[House Hearing, 109 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
THE INTERNATIONAL FUND FOR AGRICULTURAL
DEVELOPMENT (IFAD) AND THE IMPORTANCE OF
AGRICULTURE DEVELOPMENT IN SUSTAINABLE
GLOBAL POVERTY REDUCTION
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
DOMESTIC AND INTERNATIONAL
MONETARY POLICY, TRADE, AND TECHNOLOGY
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
SEPTEMBER 12, 2006
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Financial Services
Serial No. 109-118
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
31-547 PDF WASHINGTON : 2007
------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2250. Mail: Stop SSOP,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
HOUSE COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES
MICHAEL G. OXLEY, Ohio, Chairman
JAMES A. LEACH, Iowa BARNEY FRANK, Massachusetts
RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania
DEBORAH PRYCE, Ohio MAXINE WATERS, California
SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
MICHAEL N. CASTLE, Delaware LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois
EDWARD R. ROYCE, California NYDIA M. VELAZQUEZ, New York
FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina
ROBERT W. NEY, Ohio GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York
SUE W. KELLY, New York, Vice Chair DARLENE HOOLEY, Oregon
RON PAUL, Texas JULIA CARSON, Indiana
PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio BRAD SHERMAN, California
JIM RYUN, Kansas GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York
STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio BARBARA LEE, California
DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois DENNIS MOORE, Kansas
WALTER B. JONES, Jr., North MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts
Carolina HAROLD E. FORD, Jr., Tennessee
JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois RUBEN HINOJOSA, Texas
CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York
VITO FOSSELLA, New York WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri
GARY G. MILLER, California STEVE ISRAEL, New York
PATRICK J. TIBERI, Ohio CAROLYN McCARTHY, New York
MARK R. KENNEDY, Minnesota JOE BACA, California
TOM FEENEY, Florida JIM MATHESON, Utah
JEB HENSARLING, Texas STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts
SCOTT GARRETT, New Jersey BRAD MILLER, North Carolina
GINNY BROWN-WAITE, Florida DAVID SCOTT, Georgia
J. GRESHAM BARRETT, South Carolina ARTUR DAVIS, Alabama
KATHERINE HARRIS, Florida AL GREEN, Texas
RICK RENZI, Arizona EMANUEL CLEAVER, Missouri
JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania MELISSA L. BEAN, Illinois
STEVAN PEARCE, New Mexico DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida
RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas GWEN MOORE, Wisconsin,
TOM PRICE, Georgia
MICHAEL G. FITZPATRICK, BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
Pennsylvania
GEOFF DAVIS, Kentucky
PATRICK T. McHENRY, North Carolina
CAMPBELL, JOHN, California
Robert U. Foster, III, Staff Director
Subcommittee on Domestic and International Monetary Policy, Trade, and
Technology
DEBORAH PRYCE, Ohio, Chair
JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois, Vice Chair CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
JAMES A. LEACH, Iowa BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
MICHAEL N. CASTLE, Delaware MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina
FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma MAXINE WATERS, California
RON PAUL, Texas BARBARA LEE, California
STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania
DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois BRAD SHERMAN, California
MARK R. KENNEDY, Minnesota LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois
KATHERINE HARRIS, Florida MELISSA L. BEAN, Illinois
JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida
RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas GWEN MOORE, Wisconsin
TOM PRICE, Georgia JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York
PATRICK T. McHENRY, North Carolina BARNEY FRANK, Massachusetts
MICHAEL G. OXLEY, Ohio
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on:
September 12, 2006........................................... 1
Appendix:
September 12, 2006........................................... 21
WITNESSES
Tuesday, September 12, 2006
Beckmann, Rev. David, President, Bread for the World............. 4
Howard, Julie, Executive Director, Partnership to Cut Hunger and
Poverty in Africa and co-author of Investing in Africa's
Future: U.S. Agricultural Development Assistance for Sub-
Saharan Africa................................................. 6
Lowther, Kevin G., Regional Director for Southern Africa,
Africare....................................................... 9
McNamer, Bruce, President and CEO, TechnoServe, Inc.............. 11
APPENDIX
Prepared statements:
Waters, Hon. Maxine.......................................... 22
Beckmann, Rev. David......................................... 27
Howard, Julie................................................ 34
Lowther, Kevin G............................................. 41
McNamer, Bruce............................................... 45
THE INTERNATIONAL FUND FOR
AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT (IFAD)
AND THE IMPORTANCE OF AGRICULTURE
DEVELOPMENT IN SUSTAINABLE
GLOBAL POVERTY REDUCTION
----------
Tuesday, September 12, 2006
U.S. House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Domestic and
International Monetary Policy,
Trade, and Technology,
Committee on Financial Services,
Washington, D.C.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2 p.m., in
room 2128, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Frank D. Lucas,
presiding.
Present: Representatives Lucas, Watt, and Frank.
Mr. Lucas. This hearing of the Subcommittee on Domestic and
International Monetary Policy, Trade, and Technology will come
to order. I am pleased to chair today's hearing that will
examine the efforts of the International Fund for Agricultural
Development, IFAD.
The United States has been the largest contributor to IFAD.
In December of 2005, the United States announced a pledge of
$54 million to IFAD's seventh replenishment, which maintains
approximately the same level of burden sharing as it did in the
previous replenishment. As chairman of the Subcommittee on
Conservation, Credit, Rule Development, and Research of the
Committee on Agriculture, and as a member of the Committee on
Financial Services, I have a particular interest in hearing how
IFAD works to complement efforts made by governments, donors,
nongovernmental organizations, and other partners, such as
members of the private sector, involved with capital markets,
additional U.N. agencies, the World Bank, and research
institutions in helping to finance cultural development
projects for the primary purpose of producing food in
developing countries, which, in turn, leads to greater services
and a stronger economy.
I have always been struck by the fact that food insecurity
and famine are not so much the result of failures in food
production but structural problems related to poverty. I am
also amazed by the fact that nearly 75 percent of the poor in
developing countries, about 900 million people, are
concentrated in the rural areas. IFAD believes, as I do, that
the rural poor must be empowered to lead their own development.
These people must be able to develop and strengthen their local
organizations and have a say in the decisions and policies that
affect their lives.
It is for this reason that IFAD is so important. IFAD works
on the local level to create projects that will end the cycle
of poverty. By working closely with governments to develop and
finance programs, IFAD is expected to help more than 100
million rural people living in poverty.
