued support for Feed the Future 

will ensure that many more lives are impacted. Thank you. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Nassuna follows:]

67


57606f-1.eps
68


57606f-2.eps
69


57606f-3.eps
70


57606f-4.eps
71

Mr. CARNAHAN. Next, I would like to recognize Ms. Nasaire. 

STATEMENT OF MS. JENNIFER SMITH NAZAIRE, COUNTRY 

REPRESENTATIVE, CATHOLIC RELIEF SERVICES—RWANDA 

Ms. NAZAIRE. Good afternoon. I would like to thank Chairman 

Payne, Chairman Carnahan, Ranking Member Smith, and Ranking 

Member Rohrabacher for calling this important hearing on Feed 

the Future program. To the two chairmen, I would like to submit 

my official statement for the record, and I will be summarizing my 

statement for you here. 

I am Jennifer Smith Nazaire, Catholic Relief Services country 

representative for Rwanda. CRS has had a presence in Rwanda 

since 1960, and we have worked since then in poor communities 

throughout the country and many other countries on agricultural 

production, food security, and nutrition initiatives. CRS has maintained a steadfast relationship with these communities and local 

partner organizations throughout the changes and development approaches over more than four decades. 

During the 20 years of neglect of agriculture by major development donors, CRS used our limited private resources to continue 

to work with farmers and rural communities because we recognized 

the crucial role that agriculture plays in rural economic development and its direct link to reducing poverty and hunger. 

CRS would like to emphasize that the purpose of Feed the Future Program should be to build food security for the poorest people 

in the poorest countries, and not just to increase food production 

through agribusiness or other large-scale schemes. 

Governments must play a national leadership role, but do not always have the orientation and capacity to reach the poorest farmers in a comprehensive and effective way. To develop effective and 

representative responses, governments need to engage with local 

civil society and international NGOs about the best approaches for 

solving problems of food security. 

CRS has a long proud history of partnering with the government 

of Rwanda and civil society organizations in agriculture, food security, and nutrition programming. Such programs have evolved significantly over 50 years from nationwide school feeding activities to 

complex and comprehensive nutrition and livelihood projects, 

reaching Rwanda’s most vulnerable populations. Today’s programming also includes value chain marketing initiatives involving strategic food commodities such as cassava, orange blush sweet potato, 

and coffee, to name a few. 

Local operational NGOs are advancing food security development 

efforts in significant ways in all Feed the Future target countries. 

National investment strategies do not always reflect this. Local 

NGOs have developed programs and activities over many years 

that advance food security to fill a void caused by lack of attention 

by national governments. 

On December 7 and 8, 2009, I was one of a number of NGO representatives invited to a 2-day country-led consultation process for 

Feed the Future in Kigali, hosted by the government of Rwanda. 

The meeting was part of the signing of a compact between the government of Rwanda and the African Union’s Comprehensive Africa 

Agriculture Development Program, CAADP. As you know, Rwanda 

72

was the first Feed the Future target country. There was minimal 

involvement of civil society and international NGOs in the meeting 

discussions. It was evident that the government of Rwanda and donors do recognize that we in the international NGO community are 

filling an important gap until necessary capacity has been built in 

government and civil society, but there were no specifics on how 

we, or even our local civil society partners, would be involved in the 

government’s plan for agricultural transformation to improve food 

security. 

As I come to the end of my testimony, on behalf of CRS I would 

like to offer four recommendations: First, the measure of success 

for Feed the Future should be how families grow more food, earn 

more income, and are better able to provide a healthy diet for 

themselves and their children. 

Two, we need to ensure that national investment strategies have 

mechanisms within their budgets for funding civil society organizations to further the goals of Feed the Future. 

Three, we would like to see governments formalize mechanisms 

for citizen participation. Establishing participatory budgeting or 

ombudsmen’s offices to address citizen complaints can both empower citizens and provide governments with greater understanding of societal problems. These and other mechanisms for ensuring participation in country strategy development can also serve 

as a foundation for greater transparency and accountability. 

Fourth, and lastly, U.S. Government representatives in Feed the 

Future target countries need to arrange regular meetings with civil 

society including international NGOs, local NGO partners, faithbased groups, and other pertinent members. 

To both chairmen and ranking members, thank you for this opportunity to present testimony before the subcommittees. Feed the 

Future is an exciting departure from the past as it seeks to address 

the complexities of global hunger through a comprehensive approach that brings all stakeholders into the process. It is our conviction that civil society plays a key role in that process. 

