Definition: When ll people ll timeve oth phyicnd economic ccess to sufficient food to meet their dietry need for prodctive nd helthy life. Food ilability—chieved when sufficient uantitie of food (supplied throgh household prodction, other dometic otpt, commercil import, or food assnce) re contently ilable to ll individua within contry. Food insecurity—the lack of access of all people at all times to sufficient, nutritionally adequate, and safe food, without undue risk of losing such access—results in hunger and malnutrition, according to FAO. FAO estimates that 90 percent of the hungry suffer from chronic malnutrition. About 80 percent of the hungry worldwide live in rural areas—about half of them are smallholder peasants; 22 percent are landless laborers; and 8 percent live by using natural resources, such as pastoralists. Inadequate food and nutrition have profound impacts. Undernourished children have a smaller chance of survival and suffer lasting damage to their mental and physical development. In addition, work productivity is often impaired among undernourished adults. Food aid has helped to address the immediate nutritional requirements of some vulnerable people in the short term, but food aid has not addressed the underlying causes of persistent food insecurity. Food ccess—ensured when household nd ll individua within them hve dequate rerce to oin pproprite food for tritious diet. World leaders have agreed upon two different goals to halve world hunger by 2015: the first, established at the 1996 WFS in Rome, is to halve the total number of undernourished people worldwide; while the second, the first of eight UN MDGs set in 2000, also referred to as MDG-1, aims to eradicate extreme poverty and hunger by halving the proportion of undernourished people from the 1990 level by 2015. Both of these goals apply not only globally but also at the country and regional levels. Although both the WFS and MDG targets to cut hunger are based on FAO’s estimates of the number of undernourished people, because the MDG target is defined as the ratio of the number of undernourished people to the total population, it may appear that progress is being made when population increases even though there may have been no reduction in the number of undernourished people, according to FAO. Figure 1 is a timeline of some of the key events related to food security and the WFS and MDG targets. To reach the goal set at the 1996 WFS, world leaders approved a Plan of Action, the focus of which is to assist developing countries in becoming more self-reliant in meeting their food needs by promoting broad-based economic, political, and social reforms at the local, national, regional, and international levels. The WFS participants endorsed various actions but did not enter into any binding commitments. They agreed to review and revise their national plans, programs, and strategies, where appropriate, to achieve food security that is consistent with the WFS Plan of Action. Participants also agreed to submit periodic reports to FAO’s Committee on World Food Security (CFS) on the implementation of the Plan of Action to track progress on food security. To monitor progress toward the target of halving the number of undernourished people worldwide, FAO periodically updates its estimates of the undernourished population at the global level as well as at the country level. FAO publishes these estimates in its annual report on The State of Food Insecurity in the World (SOFI), which was first issued in 1999. The same estimates are used by the UN to track progress toward the MDG hunger goal. As shown in figure 2, food insecurity in sub-Saharan Africa is severe and widespread. According to FAO’s estimates, one out of every four undernourished people in the developing countries lives in sub-Saharan Africa. This region also has the highest prevalence of food insecurity, with one out of every three people considered undernourished. In April 2008, FAO reported that 21 countries in sub-Saharan Africa, out of 37 countries worldwide, were critically food-insecure and required external assistance. Sub-Saharan Africa has not made much progress toward the WFS and MDG hunger goals to halve, respectively, the total number of and the proportion (or the percentage) of undernourished people by 2015. Between the periods of 1990 to 1992 and 2001 to 2003, the number of undernourished people in the region increased from 169 million to 206 million, and decreased in only 15 of the 39 countries for which data were reported. The prevalence of hunger, or the proportion of undernourished people in the population, has declined slightly, from 35 percent in 1990 to 1992 to 32 percent in 2001 to 2003—but this change is due to population growth. According to FAO’s projections, the prevalence of hunger in sub- Saharan Africa will decline by 2015, but the number of hungry people will not fall below the 1990 to 1992 levels. By 2015, FAO estimates that sub- Saharan Africa will have 30 percent of the undernourished population in developing countries, compared with 20 percent in 1990 to 1992. These data suggest that sub-Saharan Africa needs to substantially accelerate progress if it is to meet the WFS and MDG targets by 2015. Figure 2 shows the prevalence of undernourishment around the world and also shows, for each of the four selected countries in East Africa and southern Africa that we focused on in our review, the progress needed to reduce the number of undernourished people to meet the WFS and MDG targets by 2015. The principal development partners that implement programs to advance agriculture and food security in sub-Saharan Africa are as follows: Regional organizations and host governments: At the regional level, the primary vehicle for addressing agricultural development in sub-Saharan Africa is the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD) and its Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Program (CAADP). The African Union (AU) established NEPAD in July 2001 as a strategic policy framework for the revitalization and development of Africa. In 2003, AU members endorsed the implementation of CAADP, a framework that is aimed to guide agricultural development efforts in African countries, and agreed to allocate 10 percent of government spending to agriculture by 2008. Subsequently, member states established a regionally supported, country-driven CAADP roundtable process, which defines the programs and policies that require increased investment and support by host governments; multilateral organizations, including international financial institutions; bilateral donors; and private foundations. According to USAID officials, the CAADP roundtable process is designed to increase productivity and market access for large numbers of smallholders and promote broad-based economic growth. At the country level, host governments are expected to lead the development of a strategy for the agricultural sector, the coordination of donor assistance, and the implementation of projects and programs, as appropriate. Multilateral organizations: Several multilateral organizations and international financial institutions implement programs that contribute to agricultural development and food security—providing about half of the donor assistance to African agriculture in 2006. These entities include the following Rome-based UN food and agriculture agencies: FAO, whose stated mandate is to achieve food security for all and lead international efforts to defeat hunger; WFP, which is the food aid arm of the UN; and IFAD, which finances (through loans and grants) efforts in developing countries to reduce rural poverty, primarily through increased agricultural productivity, with an emphasis on food production. IFAD and other international financial institutions, such as the World Bank and the African Development Bank, play a large role in providing funding support for agriculture. For example, the World Bank also provides Secretariat support for the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR), a partnership of countries, international and regional organizations, and private foundations supporting the work of 15 international agricultural research centers, whose work has played an important role in improving agricultural productivity and reducing hunger in the developing countries. Together, the World Bank, IFAD, and the African Development Bank account for about 73 percent of multilateral ODA to agriculture for Africa from 1974 to 2006. In addition, the New York-based UNDP is responsible for supporting the implementation of the MDG targets and houses the UN MDG Support Team. Bilateral donors, including the United States: The major bilateral donors have focused on issues of importance to Africa at every Group of Eight (G8) summit since the late 1990s. In 2005, these donors reiterated their commitment to focus on Africa as the only continent not on track to meet the MDG targets by 2015 and further committed themselves to supporting a comprehensive set of actions to raise agricultural productivity, strengthen urban-rural linkages, and empower the poor, based on national initiatives and in cooperation with NEPAD, CAADP, and other African initiatives. At that time, the commitments of the G8 and other donors were expected to lead to an increase in ODA to Africa of $25 billion a year by 2010, more than twice the amount provided in 2004. (See app. V for a summary discussion of the role of other development partners, such as NGOs and private foundations.) In the wake of the 1996 WFS, the United States adopted a number of development initiatives for Africa. These initiatives—including the Africa Food Security Initiative in 1998, the Africa Seeds of Hope Act in 1998, and the African Growth and Opportunity Act of 2000—reflect U.S. efforts to improve the deteriorating food security situation in sub-Saharan Africa. The consistent U.S. positions at the summit were that the primary responsibility for reducing food insecurity rests with the host governments, and that it is critical that all countries promote self-reliance and facilitate food security at all levels. (See app. II for a summary of U.S. participation in the 1996 summit.) In 2002, the United States launched IEHA, which represents the U.S. strategy to help fulfill the MDG of halving hunger in Africa by 2015. In 2005, USAID, the primary agency that implements IEHA, committed to providing an estimated $200 million per year for 5 years through the initiative, using existing funds from Title II of Public Law 480 food for development and assorted USAID Development Assistance and other accounts. IEHA is intended to build an African-led partnership to cut hunger and poverty by investing in efforts to promote agricultural growth that is market-oriented and focused on small-scale farmers. IEHA is currently implemented in three regional missions in Africa as well as in eight bilateral missions: Kenya, Tanzania, and Uganda in East Africa; Malawi, Mozambique, and Zambia in southern Africa; and Ghana and Mali in West Africa. Low agricultural productivity, limited rural development, government policy disincentives, and poor health are among the main factors contributing to persistent food insecurity in sub-Saharan Africa. Additional factors, including rising global commodity prices and climate change, will likely further exacerbate food insecurity in the region (see fig. 3). (For further discussions of factors and interventions affecting food security, including a framework for addressing food security issues, see table 2 in app. III. Additional examples of the interventions, as well as the summary results of our structured panel discussions with donors and NGOs during fieldwork, are discussed in app. IV.) One of the most important factors that contribute to food insecurity in sub-Saharan Africa is its low agricultural productivity. Raising agricultural productivity is vital to all elements of food security: food availability, food access, and food utilization. Although imports can be used to supplement domestic agricultural production in some countries, importing staple foods may not be practical because some main staples, such as cassava, are generally not traded in the international market. In addition, poor infrastructure in many African countries makes it extremely costly to transport imported foods to remote areas. Furthermore, because the income of the majority of people in developing countries depends directly or indirectly on agriculture, growth in this sector would have widespread poverty-reducing benefits and improve food access for the poor. The World Bank pointed out in its 2008 World Development Report that agriculture’s ability to generate income for the poor, particularly for women, is more important for food security than its ability to increase local food supplies. According to FAO, poverty is a main immediate cause of food insecurity in sub-Saharan Africa. Agriculture can also help enhance diet quality and diversity through new and improved crop varieties, thereby improving food utilization and nutritional status. Sub-Saharan Africa has lagged behind other developing countries in improving agricultural productivity. Since the early 1960s, grain yield in the rest of the world has increased almost 2.5 percent annually (see fig. 4). In contrast, grain yield in sub-Saharan Africa has stagnated, with an annual increase of only approximately 1 percent. As a result, yield of basic food staples in sub-Saharan Africa, such as maize, is much lower than that of other countries. For example, Zambia produces about 1,800 kilograms of maize on a hectare of land, while China