Global Food Security: U.S. Agencies Progressing on Governmentwide Strategy, but Approach Faces 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 $22 billion in a 3-year commitment to agriculture and food security in developing countries, of which $3.5 billion is the U.S. share. Through analysis of agency documents, interviews with agency officials and their development partners, and fieldwork in five recipient countries, GAO examined (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 as well as potential vulnerabilities of that strategy.
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 funding for global food security in fiscal year 2008 based on the working definition GAO developed for this purpose 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 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 level of funding 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 in Washington, D.C., and is finalizing an implementation document and a results framework. However, the lack of readily available comprehensive data on current 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, which may complicate efforts to align donor assistance with host government strategies.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: 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 agreed to a $22 billion, 3-year commitment for  agriculture and food security in developing countries. According to the  Department of State, the U.S. share of this commitment—at least $3.5  billion—includes $1.2 billion towards the administration’s Global Hunger  and Food Security initiative in fiscal year 2010, representing more than  double the fiscal year 2009 budget request. Various legislative proposals  introduced in 2009 call for action to improve global food security.
Although investments in agriculture are important for increasing food  security, we found in our 2008 review of food insecurity in sub-Saharan Africa  that neither host governments nor donors, including the United States, have  prioritized food security and agriculture as development goals. According to  the World Bank’s 2008 World Development Report, promoting agriculture in  developing countries is imperative for meeting the Millennium Development  Goal of halving poverty and hunger by 2015. In our report, we concluded that  U.S. efforts to reduce hunger in sub-Saharan Africa—where food insecurity is  most prevalent—had been impaired by limited agricultural development  resources, a fragmented approach, and an emphasis on emergency food aid.  We recommended (1) the development of an integrated governmentwide  strategy that defines each agency’s actions and resource commitments to  achieve food security, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa, including improving  collaboration with host governments and other donors and developing  improved measures to monitor and evaluate progress toward the  implementation of this strategy and (2) annual reporting to Congress on  progress toward the implementation of the first recommendation.
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 our first recommendation, 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, 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.  The consultation document states that supporting host country-led plans  increases the long-term sustainability of investments in food security,  strengthens coordination among stakeholders, and provides an important  opportunity to learn from the experiences of others. Moreover, the  consultation document states that the U.S. strategy will support commitments  made through consultative and inclusive country-led processes by aligning  U.S. resources behind these host country-led plans. According to members of  the GHFSI working team, the comprehensive approach under development  will also include an implementation document for the strategy.
To inform Congress in its deliberations, you asked us to review U.S. efforts to  address global food insecurity. Specifically, we examined (1) the types and  funding levels 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, as well as  potential vulnerabilities of that strategy. To address these objectives, we  administered a data collection instrument to the 10 U.S. agencies that are  engaged in 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. (Our data collection  instrument is shown in app. II.) 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), Department of State (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 the presence of multiple active 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, 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. (Appendix I provides a detailed  discussion of our scope and methodology.)
subsections: section_title: Background
subsections: section_title: Global Food Insecurity Persists, especially in Sub- Saharan Africa, South Asia, and Haiti
paragraphs: Currently, there are over 1 billion undernourished people worldwide,  according to FAO. This number is greater than at any time since the 1996  World Food Summit, when world leaders first pledged to halve the number  of the world’s hungry, and has been steadily increasing since the mid-  1990s, even before the food and fuel crisis of 2006 through 2008 and the  current economic downturn. Based on FAO’s most recent data, Sub- Saharan Africa and South Asia had the most severe and widespread food  insecurity as of 2004-2006. Outside these two regions, Haiti, the least  developed country in the Western Hemisphere and one of the poorest  countries in the world, had extremely high levels of hunger and food  insecurity, which have been further exacerbated by the January 2010  earthquake.
In absolute numbers, more hungry people lived in South Asia than in any  other region, whereas the most concentrated hunger was found in sub- Saharan Africa, which had 16 of the world’s 17 countries where the  prevalence of hunger was 35 percent or higher. The 17th country was Haiti,  where 58 percent of the population lived in chronic hunger. According to  FAO’s data for 2004-2006, since 1990, the proportion of undernourished  people has declined from 34 to 30 percent in sub-Saharan Africa, from 25 to  23 percent in South Asia, and from 63 to 58 percent in Haiti. However, during  this period, the actual number of undernourished people has increased: from  169 million to 212 million in sub-Saharan Africa, from 286 million to 337  million in South Asia, and from 4.5 million to 5.4 million in Haiti—a number  that is likely to grow further due to the earthquake.
section_title: The United States and Other World Leaders Have Made Longstanding Commitments to Address Global Food Insecurity
paragraphs: In 1996, the United States and about 180 world leaders pledged to halve  hunger by 2015. In 2000 they reaffirmed this commitment with the  establishment of the UN Millennium Development Goals and, more  recently, at the World Summit on Food Security held in Rome in  November 2009. As shown in figure 2, both the international donor  community and the U.S. government have undertaken a number of key  initiatives over the years in their efforts to address global food insecurity.  The global food price crisis in 2007 and 2008 spurred new initiatives to  address the growing prevalence of hunger.
section_title: U.S. Agencies Work with Numerous Development Partners to Advance Global Food Security
paragraphs: In their efforts to advance global food security, U.S. agencies work with  numerous development partners. These include host governments,  multilateral organizations, and bilateral donors, as well as other entities  such as NGOs, philanthropic foundations, private sector organizations,  and academic and research organizations. Their roles and types of  activities include the following:    Host governments. At the country level, host governments generally lead  the development of a strategy for the agricultural sector and the  coordination of donor assistance. They typically issue a poverty reduction  strategy paper that outlines their country development plans and a  national action plan to alleviate poverty, both elements considered  indicators of national ownership of the development approach. Donors are  committed under the Paris Declaration to align their assistance with  national development strategies of the host country. Host governments  may also participate in efforts at the regional level. For example, in 2003,  members of the African Union endorsed the implementation of the  Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Program (CAADP), a  framework that is aimed to guide agricultural development efforts in  African countries, and agreed to allocate at least 10 percent of government  spending to agriculture by 2008.
Multilateral organizations. Several multilateral organizations and  international financial institutions implement a variety of programs in the  areas of agricultural development and food security. IFAD and other  international financial institutions play a large role in providing funding  support for agriculture. Together, the World Bank, IFAD, and the African  Development Bank accounted for about 73 percent of multilateral official  development assistance to agriculture from 1974 to 2006 in sub-Saharan  Africa. In addition, the New York-based UN Development Program is  responsible for supporting the implementation of the UN Millennium  Development Goals. In September 2009, the Group of 20 (G20) countries  asked the World Bank to establish a multidonor trust fund to support the  L’Aquila initiative to boost support for agriculture and food security. As of  January 2010, the World Bank board approved the establishment of the  Global Agriculture and Food Security Program Trust Fund, which the  World Bank will administer. According to Treasury officials, the fund will  be operational by the middle of 2010.
Bilateral donors. Major bilateral donors include Australia, Canada,  France, Germany, Japan, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and the  United States, among others. At the G8 Summit in L’Aquila, Italy, in July  2009, and the subsequent G20 Summit in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, in  September 2009, major donor countries and the European Commission  pledged to significantly increase aid to agriculture and food security.  According to the Organization of Economic Cooperation and  Development, since the mid-1980s, aid to agriculture has fallen by half, but  recent trends indicate a slowdown in the decline, and even the prospect of  an upward trend. From 2002-2007, bilateral aid to agriculture increased at  an average annual rate of 5 percent in real terms. Organization of  Economic Cooperation and Development data show that in 2006-2007,  development assistance countries’ bilateral aid commitments to  agriculture amounted to $3.8 billion, a little more than half of the L’Aquila  commitment on an annual basis.