I would be pleased to answer any questions that you may have 

at this time. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Nazaire follows:]

73


57606g-1.eps
74


57606g-2.eps
75


57606g-3.eps
76


57606g-4.eps
77


57606g-5.eps
78


57606g-6.eps
79


57606g-7.eps
80

Mr. CARNAHAN. Thank you, and thank all the panel. 

We will begin with a round of questions here. I will kick this off 

with the first 5 minutes and really wanted to start with Dr. Danforth. 

You had cited some great examples of the cassava project in 

terms of nutrition and resistance to disease that are impressive. 

Can lessons learned from that program be applied to other crops 

in Africa? And, if so, could you talk about that? 

Mr. DANFORTH. Yes. We have most of our efforts on cassava as 

an African crop. We also work with other African crops such as sorghum and chickpeas and other things, but cassava has gotten most 

of our attention. What we think is that the scientific technologies 

that we use can be applied to other plants. 

Other plants are not cassava. They have different problems. For 

example, we have been working on the cassava mosaic virus for 

many years, more than a decade. The work has gone very slowly, 

and it has taken a long time. We are finally in field testing, and 

it looks as if we have something very important. 

When the new virus came along, because we are used to working 

with cassava and doing this, instead of a dozen years, it took us 

3 years to get something into the field. 

So these technologies can be used. You just can’t take something 

from one plant and necessarily transplant it into another, but it 

can be done if you know how to do it. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. Thank you, Dr, Danforth. 

For others on the panel, perhaps Mr. Steiner and Dr. Herren, 

Nobel Prize winner Dr. Norman Borlaug strongly supported the 

use of both conventional and modern biotechnologies to develop 

crops needed for sustainability and for our growing population 

needs. I guess I wanted to get your comments on really trying to 

focus some of these debates that have gone on on sound science 

versus many philosophical arguments in terms of meeting these 

challenges and how we can really be sure we get the best science 

at the table during these efforts. 

Mr. STEINER. Chairman Carnahan, I would start from the perspective of a farmer. The farmer can only plant one seed in that 

spot in the field, and the farmer wants something that is going to 

work and stand up to the challenges that nature is going to bring 

forward. 

To the extent that we can solve these problems in a more simple 

manner with breeding, it is fantastic. We know there are certain 

things that are very, very difficult to do, such as getting plants to 

protect themselves against viruses of the kind Dr. Danforth talked 

about. Many of them we do with breeding. Or protect, for example, 

against insects. And it is very fortunate that we have been able to 

use the BT proteins, the same protein that organic gardeners use 

to control many pests and get plants to protects themselves. 

So I think if we look at this from a farmer’s perspective, they just 

want something that works and works really reliably here. And I 

believe we are going to have to use the best of both to really get 

a solution that is going to fit in many different places, and that solution will be unique. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. Dr. Herren. 

81

Mr. HERREN. I think we need to really look what has worked in 

the past, number one. I think there are biological control method 

against pathogens and insects, for example, that work very well. I 

think we have to dig up again and implement it. There is a lot to 

do there which doesn’t cost the farmer anything and which actually 

takes care of the system. 

Now any seed, as good as it may be, won’t grow on this table 

here. And the program actually in Africa is that we have a huge 

ill gap. The ill gap between the varieties which exist and what they 

could be performing are at least fourfold, if not more. 

Now where is the problem? The problem is therefore not in the 

seed. The problem is in the soil, soil fertility and water retention. 

So we have to put sort of the tractor in front of the cart and not 

behind. I think we have to really think about first issues are soil 

fertility, how to improve it, and actually make agriculture as part 

of the climate change solution, not the problem. Right now, we are 

losing all our organic matter. So let’s put it back into the soil, have 

soils which are really fertile and where presently available seeds 

can produce enough food to feed Africa and the rest of the world 

beyond 2050. 

So I think we have to really stop to think about where are the 

problems and solve the problems and then to look at we have a solution here. Where can we use it? 

Mr. CARNAHAN. Thank you. My time is up. 

I will recognize Mr. Smith for 5 minutes. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you all for your 

testimony and for your leadership. 

Let me just ask a couple of questions. 

