Institute Notes: A Dialogue on Overcoming Hunger and Poverty

The first move on foreign aid reform

Exciting news to report. Rep. Howard Berman (D-CA-28), chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, and Rep. Mark Kirk (R-IL-10), introduced a bill last night, April 28, that is a good first step in making U.S. foreign assistance more effective, efficient and transparent in reducing hunger and poverty and fostering broad-based economic development. The “Initiating the Foreign Assistance Reform Act of 2009”, H. R. 2139, requires President Obama to develop and implement a comprehensive national strategy for global development, improve evaluation of development programs, and increase the transparency of U.S. foreign assistance to developing countries.

In our 2009 Hunger Report we called on the Congress and Administration to develop a national strategy for global development. It is heartening to see the process set in motion so early in the new Congress. Here is the link to Bread for the World's press release. 

Earlier today, President Obama reiterated his commitment to reducing hunger and poverty around the world at a townhall meeting in Missouri--explaining why he felt that providing foreign aid was in the country's interests. A sign perhaps that the administration will move quickly on its strategy for global development.

Addressing Lugar-Casey Legislation Criticisms

A piece of legislation amending the Foreign Assistance Act (FAA), co-sponsored by Senators Lugar and Casey, that recognizes and attempts to reverse a decades-long decline in funding on the part of the US government for global agricultural development has come under fire from two sides: the techno-sceptics who see the bill as a trojan horse that would enable the US agribusiness industry to expand its sway, particularly in the area of plant genetics, and those who view the bill as evincing insufficient regard for the experience and potential for the NGO community in advancing global agricultural development.

The most vociferous critics assert that the bill “mandates” research on GMOs – genetically modified organisms. The legislation would amend the original (1961) FAA language to include wording to the effect that agricultural research carried out under this act should include research on biotechnological advances “including genetically modified technology.” However, it’s important to note that there is no specified level of funding for agricultural research in general, nor for biotechnology in particular, and the directive is qualified by specifying that the work be “appropriate to local ecological conditions” and by including among the legislation’s objectives “support (for) conservation farming and other sustainable agricultural techniques to respond to changing climatic conditions and water shortages.”

The fact, frequently pointed out by critics, that GMOs have not yet led to major benefits for the world’s smallhold farmers is largely true. Genetically modified (GM) cotton and soybeans are being grown in some parts of the developing world – and would not be if farmers did not see some benefit to doing so. But more significantly, GM research to date has focused almost exclusively on rapid commercial returns, which means the large markets in the developed world. There has been little attention to the crops and crop production issues (e.g., drought, disease and salinity tolerance that are going to be increasingly important with changing climate) most directly relevant to farmers in the developing world.

Kansas City 2009 -- Impressions of the International Food Aid Conference

The overall tone from the most recent International Food Aid Conference (April 6-8) differed from the past several such events in its relative lack of contentiousness and its clear focus on the issue of global food security. My four main take-aways were:

• The skirmishes over commodity vs. cash food aid have been put aside, at least for now. All participants appeared to agree that both are necessary, and that it’s not a productive use of time and resources to continue squabbling: The commodity supporters don’t seem inclined to resist the increasing use of cash (a total of $200 million in the 2008 supplemental and 2009 omnibus) for food aid, as long as it doesn’t come from Title II, and the cash supporters seem resigned to the fact that the agriculture committees in Congress are never going to agree to use Title II resources for the purchase of food outside the U.S. 
• There was a marked increase in attention to nutrition, particularly for children under two years of age. The importance of this issue was cited repeatedly, with one afternoon session devoted exclusively to the subject. The increasing availability of cash for food creates opportunities to address nutrition.
• The global food price crisis has eased somewhat, but we’re in for a prolonged period of short supplies and price volatility, rendering increasing productivity and rural incomes in areas of short supply all the more urgent.
• The focus of the Foreign Agriculture Service (FAS) is changing in a significant way, from simply flogging U.S. agricultural commodities to more of a development orientation, looking at longer term market development. The new Administrator of FAS and his boss, the Undersecretary for Food and Foreign Agriculture, both come out of a development background.

My colleague commented on one facet of the Secretary of Agriculture’s speech to the Conference – the increase in funding for Food for Education -- in his post on April 8. The Secretary’s speech primarily addressed the broad issue of global food security and seemed aimed more at the media and larger public than the delegates. His main point seemed to be that while we in the U.S. may be going through some difficult economic times, now is NOT the time to cut back on our international food aid and agricultural development commitments. Rather, we need to step up our efforts, both in terms of short-term (food aid) and long-term (agricultural development) interventions. This is not a time for looking inward. Invoking the example of the loaves and fishes, the Secretary remarked that we need to “remove the fear of sharing.”

An exciting time to be in Indonesia

I had the wonderful opportunity to visit Indonesia earlier this month and happened to be there during the general elections. It was Indonesia's third elections in the post Suharto era--since 1998. I think it is fair to say that democracy has taken a firm hold in the world's largest Muslim country and third largest democracy.