Other entities. Other entities such as NGOs, philanthropic foundations,  private sector organizations, and academic and research organizations— often working in partnership—also play a significant role in supporting  food security and agricultural development in developing countries. For  example, the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa, which was  established in 2006 with initial funding from the Bill and Melinda Gates  Foundation and the Rockefeller Foundation, has entered into a  partnership with the New Partnership for African Development to help  link African government commitments to agricultural development with  programs in seeds, soil health, market access, and policy. U.S. land-grant  colleges and universities—institutions of higher education which receive  federal support for integrated programs of agricultural teaching, research,  and extension—sponsor fellowships for students from developing  countries. Additionally, some of these colleges and universities may have  partnerships with research organizations, such as the Consultative Group  for International Agricultural Research, including the International Food  Policy Research Institute, the International Institute for Tropical  Agriculture, and the International Livestock Research Institute.
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 broad array of programs and  activities for global food security, it lacks comprehensive funding data on  these programs and activities. 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, 7 of the 10 agencies reported providing monetary assistance  for global food security based on the working definition we developed for  this purpose with agency input. USAID, MCC, Treasury, USDA, State,  USTDA, and DOD directed at least $5 billion in fiscal year 2008 to  programs and activities that we define as addressing global food  insecurity, with food aid accounting for about half of this funding.  However, the actual total level of funding is likely greater. The agencies  were unable to provide us with comprehensive funding data due to (1) a  lack of a commonly accepted governmentwide operational definition of  what constitutes global food security programs and activities as well as  reporting requirements to routinely capture data on all relevant funds, and  (2) weaknesses in some agencies’ management systems for tracking and  reporting food security funding data comprehensively and consistently.
subsections: section_title: USAID and USDA Reported Providing the Broadest Array of Global Food Security Programs and Activities, while USAID and MCC Reported Providing the Largest Amounts of Funding
paragraphs: Among agencies that support global food security programs and activities,  USAID and USDA reported providing the broadest array of such programs  and activities, while USAID and MCC reported providing the largest amount  of funding in fiscal year 2008. To examine the types and funding levels of  these programs and activities as comprehensively as possible, we sent a data  collection instrument to the 10 agencies that participated in the 2008 Food  Security Sub-PCC: DOD, MCC, OMB, the Peace Corps, State, Treasury,  USAID, USDA, USTDA, and USTR. In this instrument, we asked the agencies  to indicate what types of food security activities they performed in fiscal year  2008 and the funding levels associated with them. We had to develop a  working definition of food security because there is no commonly accepted  governmentwide operational definition that specifies the programs and  activities that are food security-related. We developed our working  definition based on a framework of food security-related activities that we  established in a prior GAO report and a series of interactions with the  relevant agencies over a period of several months. Our interactions with  the agencies focused on refining the definition to ensure that it would be  commonly understood and applicable to their programs and activities to the  extent possible. The working definition that we developed included the  following elements: food aid, nutrition, agricultural development, rural  development, safety nets, policy reform, information and monitoring, and  future challenges to food security. We asked the agencies to indicate which of  these activities they performed and to provide funding data—when these data  were available and reliable—on the appropriations, obligations, expenditures,  and other allocations associated with these activities in fiscal year 2008. We  pretested the instrument with officials at DOD, MCC, State, USAID, and  USDA, and distributed it electronically in June and July 2009. All 10  agencies responded to our instrument and 7 of them (DOD, MCC, State,  Treasury, USAID, USDA, and USTDA) reported funding data.
In addition, the instrument gave the agencies the option to indicate  whether they were involved in other types of food security assistance and  if so, to describe them. Figure 3 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.)
Our analysis of the agencies’ responses to the data collection instrument  shows that USAID, MCC, Treasury (through its participation in multilateral  development institutions), USDA, and State are the agencies providing the  highest levels of funding to address food insecurity in developing  countries. These agencies’ food security assistance, as reported in  response to our instrument, can be summarized as follows:    USAID. In addition to providing the bulk of U.S. foreign assistance  targeting global food insecurity, USAID supports more types of programs  and activities in this area than any other agency. The two types of USAID  assistance with the highest funding are the delivery of food aid and the  promotion of food security by stimulating rural economies through broad- based agricultural growth. According to USAID’s most recent  International Food Assistance Report, the agency provided almost $2  billion for emergency food aid in fiscal year 2008. In addition, in response  to our instrument, USAID reported about $500 million in funding for  agricultural development and other global food security-related programs  and activities in that year. USAID’s funding for agriculture would increase  significantly under the administration’s fiscal year 2010 budget request to  double U.S. assistance for global food security and agricultural  development from the fiscal year 2009 request level.
Millennium Challenge Corporation. MCC was established in 2004 and  provides eligible developing countries with grants designed to support  country-led solutions for reducing poverty through sustainable economic  growth. MCC offers two kinds of monetary assistance: (1) compacts,  which are large, multiyear grants to countries that meet MCC’s eligibility  criteria in the areas of good governance, economic freedom, education,  health, and natural resource management; and (2) threshold programs,  which are smaller grants awarded to countries that come close to meeting  these criteria and are committed to improving their policy performance.  According to MCC, as of March 2009, it had obligated nearly $3.2 billion to  strengthen the agricultural and rural economies in poor countries to  promote reliable access to sufficient, safe, and affordable food. For fiscal  year 2008, MCC reported funding obligations of about $912 million for  multiyear compacts.
Treasury. Treasury is the lead agency responsible for U.S. participation in  the multilateral development banks. It provides funding for agricultural  development through the leveraging of its contributions to the African  Development Bank, Asian Development Bank, Inter-American Development  Bank and Fund for Special Operations, European Bank for Reconstruction  and Development, International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD),  and World Bank. A representative from Treasury’s Office of International  Affairs serves in a leadership role as a member of IFAD’s Board of Directors.  Treasury reported that in fiscal year 2008 the total financing for public and  private sector investments in agricultural development, including rural  development and policy reform, from the multilateral development banks was  $4.9 billion. We estimate that the U.S. share of this financing is $817 million,  including $358 million in highly concessional loans and grants to the  world’s poorest countries and $459 million in loans to middle-income and  creditworthy low-income developing countries.
USDA. USDA provides nonemergency food aid, as well as technical and  nutritional assistance focusing on agricultural development and vulnerable  groups. USDA reported $540 million in food security-related funding in  fiscal year 2008, including $530.5 million dedicated to food aid programs— namely, Food for Progress and the McGovern-Dole International Food for  Education and Child Nutrition Program—and the emergency food  commodity reserve known as the Bill Emerson Humanitarian Trust. The  remaining amount is used for various technical assistance programs, such  as the Cochran and Borlaug fellowships supporting international  exchanges to facilitate agricultural development.
State. State’s primary role with regard to food security is to coordinate  international communication, negotiations, and U.S. government policy  formulation. The President has asked the Secretary of State to lead the  Global Hunger and Food Security Initiative. A number of State’s bureaus  and offices perform duties specific to their expertise that help promote  global food security. For example, State’s Bureau of Economic, Energy,  and Business Affairs, with assistance from the Office of Policy Planning  and others, is involved in the effort to develop a whole-of-government  strategy to promote global food security. The Bureau’s Office of  Multilateral Trade and Agriculture Affairs assists with food security policy  coordination, works toward a successful conclusion of the Doha Round of  trade talks in the World Trade Organization, and promotes the removal of  export restrictions on agricultural products and the reduction in trade  barriers to agricultural biotechnology. The Bureau of International  Organizations coordinates U.S. policy towards and participation in FAO  and the World Food Program. The Bureau for Population, Refugees, and  Migration coordinates with the World Food Program and USAID regarding  food assistance and food security for refugees and other populations of  concern. The Bureau of Oceans, Environment, and Science works  bilaterally and multilaterally to advance U.S. foreign policy objectives in  such areas as the sustainable use of natural resources, protection of  biodiversity and wildlife, adaptation to climate change, harnessing of  science and technology, and improvements to human health. State’s Office  of the Director of U.S. Foreign Assistance (State/F) coordinates State and  USAID budgets, while the Office of Conflict Prevention acts as the  secretariat for the funding of reconstruction and stabilization projects  through the use of DOD Section 1207 funds. State reported providing  about $168 million for food security programs and activities in fiscal year  2008.
