Global Food Security
Progress toward a U.S. Governmentwide Strategy Is Under Way, but Approach Has Several Vulnerabilities Gao ID: GAO-10-494T March 11, 2010Global hunger continues to worsen despite world leaders' 1996 pledge--reaffirmed in 2000 and 2009--to halve hunger by 2015. To reverse this trend, in 2009 major donor countries pledged about $22.7 billion in a 3-year commitment to agriculture and food security in developing countries, of which $3.5 billion is the U.S. share. This testimony addresses (1) the types and funding of food security programs and activities of relevant U.S. government agencies and (2) progress in developing an integrated U.S. governmentwide strategy to address global food insecurity and the strategy's potential vulnerabilities. This is based on a new GAO report being released at today's hearing (GAO-10-352).
The U.S. government supports a wide variety of programs and activities for global food security, but lacks readily available comprehensive data on funding. In response to GAO's data collection instrument to 10 agencies, 7 agencies reported such funding for global food security in fiscal year 2008 based on the working definition GAO developed for this exercise with agency input. USAID and USDA reported the broadest array of programs and activities, while USAID, the Millennium Challenge Corporation, Treasury, USDA, and State reported providing the highest levels of funding for global food security. The 7 agencies together directed at least $5 billion in fiscal year 2008 to global food security, with food aid accounting for about half of that funding. However, the actual total is likely greater. GAO's estimate does not account for all U.S. government funds targeting global food insecurity because the agencies lack (1) a commonly accepted governmentwide operational definition of global food security programs and activities as well as reporting requirements to routinely capture data on all relevant funds, and (2) data management systems to track and report food security funding comprehensively and consistently. The administration is making progress toward finalizing a governmentwide global food security strategy--expected to be released shortly--but its efforts are vulnerable to data weaknesses and risks associated with the strategy's host country-led approach. The administration has established interagency coordination mechanisms at headquarters and is finalizing an implementation document and a results framework. However, the lack of comprehensive data on programs and funding levels may deprive decision makers of information on available resources and a firm baseline against which to plan. Furthermore, the host country-led approach, although promising, is vulnerable to (1) the weak capacity of host governments, which can limit their ability to sustain donor-funded efforts; (2) a shortage of expertise in agriculture and food security at U.S. agencies that could constrain efforts to help strengthen host government capacity; and (3) policy differences between host governments and donors, including the United States, may complicate efforts to align donor interventions with host government strategies.
GAO-10-494T, Global Food Security: Progress toward a U.S. Governmentwide Strategy Is Under Way, but Approach Has Several Vulnerabilities
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-10-494T
entitled 'Global Food Security: Progress toward a U.S. Governmentwide
Strategy Is Under Way, but Approach Has Several Vulnerabilities' which
was released on March 11, 2010.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as
part of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility.
Every attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data
integrity of the original printed product. Accessibility features,
such as text descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes
placed at the end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters,
are provided but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format
of the printed version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an
exact electronic replica of the printed version. We welcome your
feedback. Please E-mail your comments regarding the contents or
accessibility features of this document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
Testimony:
Before the Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Agriculture,
Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies,
House of Representatives:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
For Release on Delivery:
Expected at 1:00 p.m. EST:
Thursday, March 11, 2010:
Global Food Security:
Progress toward a U.S. Governmentwide Strategy Is Under Way, but
Approach Has Several Vulnerabilities:
Statement of Thomas Melito, Director:
International Affairs and Trade Team:
GAO-10-494T:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-10-494T, a testimony to the Chairwoman, Subcommittee
on Agriculture, Committee on Appropriations, House of Representatives.
Why GAO Did This Study:
Global hunger continues to worsen despite world leaders‘ 1996 pledge”
reaffirmed in 2000 and 2009”to halve hunger by 2015. To reverse this
trend, in 2009 major donor countries pledged about $22.7 billion in a
3-year commitment to agriculture and food security in developing
countries, of which $3.5 billion is the U.S. share. This testimony
addresses (1) the types and funding of food security programs and
activities of relevant U.S. government agencies and (2) progress in
developing an integrated U.S. governmentwide strategy to address
global food insecurity and the strategy‘s potential vulnerabilities.
This is based on a new GAO report being released at today‘s hearing
(GAO-10-352).