Jennifer Nazaire, I quoted some of your testimony during the 

previous panel. Several of my questions were aimed at providing 

these two subcommittees with very detailed accounts from the two 

ambassadors and from their office as to the criteria used for choosing the 20 countries. I know the four criteria, but when you really 

get down into the weeds, what was really done to ascertain that 

this country would be chosen over that country, and this is what 

we are going to do and how much we are going to spend. We need 

that kind of oversight information. 

But I especially want to know in addition, how the civil society 

and the international nongovernmental organizations have integrated. I am sure we will get that information. I hope we will get 

it in a timely fashion. 

There are several countries that Ambassador Garvelink has 

ticked off—and he did all 20 countries quite well, I thought—as 

being in phase two: Ghana, Mali, Rwanda, Senegal, Tanzania, and 

Uganda. He also mentioned Haiti—and Bangladesh. 

Given that these countries are close to the launch phase, I am 

wondering what you have been seeing in the field with regard to 

inclusion of faith-based and international NGOs, civil society, and 

the private sector. 

I know we learned bitter lessons from PEPFAR and from the 

Global Fund—because of the CCNs and the way they operated—

that many faith-based and other NGOs that were indigenous to 

that country were left out. Especially in countries where there had 

been a history of corruption and perhaps an animosity toward the 

82

church because it was the voice for human rights that called government officials on the carpet, faith-based organizations were excluded from the CCMs. I and others have forcefully asserted that 

faith-based NGOs are the key to Africa health. And I would think 

that, given the long history that CRS has had in Rwanda, for example, since 1960, you need to be included and in a robust way. 

So I am very concerned. 

You mentioned that, as of that meeting, there was very little contact. Where is it now? Have they reached out to try to bring in 

Catholic Relief Services or Lutheran or any of the groups that provide tremendous information and insights and have a whole network that they can then work with on the ground? 

Ms. NAZAIRE. Thank you for your question. 

Yes, as I testified, I was invited and other international NGOs 

and civil society to this big meeting in November to launch the 

Feed the Future Initiative in Rwanda. We were very happy to be 

invited. 

As I said in my testimony, the discussions were not very inclusive, I would say, of civil society. I would not say that is the fault 

of the U.S. Government, necessarily. I think there are many reasons for that. Perhaps there is a certain environment in Rwanda—

and I can only speak for Rwanda. I don’t know what the situation 

was in other countries. 

In terms of inclusion of civil society, both international NGOs 

and local civil society, we feel very happy that we have been included in the consultations of the design of this program; and I 

want to make that very clear. We have collaborated very, very effectively, I think, and have been invited to participate in the design 

of this initiative. 

There is that phase and then there is the implementation phase, 

which you are asking about. I think it is a slow process, implementation, and there are many phases, and we may not be aware of 

all the phases and what is going on. What I can say is that there 

have been limited meetings even since then, since November, that 

have involved civil society, both international and local civil society. So I am a bit concerned about that. 

I think also there is the nature of discussion and participation. 

When those meetings with civil society are called, they basically 

look at plans that the national government and the donors have 

put together and then we are just being asked to check and say, 

yes, that looks good, or, no, this does not, or have we been active 

members in putting together those plans? I think that is what I am 

most concerned about. 

Yes, 2 weeks ago, we were invited to a meeting at USAID in 

Kigali. We participated. We were the only international NGO that 

was invited, as far as I know. I don’t think local civil society was 

invited. 

Mr. SMITH. I would hope the administration would take your advice and the advice of others into consideration, unless you want 

to create a sidebar type program that would be inferior to what 

could be done overnight. And we did it with PEPFAR. That was 

under the Bush administration. My hope is that we don’t replicate 

that error here. 

83

Secondly, very quick to Mr. Steiner, we know Europe really does 

have a lot of heartburn over genetically modified organisms 

(GMOs); and, obviously, a lot of money coming into Africa and the 

target countries will be interfacing and working synergistically 

with European money, G–8 money and even G20 money. So my 

question is, given their hostility toward GMOs, what kind of balance can be worked out? I think GMOs are a way of ensuring the 

greatest possible feeding of the world, within some guidelines. But 

how does that work with country led plans when you have a competing interest in terms of what kind of seeds go into the ground? 

Mr. STEINER. In a meeting that I was in a number of years ago, 

the expression was: When the elephant is dead, the grass gets 

trampled. That was what they had said. What I am heartened in 

what I am seeing is that more and more African countries are 

starting the process which will enable them to look at these technologies for themselves and make a decision for themselves. 

