Global Food Security: Progress toward a U.S. Governmentwide Strategy Is Under Way, but Approach Has Several Vulnerabilities
Published: 2010-03-11T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: Global hunger continues to worsen despite world leaders' 1996 pledge--reaffirmed in 2000 and 2009--to halve hunger by 2015. To reverse this trend, in 2009 major donor countries pledged about $22.7 billion in a 3-year commitment to agriculture and food security in developing countries, of which $3.5 billion is the U.S. share. This testimony addresses (1) the types and funding of food security programs and activities of relevant U.S. government agencies and (2) progress in developing an integrated U.S. governmentwide strategy to address global food insecurity and the strategy's potential vulnerabilities. This is based on a new GAO report being released at today's hearing (GAO-10-352).
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: The U.S. government supports a wide variety of programs and activities for global food security, but lacks readily available comprehensive data on funding. In response to GAO's data collection instrument to 10 agencies, 7 agencies reported such funding for global food security in fiscal year 2008 based on the working definition GAO developed for this exercise with agency input. USAID and USDA reported the broadest array of programs and activities, while USAID, the Millennium Challenge Corporation, Treasury, USDA, and State reported providing the highest levels of funding for global food security. The 7 agencies together directed at least $5 billion in fiscal year 2008 to global food security, with food aid accounting for about half of that funding. However, the actual total is likely greater. GAO's estimate does not account for all U.S. government funds targeting global food insecurity because the agencies lack (1) a commonly accepted governmentwide operational definition of global food security programs and activities as well as reporting requirements to routinely capture data on all relevant funds, and (2) data management systems to track and report food security funding comprehensively and consistently. The administration is making progress toward finalizing a governmentwide global food security strategy--expected to be released shortly--but its efforts are vulnerable to data weaknesses and risks associated with the strategy's host country-led approach. The administration has established interagency coordination mechanisms at headquarters and is finalizing an implementation document and a results framework. However, the lack of comprehensive data on programs and funding levels may deprive decision makers of information on available resources and a firm baseline against which to plan. Furthermore, the host country-led approach, although promising, is vulnerable to (1) the weak capacity of host governments, which can limit their ability to sustain donor-funded efforts; (2) a shortage of expertise in agriculture and food security at U.S. agencies that could constrain efforts to help strengthen host government capacity; and (3) policy differences between host governments and donors, including the United States, may complicate efforts to align donor interventions with host government strategies.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: Thank you for the opportunity to discuss our work on U.S. agencies’  progress toward the development of a governmentwide strategy to address  global food insecurity. Global hunger continues to worsen despite world  leaders’ 1996 pledge—reaffirmed in 2000 and 2009—to halve hunger by  2015. In 2009, the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) reported that  more than 1 billion people were undernourished worldwide. The food and  fuel crisis of 2006 through 2008 and the current global economic downturn  exacerbated food insecurity in many developing countries and sparked  food protests and riots in dozens of them. However, official development  assistance for agriculture declined from the 1980s to 2005. To reverse this  trend, in 2009, major donor countries pledged $22 billion, in a 3-year  commitment, for agriculture and food security in developing countries, of  which the U.S. share is at least $3.5 billion. Various legislative proposals  introduced in 2009 call for action to improve global food security.
Since assuming office in January 2009, the President and the Secretary of  State have each stated that improving global food security is a priority for  this administration. Consistent with one of our recommendations in our  2008 review of food insecurity, U.S. agencies have launched a global  hunger and food security initiative, and in April 2009 the administration  renewed efforts to develop a governmentwide strategy. The National  Security Council (NSC) Interagency Policy Committee on Agriculture and  Food Security and a Department of State-led Global Hunger and Food  Security Initiative (GHFSI) working team are responsible for these efforts.  In September 2009, the Department of State (State) issued a consultation  document that delineated a comprehensive approach to food security  based on host country- and community-led planning whereby recipient  countries decide on their own needs, solutions, and development  strategies on the assumption that the most effective food security  strategies come from those closest to the problems.
My statement is based on our report—issued today—on U.S.  governmentwide efforts to date to address global food security. I will  focus on two topics. First, I will discuss the types and funding levels of  global food security programs and activities of relevant U.S. government  agencies. Second, I will discuss progress in developing an integrated U.S.  governmentwide strategy to address global food insecurity, as well as  potential vulnerabilities of that strategy.
To address these objectives in our report, we administered a data  collection instrument to the 10 U.S. agencies that are engaged in global  food security activities and participated in the Food Security Sub-Policy  Coordinating Committee on Food Price Increases and Global Food  Security (Food Security Sub-PCC) of the NSC in 2008. The 10 agencies are  the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), Millennium  Challenge Corporation (MCC), Department of the Treasury (Treasury),  U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), State, Department of Defense  (DOD), U.S. Trade and Development Agency (USTDA), Peace Corps,  Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR), and Office of Management  and Budget (OMB). In addition, we conducted fieldwork in Bangladesh,  Ethiopia, Ghana, Haiti, and Malawi on the basis of multiple ongoing  programs addressing food insecurity, the proportion of the chronically  hungry in these countries, and geographic coverage of U.S. efforts in  Africa, the Western Hemisphere, and Asia. In these countries, we met with  U.S. mission staff and host government, donor, and nongovernmental  organization (NGO) representatives. We also visited numerous project  sites funded by the U.S. government and other donors. In addition, we  attended the 2009 World Food Summit as an observer and met with Rome- based United Nations (UN) food and agriculture agencies—namely FAO,  the World Food Program (WFP), and the International Fund for  Agricultural Development (IFAD)—as well as the U.S. Mission to the  United Nations and representatives of other donor countries. We  conducted this performance audit from February 2009 to March 2010 in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those  standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient,  appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and  conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence  obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions  based on our audit objectives.