What GAO Found:
The U.S. government supports a wide variety of programs and activities
for global food security, but lacks readily available comprehensive
data on funding. In response to GAO‘s data collection instrument to 10
agencies, 7 agencies reported such funding for global food security in
fiscal year 2008 (see figure below) based on the working definition
GAO developed for this exercise with agency input. USAID and USDA
reported the broadest array of programs and activities, while USAID,
the Millennium Challenge Corporation, Treasury, USDA, and State
reported providing the highest levels of funding for global food
security. The 7 agencies together directed at least $5 billion in
fiscal year 2008 to global food security, with food aid accounting for
about half of that funding. However, the actual total is likely
greater. GAO‘s estimate does not account for all U.S. government funds
targeting global food insecurity because the agencies lack (1) a
commonly accepted governmentwide operational definition of global food
security programs and activities as well as reporting requirements to
routinely capture data on all relevant funds, and (2) data management
systems to track and report food security funding comprehensively and
consistently.
Figure: Funding by agency, fiscal year 2008:
[Refer to PDF for image: horizontal bar graph and accompanying data]
Agency: USAID:
Funding: $2,510 million.
Agency: MCC:
Funding: $912 million.
Agency: Treasury:
Funding: $817 million.
Agency: USDA:
Funding: $540 million.
Agency: State:
Funding: $168 million.
Agency: USTDA:
Funding: $9 million.
Agency: DOD:
Funding: $8 million.
Agency: Peace Corps:
Funding: None reported.
Agency: USTR:
Funding: None reported.
Agency: OMB:
Funding: None reported.
National Security Council Interagency Policy Committee on Agriculture
and Food Security:
* National Security Council;
* Department of State;
* U.S. Agency for International Development;
* Central Intelligence Agency;
* Department of Commerce;
* Department of Defense;
* Department of Labor;
* Department of the Treasury;
* Executive Office of the President;
* Export-Import Bank;
* Millennium Challenge Corporation;
* National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration;
* Office of Management and Budget;
* Office of the U.S. Trade Representative;
* Office of the Vice President;
* Overseas Private Investment Corporation;
* Peace Corps;
* U.S. Department of Agriculture;
* U.S. Trade and Development Agency.
Interagency coordination mechanisms have been established between
National Security Council Interagency Policy Committee on Agriculture
and Food Security and State-Led Global Hunger and Food Security
Initiative Working Team.
State-Led Global Hunger and Food Security Initiative Working Team:
* Department of State;
* Department of the Treasury;
* Millennium Challenge Corporation;
* Office of the U.S. Trade Representative;
* U.S. Agency for International Development;
* U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Source: GAO analysis of the agencies‘ responses to the data collection
instrument and program documents.
[End of figure]
The administration is making progress toward finalizing a
governmentwide global food security strategy”expected to be released
shortly”but its efforts are vulnerable to data weaknesses and risks
associated with the strategy‘s host country-led approach. The
administration has established interagency coordination mechanisms at
headquarters (see figure above) and is finalizing an implementation
document and a results framework. However, the lack of comprehensive
data on programs and funding levels may deprive decision makers of
information on available resources and a firm baseline against which
to plan. Furthermore, the host country-led approach, although
promising, is vulnerable to (1) the weak capacity of host governments,
which can limit their ability to sustain donor-funded efforts; (2) a
shortage of expertise in agriculture and food security at U.S.
agencies that could constrain efforts to help strengthen host
government capacity; and (3) policy differences between host
governments and donors, including the United States, may complicate
efforts to align donor interventions with host government strategies.
What GAO Recommends:
The related GAO report recommends that the Secretary of State (1)
develop an operational definition of food security that is accepted by
all U.S. agencies and establish a methodology for reporting
comprehensive data across agencies; and (2) collaborate with other
agency heads to finalize a governmentwide strategy that delineates
measures to mitigate the risks associated with the host country-led
approach. The Departments of State, the Treasury, and Agriculture
(USDA), and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID)
generally concurred with the recommendations.