A very good example is Burkina Faso, which over the last 6 years 

has been looking at insect-protected cotton, the same insect-protected cotton that is grown in this country and China and India 

and a whole number of other countries around the world. And they 

have moved forward and a third of the cotton crop was produced 

with the help of that technology, reducing the number of sprays 

from six to two. 

So I think the power of example will move this debate. It will be 

choppy, given those factors. 

Mr. SMITH. My time is up. Thank you. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. Thank you. 

Next, I want to recognize Chairman Payne for 5 minutes. 

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you very much. 

I really applaud this initiative and how the world has come in 

to support it. With 25,000 people dying every day due to hunger 

or related causes and 265 million people, nearly one-third of the 

continent’s entire population suffering from hunger, I do know that 

we really can’t keep spending a whole lot of money that we don’t 

have. I think that our children and our grandchildren might forgive 

us for this $3 billion that we are talking about over the next 3 

years, and maybe it will reduce some of the 25,000 people who die 

every day from malnutrition and its related diseases. You might—

if you divide the number into the cost—you might find it is really 

not that much. 

I guess the question is, how much is a human life worth? I don’t 

know whether it is in the eyes of some where the life is. However, 

that is a debate for another day. 

Mr. PAYNE. In Rwanda, you say that you have not been that involved. But how is food production in Rwanda better this year overall than it was last year or last year better than the previous year? 

I might just ask you: Is there success? 

Ms. NAZAIRE. Yes, Chairman Payne. I am not an agriculturalist, 

so I can’t give you have any statistics exactly, but I understand 

that agriculture production is definitely improving in Rwanda. The 

Government of Rwanda has made a commitment to agriculture. 

They know the great majority of the population depends on agriculture. They have put their money forth, and their investment 

plan includes their own monies in addition to monies that they are 

84

receiving from development partners—or hoping to receive. So, yes, 

I think it is a success story so far in Rwanda. 

Mr. PAYNE. And there are countries that are doing poorer, to say 

the least, and it may be that the expertise that you have, the fact 

that you have been there so long, may have had something to do 

with the fact that the government has kind of pulled itself together 

and are doing better. So I think it is not really a rejection of your 

group. But it might be that there could be next door in Burundi, 

where I don’t hear very good stories happening, that you may put 

your resources there, and it might be better for them. 

Let me just ask Mr. Steiner, there was a discussion about modified GMOs. If you could go back—a lot of times we say in retrospect that we go back and start all over again. Of course, you represent the companies. I want you to keep your job. However, do you 

feel that GMOs, the concept was introduced properly? Was it something that you knew, your company knew, other scientists knew, 

and you said, this is good enough? How can you reject this? 

I mean, look at when you are dealing with people who may have 

a traditional way that they went about either—I have read some 

articles where even the United States, an old farmer—and I don’t 

know how old Mr. Carnahan was when he was doing that hay on 

the wagon—but some of the newer farmers, whether there was a 

thorough explanation about what this thing is. 

Mr. STEINER. I think that all of us, if we look backward and say 

there is nothing we have learned, we probably aren’t looking very 

hard. 

The first thing I would say is that, from a standpoint of farmers, 

farmers everywhere around the world, when they have had the opportunity to choose, have very quickly seen the benefits of these 

products, whether it be fewer pesticides, less tillage, reduced costs, 

increased yields. And that has been true very universally. 

We, I believe, got caught up in being so excited about this technology. And the first couple of products—one of those I mentioned 

a minute ago was insect-protected cotton that Burkina Faso just 

took in place right here. And we thought that how could someone, 

including someone who cares deeply about the environment, not 

want to see fewer pesticides being applied to a cotton field? How 

could anyone fight that? And we really thought we would see a lot 

more embracing from those organizations, and I think we were 

blinded by our own enthusiasm on this. 

So if we had a chance to do it all over again, I think we would 

engage in a different kind of communication and a two-way dialogue at the very early stages. And we know that, once you start, 

you can’t do it all over again. You have to deal with what you have 

got. But from a standpoint of technology and farmers getting a 

chance to see this, this has been extremely successful. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. I recognize Congresswoman Woolsey for 5 minutes. 

Ms. WOOLSEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I have no new thoughts on this, but I have two major concerns. 

We listened to the government panel, and they were quite convincing about outreach and inclusion with affected communities. I 

think that is because they actually believe that they are doing it, 

and they are doing enough of it. So I think there is a gap. I think 

85

there is a gap between their enthusiasm to get out and get going 

forward and what this panel, I heard, that will be glad for help, 

but I think the help would be much more effective if you included 

us in the planning, design, and implementation. So that—and I am 

going to ask for feedback on how you would do that. 