produces almost 3 times as much on the same amount of land. Overall, the gap between the average grain yield in sub-Saharan Africa compared with the rest of the world’s developing countries has widened over the years. By 2006, the average grain yield in sub-Saharan Africa was only about 40 percent of the rest of the world’s developing countries. Research has also shown that the expansion of food production has taken a very different course in Asia than in sub-Saharan Africa, where increases in food staples were achieved largely by expanding the area cultivated, not by increasing the yield on existing acreage. Low agricultural productivity growth in sub-Saharan Africa is partially due to inadequate investment and the limited use of modern inputs and farming practice. Panelists in all four countries we visited reported difficulty in accessing critical inputs, such as land, seed, fertilizer, and water, due to their high costs and limited availability. The panelists also noted that farm management practices were weak in all four countries. FAO data show that the investment per hectare of land in sub-Saharan Africa is about one third of the world’s average. Less than 1 percent of the agricultural land in sub-Saharan Africa is irrigated, thereby making agricultural production prone to natural disasters, such as droughts. Sub- Saharan Africa uses far less inputs, such as fertilizer and pesticide, than other parts of the world. For example, its pesticide use is only about 5 percent of the world’s average, which was 0.39 kilograms per hectare in 1998 to 2000 (see table 1). The World Bank reports that while scientific plant breeding has improved agricultural production throughout much of the world, sub-Saharan Africa lags behind in adoption of these new varieties. For example, while at least 80 percent of the crop area in Asia was planted with improved varieties of rice, maize, sorghum, and potatoes, only about 20 percent to 40 percent of the crop area in sub-Saharan Africa used new varieties in these categories. According to several USAID officials, agricultural productivity has also lagged in sub-Saharan Africa, in part because innovations in science and technologies, such as improved seed and soil fertility systems, have not been transferred and adapted to each country’s unique agro-ecosystem. Limited rural development has also been a primary factor aggravating food insecurity in sub-Saharan Africa. The majority of the population, as well as the majority of the poor, lives in the rural areas of the region. Weak rural infrastructure and lack of rural investment, among other factors, limit the potential for agricultural development and opportunities for nonfarm income. Panels in all four countries we visited cited poor infrastructure and farmers’ lack of access to microcredit as challenges. Rural development in sub-Saharan Africa has suffered from weak infrastructure, such as lack of rural telecommunications, electricity, and roads. Although the development community has recognized the importance of improving rural infrastructure for poverty reduction and agricultural growth, infrastructure in the region is generally in a frail condition. For example, IFPRI reported that progress in paved roads is almost nonexistent in sub-Saharan Africa, and the World Bank reported that less than half of the rural population in this region lives next to an all- season road. The lack of adequate rural roads increases distribution costs, adds to postharvest food spoilage, and inhibits the development of local and regional markets as well as access to those markets. Many rural households also do not have access to safe drinking water, electricity, modern communication services, or good transportation. For example, in Burkina Faso, Uganda, and Zambia, walking is the principal means of transportation for 87 percent of rural residents. IFPRI concluded that it is the poor households within the rural areas that have the least access to infrastructure. Farmers’ lack of access to credit also hinders rural development. The World Bank noted that almost all countries in Africa have a large unmet demand for agricultural credit and rural finance. With inadequate financing in the short term, farmers find it difficult to buy inputs and seeds. In the long term, they are unable to invest in land improvement, better technology, or irrigation development. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) noted that rural credit in sub-Saharan Africa is hampered by land tenure systems that prevent the use of land as collateral, the absence of physical collateral, the high risk associated with rain-fed agriculture and sharp commodity price fluctuations, and poor transport and communication facilities. Banks that specialize in agricultural lending have become insolvent in many sub-Saharan African countries, or have had to be rescued at large public cost, with many of these banks collapsing through the 1980s. Each of the panels we conducted in the four countries we visited cited weak governance or deficient agricultural policies as challenges, with one panelist noting that government policies can be a disincentive to agricultural growth. These policies can have a detrimental impact on the rural poor. While Asia has fostered growth in agriculture by providing credit to support prices and input subsidies to farmers, sub-Saharan African governments have taxed agriculture more than the governments of other regions. For example, according to the government of Tanzania’s 2007/2008 Agricultural Sector Review, Tanzanian farmers must pay about 55 taxes, levies, and fees to sell their agricultural products, which is equivalent to 50 percent of the products’ price. The World Bank noted that efforts by local governments to raise local revenue in Tanzania have occasionally added a significant tax burden to agriculture, with little benefit. A World Bank study found that of the 18 countries studied, the 3 with the highest tax rates on the agricultural sector were all in sub- Saharan Africa—Côte d’Ivoire (49 percent), Ghana (60 percent), and Zambia (46 percent). While progress has been made over the past two decades by numerous developing countries in reducing these policy biases, many welfare- and trade-reducing price distortions remain. These policies continue to provide disincentives for agricultural development and investment. Other government policies, such as subsidies to agriculture, if used improperly, can also negatively affect agriculture and food security. For example, a World Bank report notes that the government of Zambia’s policy of subsidizing smallholders’ maize production has had a number of long-term effects, including a loss of farmers’ skills and knowledge and increased dietary concentration on subsidized maize meal among Zambian people. We met with officials in Zambia who also expressed concern that Zambian maize subsidies led to overreliance on maize meal for nutrition and underreliance on other sources of food, such as vegetables. Poor health also exacerbates food insecurity in sub-Saharan Africa, according to panels in the four countries we visited, through its adverse impact on the agricultural workforce. For example, HIV has taken a heavy toll on the population and agricultural production of sub-Saharan Africa, because two thirds of those in the world who have HIV live in that region. HIV is concentrated in the most economically productive groups, those aged 15 to 45 years, with slightly more women infected than men. UNDP noted that more than one quarter of Africans are directly affected by the HIV epidemic. HIV/acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) has a profound impact on poverty by reducing adults’ capability to work and raising mortality among young adults. In addition, malaria kills over 1 million people each year, according to the World Health Organization (WHO), mostly in Africa. The World Bank notes that there is a two-way relationship between malaria and agriculture. Specifically, on one hand, when farmers become ill or die from malaria, agricultural production decreases because of lost labor, knowledge, and assets. On the other hand, some methods that farmers use to increase agricultural production, such as increased irrigation, can increase the risk of malaria by increasing the population of mosquitoes. Furthermore, WHO estimates that there were 14.4 million cases of tuberculosis worldwide in 2006, and that Africa has the highest incidence of the disease—363 cases per 100,000 people. Tuberculosis spreads particularly rapidly in areas with high concentrations of livestock. Global prices for fuel and agricultural commodities have been rising significantly due to various factors, further exacerbating food insecurity. From 2000 to 2008, oil prices are estimated to increase by 238 percent, grain prices by 175 percent, and vegetable oil prices by 184 percent (see fig. 5). The growing use of agricultural products, such as soybeans and corn, for biofuels has raised the price of these commodities and reduced the amount of land available for production of other food commodities. (See app. VI for further discussion of biofuels and their impacts on food security.) Economic growth in large countries, such as China and India, has also raised demand for food—through both increased incomes and shifting dietary patterns. Droughts in major grain-producing countries, such as Australia, and record-low grain reserves have further constrained world supplies and increased the prices of agricultural goods. Experts suggest that rising fuel and commodity prices are negatively impacting African food security efforts through several channels, as follows: Higher fuel prices increase the prices of fertilizer and other inputs for farmers and make harvesting, storage, and transportation of agricultural production more expensive. Higher fuel import costs also limit available foreign exchange for imports of food. USDA reports that official development assistance has fallen well short of rising energy import bills. Twenty-two countries—15 of which are in sub-Saharan Africa—depend on imported fuel, import grain, and report a prevalence of undernourishment exceeding 30 percent, according to FAO. Higher agricultural prices hurt many of Africa’s food-insecure, including low-income consumers who spend a large share of their income on grains and farmers who buy more food than they produce. Food-insecure populations are likely to be net buyers of food, and many sub-Saharan African countries are, in fact, net importers of food. In February 2008, FAO announced that 21 African countries are in crisis as a result, in part, of higher food prices, while nutritional studies estimate that 16 million additional people would be affected by food insecurity for every 1 percent increase in staple food prices, with many of these people being in Africa. In the long term, while higher grain prices provide incentives to expand agricultural production, complementary policies and investments in technology and market development may be required. Higher fuel and commodity prices increase delivery costs for emergency food aid programs to Africa’s most food-insecure. For the largest U.S. emergency food aid program, USAID has reported that commodity costs increased by 41 percent and transportation costs increased by 26 percent in the first half of fiscal year 2008. As a result, USAID projects a $265 million shortfall in this year’s food aid budget. According to our estimates, that $265 million could provide enough food aid to reach about 4.5 million vulnerable people in sub-Saharan Africa during a typical peak hungry season lasting 3 months. Similarly, in March 2008, WFP appealed to the international community, including the United States, to compensate for the growing shortfall in its food aid budget. Climate change is also an important emerging challenge that is expected to worsen African food insecurity. Key climate change models conclude that global warming has occurred and, since the mid-twentieth century, has been largely attributable to human activities, such as the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation. Several models predict further global warming, changed precipitation patterns, and increased frequency and severity of damaging weather-related events for this century. IFPRI reports that sub- Saharan Africa may be hardest hit by climate change, with one estimate predicting that temperature increases for certain areas may double those of the global average. Since sub-Saharan African countries have a lower capacity to adapt to variable weather, models also predict that climate change will further reduce African agricultural yields and will increase the number of people at risk of hunger. Climate change affects agriculture in several ways: higher temperatures shorten the growing season and adversely affect grain formation; reduced precipitation levels limit the availability of water to grow rain-fed crops; variable climates shift production to marginal lands and intensify soil erosion; rising sea levels threaten coastal agricultural land; and climate extremes, such as floods and droughts, result in crop failure and livestock deaths. Accounting for these effects, numerous studies seek to estimate the impact of climate change on African agricultural yields. By 2060, for example, the United Nations Environment Program projects a 33 percent reduction in grain yield in sub-Saharan Africa, while FAO predicts that the number of Africans at risk of hunger will increase to 415 million. (For further discussion of climate change, see app. VI, which also includes a compendium of the results