Unfortunately, due to U.N. regulations, we are not able to
have representatives from IFAD testify before the committee
today. However, I am pleased that we will have various
organizations who work directly with IFAD and their partners
who will be able to give us a close-up view of how IFAD
operates.
I am also pleased to hear testimony that will address the
progress made by IFAD and other organizations that seek to aid
Africa in its development, the kind of commitments and future
cooperation that would be necessary for continued progress and
suggestions for making IFAD more effective.
And with that I would like to turn to the ranking member of
the full committee, Mr. Frank.
Mr. Frank. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
This is a hearing we have not because there are problems,
which sometimes we have, but really, I think, to show our
support for this important operation.
As many of you understand, it is election season. There
won't be votes until 6:30, so it is a time when there are not a
lot of members around, but that is not an indication of there
not being support. Not a lot of media either, but, as you know,
interest around here tends to be generated by controversy, not
by substance. And the lack of controversy, for which you can,
to some extent take credit, because of the work you have done
with IFAD, means that we don't have a lot of attention. But I
am glad that you are here.
Let me say, I read over the statements and I am very much
in agreement about what we should do. At least one of you said,
in the testimony that I read, that Congress should avoid
earmarking some of the assistance that we give. And I agree
with that. Earmarks here, we should be clear, are not earmarks
of the sort of company of A or company B, but they are policy
related earmarks: Put in water, put in this, put in that.
I will tell you this. I can't think of an earmark that was
generated by a Member of Congress. Earmarks come in response to
well-meaning organizations that say, oh, well, this is
important or that is important. So I would say two things. One,
to those of you who agreed that we shouldn't earmark, never ask
us to; and, secondly, help us resist. Because often what
happens is a very good organization of decent, hard-working
people comes and says, this area of activity is important. And
an earmark is then considered to be, well, do you think that is
a good activity or not, rather than should you restrict the
flexibility and prefer this activity over other good ones. So I
agree with that, but we are going to need your help in doing
it.
And it may mean even--and this is, I noticed--I don't mean
to single you out. People are always coming to us asking us to
do things; and then I sometimes say, yes, but to do that we
have to do the following. And they say, oh, well, that is
controversial; we can't take that position. That is, if you
want to help us block earmarks, oppose the earmarks of some of
your well-meaning colleagues, because otherwise they will go
through unopposed.
Beyond that, I did want to say, as I read the testimony,
that I agree that you have pointed out one of the enduring
inconsistencies in American politics. That is American politics
is, to a very great extent, today dominated by people who are
generally conservative and who preach to others the values of
the free market and the virtues of nongovernment intervention.
But, as I have said before, apparently in all the great free
market texts there is a secret footnote that says, oh, by the
way, not agriculture. So that when my conservative colleagues
talk about the importance of keeping the government out of the
private sector, about self-reliance, about the dangers of tax
subsidy, about protecting efficiencies, etc., they have taken
this mental reservation that it doesn't apply to agriculture.
Because agriculture in America is the most subsidized,
regulated industry that we have.
For instance, we are sometimes told, well, we need that for
the food supply. But I know that a couple of you mentioned that
one of the problems that African countries encounter in their
efforts to become economically advanced is the American subsidy
of cotton which keeps African countries which could grow high-
quality cotton more cheaply than us from putting it on the
market. And when we raise the issue of these kinds of subsidies
we are told, well, but what about food supply? I have not
observed people eating much cotton. Maybe my experiences are
too limited. But the cotton area is an example of an American
policy of subsidy which has no basis, obviously, in food.
What particularly concerns me is that when some of us who
have represented industrial areas have raised concern about the
short-term impact of foreign trade, we are told that we are
being protectionist and insensitive to poor people. And of
course, as the collapse of the Doha Round just showed, the
single greatest obstacle to progress in world trade and to
alleviating poverty internationally in this regard is American
agriculture policy.
Well, I take it back. We are not the single greatest. The
single greatest is European agriculture policy. We may be tied
for second with Japan, and the fact is that it is time to
introduce agriculture in America to the joys of the free market
which its Congressional representatives so freely argue for.
I have one last point along those lines. I agreed with the
Bush Administration, particularly with Andrew Natsios with whom
I had served in the Massachusetts House 30 years ago, that we
should allow more of the food aid to be money, which would buy
food on the spot. The insistence that all food aid be
physically transported, I think, greatly lessens its value. A
significant amount of it should be grown and transported, and
that is only sensible, and it is political reality. But we are
too restrictive in allowing some of it to be the money
equivalent.
So I thank you for the work you do, for your support of
IFAD, and for the policy points that you have made.
Mr. Lucas. And the Chair thanks the ranking member and
offers up to the panel an observation of all the fun and
challenges that the 2007 farm bill will be next year as we work
our way through that.
With that, let's note for the record that, without
objection, all members who may want to submit an opening
statement will have that made a part of the record.
Now, let's turn to the introduction of our panel.
Reverend David Beckmann is president of Bread for the
World. Bread for the World is most famous for working closely
with rock star Bono and is a nationwide Christian movement that
seeks justice for the world's hungry people by engaging in
research and education on policies related to hunger and
development.
Also, Dr. Julie Howard is the executive director for the
Partnership to Cut Hunger and Poverty in Africa, where she
works to reverse the persistent hunger and poverty in Africa.
She has also co-authored the comprehensive agricultural report
on Africa entitled: Investing in Africa's Future: U.S.
Agricultural Development Assistance for Sub-Saharan Africa,
with Michael Taylor.
We also have Mr. Keith Lowther. He is the regional director
for southern Africa at Africare, an organization that works in
partnership with African communities to achieve healthy and
productive societies.
And, also, Mr. Bruce McNamer is the president and CEO of
TechnoServe. TechnoServe is a nonprofit organization that
focuses on economic development of Africa and Latin America.
Its mission is to help entrepreneurial men and women in poor
rural areas of the developing world.
With that, you may begin whenever you are ready, Reverend
Beckmann.
STATEMENT OF REVEREND DAVID BECKMANN, PRESIDENT, BREAD FOR THE
WORLD
Rev. Beckmann. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Mr. Ranking
Member. I really appreciate you holding this hearing.
The world, in fact, is making progress against poverty and
hunger, and the work that IFAD has done over the last 30-some
years is part of that progress. The attention that this
committee is giving to that good work is part of that progress,
so thank you.