View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-494T] or key
components. For more information, contact Thomas Melito at (202) 512-
9601 or melitot@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Madam Chairwoman and Members of the Subcommittee:
Thank you for the opportunity to discuss our work on U.S. agencies'
progress toward the development of a governmentwide strategy to
address global food security. Global hunger continues to worsen
despite world leaders' 1996 pledge--reaffirmed in 2000 and 2009--to
halve hunger by 2015.[Footnote 1] In 2009, the Food and Agriculture
Organization (FAO) reported that more than 1 billion people were
undernourished worldwide. The food and fuel crisis of 2006 through
2008, and the current global economic downturn, exacerbated food
insecurity in many developing countries and sparked food protests and
riots in dozens of them. However, official development assistance for
agriculture declined from the 1980s to 2005. To reverse this trend, in
2009, major donor countries pledged about $22.7 billion, in a 3-year
commitment, for agriculture and food security in developing countries,
of which the U.S. share is at least $3.5 billion. Various legislative
proposals introduced in 2009[Footnote 2] call for action to improve
global food security.[Footnote 3]
Since assuming office in January 2009, the President and the Secretary
of State have each stated that improving global food security is a
priority for this administration. Consistent with one of our
recommendations in our 2008 review of food insecurity,[Footnote 4]
U.S. agencies have launched a global hunger and food security
initiative, and in April 2009 the administration renewed efforts to
develop a governmentwide strategy. The National Security Council (NSC)
Interagency Policy Committee on Agriculture and Food Security and a
Department of State-led Global Hunger and Food Security Initiative
(GHFSI) working team are responsible for these efforts. In September
2009, the Department of State (State) issued a consultation document
that delineated a comprehensive approach to food security based on
host country-and community-led planning whereby recipient countries
decide on their own needs, solutions, and development strategies on
the assumption that the most effective food security strategies come
from those closest to the problems.
My statement is based on our report--issued today--on U.S.
governmentwide efforts to date to address global food security.
[Footnote 5] I will focus on two topics. First, I will discuss the
types and funding levels of global food security programs and
activities of relevant U.S. government agencies. Second, I will
discuss progress in developing an integrated U.S. governmentwide
strategy to address global food insecurity, as well as potential
vulnerabilities of that strategy.
To address these objectives in our report, we administered a data
collection instrument to the 10 U.S. agencies that are engaged in
global food security activities[Footnote 6] and participated in the
Food Security Sub-Policy Coordinating Committee on Food Price
Increases and Global Food Security (Food Security Sub-PCC) of the NSC
in 2008. The 10 agencies are the U.S. Agency for International
Development (USAID), Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC),
Department of the Treasury (Treasury), U.S. Department of Agriculture
(USDA), State, Department of Defense (DOD), U.S. Trade and Development
Agency (USTDA), Peace Corps, Office of the U.S. Trade Representative
(USTR), and Office of Management and Budget (OMB). In addition, we
conducted fieldwork in Bangladesh, Ethiopia, Ghana, Haiti, and Malawi
on the basis of multiple ongoing programs addressing food insecurity,
the proportion of the chronically hungry in these countries, and
geographic coverage of U.S. efforts in Africa, the Western Hemisphere,
and Asia. In these countries, we met with U.S. mission staff and host
government, donor, and nongovernmental organization (NGO)
representatives. We also visited numerous project sites funded by the
U.S. government and other donors. In addition, we attended the 2009
World Food Summit as an observer and met with Rome-based United
Nations (UN) food and agriculture agencies--namely FAO, the World Food
Program (WFP), and the International Fund for Agricultural Development
(IFAD)--as well as the U.S. Mission to the United Nations and
representatives of other donor countries. We conducted this
performance audit from February 2009 to March 2010 in accordance with
generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards
require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient,
appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings
and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the
evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and
conclusions based on our audit objectives.
The U.S. Government Supports a Broad Array of Programs and Activities
for Global Food Security, but Lacks Comprehensive Funding Data:
While the U.S. government supports a wide variety of programs and
activities for global food security, it lacks comprehensive data on
funding. We found that it is difficult to readily determine the full
extent of such programs and activities and to estimate precisely the
total amount of funding that the U.S. government as a whole allocates
to global food security.
In response to our data collection instrument to the 10 agencies, 7
agencies reported providing monetary assistance for global food
security programs and activities in fiscal year 2008, based on the
working definition we developed for this purpose with agency input.
Figure 1 summarizes the agencies' responses on the types of global
food security programs and activities and table 1 summarizes the
funding levels. (The agencies are listed in order from highest to
lowest amount of funding provided.)
Figure 1: Summary of the 10 Agencies' Responses on the Types of
Programs and Activities for Global Food Security, Fiscal Year 2008:
[Refer to PDF for image: illustrated table]
Types of activities:
A. Food aid: Emergency food aid:
USAID: [Check];
MCC: [Empty];
Treasury[A]:
USDA: [Check];
State: [Check];
USTDA: [Empty];
DOD: [Check];
Peace Corps: [Empty];
USTR: [Empty];
OMB[B]: [Empty].