The other concern I have, and that is for you, Dr. Herren, when 

you are feeding and bridging a gap of needing a lot more food for 

a lot more people, how are we going to put controls on the possibility of maybe too much of a good thing when it comes to better 

seeds and what is really a better seed versus a better way of growing? 

I actually, Mr. Steiner, I represent Marin and Sonoma County 

just north of San Francisco. They have placards everywhere: No 

NGOs. Believe me, they are worried about this. So I think we have 

to worry. And there is a concern that we don’t take advantage of 

a hungry nation or hungry nations by all of a sudden setting up 

systems where there will no longer be fertile seeds, et cetera, et 

cetera. 

So, first, how about you, Ms. Nazaire, on bridging the gap with 

the inclusion? 

Ms. NAZAIRE. Right. I believe that the administration is making 

serious efforts. I think there can always be more. 

But, obviously, some of my concrete recommendations, I would go 

back to what I said in my testimony about regular meetings with 

civil society. As I mentioned, we were included in a meeting 2 

weeks ago. It is the first meeting that we had been invited to on 

this initiative for 6 months. So I think I would emphasize that regularity. And I don’t know exactly what that regularity is. I think 

it depends on how fast the process is moving. 

I think that the other thing is advocating vis-a`-vis the Government of Rwanda, for example, for more inclusion of civil society—

local civil society and international civil society. I think that the 

government of Rwanda, for example, doesn’t automatically think of 

us. They are in charge of their development agenda, and they want 

to be running the show. They do include us from time to time. But 

I think that the Government of the United States could advocate 

for us and the role that we could play more than they are. 

Ms. WOOLSEY. How about Uganda, Ms. Nassuna? 

Ms. NASSUNA. In Uganda, we would recommend that Government works with the farmers themselves. They should do this in 

a more decentralized manner. They should go down to the districts, 

work with the cooperatives, the organizations, the producer organizations that already exist, to provide them with the information 

that is needed, instead of waiting to invite a few people to go down 

to the center of the country that is the capital to kind of provide 

their input into a plan that has already been developed. And it is 

important that it is done at the time that is quite convenient to the 

farmers. Sometimes they hold these meetings when farmers cannot 

even afford to leave their gardens to go out for a meeting. And they 

should work with civil society because they have been doing this 

for a very long time and they know how to work it well. 

Ms. WOOLSEY. Thank you. 

Dr. Herren. 

Mr. HERREN. Thank you for this question. 

86

I think we need to realize that more food or more production 

doesn’t mean less hunger or less poverty. Look at the green revolution. For all its benefit it has provided to grow more food, we have 

today, what, 1.3 billion people who are hungry and another 1.5 billion which are malnourished. Obviously, there is a problem with 

that approach which we need to rethink, and we have done so with 

400 people for 4 years around the world. 

And we cannot get—although breeding is necessary, that we 

need better seeds, even maybe by technology or genetic engineering, the problem really is elsewhere. And we need to deal in sequence. 

So, first, we have to see where are the major constraints; and 

they are really actually in the farming systems, in growing, in 

plant health. And so we need to make the best use of what we already have of the research which has been done in the international agricultural research system, funded by the United States 

with a lot of money. 

So there are a lot of solutions that are already available. Why 

are they not put in place? And I think we need to think about genetic engineering or GMOs. Where do they really fit? 

And I think that if you ask yourself this question, you go out and 

look—I mean, I have 30 years experience on the ground in Africa, 

so I have seen it. I think the role they play is minimal at this time, 

because we know how to deal with the most urgent matter. 

And, actually, the farmers, women in particular, what they need 

is information. They want to know how can I do things differently 

on a project. It is amazing how much information people want and 

can absorb. 

But is it there? No. We need to prepare it to pass it on, and then 

they can do it. 

They want to know how do we do compost; how can we grow 

sustainably; how can we do a biological control. Things they don’t 

have to pay for but which can actually increase their income. So 

all these things are available. Now let’s put it out there and let’s 

move it. 