At Bread for the World, in addition to doing research, we
organize people and churches to lobby Congress. We mobilize
about a quarter of a million letters to Congress every year on
issues that are important to hungry and poor people in our own
country and around the world. We think agriculture and rural
development are really important to progress against poverty
around the world, also progress against poverty in our own
country, and we have come to love IFAD.
Almost 80 percent of the world's poor live in rural areas,
but only 8 percent of development assistance goes to
agriculture and rural development; this just doesn't make
sense.
Compared to 10 years ago, USAID and the World Bank are
talking a lot more now about agriculture, again. But there has
been very little, if any, change in levels of funding for
agriculture and rural development.
The most encouraging recent development is that the
Millennium Challenge Account is including agriculture and rural
development in most of its compacts. And it is really
instructive that when the MCA picks countries, poor countries,
that have good governments, those countries overwhelmingly are
coming back and saying they want help with agriculture and
rural development.
We think that IFAD is an excellent vehicle for U.S.
investment in agriculture and rural development. Bread for the
World was founded about the same time as IFAD, and we have
monitored IFAD since its inception. We follow its policies, our
staff visits its programs and projects, and we are impressed.
In particular, we are impressed by two of IFAD's policies.
One is a resolute focus on the rural poor. Most of our foreign
aid money has two or three different objectives for every
dollar that we spend. We are trying to contribute to U.S.
security and help some interest group in this country and also
help poor people around the world, and so it is not surprising
sometimes that the objective of reducing poverty doesn't get
carried out very effectively. IFAD is resolutely focused on
helping poor people in rural areas get ahead.
The other policy that we think has been critical to its
success is that it tries to involve those poor communities in
decisions so they are not just the object of investment but,
rather, IFAD makes real efforts to empower groups of farmers,
women's groups, and other groups in rural areas so that they
can take part in the design of the interventions. That means
that those interventions are more likely to be effective, more
likely to be successful, and they are more likely to last after
IFAD finally concludes its involvement in the area.
So let me conclude with four recommendations. Two are
directly under the jurisdiction of this subcommittee.
First, Bread for the World encourages you to
enthusiastically support IFAD and, specifically, to support its
policies of resolute focus on the rural poor and empowerment of
the rural poor.
Second, we would encourage this committee to encourage
other official development banks to increase their investment
in agriculture and rural development and, specifically, to
focus on poverty and the empowerment of poor communities.
Third--and this is a more general recommendation--we are
thrilled that Congress and the President have been increasing
funding for poverty focused development assistance. It is
really remarkable. In 1999, the programs and agencies that we
considered poverty focused development assistance were funded
at a level of about $4 billion. That is up to $10.6 billion for
this year, this fiscal year. The President has requested a $2
billion increase, but the House has so far approved only $1
billion of that increase that the President asked for. So our
third recommendation is that you participate in getting the
final number up to the President's recommendation for poverty
focused development assistance generally.
And then, fourth, I do want to address the issue of
agricultural protectionism. It is a very difficult issue. But
the agricultural protectionism of the industrialized countries,
first, it is tough. It is not good for our own agriculture. Our
own agriculture becomes unresponsive. It is not meeting the
needs of small-scale farmers and other poor people in rural
Oklahoma. It is not easy to solve this problem.
But the current structure of global agriculture is really
tough on farmers in poor countries, and, in the long haul,
nothing is more important to U.S. farmers than the expansion of
markets in developing countries. When people in East Asia were
able to get out of poverty and hunger to some extent, that was
good for agriculture in Oklahoma. And it is that positive
interaction between agriculture and rural development among the
poor around the world and agricultural and industrial
development in our own country that we should be fostering.
When really poor people get ahead a little bit, the extra
dollar they get, 80 percent of it goes into food. So some of
that will go into imported food and agricultural imports.
So addressing the concerns that Mr. Frank addressed is a
big task for Doha. We hope the President will rescue Doha, and
we hope the next foreign bill will find some ways to make
progress in changing the structure of global agriculture.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Rev. Beckmann can be found on
page 27 of the appendix.]
Mr. Lucas. Thank you.
Dr. Howard.
STATEMENT OF JULIE HOWARD, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, PARTNERSHIP TO
CUT HUNGER AND POVERTY IN AFRICA AND CO-AUTHOR OF INVESTING IN
AFRICA'S FUTURE: U.S. AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE FOR
SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA
Ms. Howard. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for this
opportunity to testify about the importance of U.S. support for
African agriculture in general, and for IFAD in particular.
I represent the Partnership to Cut Hunger and Poverty in
Africa, which was founded in 2001 by African Union Commission
Chair Alpha Konare and former USAID Administrator Peter
McPherson; the Presidents of Uganda, Ghana, and Mozambique;
former Congressman Lee Hamilton; Senator Robert Dole; and
Reverend David Beckmann, to my side.
The Partnership is an independent U.S.-African coalition of
public and private organizations advocating for greater and
more effective investment in Africa's agricultural and rural
sectors.
I would like to make six key points today.
The first one is that agriculture is pivotal in the fight
against hunger and poverty in Africa. As you know, poverty and
hunger are acute in sub-Saharan Africa and conditions are
worsening. Nearly half of the population there gets by on less
than a dollar a day, and a third go hungry.
Over the past few years, these tough realities have
triggered a global recommitment to eradicate poverty and
hunger. We see this reflected in the 1996 World Food Summit to
halve the number of undernourished people by 2015, and this is
reinforced by the United Nations Millennium Development Goals.
This global consensus recognizes both the moral imperative of
addressing these inequalities and also the self-interest of
rich countries to do so.
Historically, agriculture has provided the foundation for
economic take-off in almost every single country of the world.
In Africa, 70 percent of the population lives and works in
rural areas. So if you want to have a major impact on poverty
and hunger, there is really no other way and no better way to
do this than by rapidly growing the rural economy.
My second point is that agricultural assistance to Africa
is going to require broad and costly interventions. In Africa,
the development challenge is more difficult and more complex
than elsewhere in the world. Historically, during the Green
Revolution in the 1960's in Asia and Latin America, a lot was
achieved through improvements at the farm level just by
providing improved seeds, fertilizer, research, and extension
services for small-scale farmers.
But sub-Saharan Africa lacks much of the physical
infrastructure, the roads, the ports, and the institutional
capacity for research, governance, and functioning markets that
made the Green Revolution possible for these other regions.