A. Food aid: Nonemergency food aid:
USAID: [Check];
MCC: [Empty];
Treasury[A]: [Empty];
USDA: [Check];
State: [Check];
USTDA: [Empty];
DOD: [Empty];
Peace Corps: [Empty];
USTR: [Empty];
OMB[B]: [Empty].
B. Nutrition: Supplementary feeding and micronutrient supplementation:
USAID: [Check];
MCC: [Empty];
Treasury[A]: [Empty];
USDA: [Empty];
State: [Empty];
USTDA: [Empty];
DOD: [Empty];
Peace Corps: [Empty];
USTR: [Empty];
OMB[B]: [Empty].
B. Nutrition: Nutritional education, counseling, and assessment:
USAID: [Check];
MCC: [Empty];
Treasury[A]: [Empty];
USDA: [Check];
State: [Empty];
USTDA: [Empty];
DOD: [Empty];
Peace Corps: [Check];
USTR: [Empty];
OMB[B]: [Empty].
B. Nutrition: Assistance focusing on especially vulnerable groups:
USAID: [Check];
MCC: [Empty];
Treasury[A]: [Empty];
USDA: [Check];
State: [Empty];
USTDA: [Empty];
DOD: [Empty];
Peace Corps: [Check];
USTR: [Empty];
OMB[B]: [Empty].
C. Agricultural development: Agricultural technologies:
USAID: [Check];
MCC: [Check];
Treasury[A]: [Empty];
USDA: [Check];
State: [Empty];
USTDA: [Check];
DOD: [Empty];
Peace Corps: [Empty];
USTR: [Empty];
OMB[B]: [Empty].
C. Agricultural development: Farming techniques and agricultural
inputs:
USAID: [Check];
MCC: [Check];
Treasury[A]: [Empty];
USDA: [Check];
State: [Check];
USTDA: [Check];
DOD: [Empty];
Peace Corps: [Check];
USTR: [Empty];
OMB[B]: [Empty].
C. Agricultural development: Agricultural value chains, including
investments in food processing and storage:
USAID: [Check];
MCC: [Check];
Treasury[A]: [Empty];
USDA: [Check];
State: [Empty];
USTDA: [Check];
DOD: [Empty];
Peace Corps: [Empty];
USTR: [Empty];
OMB[B]: [Empty].
C. Agricultural development: Agricultural market development:
USAID: [Check];
MCC: [Check];
Treasury[A]: [Empty];
USDA: [Check];
State: [Empty];
USTDA: [Check];
DOD: [Empty];
Peace Corps: [Empty];
USTR: [Empty];
OMB[B]: [Empty].
C. Agricultural development: Agricultural risk management:
USAID: [Check];
MCC: [Check];
Treasury[A]: [Empty];
USDA: [Check];
State: [Check];
USTDA: [Check];
DOD: [Empty];
Peace Corps: [Empty];
USTR: [Empty];
OMB[B]: [Empty].
C. Agricultural development: Agricultural research and development,
education, and training:
USAID: [Check];
MCC: [Check];
Treasury[A]: [Empty];
USDA: [Check];
State: [Check];
USTDA: [Empty];
DOD: [Check];
Peace Corps: [Check];
USTR: [Empty];
OMB[B]: [Empty].
C. Agricultural development: Irrigation and watershed management:
USAID: [Check];
MCC: [Check];
Treasury[A]: [Empty];
USDA: [Check];
State: [Empty];
USTDA: [Check];
DOD: [Check];
Peace Corps: [Check];
USTR: [Empty];
OMB[B]: [Empty].
C. Agricultural development: Maintaining the natural resource base:
USAID: [Check];
MCC: [Check];
Treasury[A]: [Empty];
USDA: [Check];
State: [Check];
USTDA: [Check];
DOD: [Empty];
Peace Corps: [Check];
USTR: [Empty];
OMB[B]: [Empty].
D. Rural development: Land tenure reform:
USAID: [Check];
MCC: [Check];
Treasury[A]: [Empty];
USDA: [Empty];
State: [Empty];
USTDA: [Empty];
DOD: [Empty];
Peace Corps: [Empty];
USTR: [Empty];
OMB[B]: [Empty].