of several studies that project adverse impacts from climate change on African agriculture.) Despite their commitment to halve hunger in sub-Saharan Africa by 2015, efforts of host governments and donors, including the United States, to accelerate progress toward that goal have been insufficient. First, host governments have not prioritized food security as a development goal, and few have met their 2003 pledge to direct 10 percent of government spending to agriculture. Second, donors reduced the priority given to agriculture, and their efforts have been hampered by difficulties in coordination and deficiencies in estimates of undernourishment used to measure progress toward attaining the goals to halve hunger by 2015. Third, limited agricultural development resources, increased demand for emergency food aid, and a fragmented approach impair U.S. efforts to end hunger in sub-Saharan Africa. Host government efforts in sub-Saharan Africa have been hampered by limited prioritization of food security in poverty reduction strategies and slow follow-through on CAADP goals, low agricultural spending levels, and weak capacity of government institutions to sustain food security interventions and to report on progress toward goals to halve hunger by 2015. Despite their commitment in the November 1996 Rome Declaration on World Food Security and the World Food Summit Plan of Action to achieve food security for all, some host governments have not prioritized food security in their strategies and use of resources. An FAO- commissioned review of the PRSP process found a lack of consistency among policies, strategies, and interventions for alleviating food insecurity and poverty. Developing countries prepare a PRSP every 3 to 5 years through a participatory process with civil society and donors. As country-owned documents that establish development priorities and serve as the basis for assistance from the World Bank and other donors, PRSPs are to include a country poverty assessment and clearly present the priorities for macroeconomic, structural, and social policies. Of 10 African PRSPs reviewed in the FAO-commissioned review, only half included policies to address food insecurity and less than half included interventions to address food insecurity. Furthermore, several delegates who attended the 2004 Committee on World Food Security meeting expressed concern that food security and rural development issues were not adequately reflected in PRSPs of many countries. Similarly, our analysis of World Bank and IMF joint assessments of current PRSPs for eight countries in East Africa and southern Africa found that food security and agricultural development require greater prioritization in more than half of the strategies examined. Although African leaders pledged their commitment to prioritize agricultural development in the CAADP framework, both the initial planning process and the actual implementation of the CAADP framework at the country level have been slow. According to a World Bank official, CAADP’s initial planning process did not begin until 2005, 2 years after the framework was developed, because it involved (1) forming stakeholder groups at the regional and continental levels and (2) establishing credibility within the development community. Thus, country-level implementation did not start until 2007. Regional entities representing 40 countries in East Africa, West Africa, and southern Africa have continued to encourage the implementation and acceleration of CAADP. However, by the end of 2008, only 13 of the 40 countries are expected to have completed the initial planning process and organized a roundtable to formally adopt a CAADP compact. The remaining 27 countries are scheduled to complete the entire process by the summer of 2009. However, for those countries that will formally adopt a CAADP compact, it is unclear whether concrete results will follow. According to an IFPRI official, because CAADP is still in the early stages of implementation, it is difficult to demonstrate the impact of CAADP efforts to date. Although African leaders in 2003 pledged to devote 10 percent of government spending on agriculture, according to an IFPRI study issued in 2008, most countries in Africa—with the exception of four countries: Ethiopia, Malawi, Mali, and Burkina Faso—had not reached this goal as of 2005. Of the four countries we reviewed—Kenya, Mozambique, Tanzania, and Zambia—none had met the goal as of 2005. Mozambique was close to reaching the goal, and government spending for agriculture in Zambia has shown an upward trend since 2002. However, as shown in figure 6, government spending for agriculture in Kenya and Tanzania from 2002 to 2005 was well below the CAADP goal. According to estimates by several research organizations, the total financial investment required for agricultural development and to halve hunger in sub-Saharan Africa by 2015 is significant, and experts conclude that the majority of African countries will need to substantially scale up spending for their agricultural sectors. IFPRI estimated that annual investments of $32 billion to $39 billion per year would be required for agriculture in sub-Saharan Africa, more than 3 to 4 times the level in 2004. Specifically, Kenya’s spending would need to increase by up to 12 times its 2004 levels; Mozambique spending would need to double; Tanzania would need to triple its 2004 spending levels; and Zambia would need to spend up to 9 times its 2004 total. (See fig. 6 for a comparison of actual 2004 agricultural sector spending and the annual agricultural sector spending required under different scenarios to halve hunger by 2015 in Kenya, Mozambique, Tanzania, and Zambia.) Host governments’ institutional capacity affects whether they can eventually take over development activities at the conclusion of donor assistance, and some lack the capacity to sustain donor-assisted food security interventions over time. In a 2007 review of World Bank assistance to the agricultural sector in Africa, the World Bank Independent Evaluation Group reported that only 40 percent of the bank’s agriculture- related projects in sub-Saharan Africa had been sustainable, compared with 53 percent for its projects in other sectors. For example, the World Bank found the expected sustainability of two agriculture projects in Tanzania to be unrealistic, given the government’s limited capacity to generate the projected public sector resources. Similarly, IFAD maintains that sustainability remains one of the most challenging areas that require priority attention. An annual report, issued by IFAD’s independent Office of Evaluation, on the results and impact of IFAD operations between 2002 and 2006 rated 45 percent of its agricultural development projects satisfactory for sustainability. Donors’ exit strategies vary depending on host governments’ capacity to continue their assistance activities. For some sub-Saharan African countries, the handover may be progressive—that is, a relevant government ministry gradually takes over the responsibilities of certain food security interventions in specific geographic regions as the government’s capacity improves. For example, because the government of Lesotho currently lacks the capacity to run the WFP-funded school-feeding program throughout the country, WFP has targeted schools in remote, inaccessible mountainous areas and expects to hand over full responsibility to the government by 2010. Political instability can also impact the sustainability of food security, even when the handover is expected to be successful. For example, although the director of the UN Millennium Village in Sauri, Kenya, has been relying on effective coordination with several Kenyan government ministries to enable the village to continue its operations after the UN’s departure, recent postelection turmoil in the country has raised uncertainties about the project’s long-term sustainability. All participating governments and international organizations agreed to submit a biannual national progress report to FAO’s Committee on World Food Security on the implementation of the WFS Plan of Action. However, many governments have not submitted reports, and the quality of the reports that have been submitted has varied. Successful reporting requires a lengthy consultation process with government officials and other stakeholders to answer several questions about indicators of progress that cover 7 commitments and 27 objectives. To make the process easier, FAO revised its reporting requirements in 2004, but the reporting rate has remained low. In 2006, the last time that the reports were due, only 79 member states and organizations, such as the World Bank and WFP, had submitted progress reports on the WFS Plan of Action to FAO’s Committee on World Food Security, according to FAO. Of these 79 member states and organizations, only 17 were from sub-Saharan Africa. FAO cited the limited capacity of government institutions as one of the main reasons for low reporting rates on progress toward hunger targets. According to FAO, government officials working within ministries of agriculture are responsible for reporting on their country’s national food security action plan. However, some government ministries that are responsible for reporting lack the capacity to prepare a comprehensive report on all seven commitments because they do not have the support they require from other domestic institutions and agencies. According to FAO, the poor quality and inconsistency of the national progress reports have not allowed FAO to draw general substantive conclusions. While most national progress reports provide information on policies, programs, and actions being taken to reduce undernourishment, few of the reports provide information on the actual results of actions taken to reduce the number of undernourished people. In addition, the content of the reports varies. Specifically, some countries either (1) provide only selective information on certain aspects of food security that they consider most relevant, such as food stocks or reserve policies; (2) provide variable emphasis on past, ongoing, and future food security plans and programs; (3) focus on irrelevant issues; or (4) provide more description than analysis. Despite these concerns, providing feedback or critical assessments on the submitted reports is beyond the mandate and the staff capacity of the Committee on World Food Security Secretariat, according to FAO officials. As a result, the usefulness of the information submitted and the potential to improve the quality of reporting are limited. FAO officials acknowledged these limitations and the usefulness of the information submitted for monitoring and is investigating ways to improve the WFS monitoring process. For some sub-Saharan Africa countries, a large portion of food security assistance comes from multilateral and bilateral donors through ODA provided to the country’s agriculture sector. However, the share of multilateral and bilateral ODA provided to agriculture for Africa has declined steadily since peaking in the 1980s. Specifically, ODA data show that the worldwide share of ODA to the agricultural sector for Africa has significantly declined, from about 15 percent in the early 1980s to about 4 percent in 2006. According to a World Bank official, in the 1980s, the bank directed considerable funding toward agricultural development programs in sub-Saharan Africa that ultimately proved unsustainable. In the 1990s, the World Bank prioritized health and sanitation programs in the region over agricultural development programs. By 2005, the bank had started shifting its priorities back to African agricultural development, investing approximately $500 million per year in the sector. Bank officials expect that total to increase by 30 percent by the end of 2008. According to the UN, the international community needs to increase external financing for African agriculture from the current $1 to $2 billion per year to about $8 billion by 2010. Figure 7 shows the overall declining trend of multilateral and bilateral ODA to agriculture for Africa and the percentages of bilateral and multilateral donor contributions from 1974 to 2006. The decline of donor support to agriculture in Africa is due to competing priorities for funding and a lack of results from past unsuccessful interventions. According to the 2008 World Development Report, many of the large-scale integrated rural development interventions promoted heavily by the World Bank suffered from mismanagement and weak governance and did not produce the claimed benefits. In the 1990s, donors started prioritizing social sectors, such as health and education, over agriculture. For example, one of the United States’ top priorities for development assistance is the treatment, prevention, and care of HIV/AIDS through the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, which is receiving billions of dollars every year. The increasing number of emergencies and response required from international donors has also diverted ODA that could have been spent on agricultural development. (See fig. 8 for the increasing trend of ODA to Africa for emergencies compared with ODA to agriculture for Africa.) Donor and NGO panels that we convened in the four countries we visited—Kenya, Mozambique, Tanzania, and Zambia—reported a general lack of donor coordination as a challenge, despite efforts to better align donor support with national development priorities, such as those that the international community agreed upon in the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness in March 2005. Improved