Again, drought tolerance. There is a lot of drought tolerance in 

local varieties. Actually, some of the genes which are being taken 

out of local varieties in Tanzania and then replaced in other varieties. Maybe that is good. But, again, there are other solutions. We 

need a better soil which has organic matter to absorb the water, 

rather than to let it run off. We need to have complex systems 

where you produce a fertilizer in situ with legumes, with crop rotation. We don’t just want maize and more and more maize. Because 

I think that is, first of all, not very good human food, certainly not 

in Africa where we have humongous problems with aflatoxins in 

corn. 

So, again, I think the solutions—we have worked with this so 

much. I would wish that the initiative would actually go back and 

look at this tremendous amount of work here and say, okay, what 

can we implement right now? Where are the needs for more research? 

Again, I think GM technology, more research is actually required. How do they fit into the system, into an integrated pest 

management system? So we don’t have those answers yet. So let 

87

research go on and implement what we know already which doesn’t 

create any issues and long discussions. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. Thank you. 

I think we have time to do some quick second round of questions 

before we wrap up. 

I just wanted to wrap up with a question with regard to the impact and the outreach to women. We will start with Ms. Nazaire 

talking about the outreach you have done. We heard comments earlier about the impact that women have in what we are doing in agriculture and in food quality and development. If you could touch 

on that. 

Ms. NAZAIRE. Sure. Absolutely. 

I agree with everyone who has talked about the vital role of 

women in agricultural production and also as caretakers of their 

family. In Africa, as it has already been stated, and certainly in 

Rwanda this is the case as well, a lot of the farmers—majority of 

farmers are women. The work that CRS does with our partners on 

the ground always works with groups of women who are in the majority in farmers’ groups and in the cooperatives. 

In our nutrition activities as well, the majority of the beneficiaries are women. We are working with them on improved nutrition practices, on growing food in their kitchen gardens that are 

more nutritious for their families. 

So I would agree with everything that has been said and say that 

CRS is definitely working with women in agricultural production. 

And, also, it hasn’t been really discussed today, but savings and 

internal lending groups, micro credit, are vital for food security as 

well; and it is important that those kind of programs be folded in. 

It is not all about agricultural production. It is also, as some of my 

colleagues said, about nutrition and access to income. 

Those groups, micro credit groups, are, by and large, women, 90 

percent women. And payback rates, as you have all heard already, 

I am sure, are very high among women. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. Thank you. 

Ms. Nassuna. 

Ms. NASSUNA. Of course, women do most of the work on the 

farms. They produce the food. But, unfortunately, they face a lot 

of challenges. Most of the women don’t own the land on which they 

farm. They cannot access credit, and often when there is a training, 

it is the men that attend. That is why we are saying the consultations are very, very important to involve both men and women. Because when the men are not involved and we target only the 

women, then the men are not very supportive. 

We have seen this in our work, especially like with the coffee cooperative that they talked about. We may do all the work on the 

coffee farms; and then, when the money comes in, it is the husband 

that controls the money or the brother or the uncle, depending on 

the male figurehead around. But when one of our partners came 

up with an initiative that would be called the ‘‘women coffee 

projects’’ and women were being paid more, then men were more 

supportive and giving women land to farm their own coffee to generate income. 

So we are saying that when we are doing these consultations to 

target women, who are facing more challenges than their male 

88

counterparts, it is very important to involve the men, because they 

are supportive of the projects that we support. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. Thank you. 

Dr. Danforth and Mr. Steiner, can you talk about the work that 

you have done in outreach to women as well? 

Mr. DANFORTH. Yes. Our work is primarily with science and then 

carrying that into field tests. We, of course, have women in our organization and involved in the projects, in the field tests. We are 

reliant on our partners to say what their particular countries need, 

and we work in training scientists, both male scientists and women 

scientists. Because in the long run—and we hope in the very short 

run—scientific decisions for developing countries should be made 

by scientists in those developing countries. 

May I make one other comment? I would just like to say that 

human beings have been improving agriculture for 12,000 years. 

They have been improving agriculture through making better 

seeds, through irrigation, through looking for better land. And that 

is going on today, and it will probably go on long after we have 

gone. 

It has just been very, very interesting to hear these discussions. 

There is not going to be a single answer. I think, given the challenges in the world today, we want to encourage everything and 

stop nothing. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. Mr. Steiner. 

Mr. STEINER. For over a decade we have had an external advisory council, and two of the most influential persons of those councils over time have been women in Africa. But one of which led an 

underground NGO doing work similar to what Heifer International 

does and another who is a farmer herself. They have kept our feet 

to the fire of who we are really working with, and that predominantly is women. 