D. Rural development: Rural infrastructure:
USAID: [Check];
MCC: [Check];
Treasury[A]: [Empty];
USDA: [Check];
State: [Empty];
USTDA: [Check];
DOD: [Check];
Peace Corps: [Empty];
USTR: [Empty];
OMB[B]: [Empty].
D. Rural development: Microlending and access to other credit:
USAID: [Check];
MCC: [Check];
Treasury[A]: [Empty];
USDA: [Check];
State: [Empty];
USTDA: [Check];
DOD: [Empty];
Peace Corps: [Empty];
USTR: [Empty];
OMB[B]: [Empty].
E. Safety nets:
USAID: [Check];
MCC: [Empty];
Treasury[A]: [Empty];
USDA: [Empty];
State: [Check];
USTDA: [Empty];
DOD: [Empty];
Peace Corps: [Empty];
USTR: [Empty];
OMB[B]: [Empty].
F. Policy reform: Government food security-oriented policy reform:
USAID: [Check];
MCC: [Empty];
Treasury[A]: [Check];
USDA: [Check];
State: [Check];
USTDA: [Check];
DOD: [Empty];
Peace Corps: [Empty];
USTR: [Empty];
OMB[B]: [Empty].
F. Policy reform: Encouraging private sector investment:
USAID: [Check];
MCC: [Empty];
Treasury[A]: [Check];
USDA: [Check];
State: [Check];
USTDA: [Empty];
DOD: [Empty];
Peace Corps: [Empty];
USTR: [Check];
OMB[B]: [Empty].
F. Policy reform: Strengthening national and regional trade and
transport corridors:
USAID: [Check];
MCC: [Empty];
Treasury[A]: [Check];
USDA: [Check];
State: [Check];
USTDA: [Check];
DOD: [Empty];
Peace Corps: [Empty];
USTR: [Check];
OMB[B]: [Empty].
G. Information and monitoring:
USAID: [Check];
MCC: [Empty];
Treasury[A]: [Empty];
USDA: [Check];
State: [Empty];
USTDA: [Empty];
DOD: [Check];
Peace Corps: [Empty];
USTR: [Empty];
OMB[B]: [Empty].
H. Other types of food security assistance:
USAID: [Check];
MCC: [Empty];
Treasury[A]: [Empty];
USDA: [Check];
State: [Check];
USTDA: [Check];
DOD: [Empty];
Peace Corps: [Empty];
USTR: [Empty];
OMB[B]: [Empty].
I. Future challenges to food security:
USAID: [Check];
MCC: [Check];
Treasury[A]: [Empty];
USDA: [Check];
State: [Check];
USTDA: [Empty];
DOD: [Check];
Peace Corps: [Empty];
USTR: [Empty];
OMB[B]: [Empty].
Source: GAO analysis of the agencies‘ responses to the data collection
instrument.
[A] Treasury reported that its direct involvement in food security is
in the area of policy reform and its indirect involvement is through
its participation as the U.S. representative at the multilateral
development institutions, which support a range of global food
security activities, such as agricultural and rural development.
[B] OMB is not an implementing agency for global food security
activities and, as such, does not have programs and activities to
report.
[End of figure]
Table 1: Summary of Global Food Security Funding by Agency, Fiscal
Year 2008:
Agency: USAID;
Reported funding: $2,510 million.
Agency: MCC;
Reported funding: $912 million.
Agency: Treasury;
Reported funding: $817 million.
Agency: USDA;
Reported funding: $540 million.
Agency: State;
Reported funding: $168 million.
Agency: USTDA;
Reported funding: $9 million.
Agency: DOD;
Reported funding: $8 million.
Agency: Peace Corps;
Reported funding: None reported.
Agency: USTR;
Reported funding: None reported.
Agency: OMB;
Reported funding: None reported.
Agency: Approximate total[A];
Reported funding: $5 billion.
Source: GAO analysis of the agencies' responses to the data collection
instrument.
[A] We present a rounded total of $5 billion because the data cannot
be precisely summed as USAID reported on planned appropriations; State
provided appropriations, obligations, and expenditures data; DOD, MCC,
USDA, and USTDA reported obligations data; and the Treasury funding is
a GAO estimate based on Treasury data for agricultural development
funding of the multilateral development institutions and U.S.
participation in these institutions.