The other five agencies that responded to our data collection instrument  are involved in supporting global food security initiatives in different ways.  USTDA and DOD provide some food security-related monetary assistance.  For fiscal year 2008, USTDA reported providing more than $9 million for  agriculture, rural development, and other types of food security assistance,  and DOD’s Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA) reported more  than $8 million in funding for global food security-related activities that  were part of disaster relief and humanitarian assistance efforts. The Peace  Corps estimates that many of its volunteers serving in developing  countries address the issues of hunger, malnutrition, and food insecurity,  but did not report any funding data. While USTR does not support any  food security programming, it is engaged in interagency consultations and  has recently created an interagency subcommittee at the Trade Policy  Staff Committee to coordinate trade policy elements of the  administration’s global food security initiative. The 10th agency, OMB,  participates in the interagency process as part of its mission to help  formulate the administration’s budget and to advise the White House and  other components of the Executive Office of the President on the  resources available to support the development of new food security  initiatives. (For a more extensive description of the 10 agencies’ food  security-related programs and activities, see app. III.)
section_title: The Agencies Did Not Report Comprehensive Funding Information Due to Incomplete Data and Inadequate Data Management Systems
paragraphs: Comprehensive data on the total amount of funding dedicated to global  food security programs and activities by the whole of the U.S. government  are not readily available. In response to our data collection instrument, the  agencies providing monetary assistance for global food security reported  directing at least $5 billion in fiscal year 2008 to programs and activities  that we define as addressing global food insecurity, with food aid  accounting for about half of this funding. However, the actual total level of  funding is likely greater. We were only able to obtain these funding data  and ascertain their reliability through repeated inquiries and discussions  with the agencies over a 6-month period. The estimate does not account  for all U.S. government funds targeting global hunger and food insecurity.  The agencies did not provide us with comprehensive funding data because  they 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. For example, the estimate does not  include funding for some of USAID’s food security-related activities, some  U.S. contributions to international food security organizations, or funding  for relevant programs of agencies that did not participate in the Food  Security Sub-PCC, and were, therefore, outside the scope of our audit,  such as nutritional assistance implemented as part of the President’s  Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief. In addition, the agencies used different  measures, such as planned appropriations, obligations, expenditures, and,  in Treasury’s case, U.S. contributions to multilateral development banks,  which made it difficult to arrive at a precise estimate.
subsections: section_title: Incomplete Funding Data Due to Lack of a Commonly Accepted Governmentwide Operational Definition and Reporting Requirements
paragraphs: The agencies reported incomplete funding data due to a lack of a  commonly accepted governmentwide operational definition of what  constitutes global food security programs and activities as well as a lack of  reporting requirements to routinely capture data on all relevant funds. An  operational definition accepted by all U.S. agencies would enable them to  apply it at the program level for planning and budgeting purposes. Because  food security is an issue that cuts across multiple sectors, it can be  difficult to define precisely what constitutes a food security-related  program or activity, or to distinguish a food security activity from other  development activities. Principal planning documents, even at the  agencies with the highest levels of funding, have not recognized food  security as a distinct program area. For example, as State noted in a  written response to our data collection instrument, State’s and USAID’s  Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years 2007 to 2012, the most recent guidance  that sets these agencies’ priorities, does not use the term “food security.”
We also found that the Foreign Assistance Coordination and Tracking  System (FACTS) database, which State and USAID use to collect and  report data on the U.S. foreign assistance that they implement, provides  limited guidance for identifying food security programs and activities.  The organization of the FACTS database reflects the four levels of the  standardized program structure of U.S. foreign assistance: objectives,  program areas, elements, and subelements. USAID could identify  subelements whose definitions included food security activities. After  extensive discussions with USAID, we selected 13 subelements as  primarily containing food security programs and activities and added up  funding levels associated with these subelements to estimate USAID’s  global food security assistance in fiscal year 2008. However, if  subelements contained both food security and non-food security activities,  USAID could not always isolate the former from the latter. We identified  about $850 million in funding for 12 such subelements. For example, the  subelement for livelihood support, infrastructure rehabilitation, and  services, with $123 million in funding in fiscal year 2008, combines food  aid activities, such as food for work, with other activities, such as  education and income generation, but FACTS is currently not designed to  readily identify what portion of the $123 million is related to global food  security.
The lack of a commonly accepted governmentwide operational definition  may also lead the agencies to either define food security very broadly or to  not recognize food security-related activities as such. For example, in  response to our instrument, USDA reported some of the activities  supported by USDA’s Forest Service—such as the migratory bird and  monarch butterfly habitat management—but did not explain how they  were related to global food security. Conversely, DOD did not initially  report any global food security-related programs and activities because  food security is not recognized as part of DOD’s officially defined mission.  However, in subsequent inquiries we established that some of DOD’s  humanitarian assistance projects, such as those implemented by DSCA,  have food security components. DOD officials acknowledged that the  Combatant Commanders’ Initiative Fund and the Commanders’  Emergency Response Program likely support food security-related  projects but did not provide us with relevant data. DOD’s involvement  could be significant—for example, the Center for Global Development  estimates that in 2007 DOD implemented 16.5 percent of U.S. development  assistance—and DSCA’s $8.4 million for global food security-related  projects likely represents only a portion of DOD’s total spending on food  security-related activities.
Additionally, some agencies that support food security activities lack  reporting requirements to routinely capture data on all relevant funds. For  example, although the Peace Corps has adopted a Food Security Strategic  Plan and estimates that about 40 percent of its volunteers contribute in  some capacity to food security work through projects in agriculture, health,  and environment, the agency did not report any funding information. In an  interview, senior Peace Corps officials noted that, given the circumstances  under which Peace Corps volunteers work and live, it is impossible to  isolate what portion of volunteers’ time is spent on food security.  Furthermore, according to these officials, the Peace Corps does not track  what percentage of the organization’s budget is spent on supporting  volunteers’ food security-related work.
section_title: Data Management Systems Are Inadequate for Tracking and Reporting Food Security Funding Comprehensively and Consistently
paragraphs: We found that some agencies’ data management systems are inadequate  for tracking and reporting food security funding comprehensively and  consistently. Most notably, USAID and State/F—which both use FACTS— failed to include a very large amount of food aid funding data in the  FACTS 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. Officials at  USAID and State/F were unaware of the discrepancy until we brought it to  their attention. As of February 12, 2010, USAID had not updated FACTS to  incorporate the missing information. In formal comments on a draft of this  report, USAID and State officials attributed this discrepancy to the fact  that Title II food aid supplemental appropriations had not been entered  into FACTS because these were made fairly late in fiscal year 2008.  USAID officials reported that the agency has checks in place to ensure the  accuracy of the regular appropriations data entered by its overseas  missions and most headquarters bureaus. However, the omission of the  supplemental appropriation information for emergency food aid, which is  USAID’s food security program with the highest level of funding, raises  questions about the data management and verification procedures in  FACTS, particularly with regard to the Food for Peace program, and  seriously limits its capacity to track all food security funding.
In another example, in its initial response to our instrument, USDA  provided us with conflicting data for the total amount of funding for its  food security programs. In addition, the funding information USDA  reported to us for the Food for Progress program differed from what was  reported in the International Food Assistance Report for fiscal year 2008.  USDA acknowledged and reconciled the conflicting data after repeated  inquiries from us.
The implications of these data weaknesses will be discussed in the context  of the development of a governmentwide global food security strategy in  the next section of this report.