Thus, for Africa, it is really important for us to reframe our
thinking about agricultural development assistance.
So we are not just thinking about farm-level improvements,
but we are actually including a much broader range of
activities to help foster this agriculture-led economic growth.
These improvements range from natural resources management and
improved farm productivity all the way to assistance for market
development, rural roads, and improving trade policy.
My third point, considering the issues that we have been
discussing today, of the three Rome-based United Nations
agencies, IFAD focuses exactly on this critical role of
agriculture in facilitating broad-based economic growth for the
rural poor. IFAD projects generate growth by integrating
smallholders into markets, developing rural financial systems,
improving land and water management and improving knowledge,
information, and technology systems for the rural poor. It has
important field experience, and on the basis of this field
experience, IFAD is becoming an increasingly important voice at
the policy level, arguing for market-led agricultural
development. And, as Reverend Beckmann noted, IFAD also is
facilitating the participation of the rural poor themselves in
policy formulation and project implementation.
Mr. Chairman, support for IFAD is one of a number of ways
that the United States supports African agricultural
development. About 80 percent of U.S. funding for African
agriculture is provided directly through U.S. agencies. USAID
is the lead, also USDA, African Development Foundation, and now
the MCC. It is just the remaining 20 percent of funding that is
filtered through the multilateral agencies, including IFAD, the
United Nations FAO, World Food Program, World Bank IDA, and the
African Development Fund of the African Development Bank.
My fourth point is, given the critical importance of
getting rural economies in Africa going, the United States is
significantly underinvesting in African economic growth
relative to spending for social programs.
The Partnership documented actual U.S. spending on African
agricultural development in a report we released one year ago,
``Investing in Africa's Future: U.S. Agricultural Development
Assistance for Sub-Saharan Africa.'' We found that although
U.S. leaders are embracing agriculture-led economic growth at
the policy level, the financial support, in truth, is actually
lagging. It has stagnated since 2000. So total U.S.
agricultural development assistance for Africa between 2000 and
2004 grew by only 2 percent in real terms. And if you compare
this to what has happened with health programs and education
programs, USAID health programs in Africa grew by 61 percent in
the same time period; and this increase doesn't even include
what we are spending on HIV/AIDS in the global fund to fight
AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria. The HIV/AIDS commitment itself
is for $15 billion over 5 years.
Furthermore, the effectiveness of U.S. assistance is
limited by earmarks, by fragmentation across agencies, and by a
lack of coordination. Some of these challenges indeed could be
eased if the Millennium Challenge Corporation fulfills its
considerable potential. The MCC operates under a different
framework, and it receives funds that are not earmarked, at
least not thus far.
Our experience of MCA indicates when countries are allowed
to choose assistance priorities for themselves, they go ahead
and choose to fund programs that do stimulate broad-based
economic growth. The three MCA compacts signed in Africa thus
far, Madagascar, Ghana, and Benin, all have significant
agriculture components. But MCA remains largely untested as a
vehicle for development assistance, and it really focuses on a
very limited number of countries.
Fifth, beyond the U.S., OECD development assistance
reflects the same imbalance: great concentration on social
spending, very little actually on economic growth. I think this
puts into question whether we are going to be able to achieve
the sustained progress on poverty and hunger that we want and
need.
While overall bilateral assistance from OECD countries grew
by 74 percent between 2000 and 2003, the share of agriculture-
related assistance in ODA actually declined from 13 to 9
percent. By contrast, in this same period, health-related
bilateral ODA grew by 115 percent and ODA for education
increased by 77 percent. It has a spill-on effect in Africa,
because African political leaders, while they also put high
priority on rural economic growth and on the place of
agriculture in their economies, they can't do this with their
own domestic resources. They rely on the resources they receive
from bilateral and multilateral donors. And if those are pre-
selected for social projects, then the actual budget allocation
is strong on social spending and weak on economic growth.
My final point is that the United States should take the
lead with IFAD in urging significant increases in funding for
economic growth, for facilitating agriculture-led economic
growth in Africa.
While increased expenditures for health and education are
important, the current ratio of investment by the U.S. OECD
will not enable African countries to sustain their health and
education systems over the long term. Food, health, and
education are all high priorities and very interdependent.
Without adequate food, people will never be healthy and
children will not be prepared to learn. And without growing
their rural economies, African nations will always be reliant
on external assistance.
Thank you for this opportunity.
Mr. Lucas. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Howard can be found on page
34 of the appendix.]
Mr. Lucas. Mr. Lowther.
STATEMENT OF KEVIN G. LOWTHER, REGIONAL DIRECTOR FOR SOUTHERN
AFRICA, AFRICARE
Mr. Lowther. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am going to beg
your indulgence and try to focus a bit on the field
perspective.
I have had a working relationship with IFAD for the past 20
years, and I think everything you are going to hear today is
simply going to underscore my own experiences there. But what I
want to bring out in this testimony is a perspective from the
farmers themselves and, in this case in particular, Zimbabwe.
So the overall context of my testimony is going to be southern
Africa.
Having lived or worked there for the past 28 years, I have
had the opportunity to observe several trends as they evolved
over an entire generation. When I went to live in Zambia in
1978, southern Africa was locked in several armed liberation
struggles and confronting apartheid in South Africa. HIV/AIDS
was still unknown, and the region was essentially food secure.
Today, apartheid is history, and there is peace throughout.
HIV/AIDS has emerged as a modern-day plague, but the most
surprising change, to me at least, in southern Africa is that
the region is now chronically food insecure.
If southern Africa was feeding itself a generation ago,
what has happened that requires the World Food Program, USAID,
and other agencies annually to provide thousands of tons of
food to sustain millions of people? The short answer is the
maize trap. Now for decades, smallholder farmers in southern
Africa have relied almost exclusively on maize as their staple.
Colonial and post-colonial governments alike promoted this
dependence for reasons of their own, but not because maize was
the best agronomic choice to ensure long-term food security.
The trouble with maize is that it is not a particularly
nutritious crop. It exhausts the soil, and it requires reliable
rainfall. This would not be a problem if there were an endless
supply of fresh land and cheap fertilizer. It would not be a
problem if rainfall in much of southern Africa were still
reliable, which it is not. Farmers continue trying to grow
maize on soil that is increasingly infertile, and the decline
of those rainfall patterns have become notoriously fickle.