donor coordination was recommended seven times in four panels that we convened during our fieldwork. Coordination of agricultural development programs has been difficult at the country level due, in part, to the large number of simultaneous agricultural development projects that have not been adequately aligned. According to the 2008 World Development Report, in Ethiopia, almost 20 donors were supporting more than 100 agriculture projects in 2005. Similarly, government efforts in Tanzania have been fragmented among some 17 multilateral and bilateral donors in agriculture. A study of the United Kingdom National Audit Office reported that British country teams are not sure about specific activities, geographical focus, and donors’ comparative advantage due, in part, to the large number of donors and projects ongoing at the country level. In addition, bilateral donor assistance is often not adequately aligned with the strategies and programs of international financial institutions and private foundations. Specifically, according to the UN Millennium Project, UN agencies are frequently not well-linked to the local activities of the large financial institutions and regional development banks that tend to have the most access in advising a government, since they provide the greatest resources. The World Bank in its 2008 World Development Report was critical of the lack of complementary investments made by other donors at different stages of the food production and supply process. In an attempt to address inadequate division of labor among donors, the UN agencies have established new coordination mechanisms. In September 2007, the UN Secretary-General first convened the UN MDG Africa Steering Group to identify strategic ways in which the international community could better coordinate and support national governments’ implementation of MDG programs, including the implementation of agriculture and food security. The steering group met again in March 2008, where it identified the unpredictability of aid, poor alignment with country systems, and inadequate division of labor among donors as major challenges to African food security. The group expects to publish its recommendations for achieving MDGs in Africa by the end of May 2008. In addition, the UN has recently established the One UN initiative at the country level to facilitate coordination. The purpose of this initiative is to shift from several individual agency programs to a single UN program in each country with specific focus areas, one of which could be food security. Two countries we visited—Tanzania and Mozambique—were among the eight countries worldwide to pilot the One UN initiative in 2007 and 2008. In addition, to accelerate progress toward MDGs— particularly MDG-1—WFP, FAO, and IFAD recently agreed to establish joint Food Security Theme Groups at the country level. The main purpose of these groups is to enhance interagency collaboration and coordination to support countries’ development efforts in the areas of food security, agriculture, and rural development. Between June 2007 and August 2007, a review of the status of the Food Security Theme Groups showed that they are present in 55 countries (29 in sub-Saharan Africa). However, according to the UN Millennium Project, efforts through UN country teams are more of a forum for dialogue, rather than a vehicle for real coordination. It is difficult to accurately assess progress toward the hunger goals because of deficiencies in FAO’s estimates of undernourishment, which are considered the authoritative statistics on food security. These deficiencies stem from methodological weaknesses and poor data quality and reliability, as follows: Weaknesses in methodology: FAO’s methodology has been criticized on several grounds. First, FAO relies on total calories available from food supplies and ignores dietary deficiencies that can occur due to the lack of adequate amounts of protein and essential micronutrients. Second, FAO underestimates per capita food availability in Africa, and, according to several FAO officials in Rome, coverage of noncereal crops, such as cassava—a main staple food for sub-Saharan Africa—has been inadequate. Third, FAO estimates are more subject to changes in the availability of food and less so to changes in the distribution of food, which leads to the underestimation of undernourishment in regions with relatively better food availability but relatively worse distribution of food, such as South Asia. Even when food is available, poor people may not have access to it, which leads to undernourishment. Lastly, FAO relies on food consumption data from outdated household surveys to measure inequality in food distribution. According to FAO, some of these surveys are over 10 years old. Poor data quality and reliability: According to FAO officials, the quality and reliability of food production, trade, and population data, which FAO relies on for its estimates of undernourishment, vary from country to country. For many developing countries, the data are either inaccurate or incomplete, which directly impacts FAO’s final estimate of undernourishment. For example, FAO officials told us that the estimated prevalence of undernourishment in Myanmar was 5 percent, but the officials questioned the reliability and accuracy of the data reported by the government of Myanmar. In addition, FAO lacks estimates of undernourishment for some countries to which a substantial amount of food aid has been delivered, such as Afghanistan, Iraq, and Somalia. Since data on production, trade, and consumption of food in some countries are not available, FAO makes one undernourishment estimate for these countries as a group and takes this estimate into account to determine total undernourishment worldwide. Furthermore, FAO’s undernourishment estimates are outdated, with its most recent published estimates covering the 3-year period of 2001 to 2003. In 2007, FAO suspended publication of The State of Food Insecurity in the World (SOFI) report, which it had been issuing annually since 1999. FAO also did not submit hunger data for the UN Millennium Development Report in 2006, and, according to an official from the UN Statistics Division, FAO is unlikely to do so for 2007 as well. FAO did not publish the 2007 SOFI report or contribute data for the Millennium Development Report because it is presently revising the minimum caloric requirements, a key component in FAO’s methodology for estimating undernourishment to measure progress toward the 2015 hunger goals. FAO has acknowledged that it needs to improve its methodology and consider other indicators to accurately portray progress toward hunger targets. As part of this effort, FAO sponsored an “International Scientific Symposium” in 2002 for scientists and practitioners to discuss various measures and assessment methods on food deprivation and undernourishment. According to FAO, efforts to improve food security and nutrition measures are a continuous activity of the agency, which has also been involved in strengthening data collection and reporting capacity at the regional and country levels. FAO is also developing a new set of indicators for measuring food security and nutrition status. In recent years, the levels of USAID funding for development in sub-Saharan Africa have not changed significantly compared with the substantial increase in funding for emergencies (see fig. 9). Funding for the emergency portion of Title II of Public Law 480—the largest U.S. food aid program—has increased from about 70 percent a decade ago to over 85 percent in recent years. After rising slightly from 2003 to 2005, the development portion of USAID’S food aid funding fell below the 2003 level in 2006 and 2007. While emergency food aid has been crucial in helping to alleviate the growing number of food crises, it does not address the underlying factors that contributed to the recurrence and severity of these crises. Despite repeated attempts from 2003 to 2005, the former Administrator of USAID was unsuccessful in significantly increasing long-term agricultural development funding in the face of increased emergency needs and other priorities. Specifically, USAID and several other officials noted that budget restrictions and other priorities, such as health and education, have limited the U.S. government’s ability to fund long-term agricultural development programs in sub-Saharan Africa. The United States, consistent with other multilateral and bilateral donors, has steadily reduced its ODA to agriculture for Africa since the late 1980s, from about $500 million in 1988 to less than $100 million in 2006 (see fig. 10). The U.S. Presidential Initiative to End Hunger in Africa (IEHA)—the principal U.S. strategy to meet its commitment toward halving hunger in sub-Saharan Africa—has undertaken a variety of efforts that, according to USAID officials, aim to increase rural income by improving agricultural productivity, increasing agricultural trade, and advancing a favorable policy environment, including building partnerships with donors and African leaders. However, USAID officials acknowledged that IEHA lacks a political mandate to align the U.S. government food aid, emergency, and development agendas to address the root causes of food insecurity. Despite purporting to be a governmentwide presidential strategy, IEHA is limited to only some of USAID’s agricultural development activities and does not integrate with other agencies in terms of plans, programs, resources, and activities to address food insecurity in Africa. For example, because only eight USAID missions have fully committed to IEHA and the rest of the missions have not attributed funding to the initiative, USAID has been unable to leverage all of the agricultural development funding it provides to end hunger in Africa. This lack of a comprehensive strategy has likely led to missed opportunities to leverage expertise and minimize overlap and duplication. Our meetings with officials of other agencies demonstrated that there was no significant effort to coordinate their food security programs. A U.S. interagency working group that had attempted to address food security issues since the mid-1990s disbanded in 2003. In April 2008, USAID established a new Food Security and Food Price Increase Task Force, but it is not a governmentwide interagency working group. Although both MCC and USDA are making efforts to address agriculture and food insecurity in sub-Saharan Africa, IEHA’s decision-making process does not take these efforts into consideration. In addition, IEHA does not leverage the full extent of the United States’ assistance to African agriculture through its contributions to multilateral organizations and international financial institutions, which are managed by State and Treasury. Some of the U.S. agencies’ plans and programs for addressing food insecurity in Africa involve significant amounts of assistance. For example, as of June 2007, MCC had committed $1.5 billion for multiyear compacts in sub-Saharan Africa, of which $605 million (39 percent) was for agriculture and rural development programs and another $575 million (37 percent) was for transportation and other infrastructure. Only recently, USAID has provided MCC with assistance in the development and implementation of country compacts. USDA, which administers several food aid programs, also administers a wide range of agricultural technical assistance, training, and research programs in sub-Saharan Africa to support the African Growth and Opportunity Act, NEPAD/CAADP, and the regional economic organizations. However, according to USAID Mission officials in Zambia, coordination difficulties arise when U.S.