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: Consistent with our 2008 recommendation, the current administration has  taken a number of steps toward developing a U.S. governmentwide strategy  for global food security, including improving interagency coordination at the  headquarters level in Washington, D.C.; finalizing the main elements of the  strategy; and identifying potential countries for assistance. Two interagency  processes established in April 2009—the National Security Council (NSC)  Interagency Policy Committee (IPC) on Agriculture and Food Security and  the Global Hunger and Food Security (GHFSI) working team—are  improving coordination among numerous agencies, particularly at  headquarters. The strategy under development is embodied in the GHFSI  Consultation Document that State issued in September 2009, which is being  expanded and is expected to be released shortly, along with an  implementation document and a results framework that will include a plan  for monitoring and evaluation. The administration has identified a group of  20 countries around which to center GHFSI assistance in fiscal year 2011,  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 as well as risks associated with the country-led  approach. 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. In  addition, although the host country-led approach—a central feature of the  forthcoming strategy—is promising, it is vulnerable to some risks. These  include (1) the weak capacity of host governments; (2) limitations in the  U.S. government’s own capacity to provide needed assistance to strengthen  host governments’ capacity, as well as review host governments’ efforts and  guide in-country activities, due to a shortage of expertise in agriculture and  food security; and (3) difficulties of aligning donor assistance with host  governments’ own strategies.
subsections: section_title: The Administration Is Making Progress toward Finalizing a Governmentwide Global Food Security Strategy
subsections: section_title: The Administration Has Established Interagency Coordination Mechanisms at the Headquarters Level to Facilitate the Development of a Governmentwide Strategy
paragraphs: Since 2009, to facilitate the development of a governmentwide global food  security strategy, the administration has been taking steps to enhance  coordination among the relevant entities and to ensure communication  between policymakers and program implementers, particularly at the  headquarters level in Washington, D.C. Two interagency coordination  mechanisms are currently under way. These interagency coordination  mechanisms, established in April 2009, are (1) the NSC/IPC on Agriculture  and Food Security and (2) the State-led GHFSI working team, which have  identified cross-cutting priorities and key areas of potential investment.  (See figure 4.)
The IPC, which provides the opportunity for agencies to coordinate and  integrate strategies, is led by the NSC’s Special Assistant to President and  Senior Director for Development, Democracy, and Stabilization. Ten  agencies participated in the IPC when it was initially established: USAID,  MCC, Treasury, USDA, State, DOD, Peace Corps, USTDA, USTR, and  OMB. These agencies previously participated in the Food Security Sub- PCC, which was created in May 2008 and dissolved in January 2009. Other  agencies have since joined the IPC, including the Departments of  Commerce and Labor, the Export-Import Bank of the United States, the  Overseas Private Investment Corporation, and the National Oceanic and  Atmospheric Administration.
The GHFSI working team is developing the governmentwide strategy and  coordinating the implementation of the initiative. The primary agencies  participating in the GHFSI working team are State, USAID, USDA, MCC,  Treasury, and USTR. The Secretary of State’s Chief of Staff leads the  GHFSI effort and has been convening weekly meetings with relevant  agency officials since April 2009 in support of this effort.
In addition, several agencies at headquarters, such as USAID and USDA,  have established teams comprised of staff from different entities within  the agency to coordinate their food security activities. USDA has recently  named a coordinator for the global food security initiative in the Office of  the Secretary of Agriculture. Furthermore, the administration is  considering appointing a high-level U.S. food security coordinator to help  clarify roles and responsibilities and facilitate improved coordination  among the multiple agencies. Finally, a number of U.S. missions— including several in countries we visited during fieldwork—are organizing  an interagency task force or working group to help coordinate efforts at  the mission level, and some missions are considering designating a  country coordinator position for GHFSI activities. In Bangladesh, for  example, an active interagency food security task force meets at least  biweekly and includes staff from USAID, State, and USDA, according to  the USAID Mission Director, and the post is considering creating a GHFSI  country coordinator position to coordinate the initiative’s activities in- country. Similarly, in Ethiopia, the USAID Mission Global Food Security  Response Team was expanded to include DOD, the Peace Corps, State,  various USAID units, and USDA, and the post is considering adding an  initiative facilitator. Concurrent with these efforts, the administration  continues to define the organizational structure within the executive  branch to effectively manage U.S. support for the development and  implementation of host country-led plans, links to regional activities, and  GHFSI leadership and oversight.
section_title: The Administration Is Finalizing an Implementation Document and a Results Framework, and Moving Forward with Country Selection
paragraphs: Since April 2009, consistent with our recommendation in a 2008 report,  the administration has taken a number of steps to develop the elements of  a U.S. governmentwide strategy to reduce global food insecurity— including an implementation document and a results framework—and is  moving forward with selection of countries where GHFSI assistance will  be focused. The administration’s actions reflect the President’s  commitment, made in January 2009, to make the alleviation of hunger  worldwide a top priority of this administration. In remarks to participants  at a UN High-level Meeting on Food Security for All in Madrid, Spain, later  that month, the Secretary of State reaffirmed the administration’s  commitment to build a new partnership among donors, host governments  in developing countries, UN agencies, NGOs, the private sector, and others  to better coordinate policies to achieve the UN Millennium Development  Goals adopted in 2000. However, as U.S. agencies working on the strategy  recognize, translating these intentions into well-coordinated and  integrated action to address global food insecurity is a difficult task, given  the magnitude and complexity of the problem, the multitude of  stakeholders involved, and long-standing problems in areas such as  coordination, resources, and in-country capacity.
The strategy is expected to be released shortly, according to senior U.S.  officials. In September 2009, State and the GHFSI working team issued an  initial draft of the strategy, known as the Consultation Document. The  Consultation Document delineates a proposed approach to food security  based on five principles for advancing global food security, as follows:  1.  Comprehensively address the underlying causes of hunger and  undernutrition.  2.  Invest in country-led plans.  3.  Strengthen strategic coordination.  4.  Leverage the benefits of multilateral mechanisms to expand impacts.  5.  Deliver on sustained and accountable commitments.
These principles reflect the approach endorsed in several recent  multilateral venues, including the G8 L’Aquila joint statement, the UN  Comprehensive Framework for Action, and the World Summit on Food  Security declaration. To develop the Consultation Document, the  administration engaged in a consultative process within the U.S.  government and with the global community and other stakeholders  through the NSC/IPC and the State-led GHFSI. The Consultation  Document was posted on State’s Web site for input from a broad range of  relevant entities. According to State, to date, the document has also been  shared with more than 130 entities for input, including multilateral donors,  NGOs, universities, philanthropic foundations, and private sector entities.  Based on the input provided, the GHFSI working team is expanding the  initial Consultation Document and expects to release it to the public  shortly.
Furthermore, the GHFSI working team is developing an implementation  document and a results framework for this initiative under development.  According to the GHFSI working team, the effort to develop an  implementation document has involved intensive interagency  consultations and meetings with donors, such as FAO, the World Bank,  and the United Kingdom’s Department for International Development, to  discuss implementation “best practices,” the establishment of common  global guidance on the development process, and reviews of country-led  investment plans. Additionally, a number of U.S. missions overseas have  submitted draft implementation plans for fiscal year 2010 that include  staffing and budget resources required to achieve planned objectives in  core investment areas. Absent a finalized governmentwide strategy,  however, it is difficult to evaluate the subordinate implementation plans  that field missions are submitting to ensure sufficient resource and  funding levels. The GHFSI working team is also developing a whole-of- government results framework, which articulates specific objectives of the  initiative as well as causal linkages between certain objectives, their  intended results, and contribution to the overall goal. The results  framework will be accompanied by a monitoring and evaluation plan,  which identifies indicators to be used to report progress against planned  outputs and outcomes. The framework has been externally reviewed by 10  experts, is now under review by U.S. government representatives in the  field, and will be made available for public comment shortly, according to  State and other members of the GHFSI working team.
The administration is moving forward with plans to select about 20  countries where GHFSI assistance efforts are concentrated. State’s Fiscal  Year 2011 Congressional Budget Justification (CBJ) for the GHFSI  identified 12 countries in sub-Saharan Africa, 4 countries in Asia, and 4  countries in the Western Hemisphere on the basis of four criteria, as  follows:  1.  Prevalence of chronic hunger and poverty in rural communities.  2.  Potential for rapid and sustainable agricultural-led growth.  3.  Host government commitment, leadership, governance, and political  will. 4.  Opportunities for regional synergies through trade and other  mechanisms.