subsections: section_title: The U.S. Government Supports a Broad Array of Programs and Activities for Global Food Security, but Lacks Comprehensive Funding Data
paragraphs: While the U.S. government supports a wide variety of programs and  activities for global food security, it lacks comprehensive data on funding.  We found that it is difficult to readily determine the full extent of such  programs and activities and to estimate precisely the total amount of  funding that the U.S. government as a whole allocates to global food  security.
In response to our data collection instrument to the 10 agencies, 7  agencies reported providing monetary assistance for global food security  programs and activities in fiscal year 2008, based on the working definition  we developed for this purpose with agency input. Figure 1 summarizes the  agencies’ responses on the types of global food security programs and  activities and table 1 summarizes the funding levels. (The agencies are  listed in order from highest to lowest amount of funding provided.)
USAID and USDA reported providing the broadest array of global food  security programs and activities. USAID, MCC, Treasury (through its  participation in multilateral development institutions), USDA, and State  provide the highest levels of funding to address food insecurity in  developing countries. In addition, USTDA and DOD provide some food  security-related assistance. These 7 agencies reported directing at least $5  billion in fiscal year 2008 to global food security, with food aid accounting  for about half of this funding. However, the actual total level of funding is  likely greater.
The agencies did not provide us with comprehensive funding data due to  two key factors. First, a commonly accepted governmentwide operational  definition of what constitutes global food security programs and activities  has not been developed. An operational definition accepted by all U.S.  agencies would enable them to apply it at the program level for planning  and budgeting purposes. The agencies also lack reporting requirements to  routinely capture data on all relevant funds. Second, some agencies’  management systems are inadequate for tracking and reporting food  security funding data comprehensively and consistently. Most notably,  USAID and State—which both use the Foreign Assistance Coordination  and Tracking System (FACTS) database for tracking foreign assistance— failed to include a very large amount of food aid funding in that database.  In its initial response to our instrument, USAID, using FACTS, reported  that in fiscal year 2008 the agency’s planned appropriations for global food  security included about $860 million for Food for Peace Title II emergency  food aid. However, we noticed a very large discrepancy between the  FACTS-generated $860 million and two other sources of information on  emergency food aid funding: (1) the $1.7 billion that USAID allocated to  emergency food aid from the congressional appropriations for Title II food  aid for fiscal year 2008, and (2) about $2 billion in emergency food aid  funding reported by USAID in its International Food Assistance Report  for fiscal year 2008. USAID officials reported that USAID has checks in  place to ensure the accuracy of the data entered by its overseas missions  and most headquarters bureaus. However, the magnitude of the  discrepancy for emergency food aid, which is USAID’s global food security  program with the highest funding level, raises questions about the data  management and verification procedures in FACTS, particularly with  regard to the Food for Peace program.
section_title: The Administration Is Developing a Governmentwide Global Food Security Strategy, but Efforts Are Vulnerable to Data Weaknesses and Risks Associated with the Host Country-Led Approach
paragraphs: While the administration is making progress toward finalizing a  governmentwide global food security strategy through improved  interagency coordination at the headquarters level, its efforts are  vulnerable to weaknesses in data and risks associated with the host  country-led approach called for in the strategy under development.
Two interagency processes established in April 2009—the NSC  Interagency Policy Committee on Agriculture and Food Security and the  GHFSI working team—are improving headquarters coordination among  numerous agencies, as shown in figure 2.
The strategy under development is embodied in the Consultation  Document issued in September 2009, which is being expanded and as of  February 2010 was expected to be released shortly, along with an  implementation document and a results framework that will include a plan  for monitoring and evaluation. In the fiscal year 2011 Congressional  Budget Justification for GHFSI, the administration has identified a group  of 20 countries for GHFSI assistance, including 12 countries in sub- Saharan Africa, 4 in Asia, and 4 in the Western Hemisphere.
However, the administration’s efforts are vulnerable to weaknesses in  funding data, and the host country-led approach, although promising,  poses some risks. Currently, no single information database compiles  comprehensive data on the entire range of global food security programs  and activities across the U.S. government. The lack of comprehensive data  on current programs and funding levels may impair the success of the new  strategy because it deprives decision makers of information on all  available resources, actual costs, and a firm baseline against which to plan.  Furthermore, the host country-led approach has three key vulnerabilities,  as follows:    First, the weak capacity of host governments raises questions regarding  their ability to absorb significant increases in donor funding for agriculture  and food security and to sustain donor-funded projects on their own over  time. For example, multilateral development banks have reported  relatively low sustainability ratings for agriculture-related projects in the  past. In a 2007 review of World Bank assistance to the agricultural sector  in Africa, the World Bank Independent Evaluation Group reported that  only 40 percent of the bank’s agriculture-related projects in sub-Saharan  Africa had been sustainable. Similarly, an annual report issued by the  International Fund for Agricultural Development’s independent Office of  Evaluation on the results and impact of the fund’s operations between  2002 and 2006 rated only 45 percent of its agricultural development  projects satisfactory for sustainability.