The last point I think Dr. Danforth made about needing everything I think is really important. As a matter of fact, I disagree 

with very little about what has been talked about of what is needed. The point I think we really need to be conscious of is not thinking about this from the perspective that we need to direct the agricultural system. 

I believe these farmers, predominantly these women farmers, are 

far more rational and effective decisionmakers than they are given 

credit for. Yes, they absolutely need more information, and essentially it is an important piece of this. But I believe in getting 

choices in front of these people. They will make good choices. That 

is one of the things I know we are personally committed to; and 

I hope Feed the Future does, also. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. Thank you. 

Mr. Smith. 

Mr. SMITH. Just three quick questions. 

The Millennium Challenge Corporation and the coordination, do 

you see any evidence that there is an understanding by the 20 targeted countries, particularly those with compacts, that they can, 

again, synergistically really enhance their situation if those are coordinated? 

Secondly, what country or countries would each of you add to the 

20? What was left off the list that cries out for inclusion? 

89

And finally, how well coordinated are the other donor countries’ 

contributions, as far as you know? Is there evidence that that 

money, particularly the new money, is being used? We know that 

some is just rearranged and repackaged. But there is some new 

money, I am sure, coming from several of those European and 

other donors. How well is that being used? 

Mr. HERREN. I think what is important is to see how you can 

also work with—on a regional base. Because the international agricultural research and the regional agricultural may actually be 

places where, again, more support is needed to move the whole 

agenda forward. And also, like was mentioned, but also the Central 

African arrangement and also East Africa. 

So I think there are regional organizations where it may be valuable to look into because then you sort of avoid the issue of country 

A or B, but I think you can channel a lot of information and knowhow to the farmers in these places, too. So, again, maybe looking 

on a regional level. 

Ms. NAZAIRE. Just very quickly for the three questions you 

asked. In terms of MCC coordination, I haven’t really seen it myself so far. In Rwanda, I haven’t heard it being talked about as 

much as Feed the Future. For other countries, I don’t have any 

specific countries that I would say why was that country not included. I think there is a lack of information about why those particular 20 countries were chosen. I know a number of my colleagues’ country representatives have been asking those questions. 

In terms of other donor participation and coordination, my feeling is that the European donors are coordinating quite well with 

the U.S. Government. And I can’t say more than that, really. 

Mr. SMITH. On that second point, we will get, I believe, a very 

detailed analysis from the administration as to how they were 

picked, criteria, the whole thing. Because I believe, Mr. Chairmen, 

it is very important that we know how this process is being undertaken, and maybe we might have a few ideas that could enhance 

it, and perhaps you would, too. 

Mr. DANFORTH. I was going to say, from the standpoint of making sure that the research is done in the United States in these 

areas, I have been amazed at the amount of information sharing 

and the amount of cooperation that goes into everything that we 

have been associated with. We have one in our environmental area 

where we have a single grant that has two national laboratories, 

12 universities, and 15 private corporations all involved in one big 

project; and it is going fantastically well. That is what you can do 

with modern communication. 

Ms. NAZAIRE. I forgot to mention, although I don’t have any specific suggestions for additional countries that need to be targeted, 

we do feel it is very important, and I was very glad to hear the 

testimony from the previous panel, that part of the Feed the Future Initiative funding will be also going outside of those 20 target 

countries. As we have heard, the neglect of agriculture over a number of decades has really affected a lot of countries, and I think it 

is important that we not just put all of our eggs into those 20 countries. 

Thank you. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. Thank you. 

90

Playing cleanup for today’s hearing is Chairman Payne. He is 

going to get the last set of questions. 

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you very much. Let me once again commend 

you for this very important hearing. 

Dr. Danforth, you mentioned about moving forward and some of 

the countries that haven’t had much of a program. Do you feel that 

the different countries are at different stages and that some very 

basic types of things could be done such as trying to control water 

during the rainy season or trying to have some other type of basic 

irrigation? What is your feeling on the sub-Saharan countries, the 

difference in the ability or the capability to move forward on this 

increasing agriculture? 

Mr. DANFORTH. Mr. Chairman, I can’t comment on all of those 

things, because I don’t have any knowledge and experience. I can 

comment only on the areas in which I have experience, and I would 

say this. 

There is a lot of difference in the African countries and countries 

in other continents in both their scientific knowledge, understanding, and the kind of governmental organizations they have to 

assess safety and to work with organizations that are trying to do 

bio safety. There is an enormous difference. 