According to the Consultation Document, the GHFSI focus countries will  fall into two general categories: countries in the first phase that would  benefit from technical assistance and capacity building to fully develop  investment plans, and countries in the second phase with advanced  national food security plans and already-established public and private  capacities to enable successful plan implementation. Phase I countries will  receive targeted assistance to generate a comprehensive national food  security investment plan, including assistance to increase technical  expertise, improve natural resource management, prepare inventories and  assessments of the agricultural sector, conduct reform of trade and  agricultural policies, and meet critical infrastructure needs. Phase II  countries will be considered for significant resources and have to  demonstrate sufficient capacity, have an enabling environment for  sustainable agricultural-led growth, and have a completed country plan.  According to State’s Fiscal Year 2011 CBJ for GHFSI, the administration  will develop a set of objective indicators that measure both the progress  toward reforms that a country has committed to in its internal consultative  processes and a minimum set of internationally recognized cross-country  policy indicators. As of February 2010, GHFSI has identified 15 Phase I  countries (7 in sub-Saharan Africa, 4 in Asia, 4 in the Western Hemisphere)  and 5 Phase II plan countries (all in sub-Saharan Africa) that are being  considered for assistance in fiscal year 2011. (See table 2.) GHFSI  proposed budgets for Phase I countries range from $11.56 million to $36.75  million for a total of $352 million in fiscal year 2011. For Phase II  countries, the proposed budgets range from $42 million to $63 million for a  total of $246 million in fiscal year 2011.
section_title: The Strategy under Development May Be Vulnerable to Weaknesses in Funding Data and Risks Associated with the Host Country-Led Approach
subsections: section_title: Comprehensive Data on Global Food Security Are Not Collected in a Governmentwide Information Database
paragraphs: Comprehensive data on the entire range of global food security programs  and activities across the U.S. government are not collected in a single  information database. As we discussed earlier in this report, the agencies  we surveyed do not routinely collect and report such information using  comparable measures. As a result, it is extremely difficult to capture the  full extent of the U.S. government’s ongoing efforts to promote global food  security as well as the sources and levels of funding supporting these  efforts. Current planning does not take into account comprehensive data  on existing programs and funding levels, officials reported, but relies  instead on budget projections for the programs considered in the strategy.  However, the lack of such data deprives decision makers of information  on all available resources, actual costs, and a firm baseline against which  to plan.  Such information would be critical for the development of a well- informed and well-planned governmentwide strategy.
FACTS, which is currently used only by two agencies, is an information  system with the potential to collect and report comprehensive data using  comparable measures across the U.S. government on a range of issues,  including food security, but it has serious limitations in implementation.  FACTS was initially designed to be a comprehensive repository of  program and funding data on the U.S. foreign assistance, and State  expected the system to eventually include data from the more than 25  other U.S. entities involved in providing foreign assistance, including MCC  and Treasury. However, it is currently used only by State and USAID to  collect, track, and report standardized data for all foreign assistance that  they implement. Expanding the use of FACTS to other agencies has  proven to be difficult, in part because agencies use different data  management systems and procedures to allocate resources and measure  results. Even different units within an agency may use different data  management systems. In addition, as USAID officials in Ethiopia told us,  information sharing may have been hindered by a perception among  officials from at least one agency providing U.S. foreign assistance that  supporting the coordination effort through the State/F process created an  additional layer of work that was not regarded as a priority by other  agencies. As we discuss earlier in this report, FACTS currently has limited  capacity to track data for global food security programs and activities. We  highlight FACTS because, despite its limitations, it was originally designed  to compile and report comprehensive and comparable funding data on  assistance programs implemented by multiple agencies of the U.S.  government, and State/F and USAID could address the limitations we note  by changing their operating procedures rather than by redesigning the  system itself.
section_title: Host Country-led Approach Could Be Central to the Success of the Forthcoming Strategy but Has Key Vulnerabilities
paragraphs: The administration has embraced the host country-led approach as central  to the success of the new strategy, reflecting a consensus among  policymakers and experts that development efforts will not succeed  without host country ownership of donor interventions. At the same time,  as our current and prior work shows, the host country-led approach,  although promising, is vulnerable to a number of risks. These include  (1) the weak capacity of host governments, which can limit their ability to  absorb increased donor funding and sustain these levels of assistance;  (2) a shortage of expertise in agriculture and food security at relevant U.S.  agencies that could constrain efforts to help strengthen host governments’  capacity as well as review host governments’ efforts and guide in-country  activities; and (3) difficulties in aligning donor assistance, including that of  the United States, with host governments’ own strategies.
Weak Capacity of Host Governments Can Limit Sustainability of  Donor Assistance  The weak capacity of host governments—a systemic problem in many  developing countries, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa—could limit their  ability to (1) meet their own funding commitments for agriculture,  (2) absorb significant increases in donor funding for agriculture and food  security, and (3) sustain these donor-funded projects over time. In  addition, host governments often lack sufficient local staff with the  technical skills and expertise required to implement donor-initiated  agriculture and food security projects.
First, while donors are poised to substantially increase funding for  agriculture and food security, many African countries have yet to meet  their own pledges to increase government spending for agriculture. At the  G8 and G20 summits in 2009, major donors pledged to direct more than  $22 billion for agriculture and food security to developing countries  between 2010 and 2012. In 2003 African countries adopted the  Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Program (CAADP) and  pledged to commit 10 percent of government spending to agriculture by  2008. However, in December 2009, the International Food Policy  Research Institute (IFPRI) reported that only 8 out of 38 countries had met  this pledge as of 2007, namely Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, Ghana, Guinea,  Malawi, Mali, Niger, and Senegal (see fig. 5).
Despite stakeholders’ endorsement of progress Rwanda has made toward  addressing agriculture and food security at the first CAADP post-compact  high-level stakeholder meeting in December 2009, an IFPRI review raised  some concerns about growth performance in Rwanda’s agricultural sector,  which is nearly 50 percent below long-term targets. IFPRI found that  (1) Rwanda’s aggregate agricultural growth is higher than the precompact  level and the CAADP goal of 6 percent but lower than is necessary to meet  the poverty MDG, and (2) even successfully implemented investment plans  that achieve their targets for individual sectors would only meet the  required growth objectives to realize the poverty MDG by 2020, but not by  2015.
Second, the weak capacity of host governments raises questions about their  ability to absorb significant increases in donor funding for agriculture and  food security. According to MCC, as of the end of the first quarter of fiscal  year 2009, it had disbursed approximately $438 million in compact assistance.  Prior GAO analysis shows that this constitutes 32 percent of initially planned  disbursements for the 16 compacts that had entered into force. The 16  compacts have a total value of approximately $5.7 billion. According to a  senior technical financial advisor to the government of Ghana, a number of donor-funded projects have often not been able to spend their full funding  and delays in project implementation are not uncommon. For example, as  shown in figure 6, MCC’s $547 million compact with Ghana, which w in August 2006 and entered into force February 2007, had contract  commitments totaling $340 million but had disbursed only about $123 milli as of December 2009, more than halfway through the 5-year compact that  ends in January 2012.
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  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 all relevant  entities to mitigate these concerns will greatly enhance the prospects of  fulfilling the international commitment to halve global hunger.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: To enhance U.S. efforts to address global food insecurity, we recommend  that the Secretary of State take the following two actions:  1.  work with the existing NSC/IPC 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 the USAID Administrator, the Secretary of  Agriculture, the Chief Executive Officer of the Millennium Challenge  Corporation, the Secretary of the Treasury, and other agency heads, as  appropriate, 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.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: We provided a draft of this report to the NSC and the 10 agencies that we  surveyed. Four of these agencies—State, Treasury, USAID, and USDA— provided written agency comments and generally concurred with our  recommendations. In addition, they provided updated information and  clarifications concerning data issues and the host country-led approach.  We have reprinted these agencies’ comments in appendixes V, VI, VII, and  VIII, respectively, along with our responses.
