Despite their commitment to halve global hunger by 2015, efforts of host governments and donors, including the United States, to accelerate progress toward that goal have been insufficient, especially in sub-Saharan Africa. First, host governments have provided limited agricultural spending, with only eight meeting their 2003 pledge to direct 10 percent of government spending to agriculture. Second, multilateral and donor aid to African agriculture generally declined from the 1980s to around 2005. Third, U.S. efforts to reduce hunger, especially in sub-Saharan Africa, have been constrained by resource and scope limitations. Although African countries pledged in 2003 to direct 10 percent of government spending to agriculture, only 8 out of 38 governments had met this pledge as of 2007, according to the most current available data from the International Food Policy Research Institute. These data represent an increase of four additional countries that met the pledge between 2005 and 2007 (see fig.1.). 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. As of October 2009, according to a senior USAID official, nine countries had signed CAADP compacts, and five more countries were scheduled for a CAADP roundtable process, which defines programs that are to be financed by host governments and donors. Until recent years, donors had reduced the priority given to agriculture. As a result, the share of official development assistance (ODA) from both multilateral and bilateral donors to agriculture for Africa significantly declined, from about 15 percent in the 1980s to about 4 percent in 2006 (see fig. 2). The decline in donor support to agriculture in Africa over this period is due in part to competing priorities for funding and a lack of results from 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 to prioritize social sectors, such as health and education, over agriculture. In recognition of the growing global food security problem, in July 2009, the United States and assembled leaders at the G8 Summit in L’Aquila, Italy, agreed to a $20 billion, 3-year commitment to reverse the declining trend in ODA funding for agriculture. U.S. assistance to address food insecurity has been constrained in funding and limited in scope, especially in sub-Saharan Africa. In recent years, the levels of USAID funding for development in sub-Saharan Africa have not changed significantly compared with the substantial increase in U.S. funding for emergencies. Funding for the emergency portion of Title II of Public Law 480—the largest U.S. food aid program—has increased significantly in recent years, while the funding level for nonemergencies has stagnated. In fact, the nonemergency portion accounted for 40 percent of Title II funding in 2002, but has declined, accounting for only 15 percent in 2008. While emergency food aid has been crucial in helping 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. Also, 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. Launched in 2002, the Presidential Initiative to End Hunger in Africa (IEHA)—which represented the U.S. strategy to help fulfill the MDG goal of halving hunger by 2015—was constrained in funding and limited in scope. In 2005, USAID, the primary agency that implemented 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 (DA) and other accounts. IEHA was 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 was implemented in three regional missions in sub-Saharan 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. 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. Although it purported to be a governmentwide strategy, IEHA was limited to only some of USAID’s agricultural development activities and did not integrate with other agencies in terms of plans, programs, resources, and activities to address food insecurity in sub-Saharan Africa. For example, at the time of our review, because only eight USAID missions had fully committed to IEHA, and the rest of the missions had not attributed funding to the initiative, USAID had been unable to leverage all of the agricultural development funding it provides to end hunger in sub-Saharan Africa. This lack of a comprehensive strategy likely led to missed opportunities to leverage expertise and minimize overlap and duplication. For example, both the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) and USDA are making efforts to address agriculture and food insecurity in sub- Saharan Africa, but IEHA’s decision-making process at the time of our review had not taken these efforts into consideration. In addition, IEHA had not leveraged the full extent of the U.S. assistance across all agencies to address food insecurity in sub-Saharan Africa. 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 (PEPFAR), which is receiving billions of dollars every year. The new administration has committed to improving international food assistance by pledging U.S. leadership in developing a new global approach to hunger, and the Secretary of State has emphasized the importance of a comprehensive approach to sustainable systems of agriculture in rural areas worldwide. The U.S. share of the G8 commitment of $20 billion, or $3.35 billion, includes $1.36 billion for agriculture and related programming in fiscal year 2010 to establish food security, representing more than double the fiscal year 2009 budget request level. In our May 2008 report, we recommended that the Administrator of USAID (1) work in collaboration with the Secretaries of State, Agriculture, and the Treasury to develop an integrated governmentwide strategy that defines each agency’s actions and resource commitments to achieve food security, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa, including improving collaboration with host governments and other donors and developing improved measures to monitor and evaluate progress toward the implementation of this strategy and (2) report on progress toward the implementation of the first recommendation as part of the annual U.S. International Food Assistance Report submitted to Congress. USAID concurred with the first recommendation but expressed concerns about the vehicle of the annual reporting. The Departments of Agriculture, State, and Treasury generally concurred with the findings. Consistent with our first recommendation, U.S. agencies have launched a global hunger and food security initiative and, as part of that initiative, are working to develop a governmentwide strategy to address global food insecurity. In April 2009, the new administration created the Interagency Policy Committee (IPC). In late September 2009, State issued a consultation document—a work in progress—that delineates a proposed comprehensive approach to food security based on country- and community-led planning and collaboration with U.S. partners. According to a senior State official, the consultation document was a product of an interagency working group. Although the document outlines broad objectives and principles, it is still a work in progress and should not be considered the integrated governmentwide strategy that we called for in our 2008 recommendation. A comprehensive strategy would define the actions with specific time frames and resource commitments that each agency undertakes to achieve food security, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa, including improving collaboration with host governments and other donors and developing improved measures to monitor and evaluate progress toward implementing the strategy. In prior products, we have identified six characteristics of an effective national strategy that may provide additional guidance to shape policies, programs, priorities, resource allocations, and standards to achieve the identified results. The consultation document outlines three key objectives: (1) to increase sustainable market-led growth across the entire food production and market chain; (2) to reduce undernutrition; and (3) to increase the impact of humanitarian food assistance.