A more recent factor is HIV/AIDS, which is decimating
families' capacity to cultivate their land. But the core
reality is that farmers in southern Africa are trapped in a
vicious cycle. The more they cling to maize, the more food
insecure they become. Even in relatively good rainfall years
few are able to produce enough maize to feed their families.
The region is basically in a death spiral in terms of food
security.
Along with dependence on maize has come a collateral myth
that southern African farmers are unwilling to adopt new crops
and technologies. Africare's experience in the SADC region
shows the contrary, and perhaps the most instructive lessons
have been learned in the drought-prone Midlands Province of
Zimbabwe.
Africare decided to ask what the farmers of Midlands
Province thought. We first organized a series of farmer
demonstrations. Residents were introduced to simple, affordable
technologies for processing more drought-tolerant crops. These
include sunflowers processed into edible oil, and soybeans
converted into a variety of tasty and nutritious products.
Farmers also began to appreciate what they could do with
improved varieties of cassava, with more drought-tolerant crops
like pigeon peas, and with leaves, as well as the flesh of
cassava and sweet potatoes. They found that all of these crops
could be integrated into their farming systems and that
soybeans in particular restored soil fertility by fixing
nitrogen. Because they could process these crops themselves,
mainly for consumption, they did not have to worry about
selling to some distant market. Their diets were enriched, and
their immune systems strengthened. When communities elsewhere
continued to suffer through drought, our Midlands farmers did
not.
Who funded this innovative program? IFAD, which provided
Africare with modest grants to support crop diversification and
village-based food processing. As a result, we have a proven
farmer-driven model which has liberated, in this case, more
than 4,000 people in several wards of Midlands Province from
the ``maize trap.'' This is the kind of breakthrough
programming which IFAD was intended to nourish.
IFAD had the flexibility to invest in a couple of $100,000
grants in the Midlands farmers to see what might happen. But
IFAD's policies and procedures do not allow it to expand this
program more broadly in Zimbabwe unless it does so through a
loan to the government. IFAD is not presently able to consider
new loans to the Zimbabwe government, and even if it were, we
would have to hope that the Ministry of Agriculture would be
prepared to embark on a national campaign to de-emphasize maize
in favor of more nutritious, drought-tolerant, and soil-
friendly crops.
The farmers in Midlands Province and elsewhere in the
region have demonstrated that they are willing to diversify
away from maize if they know that they can process and utilize
these alternative crops. Within a decade, the face of
smallholder agriculture could be changed dramatically if those
agencies most concerned with food security and poverty were
able to join forces to make it happen.
It was the Rockefeller Foundation which got Africare to
begin focusing on soybeans, mainly as a means to strengthen
soil fertility. The work has been very successful in a limited
geographical area, but the foundation is not prepared by itself
to replicate this throughout the region. The Bill and Melinda
Gates Foundation is funding Africare in another part of
Midlands Province to test crop diversification, but again on a
limited scale. And, meanwhile, our IFAD-funded work in Zimbabwe
is coming to an end. Very sad news for the farmers, I can tell
you.
IFAD, I think, has a leadership role to play here. IFAD has
the broad understanding of agriculture and its centrality in
addressing poverty in regions such as southern Africa. It
should have a clear and documented awareness of what works and
what doesn't at the community level. It does not have the
mandate or resources to restore sustainable food security in
southern Africa. But it does have the credibility to lobby
governments, its fellow United Nations agencies, and major
donors, to launch a coordinated effort to end southern Africa's
dependence on a crop, maize, that is steadily aggravating food
insecurity.
It is sad to say that Africare's largest funder in Zimbabwe
is not IFAD, not the Rockefeller Foundation, nor the Gates
Foundation. It is the World Food Program, which contracts
Africare and other NGOs to deliver food--grown far, far away--
to vulnerable groups. There is something very wrong with this
picture. We know what can be done to achieve sustainable food
security throughout southern Africa. Emergency food aid is not
the answer. It is a Band-Aid, at best and, at worst, a crutch
which will allow us to believe that all will be well in the
long run and no one will starve.
Mr. Chairman, I will end there and, again, apologize for my
voice and for my uncongressional garb, but there is a reason
for that. And I will be happy to answer your questions later.
Thank you.
Mr. Lucas. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lowther can be found on page
41 of the appendix.]
Mr. Lucas. Mr. McNamer.
STATEMENT OF BRUCE McNAMER, PRESIDENT AND CEO, TECHNOSERVE,
INC.
Mr. McNamer. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member and members of
the committee, first, thank you for the opportunity to testify
before you today and to offer a strong voice in support of the
International Fund for Agricultural Development and its unique
role in creating economic opportunity and hope for the world's
rural poor. That, too, is TechnoServe's work and has been since
we were founded 40 years ago by a Connecticut entrepreneur
named Ed Bullard who sought himself to apply private-sector
solutions and business-based approaches to alleviating poverty
in the developing world.
Since then, we at TechnoServe have evolved to focus on
building thriving businesses and industries as catalysts for
poverty reducing economic growth in rural economies where 70
percent of the world's poor reside. We base our work out of
offices in 13 countries in Africa and Latin America.
As with my own background, most of our global staff of 350
professionals is drawn from leading private-sector firms, both
multinational and host county institutions. Many have run their
own successful businesses, and this is based on our belief that
the best people to help other entrepreneurs is business people
themselves.
Last year, we assisted generated well over $50 million in
revenues, and brought local raw materials worth $30 million,
benefiting 700,000 people. In our work, we rely heavily on
corporate partners--Proctor and Gamble, Kraft Foods, McKenzie,
Cargill, Nestle, Google--and a number of public-sector
partners. But quite prominent among those are USAID and IFAD.
Mr. Chairman, with its focus squarely on rural and
agricultural development, IFAD is an organization with a unique
mandate and a crucially important role. Indeed, it is much like
TechnoServe with its mission of helping the rural poor to
overcome poverty.
With U.S. and other funding for agricultural development in
Africa stagnating from 2000 to 2004, IFAD's support for
agricultural development in the world's poorest places is even
more vital to the development and dissemination of sustainable
improvements. Since its creation 28 years ago, IFAD has worked
continually to empower rural producers and to emphasize and
promote the role of markets, the development of competitive
value chains, opportunities to generate non-farm income and
employment, and on the vital role of access to capital in rural
economies.
While many major donors like the World Bank invest much of
their efforts on higher-level policy and regulatory reform, or
on large-scale infrastructure investments, IFAD stands out as
the organization providing solutions to poverty targeting the
rural poor where they live, in their communities, with hands-on
practical assistance.