-based officials from other government agencies, such as USDA, plan and implement food security projects at the country level with little or no consultation with the U.S. Mission staff. Most donors, including the United States, have committed to halving global hunger by 2015, but meeting this goal in sub-Saharan Africa is increasingly unlikely. Although host governments and donors share responsibility for this failure, especially with regard to devoting resources to support sub-Saharan Africa’s agricultural sector, host governments play a primary role in reducing hunger in their own countries. Without adequate efforts by the host governments coupled with sufficient donor support, it is difficult to break the cycle of low agricultural productivity, high poverty, and food insecurity that has contributed to an increase in emergency needs. The United States’ approach to addressing food insecurity has traditionally relied on the U.S. food aid programs. However, in recent years, the resources of these programs have focused on the rising number of acute food and humanitarian emergencies, to the detriment of actions designed to address the fundamental causes of these emergencies, such as low agricultural productivity. Moreover, IEHA does not comprehensively address the underlying causes of food insecurity, nor does it leverage the full extent of U.S. assistance to sub-Saharan Africa. Consequently, the U.S. approach does not constitute an integrated governmentwide food security strategy. In implementing its food security efforts, the United States has not adequately collaborated with host governments and other donors, which has contributed to further fragmentation of these efforts. Finally, without reliable data on the nature and extent of hunger, it is difficult to target appropriate interventions to the most vulnerable populations and to monitor and evaluate their effectiveness. Sustained progress in reducing sub-Saharan Africa’s persistent food insecurity will require concerted efforts by host governments and donors, including the United States, in all of these areas. To enhance efforts to address global food insecurity and accelerate progress toward halving world hunger by 2015, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa, we recommend that the Administrator of USAID take the following two actions: work in collaboration with the Secretaries of State, Agriculture, and the Treasury to develop an integrated governmentwide U.S. strategy that defines each agency’s actions and resource commitments toward achieving food security 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 prepare and submit, as part of the annual U.S. International Food Assistance Report, an annual report to Congress on progress toward the implementation of the first recommendation. USAID and the Departments of Agriculture and State provided written comments on a draft of our report. We have reprinted these agencies’ comments in appendixes VII, VIII, and IX, respectively, along with our responses to specific points. In addition to these agencies, several other entities—including MCC, Treasury, FAO, IFAD, IFPRI, UNDP, and WFP— provided technical comments on a draft of our report, which we have incorporated as appropriate. USAID concurred with our first recommendation—noting that the responsibility for halving hunger by 2015 lies with the respective countries while mentioning activities that the United States, through efforts such as IEHA, and the international community are undertaking to address the issue of food security. However, USAID expressed concern with our conclusion that the shift in its focus from emergency food aid to long-term agricultural development has not been successful. We recognize the challenges of addressing an increasing number of emergencies within tight resource constraints. However, it is equally important to recognize that addressing emergencies—to the detriment of long-term agricultural development—does not break the cycle of low agricultural productivity, high poverty, and food insecurity that has persisted in many sub-Saharan African countries. Regarding our second recommendation, USAID asserted that the International Food Assistance Report (IFAR) is not the appropriate vehicle for reporting on progress on the implementation of our first recommendation. USAID suggested that a report such as the annual progress report on IEHA (which is not congressionally required) would be more appropriate. We disagree. We believe that the congressionally required annual IFAR, in fact, would be an appropriate vehicle for reporting on USAID’s and other U.S. agencies’ implementation of our first recommendation. Public Law 480, section 407(f) (codified at 7 U.S.C. 1736a(f)) requires that the President prepare an annual report that “shall include. . .an assessment of the progress toward achieving food security in each country receiving food assistance from the United States Government.” This report is intended to contain a discussion of food security efforts by U.S. agencies. In addition, USDA stated that our report was timely and provided useful information and recommendations. Noting its participation in an interagency food aid policy coordinating process, USDA reaffirmed its commitment to using its full range of authorities and programs to address the need for and improve the effectiveness of global food assistance and development. Although we recognize that an interagency Food Assistance Policy Council provides a forum for the discussion and coordination of U.S. food aid programs, a similar forum to address food security issues had not been established until May 2008 following the release of a draft of this report. Finally, although USDA administers food assistance programs, including food aid programs for development, we note that these are not included in IEHA. State identified additional issues for consideration, which we have addressed as appropriate. Specifically, State disagreed with our statement that U.S. agencies had made no significant effort to coordinate their food security programs, citing its ongoing coordination with USAID and USDA on food security issues. For example, State indicated that several of its offices and bureaus—such as as the Office of the Director of Foreign Assistance; the Bureaus of Population, Refugees, and Migration; Economic, Energy, and Business Affairs; African Affairs; International Organization Affairs, and others—work closely with USAID and USDA to coordinate food security issues. However, as we noted in this report, these efforts, to date, have been focused primarily on food aid, as opposed to food security, and there is no comprehensive U.S. governmentwide strategy for addressing food insecurity in sub-Saharan Africa. Treasury generally concurred with our findings and provided additional comments for consideration, which we have addressed as appropriate. We are sending copies of this report to interested Members of Congress; the Administrator of USAID; and the Secretaries of Agriculture, State, and the Treasury. We will also make copies available to others upon request. In addition, this report will be 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 Offices 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 X. Our objectives were to examine (1) factors that contributed to persistent food insecurity in sub-Saharan Africa and (2) the extent to which host governments and donors, including the United States, are working toward halving hunger in the region by 2015. To examine factors that have contributed to continued food insecurity in sub-Saharan Africa, we relied on the United Nations (UN) Food and Agriculture Organization’s (FAO) estimates on the number of undernourished people, and the prevalence of undernourishment, which is one of two progress indicators in the Millennium Development Goals (MDG) target of halving hunger, to illustrate the lack of progress in reducing hunger in sub-Saharan Africa as compared with other parts of the developing world. Although we recognize the limitations of FAO’s estimates (such as the lack of up-to-date information), they are the official basis of the World Food Summit (WFS) and MDG targets and are largely consistent with the trends reported by other sources, such as the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) estimates on global hunger. We discussed the reliability of FAO’s undernourishment data with several cognizant FAO officials and various U.S. government officials in Washington and in sub-Saharan Africa. We determined that these estimates are sufficiently reliable for our purpose, which is to show overall trends over time at the aggregate level. We also analyzed FAO’s data on input use, grain production, and grain planting areas to compare agricultural input use and productivity in sub-Saharan Africa with that of other parts of the world. We determined that these data are sufficiently reliable for our purposes. To assess the reliability of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) data on commodity prices, we reviewed (1) existing documentation related to the data sources and (2) documents from other agencies reporting on commodity prices and found collaborating support. Accordingly, we determined that the data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report. We selected four countries for fieldwork—Kenya and Tanzania in East Africa, and Mozambique and Zambia in southern Africa—on the basis of geographic region, data on undernourished people, and U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) programs in-country. We selected countries in east and southern Africa because those regions have high prevalence rates of undernourishment and excluded countries with current conflict. While this selection is not representative in any statistical sense, it ensured that we had variation in the key factors we considered. We do not generalize the results of our fieldwork beyond that selection, using fieldwork primarily to provide illustrative examples. In addition, we reviewed economic literature on the factors that influence food security and recent reports, studies, and papers issued by U.S. agencies, multilateral organizations, and bilateral donors. We reviewed the Rome Declaration on World Food Security and the World Food Summit Plan of Action, which included 7 commitments, 27 objectives, and 181 specific actions. We recognize the multifaceted nature of factors affecting food security, but some of them, such as conflict and trade reforms, were beyond the scope of our study. We reviewed economic studies and recent reports on the factors that influence food security. These included articles from leading authors published in established journals, such as World Development. We also included studies by such organizations as the International Food Policy and Research Institute (IFPRI), FAO, IMF, USDA’s Economic Research Service, World Food Program (WFP), and the World Bank. These sources were chosen because they represent a wide cross section of the discussion on food security and are written by the leading authorities and institutions working in the field. To summarize and organize meaningfully the many factors and interventions that impact and can address global food security, we created a framework. To ensure that the framework was comprehensive and rigorous, we based it on relevant literature and the input of practitioners and experts. Specifically, our first step was to review relevant research on global food security from multilateral institutions and academia and consider key policy documents, such as the Rome Declaration. We presented the first draft of the framework to a panel of nongovernmental organizations (NGO) and government representatives in Washington, D.C., and subsequently used the framework during our panels in the four African countries to help stimulate discussion. We refined the framework on the basis of preliminary analysis of the panel results and finalized it on the basis of the input of a roundtable of food security experts in Washington, D.C. In the four African countries that we selected for fieldwork, we conducted structured discussions with groups of NGOs and donors, organizing them into 9 panels with about 80 participants representing more than 60 entities. To identify the panelists’ views on key recommendations for improvement and lessons learned, we posed the same questions to each of the 9 panels and recorded their answers. Subsequently, we coded their recommendations and lessons according to the factors that were further refined and are shown in figure 3. We also coded some recommendations and lessons according to a few additional topics that occurred with some frequency in the panels but that fell outside the scope of our framework, such as donor coordination and the targeting of U.S. food aid. Two staff members performed the initial coding independently and then met to reconcile any differences in their coding. These lessons and recommendations that we coded represent the most frequently expressed views and perspectives of in-country NGOs, donors, and regional representatives that we met with, and cannot be generalized beyond that population. To examine the extent to which host governments and donors, including the United States, are working toward halving hunger by 2015, we analyzed data on official development assistance (ODA) to developing countries published by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Development Assistance Committee (DAC). Specifically, we analyzed the trends in the share of ODA going to agriculture and to emergencies from multilateral and bilateral donors, from 1974 to 2006. The DAC Secretariat assesses the quality of aid activity data each year by verifying both the coverage (completeness) of each donor’s reporting and the conformity of reporting with DAC’s definitions to ensure the comparability of data among donors. These data are widely used by researchers and institutions in studying development assistance resource flows. OECD’s classification of agriculture may underreport funding to agriculture. OECD’s ODA to agriculture excludes rural development and development food aid. For example, the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) believes that some of its multisectoral lending may not have counted as ODA to agriculture. However, since OECD has consistently used the same classification, we determined that the data are sufficiently reliable for our purpose, which is to track trends over time. To determine whether African governments have fulfilled their pledge to devote 10 percent of their budgets to agriculture, we relied on the government expenditure data provided by IFPRI, which is the same data source on which USAID relies. We determined that these data are sufficiently reliable for the purposes of a broad comparison of countries’ agricultural spending to the Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Program (CAADP) targets in the aggregate. IFPRI recognizes that data on government sectoral spending are weak in many developing countries and is working with some of these countries to improve data quality. We also analyzed USAID budget for the Presidential Initiative to End Hunger in Africa (IEHA). We determined that these data are sufficiently reliable for our purposes. The information on foreign law in this report does not reflect our independent legal analysis but is based on interviews and secondary sources. In Washington, D.C., we interviewed officials from U.S. agencies, including USAID, USDA, the Departments of State and the