 

Muslim women cast their ballots in Makassar, Indonesia's South Sulawesi province, on April 9, 2009. (Photo: Reuters)

Out of a total population of 240 million, 171 million Indonesians registered to vote and by most accounts voter turnout, although lower than in the 2004 election was between 70 and 75 percent. It was quite a task to orchestrate the voting. Across the 900 islands, half a million polling stations were set up. Voters had between 7 am and noon on April 9th to cast their ballots--which were quite amazing--with 38 parties contesting the elections, the ballots were literally the size of posters.

I was in Jakarta on the 9th. Government offices and businesses were closed to allow people to vote and perhaps to reduce the risk of instability. For a city that is normally bustling with people and traffic, it was extremely peaceful--we actually managed to get around with ease--no traffic jams to hold us up. Earlier in the week, the parties had held campaign rallies in various parts of the city of 12.5 million, snarling traffic as supporters drove around--mostly on motorbikes--waving the flags of the various parties.

Vilsack in KC: "No Child in the World Should Go to Bed Hungry"

Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack addressed the attendees of the Kansas City International Food Aid Conference (for background on the Conference, see this post). The big news was a pledge to provide an additional $80 million in food aid for use in the McGovern-Dole Food for Education Program. This increased support would amount to an 80 percent increase in program funding over the 2008 appropriations level. The additional funding will be focused on four countries: Angola, Guinea-Bissau, Niger and Uganda.   

Food for Education programs like McGovern-Dole have been successful in improving school enrollment and participation rates, and should be applauded. There may be other (perhaps more efficient) ways of achieving the same results, conditional cash transfers, for example. As with other US development assistance, giving goods or services in-kind (made in the U.S. or from companies based here for the most part) is the preferred option to cash though.

What strikes me most about today's announcement is that the proposed increase in funding for McGovern-Dole will not necessarily make the program more effective, particularly in addressing nutritional need. The program's legislation includes the option of

"the procurement of agricultural commodities and the provision of financial assistance to carry out - ... (2) maternal and infant and child nutrition programs for pregnant women, nursing mothers, and childre 5 years of age or younger."

To date, however, no money has been focused on this aspect of McGovern-Dole, and it's unlikely that additional funds will be used to target these populations. At a time when hunger and malnutrition are on the rise, it would seem to make sense to direct additional resources to meeting the needs of the most vulnerable populations, pregnant women, new mothers, and children younger than 2. Vilsack's announcement will do little to address this situation.

Kansas City Confab: Making Food Aid Work

This week food aid experts from NGOs, private processing and shipping companies, and the U.S. government are gathering in Kansas City for the Annual International Food Aid Conference. In the past Bread has brought concerns about flexibility and efficiency to the Conference. My Colleague Charlie Uphaus is attending again this year, but with the added issue of nutrition on his agenda.

We've produced a two-page brief outlining our concerns, specifically highlighting the fact that the current mix and formulation of bulk food aid does little to meet the nutritional needs of pregnant women, mothers, young children and others at increased risk of malnutrition. We recommend three basic actions that need to be taken to improve the nutritional effectiveness of US food aid:

• Add new foods and reformulating the current commodities available for purchase through US food aid programs.
• Prove technical and financial assistance to scale up efforts to fortify and process locally-produced, nutritionally appropriate foods.
• Combine food aid with others interventions such as nutrition education and improvements in access to health care, clean water and sanitation facilities in order to effectively reduce malnutrition.

Progress on the Food Security Front

A major element of Bread for the World’s push for foreign assistance reform is increasing the emphasis on and resources for agricultural development – the diminution over the past several decades of agriculture in the U.S. development agenda is illustrative of the flaws in the current system. But, this element of the Bread program received a major boost this week with the unanimous passage out of committee of the Lugar-Casey Global Food Security Act, followed by the call by President Obama in London for Congress to double the financial resources available to support international agricultural development. 

The Lugar-Casey legislation would create the position of a Special Coordinator for Global Good Security, would authorize significant additional resources ($750 million for FY 2010, increasing to $2.5 billion for FY 2014), and improves the U.S. emergency response to food crises by creating a separate Emergency Food Assistance Fund that could make local and regional purchases of food – something that Bread has been advocating for years. The legislation would create a new program that would strengthen institutions of higher education in agricultural sciences (themselves among the most important legacies of the Green Revolution, which have enabled continued agricultural progress in many poor countries), and provide additional resources for research, technology transfer and rural development.

The President’s announcement of a doubling of support for agricultural development, to “more than $1 billion in 2010” would seem to up the ante in the Lugar-Casey Bill, and reflects the view that “a permanent solution to food insecurity requires restoration of rapid and sustained economic growth that directly engages the world’s poorest populations, many of whom depend on agricultural labor for most or all of their household incomes and food consumption.” It emphasizes three main areas:
• Increasing agricultural productivity and rural incomes;
• Reducing dependency on international food aid; and  
• Building multilateral partnerships and leveraging the strengths of the private sector, NGOs and universities.

Surprising Success at the G20

The conclusion of the G20 seems, at first blush, to provide a great deal of positive news for developing countries. The official Communique begins with the recognition that

prosperity is indivisible; that growth, to be sustained, has to be shared; and that our global plan for recovery must have at its heart the needs and jobs of hard-working families, not just in developed countries but in emerging markets and the poorest countries of the world too; and must reflect the interests, not just of today’s population, but of future generations too.

To achieve financial stability and promote a return to trade and economic growth, G20 leaders had to act boldly, and it appears they have.