[House Hearing, 114 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
AGRICULTURE AND NATIONAL SECURITY: ON-THE-GROUND EXPERIENCES OF FORMER
MILITARY LEADERS
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
JULY 7, 2016
__________
Serial No. 114-55
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Printed for the use of the Committee on Agriculture
agriculture.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
21-154 PDF WASHINGTON : 2016
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas, Chairman
RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas, COLLIN C. PETERSON, Minnesota,
Vice Chairman Ranking Minority Member
BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia DAVID SCOTT, Georgia
FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma JIM COSTA, California
STEVE KING, Iowa TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota
MIKE ROGERS, Alabama MARCIA L. FUDGE, Ohio
GLENN THOMPSON, Pennsylvania JAMES P. McGOVERN, Massachusetts
BOB GIBBS, Ohio SUZAN K. DelBENE, Washington
AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia FILEMON VELA, Texas
ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD, Arkansas MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM, New Mexico
SCOTT DesJARLAIS, Tennessee ANN M. KUSTER, New Hampshire
CHRISTOPHER P. GIBSON, New York RICHARD M. NOLAN, Minnesota
VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois
DAN BENISHEK, Michigan SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York
JEFF DENHAM, California ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona
DOUG LaMALFA, California PETE AGUILAR, California
RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois STACEY E. PLASKETT, Virgin Islands
TED S. YOHO, Florida ALMA S. ADAMS, North Carolina
JACKIE WALORSKI, Indiana GWEN GRAHAM, Florida
RICK W. ALLEN, Georgia BRAD ASHFORD, Nebraska
MIKE BOST, Illinois
DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina
RALPH LEE ABRAHAM, Louisiana
JOHN R. MOOLENAAR, Michigan
DAN NEWHOUSE, Washington
TRENT KELLY, Mississippi
______
Scott C. Graves, Staff Director
Robert L. Larew, Minority Staff Director
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Conaway, Hon. K. Michael, a Representative in Congress from
Texas, opening statement....................................... 1
Prepared statement........................................... 2
Peterson, Hon. Collin C., a Representative in Congress from
Minnesota, opening statement................................... 3
Witnesses
Sholar, Ph.D., MG James R., (Ret.), U.S. Army; Professor Emeritus
of Agronomy, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK......... 4
Prepared statement........................................... 6
Owens, MG Darren G., (Ret.), Texas Army National Guard; Chief of
the Common Management and Price Support, Texas State FSA
Office, Bryan, TX.............................................. 10
Prepared statement........................................... 12
Ahlness, COL Eric D., (Ret), U.S. Army; North American Lead for
Diversity and Business Impact, Cargill, Incorporated, White
Bear Lake, MN.................................................. 19
Prepared statement........................................... 21
AGRICULTURE AND NATIONAL SECURITY: ON-THE-GROUND EXPERIENCES OF FORMER
MILITARY LEADERS
----------
THURSDAY, JULY 7, 2016
House of Representatives,
Committee on Agriculture,
Washington, D.C.
The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in Room
1300 of the Longworth House Office Building, Hon. K. Michael
Conaway [Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
Members present: Representatives Conaway, Neugebauer,
Lucas, Austin Scott of Georgia, Gibson, Hartzler, Benishek,
LaMalfa, Davis, Yoho, Allen, Moolenaar, Newhouse, Kelly,
Peterson, David Scott of Georgia, Costa, Walz, McGovern,
DelBene, Vela, Lujan Grisham, Kuster, Nolan, Bustos,
Kirkpatrick, Graham, and Ashford.
Staff present: Bart Fischer, Caleb Crosswhite, John Weber,
Josh Maxwell, Matt Schertz, Mykel Wedig, Stephanie Addison,
John Konya, Anne Simmons, Liz Friedlander, Mike Stranz, Nicole
Scott, and Carly Reedholm.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM TEXAS
The Chairman. Good morning. This hearing of the Committee
on Agriculture entitled, Agriculture and National Security: On-
the-Ground Experiences of Former Military Leaders, will come to
order. Rodney, will you open us with a prayer?
Mr. Davis. Please bow your heads. Lord, thank you for
giving us this opportunity to gather once again in this great
institution in this great country. Let us thank all of our
witnesses, not only for their presence, but for their service,
and let us all remember those who are still fighting for our
freedoms, freedom to govern ourselves, in harm's way, who are
serving our country. Thank them, thank all of us, and thank
you, Lord, mostly. In your name we pray, amen.