[End of table]
USAID and USDA reported providing the broadest array of global food
security programs and activities. USAID, MCC, Treasury (through its
participation in the multilateral development institutions), USDA, and
State provide the highest levels of funding to address food insecurity
in developing countries. In addition, USTDA and DOD provide some food
security-related assistance. These seven agencies reported allocating
at least $5 billion in fiscal year 2008 for global food security, with
food aid accounting for about half of this funding. However, the
actual total level of funding is likely greater.
The agencies did not provide us with comprehensive funding data due to
two key factors. First, a commonly accepted governmentwide operational
definition of what constitutes global food security programs and
activities has not been developed. An operational definition accepted
by all U.S. agencies would enable them to apply it at the program
level for planning and budgeting purposes. The agencies also lack
reporting requirements to routinely capture data on all relevant
funds. Second, some agencies' management systems are inadequate for
tracking and reporting food security funding data comprehensively and
consistently. Most notably, USAID and State--which both use the
Foreign Assistance Coordination and Tracking System (FACTS) database
for tracking foreign assistance--failed to include a very large amount
of food aid funding data in that database. In its initial response to
our instrument, USAID, using FACTS, reported that in fiscal year 2008
the agency's planned appropriations for global food security included
about $860 million for Food for Peace Title II emergency food aid.
However, we noticed a very large discrepancy between the FACTS-
generated $860 million and two other sources of information on
emergency food aid funding: (1) the $1.7 billion that USAID allocated
to emergency food aid from the congressional appropriations for Title
II food aid for fiscal year 2008,[Footnote 7] and (2) about $2 billion
in emergency food aid funding reported by USAID in its International
Food Assistance Report for fiscal year 2008. While USAID officials
reported that the agency has checks in place to ensure the accuracy of
the data entered by its overseas missions and most headquarters
bureaus, the magnitude of the discrepancy for emergency food aid,
which is USAID's global food security program with the highest funding
level, raises questions about the data management and verification
procedures in FACTS, particularly with regard to the Food for Peace
program.
The Administration Is Developing a Governmentwide Global Food Security
Strategy, but Efforts Are Vulnerable to Data Weaknesses and Risks
Associated with the Host Country-Led Approach:
While the administration is making progress toward finalizing a
governmentwide global food security strategy through improved
interagency coordination at the headquarters level, its efforts are
vulnerable to weaknesses in data and risks associated with the host
country-led approach called for in the strategy under development.
Two interagency processes established in April 2009--the NSC
Interagency Policy Committee on Agriculture and Food Security and the
GHFSI working team--are improving headquarters coordination among
numerous agencies, as shown in figure 2.
Figure 2: Interagency Coordination Mechanisms for Addressing Global
Hunger and Food Insecurity Have Been Established:
[Refer to PDF for image: illustration]
Interagency coordination mechanisms have been established between
National Security Council Interagency Policy Committee on Agriculture
and Food Security and State-Led Global Hunger and Food Security
Initiative Working Team.
National Security Council Interagency Policy Committee on Agriculture
and Food Security:
* National Security Council;
* Department of State;
* U.S. Agency for International Development;
* Central Intelligence Agency;
* Department of Commerce;
* Department of Defense;
* Department of Labor;
* Department of the Treasury;
* Executive Office of the President;
* Export-Import Bank;
* Millennium Challenge Corporation;
* National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration;
* Office of Management and Budget;
* Office of the U.S. Trade Representative;
* Office of the Vice President;
* Overseas Private Investment Corporation;
* Peace Corps;
* U.S. Department of Agriculture;
* U.S. Trade and Development Agency.
State-Led Global Hunger and Food Security Initiative Working Team:
* Department of State;
* Department of the Treasury;
* Millennium Challenge Corporation;
* Office of the U.S. Trade Representative;
* U.S. Agency for International Development;
* U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Sources: GAO presentation based on State data.
[End of figure]
The strategy under development is embodied in the Consultation
Document issued in September 2009, which is being expanded and as of
February 2010 was expected to be released shortly, along with an
implementation document and a results framework that will include a
plan for monitoring and evaluation. In the fiscal year 2011
Congressional Budget Justification for the GHFSI, the administration
has identified a group of 20 countries around which to center GHFSI
assistance, including 12 countries in sub-Saharan Africa, 4 in Asia,
and 4 in the Western Hemisphere.