Both State and USAID agreed that implementing the first  recommendation—to develop an operational definition of food security  that is accepted by all U.S. agencies—would be useful, although State  expressed some concern regarding the costs of doing so. However, the  limitations we found in FACTS could be addressed by improving operating  procedures and therefore need not be costly. Moreover, technical  comments from OMB suggest that its budget database may be able to  address our recommendation to establish a methodology for consistently  reporting comprehensive data across agencies and periodically inventory  agencies’ food security-related programs and funding. State’s and USAID’s  comments confirm our finding that the FACTS data were incomplete and  did not reflect all food security funding as FACTS lacks complete data for  supplemental appropriations. This is a serious limitation given the size of  these appropriations—$850 million in fiscal year 2008—for Food for Peace  Title II emergency food aid, which is USAID’s global food security program  with the highest level of funding. In addition, USDA noted that the  recommendation gives State the lead role, despite acknowledging that  USAID and USDA offer the broadest array of food security programs and  activities. The report recognizes the important roles that all the relevant  agencies play in the Global Hunger and Food Security Initiative (GHFSI)  currently led by State as a whole-of-government effort. The  recommendation is also intended to recognize the expertise that various  agencies can contribute toward the effort and encourage fully leveraging  their expertise.
Regarding the second recommendation, the four agencies all noted that  the administration recognizes the risks associated with a country-led  approach and are taking actions to mitigate these risks. State indicated  that the implementation strategy for GHFSI will incorporate mechanisms  to manage these risks. Treasury noted that the interagency working group  is proposing to increase the amount of technical assistance to recipient  countries and that a new multidonor trust fund administered by the World  Bank will complement U.S bilateral food security activities by leveraging  the financial resources of other donors and utilizing the technical capacity  of multilateral development banks. USAID noted that the administration is  planning to implement support to host governments in two phases in order  to reduce the risks associated with limited country capacity and potential  policy conflicts. USDA pointed out the technical expertise that the  department can offer, including its relationships with U.S. land grant  colleges and universities and international science and technology  fellowship programs to help build institutional and scientific capacity.
In addition, DOD, MCC, NSC, OMB, State, Treasury, USAID, USDA, and  USTDA provided technical comments on a draft of this report, which we  have addressed or incorporated as appropriate. The Peace Corps and  USTR did not provide comments.
We are sending copies of this report to interested members of Congress;  the Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for  Development, Democracy, and Stabilization; the Secretary of State; and  the Administrator of USAID as co-chairs of the NSC/IPC on Agriculture  and Food Security; and relevant agency heads. The report is also available  at no charge on the GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staffs have any questions about this report, please contact  me at (202) 512-9601 or melitot@gao.gov. Contact points for our Office of  Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page  of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions to this report are  listed in appendix VIII.
section_title: Appendix I: Scope and Methodology
paragraphs: We examined (1) the types and funding levels 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, as well as potential vulnerabilities of that strategy.
To examine the types and funding levels of food security programs and  activities of relevant U.S. government agencies, we administered a data  collection instrument to the 10 U.S. agencies that are engaged in 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). These agencies included the U.S.  Agency for International Development (USAID), Millennium Challenge  Corporation (MCC), Department of the Treasury (Treasury), U.S.  Department of Agriculture (USDA), Department of State (State),  Department of Defense (DOD), U.S. Trade and Development Agency  (USTDA), the Peace Corps, Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, and  Office of Management and Budget. We had to develop a working  definition of food security because there is no commonly accepted  governmentwide operational definition that specifies the programs and  activities that are food-security related. We developed our working  definition based on a framework of food security-related activities that we  established in prior work on international food assistance, including our  2008 report, and a series of interactions with the relevant agencies over a  period of several months. Our interactions with the agencies focused on  refining the definition to ensure that it would be commonly understood  and applicable to their programs and activities to the extent possible. The  working definition that we developed included the following elements:  food aid, nutrition, agricultural development, rural development, safety  nets, policy reform, information and monitoring, and future challenges to  food security. We asked the agencies to indicate which of these activities  they performed and to provide funding data—when these data were  available and reliable—on the appropriations, obligations, expenditures,  and other allocations associated with these activities in fiscal year 2008.  We pretested the instrument with officials at DOD, MCC, State, USAID,  and USDA, and distributed it electronically in June and July 2009. All 10  agencies responded to our instrument and 7 of them (DOD, MCC, State,  Treasury, USAID, USDA, and USTDA) reported funding data.
We conducted extensive follow-up with the agencies to determine the  completeness, accuracy, and reliability of the data provided. While the  agencies provided us with data about their food security programs and  activities, we noted limitations in terms of establishing a complete and  consistent U.S. governmentwide total. Some agencies could not report  funding information for all or some of their food security activities  because their databases did not track those specific activities. In s cases, agencies could provide funding information for their major security programs, such as USDA’s Food for Progress and Food for  Education programs administered by the Foreign Agricultural Service, bu were limited in their ability to provide this information for food se activities that spanned several units within agencies. The agencies th were able to report funding information did so using different measures: USAID reported data on planned appropriations (plans for implemen current-year appropriated budgets); State provided appropriations,  ,  obligations, and expenditures data for different programs; and DOD, MCC USDA, and USTDA reported obligations data. Treasury’s funding figure is  a GAO estimate based on Treasury data for (1) agricultural sector lending commitments made in fiscal year 2008 by multilateral development bank s,  (2) the U.S. share of capital in the banks which lend to middle-income and  creditworthy low-income countries, and/or (3) the U.S. share of total  resources provided to the multilateral development bank concessional  windows from donor contributions for the replenishment active in fiscal  year 2008. In addition, the Treasury funding estimate distinguishes  between support to the poorest countries and to middle-income and  creditworthy low-income developing countries. As a result, the data  reported by the agencies are not directly comparable.
Where possible, we performed some cross-checks of the data we received  in response to our instrument with data from published sources. During  this review, we compared USAID’s planned appropriations for emergency  food aid—about $860 million—subm itted in response to the instrument to  (1) the $1.7 billion that USAID allocated to emergency food aid from the  congressional appropriations for Food for Peace Title II food aid for fiscal  year 2008; and (2) about $2 billion in emergency food aid funding reported  in USAID’s International Food Assistance Report (IFAR) for fiscal year  2008, and found a very large discrepancy of between about $84 0 million to  $1.1 billion. In this instance, we relied on the IFAR data instead of the data  USAID reported using the Foreign Assistance Coordination and Trackin System (FACTS), because we determined that the IFAR data for  emergency food aid were more reliable. Officials at USAID and State/F  were unaware of this discrepancy until we brought it to their attention.  formal comments on a draft of this report, State/F and USAID explainedIn  that the discrepancy occurred because the funding data for the fisca  2008 supplemental appropriations for Food for Peace Title II emergencyfood aid had been entered into FACTS. Our own analysis confirmed this explanation. Based on discussions with USAID officials about their  procedures for entering data into FACTS, we determined that, once we  had made the correction for emergency food aid, the data we received were sufficiently reliable to indicate a minimum amount that USAID had directed to food security programs and activities. However, this amount  did not include funding for USAID programs and activities that have a foo tion,  security component, but also have other goals and purposes. In addi we determined that it likely did not include all supplemental  appropriations for the agricultural and other programs and activities  reported. Hence, the total actual level of funding is likely greater.
Overall, based on our follow-up discussions with the agencies, we  determined that their responses to the data collection instrument had  covered their major food security programs, but that there were  weaknesses in their reporting on other programs that addressed aspects o food security. We determined that the reported funding data were  sufficiently reliable to indicate the relative size of the major agencies’  efforts in terms of approximate orders of magnitude, and included the  funding information provided by the agencies—as amended during the  course of our follow-up inquiries—in appendix III. However, due to the  limitations in the funding data reported by the agencies, we could not  make precise comparisons of the agencies’ funds for food security in fisc year 2008, nor could we provide a precise total. As a result, we presented  rounded totals for funding in our discussion of our findings.
To assess progress in developing an integrated governmentwide strategy  to address global food insecurity—as well as potential vulnerabilities of  that strategy—we reviewed selected reports, studies, and papers issued by U.S. agencies, multilateral organizations, research and nongovernmental  organizations.