The Chairman. Thank you, Rodney.
Good morning, and welcome to today's hearing. This week we
celebrated America's 240th birthday. As we reflect on the
freedoms we enjoy at home, it is important that we understand
the role our military leaders, along with our farmers and
ranchers, play in ensuring that we are safe and well fed.
Two of the pillars of our country's national security have
long been a strong military and sound agricultural policy. For
decades, the United States has invested in transportation and
infrastructure, agricultural research and innovation, and risk
management tools for farmers, all of which have led to a
vibrant and stable agricultural sector in the United States.
When you combine that with the might of the U.S. military, the
United States has long enjoyed relative peace and prosperity
here at home.
In our latest hearing on this topic, one veteran-turned-
farmer highlighted that roughly one percent of the nation
defends the other 99 percent. Similarly, roughly one percent of
the nation feeds the other 99 percent. In both cases, men and
women are doing important work that few truly understand or
fully appreciate. Sitting on the Armed Services Committee and
now chairing the House Agriculture Committee, I find myself in
a unique position to highlight their work and to draw attention
to the fact that a nation's security is inextricably linked to
its ability to both feed and defend its people.
While the United States has long invested in both
agriculture and defense, that is not the case in many parts of
the world. Today, we will hear from former military leaders who
served in many places where agricultural development was not a
priority, and they can speak to the tremendous instability that
brings. They understand, perhaps better than any of us, how
important it is for the United States to continue providing the
tools that are necessary for our nation to be able to feed and
clothe its people.
With that, I would like to welcome Major General James
``Ron'' Sholar, U.S. Army Retired, Stillwater, Oklahoma. Major
General Sholar served continuously for 39 years as a
commissioned officer in the United States Army and Army
Reserve. Additionally he spent 3 decades as a Professor of
Agronomy and Extension Agronomist at Oklahoma State University.
Currently, he serves as Executive Director of the Great Plains
Canola Association and Executive Director of the Oklahoma
Oilseed Commission.
Next, I would like to welcome Major General Darren Owens,
U.S. Texas Army National Guard, Retired, Bryan, Texas. As a
member of the Texas Army National Guard, General Owens served
in numerous leadership positions at every level, including
working to establish Agribusiness Development Teams in
Afghanistan, where he worked with the National Guard and land-
grant universities in multiple states. He currently serves as
Chief of the Common Management and Price Support Programs at
the Texas State FSA Office.
Our third witness is Colonel Eric Ahlness, retired U.S.
Army, White Bear Lake, Minnesota. Colonel Ahlness retired in
February 2014 after having served 28 years. During his service
he commanded the Minnesota Agribusiness Development Team, which
was deployed to Afghanistan from October 2011 to September
2012. He now serves as the North American Lead for Diversity
and Business Impact for Cargill.
I want to thank our distinguished witnesses for joining us
today.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Conaway follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. K. Michael Conaway, a Representative in
Congress from Texas
Good morning, and welcome to today's hearing.
This week we celebrated America's 240th birthday. As we reflect on
the freedoms we enjoy at home, it's important that we understand the
role our military leaders--along with our farmers and ranchers--play in
ensuring that we are safe and well fed.
Two of the pillars of our country's national security have long
been a strong military and sound agricultural policy. For decades, the
United States has invested in transportation and infrastructure,
agricultural research and innovation, and risk management tools for
farmers, all of which have led to a vibrant and stable agricultural
sector in the United States. When you combine that with the might of
the U.S. military, the United States has long enjoyed relative peace
and prosperity here at home.
In our latest hearing on this topic, one veteran-turned-farmer
highlighted that roughly one percent of the nation defends the other 99
percent and, similarly, roughly one percent of the nation feeds the
other 99 percent. In both cases, men and women are doing important work
that few truly understand or fully appreciate. Sitting on the Armed
Services Committee and now chairing the Agriculture Committee, I find
myself in a unique position to highlight their work and to draw
attention to the fact that a nation's security is inextricably linked
to its ability to both feed and defend its people.