Second, the shortage of expertise in agriculture and food security at  relevant U.S. agencies can constrain efforts to help strengthen host  government capacity, as well as review host government efforts and guide  in-country activities. For example, the Chicago Council on Global Affairs  noted that whereas USAID previously had a significant in-house staff  capacity in agriculture, it has lost that capacity over the years and is only  now beginning to restore it. The loss has been attributed to the overall  declining trend in U.S. assistance for agriculture since the 1990s. In 2008  three former USAID administrators reported that “the agency now has  only six engineers and 16 agriculture experts.” According to USAID, a  recent analysis of direct hire staff shows that the agency has since  increased the number of its staff with technical expertise in agriculture  and food security to 79. A USAID official told us that the agency’s current  workforce plan calls for adding 95 to 114 new Foreign Service officers  with technical expertise in agriculture by the end of fiscal year 2012.
Third, policy differences between the United States and host governments  with regard to agricultural development and food security may complicate  efforts to align U.S. assistance with host government strategies. For  example, Malawi’s strategy of providing subsidized agricultural inputs to  farmers runs counter to the U.S. approach of encouraging the  development of agricultural markets and linking farmers to those markets.  Since 2005 and 2006, the government of Malawi has implemented a large- scale national program that distributes vouchers to about 50 percent of the  country’s farmers so that they can purchase agricultural inputs—such as  fertilizer, seeds, and pesticides—at highly discounted prices. USAID has  supported operations that use targeted vouchers to accelerate short-term  relief operations following conflicts or disasters. However, according to  USAID, the provision of cheaper fertilizer and seeds does not address the  fundamental problem—that poor farmers cannot afford fertilizer on their  own and, furthermore, without improvements in irrigation, investments in  fertilizer would not pay off in drought years in a country like Malawi,  where agriculture is mainly rain-fed.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: In the face of growing malnutrition worldwide, the international  community has established ambitious goals toward halving global hunger,  including significant financial commitments to increase aid for agriculture  and food security. Given the size of the problem and how difficult it has  historically been to address it, this effort will require a long-term,  sustained commitment on the part of the international donor community,  including the United States. As part of this initiative, and consistent with a  prior GAO recommendation, the United States has committed to  harnessing the efforts of all relevant U.S. agencies in a coordinated and  integrated governmentwide approach. The administration has made  important progress toward realizing this commitment, including providing  high-level support across multiple government agencies. However, the  administration’s efforts to develop an integrated U.S. governmentwide  strategy for global food security have two key vulnerabilities: (1) the lack  of readily available comprehensive data across agencies and (2) the risks  associated with the host country-led approach. Given the complexity and  long-standing nature of these concerns, there should be no expectation of  quick and easy solutions. Only long-term, sustained efforts by countries,  institutions, and all relevant entities to mitigate these concerns will greatly  enhance the prospects of fulfilling the international commitment to halve  global hunger.
section_title: GAO Recommends That Agencies Address Data Weaknesses and Mitigate Risks Associated with Host Country-Led Approach
paragraphs: In the report issued today, we recommended that the Secretary of State  (1) work with the existing NSC Interagency Policy Committee to develop  an operational definition of food security that is accepted by all U.S.  agencies; establish a methodology for consistently reporting  comprehensive data across agencies; and periodically inventory the food  security-related programs and associated funding for each of these  agencies; and (2) work in collaboration with relevant agency heads to  delineate measures to mitigate the risks associated with the host country- led approach on the successful implementation of the forthcoming  governmentwide global food security strategy.
Four agencies—State, Treasury, USAID, and USDA—provided written  comments on our report and generally concurred with our recommendations.
With regard to our first recommendation, State and USAID agreed that  developing an operational definition of food security that is accepted by all  U.S. agencies would be useful. With regard to our second recommendation,  the four agencies noted that the administration recognizes the risks  associated with a host country-led approach and that they are taking actions  to mitigate these risks.
Madam Chairwoman, this concludes my statement. I would be pleased to  respond to any questions that you or other Members of the Subcommittee  may have.
section_title: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: Should you have any questions about this testimony, please contact  Thomas Melito at (202) 512-9601, or melitot@gao.gov. Contact points for  our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on  the last page of this statement. Individuals who made key contributions to  this statement include Phillip J. Thomas (Assistant Director), Joy Labez,  Sada Aksartova, Carol Bray, Ming Chen, Debbie Chung, Martin De Alteriis,  Brian Egger, Etana Finkler, Amanda Hinkle, and Ulyana Panchishin.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the  United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety  without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain  copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be  necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.