I want to give you just a recent example of a partnership
with IFAD and TechnoServe in the African Cashew Development
Program. This is a 3-year regional program in East Africa, and
it aims to work all along the cashew value chain to increase
farmer productivity and incomes, and to work with entrepreneurs
to build value-added cashew processing factories. This is
instead of a traditional reliance on the export of raw
commodities to enable existing processors to be more
competitive; to support sustainable industry trade and
marketing organizations functioning at national and regional
levels; to increase regional industry competitiveness through a
stronger, harmonized policy environment; and to improve
regional relationships and synergies among cashew industry
stakeholders, leading to sustained growth, competitiveness, and
profitability in the sector beyond that achieved at national
levels.
IFAD's role in our partnership is threefold: as a funder
for a subset of activities, specifically around farmer
productivity and policy improvement; as a convener of public
and private regional stakeholders; and as a disseminator of
best practices both into the program, bringing to bear lessons
they have learned in other value chain work, and out of it as
well, cataloging what we together are learning for its wider
application.
Our IFAD-supported cashew program is proof that these kinds
of smart interventions can help. It has already resulted in 14
rural-based cashew processors in Mozambique purchasing raw
cashew nuts from 110,000 farmers, earning $5.1 million last
year in export earnings and employing over 3,000 workers.
We are working with IFAD now on replicating that success
regionally. Already one new factory has been established in
rural Kenya, industry efficiency improvements have been
achieved in the existing factories in Kenya and Tanzania, and
we have an entrepreneur who has established his first
Mozambican model factory in Benin.
Our partnership extends to improving the business
environment. A policy reform effort in Tanzania contributed to
the creation of over 1,500 jobs and $5.5 million in export
earnings from processed cashew kernels. And for the first time
the Government of Kenya is about to start debate on creation of
a national cashew policy.
We are gradually working ourselves out of jobs. Already,
Mozambican processing factories have formed an association
which has now taken over the majority of TechnoServe functions:
financing, procurement, shipping and logistics, government
lobbying, etc. Together with IFAD we look forward to moving on
from the cashew-processing industry confident that African
farmers and entrepreneurs can take this business forward.
Mr. Chairman, this is but one example of the kind of work
that IFAD undertakes and supports every day. There are many
others. IFAD's focus and its particular approach are unique and
effective, and they warrant our strong and continued support.
Thank you.
Mr. Lucas. Thank you, Mr. McNamer.
[The prepared statement of Mr. McNamer can be found on page
45 of the appendix.]
Mr. Lucas. For the record, I would note, without objection,
that the entire written statement of each of the witnesses will
be made a part of the record.
Mr. Lowther, you mentioned the challenges--obstacles
perhaps is a better phrase--in Zimbabwe. Are there other
obstacles that IFAD and organizations like yourself face in
different parts of Africa of a similar nature?
Mr. Lowther. We probably need a full hearing for this.
Mr. Lucas. Point understood.
Mr. Lowther. I think--let me put it this way. I was giving
vent here to some frustrations that have built up over a long
period of time in my work in the field, and I think it is
shared by farmers, local officials, NGO workers, and everybody
who is close to the ground, that there is a general
appreciation that the people themselves are ready to take
control of their destiny. They are not sitting around waiting
for things to happen.
And I think one of the obstacles, as you put it, is the
fact that the right people aren't giving the right credit to
that reality. So the farmers in Zimbabwe that I was describing,
these are people who are not sitting around waiting for me or
you or Robert Mugabe to do something for them. As soon as they
see good ideas, they will run with them, and that is what has
happened here. New technologies, better seeds; once it is
there, they can run with it.
I think the greatest obstacle is simply making sure that
people on the ground have access not to a lot of money, but to
information, to technology, and that no one gets in the way.
One reason that our work in Zimbabwe has gone forward,
thankfully, is that the government did not get in the way. Very
often, governments do get in the way with wrong policies, and
that goes back to the maize issue. As you know, maize was
encouraged for all sorts of reasons, but very little to do with
agriculture, and what grows best in the African environment. So
I put my faith in the African farmers, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Lucas. This is an authorizing committee, and on many of
these issues we have to deal with the appropriators to actually
cut the check, so to speak, and they are the proverbial bean
counters, so to speak. How do you measure the results on the
impact on your communities in the situations that you just
mentioned, the successful project and in the particular area in
Zimbabwe? Is there a quantitative way to analyze that for the
benefit of the people we deal with here?
Mr. Lowther. Yes, it has been analyzed. Because you can see
how many meals a day people are eating. You can see what they
are consuming in terms of nutritional value.
As I mentioned in my testimony, these people are surviving
in drought circumstances. They are eating at least two meals a
day, if not three, when communities elsewhere in the same
general region are in jeopardy. There are other ways of
measuring this, but we did make that effort to document it.
Mr. Lucas. Mr. McNamer, you mention the businesses. How is
the money earned by the businesses that are supported by
TechnoServe? How does that stay in the hands of Africans?
Mr. McNamer. A lot of that has to do with the fact that we
are systematically trying to move value and value chains back
closer to Africa and to African farmers themselves. In the
instance I cited, in the cashew-processing instance, the
entrepreneurs themselves are Mozambican in the first instance
and East African themselves.
We actually measure, to Mr. Lowther's point, a lot of
metrics with respect to the businesses and some of those
include wages that actually are disbursed to employees in the
factory. So you can count the number of employees, and then you
can track the wages that are paid in the hands of employees who
are themselves African.
We track, as well, the percentage of total revenues that
are paid to the providers of raw cashews in this instance. So
as you start a tick-down and see those proceeds all start with
a revenue number and say, you know, your cost of goods that is
going to African farmers, your labor is being paid to African
employees. Ultimately, your profits being kept in the pockets
of African entrepreneurs.
Mr. Lucas. Dr. Howard, how does the micro credit micro
financing help with the rural work force in these sub-Saharan
areas?
Ms. Howard. Providing access to financial services, I
think, is critical to make a transition from project-oriented
support to a system where, you know, once farmers, once
agribusinesses begin to realize, well, how is it that you
organize management, how do you organize yourself to get
improved inputs, or how do you organize yourself to run a
business--you know, that access to financial services lets them
expand and gives them a window to increased profitability,
expanding their business.
So I think that is one of the key missing links that we
find in many parts of rural Africa especially. I mean, you have
project finance and then, once the project ends, people have
nowhere to go to get financing. So making this link is
tremendously important.