While the United States has long invested in both agriculture and
defense, that is not the case in many parts of the world. Today, we
will hear from former military leaders who served in many places where
agricultural development was not a priority, and they can speak to the
tremendous instability that brings. They understand, perhaps better
than any of us, how important it is for the U.S. to continue providing
the tools that are necessary for our nation to be able to feed and
clothe its people.
With that, I'd like to welcome Major General James R. Sholar, U.S.
Army Retired, Stillwater, OK. General Sholar served continuously for 39
years as a commissioned officer in the United States Army and Army
Reserve. Additionally he spent 3 decades as a Professor of Agronomy and
Extension Agronomist at Oklahoma State University. Currently, he serves
as Executive Director of the Great Plains Canola Association and
Executive Director of the Oklahoma Oilseed Commission.
Next, I would like to welcome Major General Darren G. Owens, Texas
Army National Guard, Retired, Bryan, TX. As a member of the Texas Army
National Guard, General Owens served in numerous leadership positions
at every level, including working to establish Agribusiness Development
Teams for Afghanistan, where he worked with the National Guard and
land-grant universities in multiple states. He currently serves as
Chief of the Common Management and Price Support programs at the Texas
State FSA Office.
Our third witness is Colonel Eric D. Ahlness, U.S. Army, Retired,
White Bear Lake, MN. Colonel Ahlness retired in February 2014 after
having served 28 years. During his service he commanded the Minnesota
Agribusiness Development Team, which was deployed to Afghanistan from
October 2011 to September 2012. He now serves as the North American
Lead for Diversity and Business Impact for Cargill.
I want to thank our distinguished panel for joining us today. I now
recognize the Ranking Member for his opening remarks.
The Chairman. I now like to turn to the Ranking Member for
any comments he would like to make.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. COLLIN C. PETERSON, A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM MINNESOTA
Mr. Peterson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I would also
welcome our witnesses, and especially Colonel Ahlness, who I
have a relationship with. We go back many years when he was in
the Minnesota National Guard, and we were over in Bosnia in
1\1/2\ of snow trying to get out to visit one of my guard
units. Over the years, he has done an outstanding job with the
guard and the other military aspects. He also works for one of
our great companies, Cargill, in agriculture, and so it is very
appropriate that he is here today.
Food insecurity around the world has an impact on national
security, as we all understand, which is why this hearing today
is important. I don't think a lot of people, though, understand
this, and they don't realize the important role that
agriculture can play when it comes to our country's national
security interest.
A strong ag sector and stable food supply are critical to
national security. In my view, increasing our focus on economic
development, particularly in agriculture, could provide some
stability to some of the world's most volatile regions.
Agriculture is a primary driver of economic activity in most
rural areas, and the work and investments we make in food
security will pay dividends both worldwide and here at home.
Our witnesses today have firsthand experience on these
issues. They have served our country by helping to establish
agriculture education programs, building infrastructure, and
expanding ag services in places like Afghanistan, Iraq, and
Kosovo.
So I thank all of you for your service. I look forward to
your testimony, and Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding the
hearing, and I yield back.
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman. The chair would
request that other Members submit their opening statements for
the record so our witnesses may begin their testimony and
ensure there is ample time for questions.
With that, I would like to welcome our witnesses to the
table, and Major General Sholar, if you will begin, 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF MG JAMES R. SHOLAR, Ph.D., (RET.), U.S. ARMY;
PROFESSOR EMERITUS OF AGRONOMY, OKLAHOMA STATE UNIVERSITY,
STILLWATER, OK
Dr. Sholar. Good morning, Chairman Conaway, Ranking Member
Peterson, Members of the Committee, ladies and gentlemen. My
name is Ron Sholar. I am a retired American soldier and a
Professor Emeritus at Oklahoma State University. My testimony
today is a reflection of my own thoughts and experiences. It is
intended in no way to represent either the Army or the
university.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak regarding the
importance of American agriculture and its relationship to
national security. I, like many others, believe they are
inextricably linked.
Agriculture and the Army have taken me around this country
and around the world. This has afforded me the opportunity to
compare and contrast how we feed and defend our citizens here
at home with how these two most basic requirements are met in
other parts of the world.
The safe, abundant, and relatively inexpensive food supply
that we enjoy in the U.S. is now produced by fewer than ever.
When the Constitution was signed, 95 percent of our citizens
were farmers. By 1920, that was 40 percent, and now it stands
at a little less than two.