In Washington, D.C., we interviewed officials from the National Security  Council Interagency Policy Committee on Agriculture and Food Security  to discuss the interagency process to develop a governmentwide food  security strategy. We reviewed the initial Consultation Document that  State issued in September 2009, which is regarded as the strategy under  development. Similarly, we discussed the forthcoming U.S. global food  security strategy with the officials in the agencies that are developing it,  but were not able to fully consider the final draft for this review. At the  time of our review, the Global Hunger and Food Security Initiative  working team was in the process of finalizing the strategy, along with an  implementation document and a results framework that will provide a  foundation for country selection, funding, and mechanisms to monit evaluate the strategy.
We conducted fieldwork in Bangladesh, Ethiopia, Ghana, Haiti, and  Malawi. We selected these countries for fieldwork because the United  States has multiple active programs addressing food insecurity there. The  proportion of the chronically hungry in these countries—based on the  Food and Agriculture Organization’s most recent estimates— 8 percent of the population in Ghana to 58 percent in Haiti. In addition , we  also selected these countries to ensure geographic coverage of U.S . global  efforts in Africa, Asia, and the Western Hemisphere. While this selection is  not representative, it ensured that we had variation in the key facto considered. We did not generalize the results of our fieldwork beyond o ate of  selection, and we used fieldwork examples to demonstrate the st food insecurity in the countries we visited and U.S. efforts to date. In the  countries that we selected for fieldwork, we met with U.S. mission   and host government, donor, and NGO representatives. We also visited numerous project sites, smallholder farmer groups, and distribution site funded by the U.S. government and other donors. In addition, we attend the 2009 World Food Summit as an observer and met with the Rome-bas UN food and agriculture agencies—namely, the Food and Agriculture  Organization, World Food Program, and the International Fund for  Agricultural Development, as well as the U.S. Mission to the United  Nations and representatives of other donor countries such as Kingdom’s Department for International Development.
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.
section_title: Appendix II: GAO’s Data Collection Instrument
section_title: Appendix III: Summary Description of U.S. Agencies’ Reported Food Security Activities and Funding
paragraphs: The following tables summarize the responses of 10 U.S. agencies to our  data collection instrument regarding their global food security programs  and activities and associated funding levels in fiscal year 2008. The  summaries are listed by agency in order from highest to lowest amount of  funding reported. The totals in each summary table may not match the  sum of individual rows due to rounding.
subsections: section_title: U.S. Agency for International Development
paragraphs: Table 3 summarizes the U.S. Agency for International Development’s  (USAID) funding for global food security in fiscal year 2008. USAID  reported providing the broadest array of programs and activities and the  largest amount of funding.
section_title: Millennium Challenge Corporation
paragraphs: Table 4 summar obligations for a izes the Millennium Challenge Corporation’s gricultural and rural development in fiscal  year 2008.
section_title: Department of the Treasury
paragraphs: Table 5 presents GAO’s estimate of U.S. contributions made by the  Department of the Treasury (Treasury) to multilateral development banks for agricultural development, rural development, and policy reform in  fiscal year 2008.
section_title: U.S. Department of Agriculture
paragraphs: Table 6 summarizes the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) funding  obligations for global food security programs and activities in fiscal year  2008.
section_title: Department of State
paragraphs: Table 7 summarizes the Department of State’s (State) funding for global  food security programs and activities in fiscal year 2008.
section_title: U.S. Trade and Development Agency
paragraphs: Agency’s (USTDA) ding obligations for global food security-related pro iscal year 2008.
section_title: Department of Defense
paragraphs: Table 9 summarizes the Department of Defense’s (DOD) Defense Security  Cooperation Agency’s funding obligations for disaster relief and  humanitarian assistance with global food security components in fiscal  year 2008.
section_title: The Peace Corps
paragraphs: Table 10 summarizes the Peace Corps’ response to our data collection  instrument. The Peace Corps did not report any funding data.
section_title: Office of the U.S. T Representative
paragraphs: Table 11 summarizes the U.S. Trade Representative’s (USTR) response  our data collection instrument. USTR did not report any funding data.
section_title: Office of Management an Budget
paragraphs: Table 12 summarizes the Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB)  response to our data collection instrument. OMB stated that it is not an  implementing agency for global food security activities, and as such does  not have programs, activities, or funding to report.
section_title: Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of State
paragraphs: The following are GAO’s comments on the Department of State’s letter  dated March 1, 2010.
subsections: section_title: GAO Comments
section_title: Appendix V: Comments from the Department of the Treasury
paragraphs: The following are GAO’s comments on the Department of the Treasury’s  (Treasury) letter dated February 26, 2010.
subsections: section_title: GAO Comments
paragraphs: 1.  Consistent with Treasury’s comments, the draft report recognized the  difference between concessional windows and nonconcessional  windows and noted the breakdown between funding to poor and  middle-income countries. 2.  The definitional issue is a challenge in estimating or determining the  funding level for food security provided by the international financial  institutions. Accordingly, we discussed this issue with Treasury and  mutually agreed on the method to calculate U.S. contributions to  multilateral development banks that address global food insecurity. We  mutually agreed to use a percentage of the banks’ funding for  agricultural development—which is key to food security—as a way to  estimate food security funding. The percentage is based on U.S.  contributions to the banks. 3.  We do not question the appropriateness of the host country-led  approach. However, we do point out the potential weaknesses of the  approach as risks that the administration should mitigate to ensure  successful implementation of the strategy.
section_title: Appendix VI: Comments from the U.S. Agency for International Development
paragraphs: The following are GAO’s comments on the U.S. Agency for International  Development’s (USAID) letter dated February 26, 2010.
subsections: section_title: GAO Comments
paragraphs: 1.  The report recognizes the progress that U.S. agencies are making  toward the development of the strategy, Feed the Future: The Global  Hunger and Food Security Initiative Strategy. The implementation of  our recommendations, including developing an operational definition  of food security that is accepted by all U.S. agencies, will better help to  ensure the successful implementation of the evolving strategy.  2.  We compared the data in the Foreign Assistance Coordination and  Tracking System (FACTS) to data in other sources that reported  funding for food security, such as the annual International Food  Assistance Report (IFAR), and several years of congressional budget  justifications because that is a standard methodology for assessing  data reliability. Our goal, as USAID officials were aware through  months of discussion, was to collect the most complete and accurate  data possible on food security funding. With that in mind, we requested  data on supplemental appropriations and were given data tables that  included some supplemental appropriations data. In addition, when we  alerted USAID officials to the discrepancy we found in the Title II  emergency food aid data, they advised us to use the complete funding  data reported in IFAR rather than the incomplete data that were  reported in FACTS. 3.  USAID’S comments confirm our finding that the FACTS data were  incomplete and did not reflect all food security funding. While FACTS  contains reasonably complete and accurate data for regular food  security-related appropriations, it lacks compete data for supplemental  appropriations. This is a serious limitation inasmuch as USAID’s global  food security program with the highest funding level received a  supplemental appropriation of $850 million in fiscal year 2008.  4.  The report acknowledges the roles of all development partners,  including host governments, multilateral organizations, bilateral  donors, and other entities such as nongovernmental organizations,  philanthropic foundations, private sector organizations, and academic  and research organizations—with whom U.S. agencies will have to  coordinate their efforts. As with other donors, the United States is  supporting the Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development  Program (CAADP) to help ensure a coordinated approach. However,  we note in the report that the data suggest that the vast majority of  African countries have not met their own commitments to direct 10  percent of government spending to agriculture. This calls into questio  development  many of these countries’ commitment to agricultural which, in turn, could impact the development of technically sound  investment strategies for food security that reflect the reality of these  countries’ capacity to implement their own strategies, with donor  support and assistance. 5.  While the two-phased approach in selecting countries for GHFSI  ound development policy, we report that two of the five countries  assistance may reduce the risks associated with limited host country  s on  capacity and potential significant conflicts with U.S. perspective s currently under consideration as Phase II countries—Rwanda and  Tanzania—have not met their 10-percent CAADP pledges (see  comment 4). In identifying and selecting Phase I and Phase II  countries, the U.S. government should be clear on its application of th g  criteria that the GHFSI strategy has delineated, which include, amon other things, host government commitment, leadership, and  governance. 6.  Consistent with USAID comments, the report acknowledges the recen steps that USAID has taken to rebuild its staff with technical expertise  in agriculture and food security, which is necessary to enhance the agency’s efforts to help strengthen the capacity of host governments in these areas.