Mr. Lucas. Very good point. And as I turn to the ranking
member, I would just note that in that infamous 2007 farm bill
that we will work on next year, 36 million acres of American
farmland are held at the CRP, held out of production. So while
there are many effects of all nature of the farm bill,
nonetheless, having that 36 million acres out of production
reduces the supply that these individuals have to compete with
around the world.
With that, the Chair wishes to turn to the ranking member
of the full committee, Mr. Frank.
Mr. Frank. Thank you.
Dr. Howard, one provincial point. When you list the African
countries that are participating in the Millennium Challenge
Account, my Cape Verdian constituents would want me to remind
that you Cape Verde was one of the first in the first round. I
don't know if you have separated them from Africa, but they
consider themselves a successful African example of that.
And, Mr. Lowther, our colleague, Mr. Watt, had to go off to
a briefing on some security matters in the Judiciary Committee,
but he was particularly interested in your conversation, and
you might want to follow up with him. You know, he is the
current Chair of the Congressional Black Caucus and is
particularly interested in the specific issue, as are all of
us.
The chairman and I sort of turned to each other. That is
the first good news out of Zimbabwe many of us have heard. Is
that going forward despite what would appear to be the extreme
craziness of the President of Zimbabwe?
Mr. Lowther. There are a lot of good things happening in
Zimbabwe, and it doesn't really surprise me. But when I go
there, you gear up for, you know, all the bad things you know
you may experience. And then nothing happens. And what is
inspiring is when you are with the people in the rural areas.
They are not bellyaching about all of these problems. They are
looking for ways to deal with the day-to-day issues. And the
biggest one really is feeding their families, and the other is
finding health care.
Mr. Frank. Oh, I agree. But it is just encouraging to know
that they are able to do that without interference. I mean, in
some areas we have heard that.
The one thing I would say is that--you are free to say what
you want. I wish we were doing more in other areas, but, if I
were you, I wouldn't denigrate emergency aid. As a substitute
for something else, it is a problem. But I guess the question
would be, would we be better off, everything else being equal,
if we didn't offer it in emergencies?
Mr. Lowther. Well, I am not denigrating it. I am simply
indicating that if you add up the resources that go into
emergency assistance--and I have seen billions over the last
25, 30 years go in that direction--that is money that is
basically lost for development.
Mr. Frank. Okay. That is where I would differ with you. The
fact is, nobody has set aside a pot of money to go for that.
And my feeling, politically, would be that making a fight for
the kinds of things you care for is important. But I don't
think reducing emergency aid would help with that. I think it
just responds to different political impulses, and I think the
result would just be less overall.
Mr. Lowther. I agree with the point as you express it that
way. But I think the point I was trying to make is that it is a
lot easier for WFP to go out and bang the drum for people in
need in Zimbabwe than it is for IFAD.
Mr. Frank. I understand that. But what I am saying is,
good, then help IFAD. Don't knock the WFP. And what you said
could have been interpreted that way, and there is plenty of
room for everybody here.
Mr. Lowther. Well, I hope it wouldn't be interpreted that
way because, actually, WPF, from my standpoint--
Mr. Frank. I understand that, but it came across that way.
You said it is worse than a Band-Aid. It was a crutch. Although
I, frankly, generally think that a crutch is probably higher up
than a Band-Aid in the hierarchy of medical supplies. In terms
of, certainly, Medicare reimbursement it would be.
I don't want to overdo the point, but I think it is
important. We are in an uphill fight to get anything for
anything that is good, and I wouldn't want to--but then that
leads to my next question.
What I am struck by is the disparity between the good that
you say IFAD does and the relatively small amount of money it
gets. Now, obviously, it is an international thing. Should we
be taking the lead, the United States, in trying to
significantly increase IFAD's funding? It is in the, what, in
the millions. What is it, $18 million? Within our budget there
would seem to be room to increase that. Has there been an
effort? Are you all involved in an effort to try and increase
this?
Now, as the chairman pointed out, it is an appropriations
issue since we have a permanent open-ended authorization here.
So we don't get into it within this committee except we could
become advocates for it with the appropriators.
So let me go down the list. Should we all start trying to
double the money for IFAD? It doesn't seem like that would have
any great budgetary strength. Reverend Beckmann.
Rev. Beckmann. Yes, we do support increased funding for
IFAD. There was a period where we were struggling just to
maintain U.S. funding for IFAD. But among--it is a multilateral
development bank. It is now supervised by Treasury. It is under
your jurisdiction. We think--in general, we think the
multilateral development banks do a pretty good job. But IFAD
is unique in its focus on rural poverty and in the way it
empowers poor people. So we do think and are arguing for
increased funding for IFAD as part of the overall increase of
development assistance that we are seeking.
Mr. Frank. Well, I am glad you said that. Because
implicitly there was a suggestion again that you want to
increase IFAD by taking it away from the other banks. And I
mean, when you said doing it comparatively--
Rev. Beckmann. No. I agree. I didn't mean to suggest that.
Mr. Frank. You caught it. Again, but particularly here, the
amount of money is so little. As I go down--because I am
assuming implicitly there was no capacity problem, that we
could make a significant increase in the funding and they would
be able to spend it appropriately.
Dr. Howard.
Ms. Howard. I believe that is the case. I mean, we also
would support an increase in IFAD funding. I mean, in talking
to some of our colleagues on the European side I believe that
other bilateral agencies are considering ways to increase
working with IFAD and increase budget allocations from their
countries to IFAD.
Mr. Frank. Yes.
Rev. Beckmann. Just the immediate opportunity is you
mention that you agree with the President on reform he has
proposed in food aid. The President has also asked for a $2
billion increase in poverty focused development assistance, and
the House has approved a $1 billion increase. I am grateful for
the $1 billion. That extra $1 billion, a lot of that would go
into the Millennium Challenge Account for agriculture and rural
development. So when Congress returns after the elections and
finalizes appropriations, there is a billion dollars for poor
people that is hanging fire. It is money that the President has
asked for and if--we hope that the final number is the
President's number and is closer to the President's number than
the House's initial number.
Mr. Frank. And would you--because at this point I guess
there would need to be some steps taken before they go to IFAD.
But it would go to the MCC?
Rev. Beckmann. A lot of the difference would go to MCC.
Mr. Frank. MCC for agriculture.