Everyone sees the reasons for the abundance of our food
supply through their own prism: the natural productivity of our
land, generally favorable weather, rapid adoption of improved
technology, and a host of other reasons. One that sets us apart
is the sophisticated distribution and transportation system
that moves our agriculture products from one part of the
country to the other, and around the world. Another, of course,
is our national farm policy, which includes the farm safety net
that sustains our farmers through particularly difficult times.
From my perspective, food security is, first of all, about
ensuring that the plentiful supply of high quality food and
agricultural products that we enjoy continues to be available,
and that means a robust Agricultural Research and Extension
Program. We can't secure what we don't have.
Public outlays for agricultural research conducted by USDA
and our land-grant universities are not a cost, they are an
investment. An economic analysis consistently shows that these
expenditures produce a high rate of return. The U.S.
cooperative extension service is the envy of the world. For a
century, land-grant universities have, through extension,
delivered practical information to the farmgate and the front
door of America.
As we look globally, it is clear that we will see more food
insecurity. An exploding world population that will soon be
nine billion will place even more stress on an already stressed
system. Food insecurity contributes dramatically to conflict
and instability.
I have seen agriculture firsthand in around 20 countries,
that is including the food-secure countries of Western Europe.
I have also seen the other side of the world where food
insecurity is a constant problem. I have seen agriculture in
Iraq, Afghanistan, Kosovo, Guatemala, El Salvador, and China,
which is, of course, a special case. I will make a few
observations about Iraq and Afghanistan.
Iraq is at once a land of agricultural opportunity, and
agricultural neglect. Agriculture is Iraq's third largest
employer. It has about 8 million hectares of arable land, but
only half of that is being cultivated. In the north and the
northeast, which is the best land, they grow chiefly wheat and
barley. These are low value, coarse grains. Even in the Fertile
Crescent, the Tigris and Euphrates River valleys, agriculture
under-performs because of the inability to access the water. In
five trips to Iraq----
The Chairman. Excuse me. I want to interrupt you for just a
second. I need the conversation in the back, Mr. Costa, Jim, I
can hear you guys and you are talking louder than the witness.
Major General?
Dr. Sholar. In five trips to Iraq, I saw my Army units,
along with others, hard at work. Active duty, reserve, National
Guard units were working in concert with the Iraqis to secure
the country. Civil Affairs teams and provincial reconstruction
teams were setting up or reestablishing local governance,
improving electrical and water services, and other programs.
Many of the soldiers were using the civilian skill sets that
they employed back home in their everyday jobs.
In Afghanistan, more than 50 percent of the population earn
their living from agriculture. The tribal nature of their
society, the lack of allegiance to a central government, and an
entrenched and inflexible bureaucracy all stymied progress.
Years of neglect have devastated Afghanistan's farmland and
destroyed much of the country's infrastructure. The lacks in
irrigation system and in such an area of the country,
irrigation is the lifeblood of agriculture. This follows a
simple axiom: no water, no agriculture.
In Afghanistan, I had a similar experience to Iraq.
Military hard at work, all components of the Army training,
working, making progress, but it is very slow progress.
In summary, I am confident that we in this country will
meet every challenge for our own food security, and will assist
our friends and allies around the world with theirs. I believe
we owe a debt of gratitude to both the military and our
agriculture, those who rise so early, to this country for what
they bring.
Thank you for allowing me to share these thoughts. I will
be glad to answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of MG Sholar follows:]
Prepared Statement of MG James R. Sholar, Ph.D., (Ret.), U.S. Army;
Professor Emeritus of Agronomy, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater,
OK
Good morning Chairman Conaway, Vice Chairman Neugebauer, Ranking
Member Peterson, and Members of the House Committee on Agriculture.
My name is Ron Sholar. I am a retired Soldier and Professor
Emeritus of Agronomy at Oklahoma State University. My testimony today
is a reflection of my own thoughts and experiences and is intended in
no way to represent either the Army or the university.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you regarding the
importance of American agriculture or Food Security and its
relationship to U.S. national security. I, like many others, believe
they are inextricably linked.
Feeding Ourselves, Aiding the World
Agriculture and the military have taken me around this country and
around the world. That has afforded me the opportunity to compare and
contrast how we feed and defend our citizens here at home with how
these two most basic requirements are met in other developed as well as
underdeveloped countries.
