Institute Notes: A Dialogue on Overcoming Hunger and Poverty

Building Momentum for an Anti-Hunger Agenda

It's been a busy week here in DC. On the domestic side, the release of the President's budget is being scrutinized in detail for spending on domestic nutrition programs such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and The Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC).

The President's Budget proposes funding for WIC to serve 9.8 million participants in 2010, an increase above the 9 million people currently enrolled in the program. WIC is instrumental in supporting pregnant and new mothers and young children who fall below a minimum income threshold. The large increase is intended to meet the needs of a growing pool of applicants particularly in this period of economic recession.

The President also requests an additional $5 billion over the next five years to strengthen Child Nutrition programs in the upcoming reauthorization. Congress is due to reauthorize the School Breakfast and Lunch Programs and programs that provide meals and snacks to children afterschool and during the summer. Bread for the World supports the administration's goal of expanding program access and participation so that more vulnerable children have the food assistance they need. My colleague here at Bread, Sophie Milam, noted that while the proposed increase is positive, more is needed:

"The President's budget blueprint is titled "A New Era of Responsibility." In it, President Obama calls on Congress to lay a new foundation upon which we can "renew the promise of America," with the Budget as the first step in that journey.

 

"The "promise of America" must be a place where no child goes to bed hungry. The President's budget includes $1 billion per year in new investments for Child Nutrition Programs. While it is a good start, this level of funding is not adequate to meet the President's goal of ending child hunger by 2015"

Meeting this ambitious goal requires an investment of $4 billion a year.

What the global recession means for poverty

World Bank President Robert Zoellick used the G7 meeting of finance ministers this past weekend to call attention to the impact of the global financial crisis on the world's poor people. Armed with new analysis from the Bank, Zoellick warned that the economic meltdown of the world's industrial economies is having a dramatic and painful impact on developing countries. An estimated 46 million people will be pushed into extreme poverty and child mortality rates will increase by up to four percent as a result of the global slowdown in economic growth.

People are most vulnerable in countries with high rates of poverty, substantial exposure to international markets and little fiscal space for the government to increase and expand spending on social safety nets. Poor people in more than 40 countries are identified as particularly vulnerable to economic shock. Unfortunately, these countries already have some of the highest child malnutrition rates in the world. It is little surprise then that the economic slowdown will have such a dramatic impact on child mortality.

Another Run at Boosting Agricultural Development Assistance

Senators Lugar (R-Indiana) and Casey (D-Pennsylvania), the ranking member and chairman, respectively, of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, have re-introduced legislation, the Global Food Security Act, which would significantly increase funding for long-term agricultural development and poverty alleviation while making possible a more efficient and flexible U.S. emergency response mechanism. The legislation and attendant statements reinforce the message of the 2009 Hunger Report, to the effect that we need to restore the balance in U.S. foreign assistance by reversing the past several decades’ decline in support for agricultural development.

The press release quotes Senator Lugar, who notes that hunger is both a humanitarian and security challenge for the United States: roughly one billion people in the world already suffer from food insecurity. By 2050, it is projected that food production must double to meet demands generated by population and income growth. Increases of this magnitude require a sharp increase in investment, both by donors and developing countries.

The bill has four major components: First, it creates a special coordinator for global food security located within the executive office of the President who will be responsible for developing and implementing a “whole of government” global food security strategy: second, it authorizes significant increases in authorized levels for agriculture, rural development and nutrition, beginning at $750 million in FY 2010 and increasing to $2.5 billion in 2014 ( FY 2008 funding, by comparison, was under $300 million); third, it creates a new program for the development of higher education capacity in the field of agriculture; and fourth, it creates an emergency food assistance fund, administered by USAID, with the authority to use up to $500 million dollars for local and regional procurement of commodities to meet emergency needs.

While it’s possible to quibble over details of the legislation, overall it constitutes a major step forward. A companion bill is currently being prepared for introduction in the House. Senators Lugar and Casey deserve kudos for their initiative.

Good Jobs, Green Jobs

That's the name of a conference that took place in Washington, DC last week. It was sponsored by the Blue-Green Alliance, a consortium of environmental and labor groups like the Sierra Club, Natural Resources Defense Council, Steelworkers, Teamsters, and Laborers, groups recognizing they all stand to gain by working together to push a green policy agenda. 

For environmentalists, its easy to understand their excitement about greening anything, but for labor it may not be so clear how they stand to gain. Everybody's worried about climate change. Green jobs mean burning less carbon to slow the pace of climate change. The industries that can do the most to reduce carbon dioxide emissions are some of the most unionized. For instance, take construction work. Forty-percent of all carbon emissions are from buildings. Retrofitting buildings to be more energy efficient will be done by workers in the construction trades, adding extra layers of insulation, caulking up energy leaks, upgrading heating and ventilation systems. 

There was a tremendous amount of energy at the conference and confidence in President Obama to deliver the promise of a green economy to fruition. As the conference was taking place, negotiations on the stimulus package were going on a couple of miles away on Capitol Hill. During the 3-day conference, there were several keynotes from members of Congress, all Democrats not surprisingly, encouraging participants to get over to the Hill if they could and make their voices heard in support of provisions in the bill for green jobs. Sheila Jackson, the new EPA administrator, spoke about how her agency was poised to help rewrite environmental laws to put clean air, clean water, and environmental justice at the forefront of policymaking again. Van Jones, leader of Green for All, was there and gave an electrifying speech about the intersection of green jobs and poverty reduction (more on this in the future).  

I attended several workshops and it was clear to me from listening to the work being done at the local, state and regional level that a green revolution is already in motion. While it would have been nice if the Bush administration had been a partner, no individual or group represented at the conference let that slow them down. The difference between President Obama and President Bush on environmental issues is like the difference between green and whatever color in the spectrum that represents the most opposite. That helps to explain some of the excitement, some of the optimism and sheer our-moment-has-arrived energy in the room. Whatever impact the stimulus has on spurring on a greener economy, one thing was certain to me about the people who came to this conference. They won't stop charging forward.   

Where does Bread for the World fit into this? Well, it's becoming increasingly clear, as we realized in writing the 2009 Hunger Report, climate change and hunger are becoming increasingly the same.

Debt Relief Update

According to a recent GAO (Government Accountability Office) study, the United States has not fully funded its share of multilateral debt relief -- i.e., that offered through four international financial institutions (IFIs): The International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank’s International Development Association (IDA), the Asian Development Bank, and the Inter-American Development Bank. Collectively, these four IFIs are projected to provide $58 billion in total debt relief to 41 countries.

The U.S. contribution does not fully fund its multilateral debt relief commitments because it is in arrears on its IDA replenishment, and the World Bank requires that a country’s IDA commitment be fully met before it uses any funds for debt relief. The reason that the U.S. is in arrears on its IDA replenishment is that we have been delaying payments pending certain transparency reforms required under U.S. law. To fully fund the U.S. debt relief commitment, (1) the Treasury needs to certify to Congress that the reforms have been made, and (2) Congress will need to appropriate a further $49 million.

This imbroglio points up once again how our foreign assistance system so frequently gets crosswise with itself. Clearly, the intent of Congress was to fully fund our debt relief commitments. But other legislative provisions – not unreasonable ones, in and of themselves -- make it impossible to do so. Fragmented legislative and administrative responsibilities make it difficult to implement consistent, mutually reinforcing policies, giving the impression that no one is in overall charge – yet another argument in favor of a foreign assistance reform package that would simplify and align responsibilities and authorities.