Treasury, and the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC). We also met with IFPRI and the World Bank. In New York, we met with UNDP, the Rockefeller Foundation, the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA), and Columbia University; and in Seattle, Washington, we met with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. In Rome, we met with FAO, WFP, IFAD, and the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR). We also met with the U.S. Mission to the United Nations in Rome and several bilateral donors’ permanent representatives to the Rome-based UN food and agriculture agencies. In addition, in Washington, D.C., we convened a roundtable of 12 experts and practitioners—including representatives from academia, research organizations, multilateral organizations, NGOs, and others—to further delineate, on the basis of our initial work, some of the factors that have contributed to food insecurity in sub-Saharan Africa and challenges that hamper accelerating progress toward food security. We conducted this performance audit from April 2007 to May 2008 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. As a major participant in the 1996 WFS, the United States supported the summit’s goal of halving the number of undernourished people in the world by 2015. During the summit and over the last decade, the U.S. position on global food security has been predicated on a strong belief that the primary responsibility for reducing food insecurity rests with each country, and that it is critical that all countries adopt policies that promote self-reliance and facilitate food security at all levels, including food availability, access, and utilization. U.S. policy as represented at the summit advocated the following national policies and actions to improve food security: Governments should act as facilitators rather than intervenors. National policies that facilitate the development of markets and expand the individual’s freedom of action are the best guarantor of food security. Emphasis is placed on democratic institutions, transparency in government, opposition to graft and corruption, and full participation by the private sector. All countries should work to promote liberalized trade to maximize the potential for economic growth (within the context of sustainable development) and realize the benefits of comparative advantage. Governments should invest in a public goods infrastructure that includes transportation, communication, education, and social safety nets; and governments should provide basic health and sanitary services, maintain basic levels of nutrition, and facilitate the stabilization of vulnerable populations. Governments should ensure a political system that does not discriminate against women. All countries must recognize the essential role of women, who work to produce more than half of the food in developing countries. Governments should establish a general development policy that (1) neither discriminates against agricultural or fisheries sectors nor against rural or coastal areas and (2) recognizes that poverty alleviation requires an integrated approach to rural development. All countries should promote the critical role of sustainable development in agriculture, forestry, and fisheries sectors, and these policies must be environmentally sound. Greater emphasis needs to be placed on agricultural research and extension services. Governments should emphasize investment in agricultural research and technical education. During negotiations on the summit policy statement and Plan of Action, the United States opposed any agreement that supported additional resource pledges by the developed countries or the creation of new financial mechanisms, institutions, or bureaucracies. Although the United States was not prepared to commit increased resources for food security, U.S. government representatives at the summit indicated that the United States intended to play a major role in promoting food security around the world. According to a U.S. position paper, the United States planned to accomplish this objective by enhancing U.S. government support for research and technology development in agriculture and related sectors; employing an integrated approach to sustainable development, with a strong emphasis on those countries that show a good-faith willingness to address policy reforms; continuing support for food security through the use of agriculture programs, development assistance, and food aid; continuing support for international efforts to respond to and prevent humanitarian crises that create a need for emergency food; continuing efforts to encourage and facilitate implementations of food security-related actions adopted at international conferences or agreed-to conventions; working within the multilateral system to enhance global approaches to working with all countries to achieve freer trade and ensure that the benefits are equitably realized, and urging all countries to open their markets in the interest of achieving greater stability and participation in the world market. An interagency governmentwide Working Group on Food Security that was established to prepare for the 1996 summit continued to operate until 2003, issuing two annual reports on a U.S. Food Security Plan of Action in 1999 and 2000. This group was assisted by a Food Security Advisory Committee composed of representatives from the private agribusiness sector, NGOs, and educational institutions. (These groups were disbanded in 2003.) These reports indicated some limited progress in addressing food security, primarily through the use of existing U.S. food aid and limited agricultural development and trade initiatives. The establishment of the African Food Security Initiative in 1998, the Greater Horn of Africa Initiative, the Africa Seeds of Hope Act in 1998, and the African Growth and Opportunity Act of 2000 all reflected some limited U.S. government initiative to improve a deteriorating food security situation in sub-Saharan Africa. This appendix provides greater detail and explains the importance of the factors we used to develop a framework to evaluate findings obtained during the in-country interviews in Kenya, Tanzania, Mozambique, and Zambia and the literature on food security, including the 2008 World Bank Development report and the Rome Declaration. The factors listed in the framework shown in table 2 are areas on which development efforts can be focused. They include such areas as agricultural productivity and development; rural development; governance; and health, education, and social welfare. All of these factors contribute to food security. For example, actions to improve agricultural productivity are most effective in conjunction with rural development, good governance, and good health and welfare. The framework also identifies actions or interventions that can be taken to address these development factors. They include such actions or interventions as increasing access to inputs, improving infrastructure, and strengthening rural communities. Successful agricultural development requires coordination of these interventions across a range of activities. For example, farmers cannot buy inputs unless there are functioning credit institutions. Also, farmers cannot access markets if there are no roads. Given that achieving food security is an extremely difficult and complex process and that there are many different ways in which to categorize these factors, this list should not be construed as exhaustive. Nonetheless, this categorization provides a framework with which to identify the issues on which to base discussion on food security and summarize the range of programs implemented in various African countries. On the basis of a content analysis of the results from our nine structured panel discussions in Kenya, Mozambique, Tanzania, and Zambia, we identified key recommendations for improving food security (see table 3). For example, the first row of this table indicates that all 9 panels mentioned the recommendation to improve marketing, and that the recommendation was mentioned 35 times across all 9 panels. The next several sections of this appendix provides some examples of interventions that governments, research organizations, NGOs, private foundations, and other donors have undertaken to address the factors underlying food insecurity. Our panelists noted that improving markets and farmers’ access to them is key to improving their food security. Well-functioning markets at all levels of the marketing chain, among other things, provide accurate price information, buyer contacts, distribution channels, and buyer and producer trends. They can be facilitated by encouraging private investment and establishing private/public partnerships and developing the capacity of agrobusiness and processing focused on value-added production. As an early action under CAADP, an Alliance for Commodity Trade in East and Southern Africa is being developed to open up national and regional market opportunities for staple foods produced by millions of smallholder farmers. Agribusiness, in particular, has an economic interest in a vibrant agricultural sector. For this reason, USAID supports private agribusiness development in Africa, working directly with about 900 public/private partnerships to build capacity and leverage additional resources in 2006. These include producers, exporters, and their associations, such as the East African Fine Coffees Association, which is linking buyers from companies like Starbucks in the United States with producers and exports of high-value coffee, and the African Cotton and Textile Industry Federation, which is improving the links of African farmers to the U.S. market through the African Growth and Opportunity Act. To facilitate market access in arid and semi-arid areas, USAID’s Famine Fund has been supporting a pastoral livelihood program. Weak rural development contributes to food insecurity throughout sub- Saharan Africa. Agricultural productivity growth requires fostering linkages between the agricultural and nonagricultural sections. Growth in agriculture is more effective if the proper infrastructure is in place, rural communities are strong and effective and financial systems are able to provide credit to producers to buy, among other things, inputs for production. The experts we interviewed noted that efforts to strengthen rural communities and economies are essential to increasing food security. Interventions that help to increase rural farmers’ incomes help to strengthen rural economies. We observed the UN Millennium Villages helping farmers increase their incomes by using the value chain approach to link farmers to markets. For example, in Kenya, a local business called HoneyCare Africa trained farmers in beekeeping. The farmers were financed to start beekeeping, provide honey, and ensure quality control and collection. Beekeepers bring their honey to the company’s collection center where the honey is weighed and is prepared for shipment from Nairobi. After being processed and packaged in a Nairobi facility, HoneyCare Africa products are sold in Kenyan and overseas retail outlets. The program trained 44 farmers, who produced an average of 800 kilograms of honey, generating $1,500 per farmer per year. The focus of U.S. assistance on commodities creates some problems for NGOs and donors that would like to see U.S. Title II assistance better managed. The panelists noted that this food aid can be better managed by targeting those communities that can absorb the commodities that are provided by the United States, so that the commodities do not distort markets. Despite the inherent inefficiency of monetization, there are some examples of the successful use of monetized Title II funding for food security. An external evaluation of IEHA’s use of food aid noted that Title II monetization proceeds have a large realm of possible uses, including financing small business start-ups; paying the costs of training programs; locally purchasing commodities, rather than using imported food in particular situations, where there is a particularly high potential for disincentives for local producers; and providing start-up capital for initiating farmer association-based thrift and savings societies. As we have previously noted, improving infrastructure, such as roads and power, is key to helping rural farmers. Investment in infrastructure links the local economy to broader markets. Infrastructure, particularly roads, is important in making technology available to farmers and is key to getting commodities to markets. Good roads and port facilities reduce the costs of moving products to markets. Telecommunications bring consumers and farmers into contact and transmit market signals on prices helping markets operate efficiently. MCC provides funding to African countries to improve their infrastructure. As of February 2008, MCC had signed 16 compacts totaling $5.5 billion. Nine of the 16 compacts were with African countries, and about 70 percent of MCC compacts ($3.8 billion) funded projects in Africa. This includes two of the four countries that we reviewed—Tanzania and Mozambique. MCC signed a compact with Tanzania in 2008 that will provide $698 million in funding for infrastructure investments in energy, water, and transportation, with the largest portion (about half) dedicated to transportation. In Mozambique, the MCC compact signed in July 2007 will include funds to improve water systems, sanitation, agribusiness, roads, land tenure, and agriculture. In addition, according to State, while the short-term goal of a WFP