America, unlike many other parts of the world, has met the test of
both feeding and defending itself without interruption for almost 2\1/
2\ centuries. Of course that isn't the result of chance. This success
is the direct consequence of our nation's enduring commitment to
meeting the two most important needs of mankind--subsistence and
protection.
As Americans, we have daunting challenges today for which solutions
are elusive. Much of the world is similarly plagued by profound,
seemingly intractable problems including how to feed their burgeoning
populations. When it comes to the ability to feed ourselves and a good
deal of the rest of the world as well, the U.S. simply has no rival.
Here at home, most citizens have the opportunity to decide what and
when they will eat. In too much of the world, people are not trying to
figure out what or when they will eat but if they will eat at all.
The safe, abundant, and relatively inexpensive food supply that we
enjoy is now produced by fewer people than ever before. When the
Constitution was signed, 95% of the people were farmers, producing food
primarily for their own families. By 1920, 40% of the population was
farmers and today it is less than 2%. In 1950, one American farmer fed
fewer than 30 others but that number now stands at more than 150.
U.S. agriculture is a big industry . . . a trillion-dollar industry
with agriculture-related products comprising nearly 10% of all exports
bringing more than $140 billion (2012) into our economy. The U.S.
Department of Agriculture reports that the agricultural industry
supports one in 11 American jobs while providing American consumers
with more than 80% of the food that they consume.
We lament the fact that most consumers see no connection between
the meat and vegetables on their plates and those who produced them.
American farmers are so efficient and so productive that consumers find
little need to think about such. None the less, they benefit enormously
from American farmer skill, commitment, and labor resulting in the fact
U.S. citizens devote far less of their take-home pay to food than
almost any other place in the world. Americans spend less than 7% of
their income on food compared with a global expenditure of 20 to 30%.
And American farmers do this for a very small share of the total
cost to the consumer for these goods. For each dollar spent on food,
the farmer's cut is less than 25 . The rest goes to costs beyond this
control which include production inputs, processing, marketing,
transportation and distribution.
Everyone sees the reasons for the abundance of our food supply
through their own prism--the natural productivity of our land,
generally favorable weather for production agriculture, rapid adoption
of improved technology as it becomes available, and a host of other
reasons. One of those reasons that set us apart from much of the rest
of the world is the complex transportation and distribution system that
moves agricultural products from the field to consumer's homes and
tables. A sophisticated network of trucks, trains, and barges
efficiently transports grain and other agricultural products across the
U.S. and around the world. Another is the farm safety net that sustains
the farmer through difficult times and makes it possible to continue
their chosen profession.
These days, the idea of Food Security is very much on the minds of
many. I submit that there are several ways to define this term one of
which would include biosecurity. I know that this committed has looked
at biosecurity and the need for that focus will only increase over
time. The vulnerability of our food supply to bioterroristic attack is
well documented but may not be well defended.
How will we protect our food supply against unprecedented and
growing threats? Well, something must be produced before there is a
need for it be secured. From my perspective, food security is first of
all about ensuring that the plentiful supply of high quality food and
agricultural products that we enjoy continues to be available.
Rather than address all or even several of the reasons for this
abundance and how we will protect it, I'll focus on the area with which
I am most familiar and then draw comparisons with other areas of the
world.
Research and Extension
Since 1950, U.S. agricultural productivity has shown amazing
growth. There are a number of reasons for this but none more important
than the contributions of the three component agricultural research
system that supports this nation. Those components are: the national
agricultural research system--USDA-ARS, the land-grant university
system, and private-sector research.
The economies of many states and our nation as a whole are highly
dependent on agriculture and associated industries. It's been the role
of USDA-ARS and the land-grant university system, working in concert
with private industry, to find solutions to complex problems of
agriculture.
State universities are deeply rooted in the national land-grant
tradition which is dedicated to solving problems for agriculture and
society as a whole. Their agricultural research programs are spread
along the continuum from fundamental or basic to those that are more
applied in nature and have the potential for immediate impact.
Public outlays for agricultural research conducted by USDA and
land-grant universities are not a cost--they are an investment and
economic analysis consistently shows that these expenditures produce a
high rate of return. Producers gain by implementing practices that
increase production or lower costs and consumers benefit from having an
ample supply of high quality food at reasonable prices. Gains in
productivity generated through research contribute to both agricultural
and overall economic growth.