I would also say that we work with the countries that we feel we 

can work with that want us to work with them. We don’t have the 

self-confidence to coordinate these different governments. We work 

with those that want to work with us. Fortunately, more and more 

seem to be wanting to do so. 

The biotechnology that we use has been around for 14 years now, 

and there have been no problems with it, and people are getting 

more and more confidence. Other coordination, I can’t really say 

with any expert knowledge. 

Mr. PAYNE. Ms. Nassuna, we talked about women having an impact. We know that Miss Wangari Maathai, the Nobel Peace Prize 

winner, really showed how one person can really make a difference. 

And I couldn’t agree with you more that the women really are 

the ones that are the engine, and I couldn’t agree more that I think 

you have to bring in the men to try to make them at least feel like 

they are partners to try to get the job done. I think that through 

our program—hopefully—we will try to stress that as we move forward to the various countries in Africa. 

I just conclude again by mentioning examples of good ideas and 

enthusiasm. For example, there was a notion 3 or 4 years ago of 

something called AFRICOM, where the U.S. said we are going to 

run in the region, and this is how we are going to do it from now 

on as related to the presence of the U.S. military in African countries. Now they didn’t really mean they were going to go and have 

the General in charge and USAID and State Department report to 

them, but it sounded that way. So every country rejected it except 

Liberia. They were just looking for anybody to come in. If they are 

going to buy some food, they are going to help our economy. 

But it was just, I guess, a more current example of how something that is not introduced—something that is really good—and I 

am not so sure AFRICOM is as good as you say your GMOs are—

receives the same kind of rejection, suspicion. Why now? Are they 

going to try to militarize our countries? Will we all have to report 

91

to Generals? We have elections to get rid of Generals and now you 

have got AFRICOM. So perception, as you know, is so important. 

And so I know that, as you move forward. I think that the way you 

are going about it now, perhaps with education, with results, probably is certainly going to be more advantageous than the initial response. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for this very important 

hearing. I would congratulate you for telling the Speaker don’t 

have any votes while I am having my hearing. I wish I could be 

that powerful. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. I think it was luck. 

Thanks to all of you on this panel. 

Ms. NAZAIRE. I don’t want to prolong the hearing, but I was wondering, even though Chairman Payne didn’t address the question 

to me, if I could address the issue of countries at different stages. 

I would just like to say that I do really feel that the different African countries especially, but I think all the countries, are at very 

different stages and abilities for moving forward and showing results from this program. All of them can go forward, but can they 

all show results? And I think that is what we are looking for. 

I think some of the things we should be looking at are absorption 

capacity, the level of priority that the government gives to agriculture, their commitment that has been shown and proven in the 

past, stability of the country. If the country doesn’t have stability, 

it is really hard to move forward on some of these areas. And then 

accountability and transparency has come up in this hearing a 

number of times, especially earlier. 

So I would put that forward as well. I think that the administration has taken into consideration all of these things, and that is 

why you see the two phases. So I just wanted to appreciate that. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. Thanks to all of you for bringing your expertise 

and your passion here to this issue and for our previous government panel that is kicking off this initiative. 

Again, we have a very optimistic view of this, kicking off this 

new vision for development. It is not just about food. It is about 

security on so many levels. It is not just a U.S. initiative. It certainly is international in scope. We are very much going to be looking forward to getting the new coordinator in place to get the program up and running and to be sure that we are getting the most 

leverage and those results. That, I think, will tell a lot in terms of 

how this new program is really being rolled out. 

Thank you all very much. 

[Whereupon, at 3:53 p.m., the joint subcommittee hearing was 

adjourned.] 

(93)

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

94


57606n-1.eps
95


57606n-2.eps
96


57606m.eps
97

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY THE HONORABLE RUSS CARNAHAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MISSOURI, AND CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS, HUMAN RIGHTS AND OVERSIGHT


57606j.eps
98


57606k.eps
99


57606l.eps
100


57606o-1.eps
101


57606o-2.eps
102


57606p-1.eps
103


57606p-2.eps
104


57606p-3.eps
105


57606p-4.eps
106


57606p-5.eps
107


57606p-6.eps
108


57606p-7.eps
109

[NOTE: The entire May 2010 Feed the Future Guide is not reprinted here but is 

available in committee records or may be accessed via the Internet (accessed 10/25/

10) at: www.feedthefuture.gov/FTFlGuide.pdf]

Æ


57606p-8.eps