Rev. Beckmann. Yeah. A lot of the MCC money turned out to
be going toward agriculture.
Mr. Frank. Mr. Lowther, the capacity problems if you were
able to increase the money?
Mr. Lowther. Well, I would certainly increase the funding,
but I think IFAD also has to decide what it really wants to
achieve. I mean, we have this kind of diffuse focus right now,
helping the rural poor. But I think the assistance is just
that. It gets diffused in a way that we do some good things
here, we do some good things there, but not an awful lot in
between.
And this is what I was trying to explain in the context of
Zimbabwe. You wouldn't need an awful lot of extra money to make
a much broader impact in that country. But in southern Africa,
as a whole, if you could get a consensus that crop
diversification, as an example, needed to be promoted, you
could put a price tag--
Mr. Frank. Let me ask, with the chairman's indulgence, is
that something that would primarily come from IFAD? What is the
balance of power between what IFAD does and local--
decisionmaking local governments? I mean, we have different
problems. The World Bank will tell you sometimes, well, we
would like to do this, but we have local resistance. I mean,
how much autonomy does IFAD have in make the decisions about
where it would spend its money?
Mr. Lowther. It can be a partnership. And that is what I
was trying to suggest, that I think IFAD has a potential role
here.
Mr. Frank. I understand that. But I am asking you what it
is. I mean, are you saying they should take more of the
leadership? Should they be more--that they should be more
directive? Would they run into resistance? Should they be
pushing the governments more?
I mean, I want to get beyond the level of everybody--if
everybody was nice and everybody agreed, everything would be
good. Then I wouldn't have a job. I agree. But given that there
are disagreements, you think, you don't like what they are
doing now. You think they could be doing better? How should
they do that? Should they push the governments more?
Mr. Lowther. Absolutely.
Mr. Frank. Should we be pushing them to do more?
Mr. Lowther. They know what works. They are in a better
position than most to know what works.
Mr. Frank. IFAD.
Mr. Lowther. Yes, and they need to be more aggressive in
getting that information out to the right folks.
Mr. Frank. Do the others agree with that?
Yes, Dr. Howard.
Ms. Howard. I just want to return to a point that you
actually made early on about the importance of strengthening
African capacity. I mean, I think at the end of the day, we are
only going to make progress if we can create African capacity,
African institutions so there can be strong governance and
strong civil society organizations to guide investments. I
mean, to some extent, we are seeing MCA starting to go down
that road, and I think it is very impressive that MCA is
actually turning into a learning organization, and I would
commend the Congress for supporting that, to the extent that we
should be looking to increase our investments.
Mr. Frank. Well, is IFAD the vehicle for doing that? I
mean, we are here on IFAD. Should they be focusing on
technical, or do you want them to get into this kind of
capacity building as well in a broader sense?
Ms. Howard. IFAD does focus on capacity building. I mean,
they are building the empowering local organizations
participating in these policy discussions--very, very
important, but I just want to point that out as a very
important principle.
Mr. Frank. You did. There are a lot of nice things in this
world, but I really am interested in how we get there.
I mean, yes, I am all for hopeful capacity. I want to know
who should be doing what. I read that--well, let me ask, I will
get to Mr. McNamer. I am stuck with this because to some extent
when we hear from local groups, for instance, if we are talking
about some of the IFI's, there is an argument that they have
been too assertive and not respectful enough of local
decisions. Mr. Lowther is suggesting the balance might be the
other way.
There is room, not being disrespectful, but for the
international financial institution to be more assertive. I
want to know what people think about it, the whole question of
more money for IFAD and its role.
Mr. McNamer. I think we are a long way from running up
against capacity strength, so, yes, more money for IFAD.
There is some self-interest at work here to the extent that
they are uniquely focused on what our organization is focused
on, which is rural development, small holder farmers as
business people. There are very few organizations with such a
unique focus; in some sense it is an earmark, but it is one
that we like.
But--and I would say, moreover, that it is increasingly our
sense that money spent with IFAD is money well spent. I think
they have taken seriously in these last several years a mandate
to think about themselves, organizations, both in respect to
strategy and their focus in respect--and with respect to
organizational locations. In my own short tenure in
TechnoServe, we have seen the results of some of that brought
to bear both in terms of processes and new organizational
approaches and in terms of persons.
Mr. Frank. That is useful and I appreciate the indulgence
the chairman is showing on the time, but we don't usually get,
frankly, this kind of a consensus. We didn't set out to
handpick witnesses who were going to be favorable. In fact,
usually when you have a hearing, it is easy to get people and
you want to come whack somebody because generally people are
more motivated.
So this is an unusual consensus and leads me to think maybe
we should talk to the chairman and some others. Maybe we can
get some support for higher funding, especially--and given the
low level or relatively small amount of a few million.
Let me ask my last question. Obviously, we are part of a
multilateral operation there. If we were to take the lead, who
are the other major funders? Is this the western Europeans, or
where does the other major funding come from?
Rev. Beckmann. It is unique in that the developing
countries themselves put in a substantial amount of money,
especially the oil countries. It was started about the time
when OPEC raised prices in the 1970's, and so the OPEC
countries, the oil countries, have traditionally contributed
substantially.
Mr. Frank. This would be a useful time for the United
States to initiate an increase going by those others. So when
you say ``developing countries,'' are you talking about oil
producing countries?
Rev. Beckmann. They were partners from the beginning, but I
think, in general, there is more money from the developing
countries that goes into IFAD, and then other institutions.
Mr. Frank. I appreciate that, and we will continue to work
on what I hope are necessary changes to the American policy.
But that is a good message to come away with. It is unusual to
hear an international institution have this degree of support.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Lucas. The ranking member's time has expired and the
Chair would note that he will always be indulgent of the
ranking member, until November 7th.
With that, the Chair notes that some members may have
additional questions for the panel which they may wish to
submit in writing, and without objection, the hearing record
will remain open for 30 days for members to submit written
questions to the witnesses and to place their responses in the
record.
With that, the hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:00 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
September 12, 2006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 31547.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 31547.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 31547.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 31547.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 31547.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 31547.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 31547.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 31547.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 31547.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 31547.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 31547.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 31547.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 31547.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 31547.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 31547.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 31547.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 31547.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 31547.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 31547.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 31547.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 31547.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 31547.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 31547.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 31547.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 31547.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 31547.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 31547.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 31547.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 31547.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 31547.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 31547.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 31547.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 31547.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 31547.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 31547.035