section_title: Appendix VII: Comments from the U.S. Department of Agriculture
paragraphs: The following are GAO’s comments on the U.S. Department of  Agriculture’s (USDA) letter dated February 22, 2010.
subsections: section_title: GAO Comments
paragraphs: 1.  We are making our second recommendation to the Secretary of State  to work in collaboration with the U.S. Agency for International  Development Administrator, the Secretary of Agriculture, the Chief  Executive Officer of the Millennium Challenge Corporation, the  Secretary of the Treasury, and other agency heads, as appropriate. We  recognize the important roles that all the relevant agencies play in the  Global Hunger and Food Security Initiative (GHFSI) currently led by  State as a whole-of-government effort. We also recognize the expertise  that agencies such as USDA and USAID offer, and encourage fully  leveraging their expertise, which is essential to U.S. efforts to help  strengthen host governments’ capacity in a country-led approach.  USDA’s expertise includes its relationships with U.S. land grant  colleges and university partners, as well as the science and technology  programs that the department supports. 2.  Consistent with USDA’s comments, the report acknowledges USDA’s  limited in-country presence and tight travel budgets—issues that  agricultural attachés raised during our fieldwork. The report also  acknowledges steps that USDA is taking to increase its presence,  especially in Africa, in light of the growing role of Africa in USDA’s  food security and trade portfolios. 3.  We do not question the appropriateness of the host country-led  approach. However, we do point out the potential weaknesses of the  approach as risks that the administration should mitigate to ensure  successful implementation of the strategy. We note that the weak  capacity of host governments is a systemic problem in many  developing countries.  4.  See comment 1.  5.  See comment 3.  6.  See comment 1.  7.  See comment 2. 8.  See comment 1. 9.  See comment 2.  10.  We added a footnote to provide USDA’s explanation for how the  migratory bird and monarch butterfly habitat management were  related to global food security. 11.  Although our review focuses on U.S. efforts, consistent with US DA’s  comments, the report also acknowledges the roles of all development  partners, including host governments, multilateral organizations,  bilateral donors, and other entities such as nongovernmental  organizations, philanthropic foundations, private sector organizations,  and academic and research organizations.
section_title: Appendix VIII: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
section_title: Related GAO Products
paragraphs: International Food Assistance: A U.S. Governmentwide Strategy Could  Accelerate Progress toward Global Food Security. GAO-10-212T.  Washington, D.C.: October 29, 2009.
International Food Assistance: Key Issues for Congressional Oversight.  GAO-09-977SP. Washington, D.C.: September 30, 2009.
International Food Assistance: USAID Is Taking Actions to Monitoring and Evaluation of Nonemergency Food Aid, but Weaknesses  in Planning Could Impede Efforts. GAO-09-980. Washington, D.C.:  September 28, 2009.
International Food Assistance: Local and Regional Procurement  Provides Opportunities to Enhance U.S. Food Aid, but Challenges May  Constrain Its Implementation. GAO-09-757T. Washington, D.C.: June 4,  2009.
International Food Assistance: Local and Regional Procurement Can  Enhance the Efficiency of U.S. Food Aid, but Challenges May Constrain  Its Implementation. GAO-09-570. Washington, D.C.: May 29, 2009.
USAID Acquisition and Assistance: Challenges Remain in Developing  and Implementing a Strategic Workforce Plan. GAO-09-607T. Washington,  D.C.: April. 28, 2009.
Foreign Aid Reform: Comprehensive Strategy, Interagency  Coordination, and Operational Improvements Would Bolster Current  Efforts. GAO-09-192. Washington, D.C.: April 2009.
GAO, Foreign Assistance: State Department Foreign Aid Information  Systems Have Improved Change Management Practices but Do Not  Follow Risk Management Best Practices. GAO-09-52R. Washington, D.C.:  November 2008.
USAID Acquisition and Assistance: Actions Needed to Develop and  Implement a Strategic Workforce Plan. GAO-08-1059. Washington, D.C.:  September 26, 2008.
International Food Security: Insufficient Efforts by Host Governments  and Donors Threaten Progress to Halve Hunger in Sub-Saharan Africa  by 2015. GAO-08-680. Washington, D.C.: May 29, 2008.
Somalia: Several Challenges Limit U.S. International Stabilization,  Humanitarian, and Development Efforts. GAO-08-351. Washingto February 19, 2008.
Foreign Assistance: Various Challenges Limit the Efficiency and  Effectiveness of U.S. Food Aid. GAO-07-905T. Washingt 2007.
Foreign Assistance: Various Challenges Impede the Efficiency and  Effectiveness of U.S. Food Aid. GAO-07-560. Washington, D.C.: April 2007.  he  Foreign Assistance: U.S. Agencies Face Challenges to Improving t Efficiency and Effectiveness of Food Aid. GAO-07-616T. Washington,  D.C.: March 21, 2007.
Intellectual Property: Strategy for Targeting Organized Piracy (STOP)  :  Requires Changes for Long-term Success. GAO-07-74. Washington, D.C. November 8, 2006.
Darfur Crisis: Progress in Aid and Peace Monitoring Threatened by  Ongoing Violence and Operational Challenges. GAO-07-9. Washington,  D.C.: November 9, 2006.
Rebuilding Iraq: More Comprehensive National Strategy Needed to Help  Achieve U.S. Goals. GAO-06-788. Washington, D.C.: July 11, 2006.
Results-Oriented Government: Practices That Can Sustain Collaboration among Federal Agencies. GAO-06-15. Washington,  D.C.: October 21, 2005.
Maritime Security Fleet: Many Factors Determine Impact of Potential  Limits of Food Aid Shipments. GAO-04-1065. Washington, D.C.:  September 13, 2004.
United Nations: Observations on the Oil for Food Program and Iraq’s  Food Security. GAO-04-880T. Washington, D.C.: June 16, 2004.
Combating Terrorism: Evaluation of Selected Characteristics in  National Strategies Related to Terrorism. GAO-04-408T. Washington,  D.C.: February 3, 2004.
Foreign Assistance: Lack of Strategic Focus and Obstacles to  Agricultural Recovery Threaten Afghanistan’s Stability. GAO-03-607.  Washington, D.C.: June 30, 2003.
Foreign Assistance: Sustained Efforts Needed to Help Southern Afr Recover from Food Crisis. GAO-03-644. Washington, D.C.: June 25, 2003.
Food Aid: Experience of U.S. Programs Suggest Opportunities for  Improvement. GAO-02-801T. Washington, D.C.: June 4, 2002.
Foreig Challenges for Successful Implementation. GAO-02-328. Washington, D.C.:  February 28, 2002.  n Assistance: Global Food for Education Initiative Faces  Foreign Assistance: U Controls. GAO/NSIAD/AIMD-00-329. Washington, D.C.: September 29,  2000.  .S. Food Aid Program to Russia Had Weak Internal  Foreign Assistance Mixed Results. GAO/NSIAD-00-175. Washington, D.C.: June 15, 2000.  : U.S. Bilateral Food Assistance to North Korea Had  Managing for Results: Barriers to Interagency Coordination.  GAO/GGD-00-106. Washington, D.C.: March 29, 2000.
Foreign Assistance: Donation of U.S. Planting Seed to Russia in 1999  Had Weaknesses. GAO/NSIAD-00-91. Washington, D.C.: March 9, 2000.
Foreign Assistance: North Korea Restricts Food Aid Monitoring.  GAO/NSIAD-00-35. Washington, D.C.: October 8, 1999.
Food Security: Factors That Could Affect Progress toward Meeting World  9.  Food Summit Goals. GAO/NSIAD-99-15. Washington, D.C.: March 22, 199 Food Security: Prepa GAO/NSIAD-97-44. Washington, D.C.: November 7, 1996.  rations for the 1996 World Food Summit.