road- building operation was to facilitate food aid delivery in southern Sudan, it also helped contribute to the long-term food security by reducing the cost of access to food and markets. Sustainable production increases require resource management. Soil fertility, water management, and water use efficiency are important for raising agriculture productivity in a sustainable manner. Natural resource management, particularly water resources, is key to helping farmers maintain productivity, even during times of drought and flood. The Ethiopian government’s Productive Safety Net Program (PSNP) provided food and cash assistance to 7.2 million people in 2006, and includes water resources development projects. In Tigray, Ethiopia, we visited a program focusing on the construction of deep hand-dug wells that provide accessible and safe water for rural communities. An irrigation program also focuses on harvesting methods and irrigation development activities. An IFPRI evaluation of PSNP found that while there were some delays in payments made to beneficiaries, the well construction and soil and water conservation projects were valuable. Increasing access to inputs, such as improved seed and fertilizer, helps farmers boost their productivity, which is essential for food security. A number of research organizations support African agricultural development, including CGIAR, which was established in 1971 to help achieve sustainable worldwide food security by promoting agricultural science and research-related activities. CGIAR has 15 research centers under its umbrella, including IFPRI, the International Livestock Research Institute, and the International Institute for Tropical Agriculture (IITA). IITA and 40 NGO partners, including Catholic Relief Service, worked on a U.S. government-funded $4.5 million, 19-month project in 6 countries called the Crop Crisis Control Project (C3P). Officials from this program said that they have introduced 1,400 varieties of cassava and provided 5,000 farmers with seeds for growing banana trees. In Kenya, beneficiaries of the C3P project, especially women, said that the project has directly led to more profitable cassava growth and increased banana production. In addition, USAID, USDA, and other donors have also been providing direct support to African Research Institutions at both the national and regional levels, promoting collective action on problems that cut across borders, like pests and diseases. In addition to the efforts of host governments, multilateral organizations, and bilateral donors, NGOs and private foundations play an active role in advancing food security in sub-Saharan Africa. Nongovernmental organizations. NGOs or not-for-profit organizations may design and implement development-related projects. They are particularly engaged in community mobilization activities and extension support services. NGOs include community-based self-help groups, research institutes, churches, and professional associations. Examples include implementing partners for USAID and USDA, such as Cooperative for Assistance and Relief Everywhere, Inc.; Catholic Relief Services; and Land O’Lakes International Development. Additional examples also include advocacy groups such as the International Alliance Against Hunger, founded by the Rome-based food and agriculture agencies and international NGOs in 2003 to advocate for the elimination of hunger, malnutrition, and poverty; the National Alliances Against Hunger, including a U.S. alliance, which brings together civil society and governments in developed and developing countries to raise the level of political commitment to end hunger and malnutrition; and the Partnership to Cut Hunger and Poverty in Africa, which is a coalition of U.S. and African organizations formed in 2000 to advocate support for efforts to end hunger and poverty in Africa. Private foundations. A number of philanthropic private organizations, such as the Rockefeller Foundation and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, provide support for African agricultural development. The Gates Foundation recently became one of the largest funding sources for agriculture in Africa, announcing in January 2008 a $306 million package of agricultural development grants to boost the productivity and incomes of farmers in Africa and developing countries in other parts of the world. Among the most prominent efforts funded by philanthropic private organizations is AGRA, headquartered in Nairobi (Kenya) and established in 2007 with an initial grant of $150 million from the Gates Foundation and the Rockefeller Foundation to help small-scale farmers lift themselves out of hunger and poverty through increased farm productivity and incomes. Rising global commodity prices and climate change are emerging challenges that will likely exacerbate food insecurity in sub-Saharan Africa. Rising commodity prices are in part due to the growing global demand for biofuels, and this appendix provides further information on how biofuels impact food security. This appendix also provides further information on how climate change is predicted to affect food security in sub-Saharan Africa, primarily through its impact on agricultural yields. Driven by environmental concerns and the high price of oil, global demand for biofuels is rapidly rising. Total biofuel production has been recently growing at a rate of about 15 percent per year, such that, between 2000 and 2005, production more than doubled to nearly equal 650,000 barrels per day or about 1 percent of global transportation fuel use. In the United States, ethanol production will consume more than one third of the country’s corn crop in 2009, according to USDA. The United States and other key producers of biofuels have pledged to pursue further growth in production. In the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, the United States pledged to increase ethanol production nearly five-fold over current levels by 2022. Similarly, the European Commission has announced its intentions to expand biofuel production to 10 percent of its transportation fuel use by 2020. Although potential growth in biofuel production is uncertain, various estimates suggest that global biofuel production could grow to supply over 5 percent of the world’s transportation energy needs. Growth in biofuel demand potentially creates both positive and negative impacts for African agriculture and food security. For example: Rural development opportunities could exist for African communities that are able to produce biofuels. Countries with biofuel production could also qualify for emission-reduction credits through the international market for greenhouse gas emission reductions under the Kyoto Protocol. Such credits would allow these countries to attract additional investment through the Clean Development Mechanism that could assist them in further developing their biofuel industries. However, while several African countries are pursuing biofuel production, commercial production is not yet widely developed and experts suggest that such production risks excluding smallholder farmers. African biofuel production may compete with food production through competition for land, water, and other agricultural inputs. The UN reports concern that commercial biofuel production in sub-Saharan Africa will target high-quality lands and push food production to less productive lands. The World Bank reports that 75 percent of the farmland in sub- Saharan Africa is already characterized by soils that are degraded and lack nutrients. Rapid growth in demand for grains to produce biofuels has contributed to rising agricultural prices. Between 2005 and 2007 alone, world prices of grains rose 43 percent. Biofuel growth has also triggered increases in the prices of other agricultural commodities as the use of land to grow biofuels has decreased land available for other crops. Higher grain prices reduce resources for low-income consumers who spend a large share of their income on food, farmers who buy more food than they produce, and food aid programs. In the long term, while higher grain prices provide incentives to expand agricultural production, complementary policies and investments in technology and market development may be required. On a net basis, IFPRI has concluded that current growth in biofuels will result in an increase in African food insecurity. Using their IMPACT model, IFPRI projects that world prices for maize will rise 26 percent and world prices for oilseeds will rise 18 percent by 2020 under the assumption that current biofuel investment plans are realized. In this case, total net calorie availability in sub-Saharan Africa will decline by about 4 percent. Worldwide, FAO projects a 15 percent net increase in the 2007 grain import bills of developing countries, partly as a result of growing biofuel demand. Concern over the negative impacts of biofuels has also been widely noted by organizations such as FAO; the World Bank; and the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, who has called for a 5-year moratorium on the production of biofuels. Although global temperatures have varied throughout history, key scientific studies have found that higher temperatures during the past century are largely attributable to human activities, and that, as such, temperatures are likely to rise further during this century. The National Academy of Sciences has found that global temperatures have been warmer during the last few decades of the twentieth century than during any comparable period of the preceding 400 years. These assessments also predict rising global temperatures for this century, resulting in changed precipitation patterns and increased frequency and severity of damaging weather-related events. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), for example, has predicted a rise in global mean temperatures of between 1.8 and 4.0 degrees Celsius, depending upon human and economic behavior. Assuming no fundamental change in that behavior, a comprehensive review of climate change models finds a 77 to 99 percent likelihood that global average temperatures will rise in excess of 2 degrees Celsius. Regarding climates in Africa, key studies also conclude that warming has taken place. For example, according to the IPCC, southern Africa has had higher minimum temperatures and more frequent warm spells since the 1960s, as well as increased interannual precipitation variability since the 1970s. The IPCC also reports that both East Africa and southern Africa have had more intense and widespread droughts. In the future, IFPRI reports that Africa may be the continent hardest hit by climate change, with one estimate predicting temperature increases for certain areas in Africa that are double those of the global average. One climate study predicts future annual warming across the continent ranging from 0.2 to 0.5 degrees Celsius, per decade. Climate is an important factor affecting agricultural productivity and experts report that Africa’s agricultural sector is particularly sensitive to climate change due, in part, to low adaptive capacity. Experts find that climate change will likely significantly limit agricultural production in sub- Saharan Africa in various ways: Higher temperatures shorten the growing season and adversely affect grain formation at night. As a result of climate change, FAO states that the quantity of African land with a growing season of less than 120 days could increase by 5 to 8 percent and the World Resources Institute describes projected future declines in the length of the growing season by 50 to 113 days in certain areas in Africa. Reduced precipitation limits the availability of water to grow crops. The World Wildlife Fund reports that water constraints have already reduced agricultural productivity, as 95 percent of cropland in sub-Saharan Africa is used for low-input, rain-fed agriculture rather than for irrigated production. Models referenced by the United Nations Framework on Climate Change (UNFCC) estimate that more than an additional 600,000 square kilometers of agricultural land in sub-Saharan Africa will become severely water-constrained with global climate change. Variable climates lead farmers to shift agricultural production sites, often onto marginal lands, exacerbating soil erosion. According to the World Bank’s 2008 World Development Report, soil erosion can result in agricultural productivity losses for the east African highlands of 2 to 3 percent a year. Rising sea levels threaten coastal agricultural land. In its national communication to the UNFCC, for example, Kenya predicted losses of more than $470 million for damage to crops from a 1-meter rise in sea levels. Climate extremes aggravate crop diseases and result in crop failures and livestock deaths. FAO reports that both floods and droughts have increased the incidence of food emergencies in sub-Saharan Africa. To quantify expected climate change impacts on African agricultural production and food security, a number of studies employ climate models that estimate changes in temperature, precipitation, and agricultural yields. Results vary widely due to the large degree of uncertainty entailed in climate modeling, as well as differences in assumptions about adaptive capacity. Despite the wide variation in results, these studies generally conclude that climate change will increase African food insecurity in both the short and long term. For example, one study predicts that agricultural revenues in Kenya could decline between 27 and 34 percent by 2030. FAO reports a projected increase in the number of Africans at risk of hunger from 116 million in 1980 to 415 million in 2060. To illustrate potential food security impacts from climate change, results from several studies are shown in table 4. (The full citation of the sources in table 4 follow the table.) Agoumi, Ali. Vulnerability of North African Countries to Climatic Changes: Adaptation and Implementation Strategies for Climate Change. International Institute for Sustainable Development, 2003. Arnell, N.W, M.G.R. Cannell, M. Hulme, R.S. Kovats, J.F.B. Mitchell, R.J. Nicholls, M.L. Parry, M.T.J. Livermore, and A. White. “The Consequences of COMaddison, David, Marita Manley, and Pradeep Kurukulasuriya. The Impact of Climate Change on African Agriculture: A Ricardian Approach. CEEPA Discussion Paper No. 15, Centre for Environmental Economics and Policy in Africa, University of Pretoria, July 2006. Tubiello, Francesco N. and Günther Fischer. “Reducing Climate Change Impacts on Agriculture: Global and Regional Effects of Mitigation, 2000- 2080.” Technological Forecasting and Social Change, vol. 74, 2007. United Nations Environment Programme. African Regional Implementation Review for the 14th Session of the Commission on Sustainable Development: Report on Climate Change. Nairobi, Kenya, 2006. Warren, Rachel, Nigel Arnell, Robert Nicholls, Peter Levy, and Jeff Price. Understanding the Regional Impacts of Climate Change: Research Report Prepared for the Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change. Tyndall Center for Climate Change Research Working Paper 90, September 2006. Following are GAO’s comments on the U.S. Agency for International Development letter dated May 16, 2008. 