However, the administration's efforts are vulnerable to weaknesses in
funding data, and the host country-led approach, although promising,
poses some risks. Currently, no single information database compiles
comprehensive data on the entire range of global food security
programs and activities across the U.S. government. The lack of
comprehensive data on current programs and funding levels may impair
the success of the new strategy because it deprives decision makers of
information on all available resources, actual cost data, and a firm
baseline against which to plan. Furthermore, the host country-led
approach has three key vulnerabilities, as follows:
* First, the weak capacity of host governments raises questions
regarding their ability to absorb significant increases in donor
funding for agriculture and food security and to sustain donor-funded
projects on their own over time. For example, the multilateral
development banks reported relatively low ratings for sustainability
of agriculture-related projects in the past. 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. Similarly, an annual report issued by the International
Fund for Agricultural Development's independent Office of Evaluation
on the results and impact of the fund's operations between 2002 and
2006 rated only 45 percent of its agricultural development projects
satisfactory for sustainability.
* Second, the shortage of expertise in agriculture and food security
at relevant U.S. agencies can constrain efforts to help strengthen
host government capacity, as well as review host government efforts
and guide in-country activities. For example, the Chicago Council on
Global Affairs noted that whereas USAID previously had a significant
in-house staff capacity in agriculture, it has lost that capacity over
the years and is only now beginning to restore it.[Footnote 8] The
loss has been attributed to the overall declining trend in U.S.
assistance for agriculture since the 1990s. In 2008 three former USAID
administrators reported that "the agency now has only six engineers
and 16 agriculture experts."[Footnote 9] USAID noted that a recent
analysis of direct hire staff shows the agency has since expanded its
personnel with technical expertise in agriculture and food security to
79 staff. USAID officials told us that the agency's current workforce
plan calls for adding 95 to 114 new Foreign Service officers with
technical expertise in agriculture by the end of fiscal year 2012.
* Third, policy differences between host governments and donors,
including the United States, with regard to agricultural development
and food security may further complicate efforts to align donor
interventions with host government strategies. Malawi provides an
instructive example of policy differences between the host government
and donors and the difficulties of aligning donor interventions with
host government strategies. To increase agricultural production and
reduce poverty among smallholder farmers, the government of Malawi has
chosen to provide subsidies to offset the costs of major agricultural
inputs, such as fertilizer, seeds, and pesticides. Since 2005 and
2006, the government of Malawi has implemented a large-scale national
program that distributes vouchers to about 50 percent of the country's
farmers so that they can purchase agricultural inputs at highly
discounted prices. Although USAID has supported operations that use
targeted vouchers to accelerate short-term relief operations following
conflicts or disasters, the U.S. food security strategy in sub-Saharan
Africa has focused on linking farmers to the market so that they can
increase their incomes by relying on the market rather than by
receiving subsidized agricultural inputs. According to a USAID
official, the provision of cheaper fertilizer and seeds does not
address the fundamental problem--that poor farmers cannot afford
fertilizer on their own.
Conclusion:
In the face of growing malnutrition worldwide, the international
community has established ambitious goals toward halving global
hunger, including significant financial commitments to increase aid
for agriculture and food security. Given the size of the problem and
how difficult it has historically been to address it, this effort will
require a long-term, sustained commitment on the part of the
international donor community, including the United States. As part of
this initiative, and consistent with a prior GAO recommendation, the
United States has committed to harnessing the efforts of all relevant
U.S. agencies in a coordinated and integrated governmentwide approach.
The administration has made important progress toward realizing this
commitment, including providing high-level support across multiple
government agencies. However, the administration's efforts to develop
an integrated U.S. governmentwide strategy for global food security
have two key vulnerabilities: (1) the lack of readily available
comprehensive data across agencies and (2) the risks associated with
the host country-led approach. Given the complexity and long-standing
nature of these concerns, there should be no expectation of quick and
easy solutions. Only long-term, sustained efforts by countries,
institutions, and all relevant entities to mitigate these concerns
will greatly enhance the prospects of fulfilling the international
commitment to halve global hunger.
GAO Recommends That Agencies Address Data Weaknesses and Mitigate
Risks Associated with Host Country-Led Approach:
Figure 9: In the report issued today, we recommended that the
Secretary of State (1) work with the existing NSC Interagency Policy
Committee to develop an operational definition of food security that
is accepted by all U.S. agencies; establish a methodology for
consistently reporting comprehensive data across agencies; and
periodically inventory the food security-related programs and
associated costs for each of these agencies; and (2) work in
collaboration with relevant agency heads to delineate measures to
mitigate the risks associated with the host country-led approach on
the successful implementation of the forthcoming governmentwide global
food security strategy.
State concurred with our recommendations. Our report reflects written
comments we received from State as well as Treasury, USAID, and USDA.
In general, these agencies noted two things. First, the importance of
developing a common definition for food security including other key
agencies, such as USAID and USDA. We recognize the expertise that
various agencies can contribute toward the effort and encourage fully
leveraging their expertise. Second, the four agencies emphasized the
importance of a country-led approach, while acknowledging the risks
associated with such an approach, and noted actions being taken to
mitigate these risks, such as the implementation strategy for the
GHFSI.
Madam Chairwoman, this concludes my statement. I would be pleased to
respond to any questions that you or other Members of the Subcommittee
may have.
GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Should you have any questions about this testimony, please contact
Thomas Melito 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 statement. Individuals who made key
contributions to this statement include Phillip J. Thomas (Assistant
Director), Joy Labez, Sada Aksartova, Carol Bray, Ming Chen, Debbie
Chung, Martin De Alteriis, Brian Egger, Etana Finkler, Amanda Hinkle,
and Ulyana Panchishin.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] At the 1996 World Food Summit, world leaders set a goal to halve
the total number of undernourished people worldwide by 2015 from the
1990 level. However, in 2000, the first of eight UN Millennium
Development Goals (MDG), referred to as MDG-1, was defined as a
commitment to halve the proportion of undernourished people. Both
goals apply globally as well as at the country and regional levels.
MDG-1 has two targets: first, between 1990 and 2015, to halve the
proportion of people whose income is less than $1 a day and second,
between 1990 and 2015, to halve the proportion of people who suffer
from hunger. The second target is measured by two progress indicators:
(1) the prevalence of underweight children under 5 years of age on the
basis of United Nations Children's Fund and World Health Organization
data and (2) the proportion of the population below the minimum level
of dietary energy consumption. In this report we focus on the latter
indicator, which is based on FAO's World Food Summit goal estimates.
[2] These include S. 384, Global Food Security Act, introduced on
February 5, 2009; HR 2795, Roadmap to End Global Hunger and Promote
Food Security Act of 2009, introduced on June 10, 2009; and HR 3077,
Global Food Security Act of 2009, introduced on June 26, 2009.
[3] FAO defines food security as a condition that exists when all
people, at all times, have physical, social, and economic access to
sufficient, safe, and nutritious food to meet their dietary needs and
food preferences for an active and healthy life. Specifically, food
security includes three elements: (1) food availability, (2) access,
and (3) utilization. The declaration approved at the World Summit on
Food Security in November 2009 expanded FAO's definition to include
stability as a fourth element. This fourth element was added after we
completed our data collection and analysis. However, the FAO's
definition does not include an operational definition that would
indicate which programs and activities it covers.
[4] GAO, International Food Security: Insufficient Efforts by Host
Governments and Donors Threaten Progress to Halve Hunger in Sub-
Saharan Africa by 2015, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-680] (Washington, D.C.: May 29,
2008).
[5] GAO, Global Food Security: U.S. Agencies Progressing on
Governmentwide Strategy, but Approach Faces Several Vulnerabilities,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-352] (Washington, D.C.:
Mar. 11, 2010).
[6] In the absence of a commonly accepted governmentwide operational
definition of food security, we developed a working definition for our
data collection instrument based on a broad framework we established
in an earlier report (GAO-08-680), prior GAO work on international
food security, and our interactions with the agencies. This working
definition is based on existing definitions used by FAO, World Food
Program, and some U.S. agencies.
[7] These include the regular appropriations (Pub. Law No. 110-161) of
$1.2 billion and the supplemental appropriations (Pub. Law No. 110-
252) of $850 million in Food for Peace Title II funding for fiscal
year 2008.
[8] The Chicago Council on Global Affairs, Renewing American
Leadership in the Fight Against Global Hunger and Poverty: The Chicago
Initiative on Global Agricultural Development (Chicago, IL: 2009).
[9] J. Brian Atwood, M. Peter McPherson, and Andrew Natsios. "Arrested
Development: Making Foreign Aid a More Effective Tool." Foreign
Affairs, vol. 87, No. 6, p. 127 (2008).
[End of section]
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance
and accountability of the federal government for the American people.
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]
and select "E-mail Updates."
Order by Phone:
The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO‘s actual cost of
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and
white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO‘s Web site,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm].
Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
TDD (202) 512-2537.
Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional
information.
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]:
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov:
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4400:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7125:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