1. Although some African countries have had robust economic growth in recent years, to achieve the WFS and MDG-1 goals, the growth, especially in agriculture, needs to be sustained. As we note in our report, concerted efforts and sustained growth are needed for many years to overcome the numerous challenges facing host governments and donors to halve hunger in sub-Saharan Africa by 2015. 2. While GAO recognizes the various ongoing coordination efforts at the international and U.S. government level, our work revealed that coordination on improving food security in sub-Saharan Africa has thus far been insufficient. In May 2008, following the release of a draft of this report, USAID initiated the creation of a sub-Principals Coordinating Committee on Food Price Increases and Global Food Security to help facilitate interagency coordination. In addition to USAID, USDA, State, and Treasury, participating agencies include the Central Intelligence Agency, the Department of Commerce, MCC, the National Security Council, the Office of Management and Budget, the Peace Corps, the U.S. Trade and Development Agency, and the U.S. Trade Representative. 3. As we note in our report, while IEHA has undertaken a variety of efforts to address food insecurity in Africa, these efforts have thus far been limited in scale and scope. IEHA does not integrate with other agencies in terms of plans, programs, resources, and activities. In addition, many IEHA projects are limited in their impact because they may not necessarily address the root causes of food insecurity. For example, projects distributing treadle pumps benefit only the farmers who receive them, but do not address the larger issue of the underdevelopment of agricultural input markets. 4. While we recognize that clean water and sanitation are important to nutrition and food utilization, these issues were outside the scope of our study. 5. We recognize the importance of emergency assistance. However, to break the cycle of poverty, food insecurity, and emergencies, agricultural development needs to increase in priority. We agree with USAID that a shift in focus from relief to development should not translate into reduced emergency food aid in the short term. 6. We disagree with USAID’s comment that a report such as the annual progress report on IEHA (which is not congressionally required), instead of the congressionally required International Food Assistance Report (IFAR), be used to report on USAID’s and other agencies’ implementation of our first recommendation. Public Law 480, section 407 (f)(codified at 7.U.S.C. 1736a(f) requires that the President prepare an annual report that “shall include…an assessment of the progress toward achieving food security in each country receiving food assistance from the United States Government.” Expanding the scope of current reporting to include progress on achieving food security would enhance the usefulness of IFAR, while making it unnecessary to recommend the promulgation of a separate report. Following is GAO’s comment on the U.S. Department of Agriculture letter dated May 14, 2008. 1. We acknowledge the role that USDA plays in meeting short- and long- term food needs in sub-Saharan Africa. Although an interagency Food Assistance Policy Council provides a forum for the discussion and coordination of U.S. food aid programs, a similar forum to address food security issues had not been established until May 2008 after the issuance of a draft of this report. Finally, although USDA administers food assistance programs, including food aid programs for development, we note in this report that these are not included in IEHA. Following are GAO’s comments on the Department of State letter dated May 16, 2008. 1. We maintain that U.S. agencies’ efforts to coordinate food security programs have thus far been insufficient. Efforts to date are focused primarily on food aid, as opposed to food security, and there is no comprehensive U.S. governmentwide strategy for addressing food insecurity in sub-Saharan Africa. 2. A major reason for food spoilage and poor market delivery is poor infrastructure, as we note in our discussion of rural development. 3. As we note in our discussion of our objectives, scope, and methodology (see app. I), although we recognize the multifaceted nature of factors affecting food security, we excluded some factors, such as international trade, from the scope of our study. While international trade is important to global food security, its relative importance to sub-Saharan Africa is considerably lower. Many smallholder farmers in sub-Saharan Africa are not in a position to benefit from international trade due to high transaction costs, and they generally produce products, such as cassava, that are not traded internationally. 4. We did not generate data from FAO’s original estimates of undernourishment. We relied on FAO’s estimates to assess progress toward the WFS and MDG goals. As we note in our previously mentioned objectives, scope, and methodology, we discussed the reliability of FAO’s undernourishment estimates with cognizant FAO and U.S. government officials in Washington and in sub-Saharan Africa, and we determined that these estimates are sufficiently reliable for our purpose, which is to show overall trends over time at the aggregate level. 5. FAO’s estimates are the official indicators used to track progress toward the WFS and MDG-1 goals. In addition, they are the only estimates available to assess undernourishment at the global level. Other UN agencies, such as WFP, conduct assessments and collect other data on food supply and nutrition for their respective missions. However, they do not do so at the global level, and their data cannot replace FAO’s estimates on undernourishment to track long-term progress toward the WFS and MDG-1 goals. 6. We added language in appendix IV to reflect the recent experiences in southern Sudan. 7. As we previously mentioned in our objectives, scope, and methodology, although we recognize the multifaceted nature of factors affecting food security, some factors, such as conflicts, were excluded from the scope of our study. We disagree with State’s assertion that we did not adequately address host government issues. Our report points out that host government policy disincentives are a main factor in food insecurity. We also note that the lack of the sufficient investment in agriculture by the host government is one of the challenges hindering progress to halving hunger by 2015. 8. In May 2008, the President announced a $770 million initiative that aims to (1) increase food assistance to meet the immediate needs of the most vulnerable ($620 million); (2) augment agricultural productivity programs, especially in Africa and other key agricultural regions, to boost food staple supplies ($150 million); and (3) promote an international policy environment that addresses the systemic causes of the food crisis. However, as of the time of this report, Congress had not passed legislation implementing this proposal. In addition to the person named above, Phillip J. Thomas (Assistant Director), Carol Bray, Ming Chen, Debbie Chung, Martin De Alteriis, Leah DeWolf, Mark Dowling, Etana Finkler, Melinda Hudson, Joy Labez, Julia A. Roberts, Kendall Schaefer, and Elizabeth Singer made key contributions to this report. Somalia: Several Challenges Limit U.S. and International Stabilization, Humanitarian, and Development Efforts. GAO-08-351. Washington, D.C.: February 19, 2008. The Democratic Republic of the Congo: Systematic Assessment Is Needed to Determine Agencies’ Progress Toward U.S. Policy Objectives. GAO-08-188. Washington, D.C.: December 14, 2007. Foreign Assistance: Various Challenges Limit the Efficiency and Effectiveness of U.S. Food Aid. GAO-07-905T. Washington, D.C.: May 24, 2007. Foreign Assistance: Various Challenges Impede the Efficiency and Effectiveness of U.S. Food Aid. GAO-07-560. Washington, D.C.: April 13, 2007. Foreign Assistance: U.S. Agencies Face Challenges to Improving the Efficiency and Effectiveness of Food Aid. GAO-07-616T. Washington, D.C.: March 21, 2007. Darfur Crisis: Progress in Aid and Peace Monitoring Threatened by Ongoing Violence and Operational Challenges. GAO-07-9. Washington, D.C.: November 9, 2006. 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 Africa 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. Foreign Assistance: Global Food for Education Initiative Faces Challenges for Successful Implementation. GAO-02-328. Washington, D.C.: February 28, 2002. Foreign Assistance: U.S. Bilateral Food Assistance to North Korea Had Mixed Results. GAO/NSIAD-00-175. Washington, D.C.: June 15, 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. Food Security: Factors That Could Affect Progress toward Meeting World Food Summit Goals. GAO/NSIAD-99-15. Washington, D.C.: March 22, 1999. Food Security: Preparations for the 1996 World Food Summit. GAO/NSIAD-97-44. Washington, D.C.: November 7, 1996. International Relations: Food Security in Africa. GAO-T-NSIAD-96-217. Washington, D.C.: July 31, 1996.

Summary: In 1996, the United States and more than 180 world leaders pledged to halve the number of undernourished people globally by 2015 from the 1990 level. The global number has not decreased significantly--remaining at about 850 million in 2001-2003--and the number in sub-Saharan Africa has increased from about 170 million in 1990-1992 to over 200 million in 2001-2003. On the basis of analyses of U.S. and international agency documents, structured panel discussions with experts and practitioners, and fieldwork in four African countries, GAO was asked to examine (1) factors that contribute to persistent food insecurity in sub-Saharan Africa and (2) the extent to which host governments and donors, including the United States, are working toward halving hunger in the region by 2015. Chronic undernourishment (food insecurity) in sub-Saharan Africa persists primarily due to low agricultural productivity, limited rural development, government policy disincentives, and the impact of poor health on the agricultural workforce. Additional factors, including rising global commodity prices and climate change, will likely further exacerbate food insecurity in the region. Agricultural productivity in sub-Saharan Africa, as measured by grain yield, is only about 40 percent of that of the rest of the world's developing countries, and the gap has widened over the years. Low agricultural productivity in sub-Saharan Africa is due, in part, to the limited use of agricultural inputs, such as fertilizer and improved seed varieties, and the lack of modern farming practices. The efforts of host governments and donors, including the United States, to achieve the goal of halving hunger in sub-Saharan Africa by 2015 have thus far been insufficient. First, some host governments have not prioritized food security as a development goal, and, according to a 2008 report of the International Food Policy Research Institute, as of 2005, only a few countries had fulfilled a 2003 pledge to direct 10 percent of government spending to agriculture. Second, donors have reduced the priority given to agriculture, and their efforts have been further hampered by difficulties in coordination and deficiencies in measuring and monitoring progress. Third, limited agricultural development resources and a fragmented approach have impaired U.S. efforts to reduce hunger in Africa. The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) funding to address food insecurity in Africa has been primarily for emergency food aid, which has been crucial in helping to alleviate food crises but has not addressed the underlying factors that contributed to the recurrence and severity of these crises. Also, the United States' principal strategy for meeting its commitment to halve hunger in Africa is limited to some of USAID's agricultural development activities and does not integrate other U.S. agencies' agricultural development assistance to the region.