For plant agriculture, recent advances in both basic and applied
sciences are significantly and positively impacting agricultural
productivity. These advances include: the utilization of marker
assisted breeding techniques to generate more productive, disease
resistant crop varieties; the development of more efficient irrigation
practices; and innovations in precision agriculture and drone
technology. New research discoveries are fundamental to: improving
agricultural productivity and farm sector profitability, increasing
competitiveness in international trade; and improving human nutrition
and health.
Advances in research have made critical contributions to the huge
agricultural productivity gains seen in the U.S. following World War
II. But it is not just research that is responsible for these gains. An
indispensable partner in that success story has been the Cooperative
Extension Service.
The U.S. Cooperative Extension System is the envy of the world. For
a century now, land-grant colleges and universities have through
extension, delivered practical information to farmers, small business
owners and others. The Extension service has carried the university to
the farm gate and the front door of America . . . sharing agricultural
advances through non-formal education and learning activities so that
all can partake and all can benefit. The connecting of people to
information and assistance has enriched family lives and communities
and created positive changes. The Extension model is being used today
for programs designed to help our returning veterans whether they are
entering agriculture or some other endeavor.
The mission of and need for the Cooperative Extension Service is
still relevant today, even after 100 years. However, that long and
successful history cannot relieve the need to adapt to changes in
society. Evolving technology affords the opportunity to transfer
information and knowledge in new and exciting ways but the basic
principle of the Extension Service is the same as it has always been:
to help solve problems and create opportunities.
Despite the phenomenal record of achievement of American
agriculture, there is never a time to take a knee for ourselves and
certainly not as we meet our responsibilities as citizens of the world.
We know that we have to be concerned about more than our own food
security--we must be concerned about global food security.
An exploding world population with an estimated nine billion mouths
to feed by 2050 will place even greater demands on an already over
strained and under producing international agricultural system. It's
estimated that now there are more than 800 million people who are
undernourished. With the world's population currently standing at
almost 7.5 billion, most of the expected 1.6 billion in anticipated
growth will occur in developing countries. Experts estimate that this
will require world food production to be increased by 70 to 100%. The
challenge of producing food for that many people is enormous. How will
the food requirements for that many people be met when there are
already shortages and the problems that go with that?
More than 50 years ago, Dr. Norman Borlaug led the ``Green
Revolution''. With the expected significant rise in world population
and food requirements that will accompany the increase, some are asking
if a similar revolution will be required. That will be an expensive but
perhaps necessary eventuality.
The U.S. has long been engaged in assisting the less fortunate in
the world in their struggle for Food Security. We know that food
insecurity contributes dramatically to conflict and instability. Peace
is very much at risk where there are perpetual food shortages or where
people spend most of their earnings on food. Unrest follows with open
conflict looming if the shortages continue unabated.
The U.S. and other G8 countries have called for increased
investment in agriculture and rural development to combat food
insecurity, to promote economic growth, and reduce instability in some
of the most troubled spots of the world. Those are huge needs that will
be met only with commitment and resources, both of which may be in
short supply from world partners.
The Other Side of the World
I've had the opportunity to see agriculture first hand in around 20
countries. That has included the highly productive agricultural systems
of Western Europe where there is a commitment not unlike that of the
U.S. to produce sufficient food for their people. This commitment was
made decades ago and has endured to ensure that food insecurity will
never be an issue.
I've also seen the other side of that situation where food
insecurity dominates and even here in the 21st century, too much of the
world's population is still barely eking out a living. I've seen
agriculture in Iraq, Afghanistan, Kosovo, Guatemala, and El Salvador.
I've also seen agriculture in China which shares characteristics with
both developed and underdeveloped nations. Massive production is
achieved but in some cases, this is done only through primitive
production techniques including intense labor.
Iraq--On several military trips to Iraq, I also had the opportunity
to see Iraqi agriculture. Iraq is at once a land of agricultural
opportunity and agricultural neglect. Agriculture is Iraq's third
largest employer and contributor to the economy, following only
government and the oil sector. Only intermittent government efforts to
develop agriculture contributes to the fact that the industry makes a
small contribution to Iraq's economy and the country remains dependent
on importing a significant portion of its food.
USAID reports that ``Iraq's agriculture sector declined
considerably during the last few decades due to the lack of investment,
isolation from the global economy and counterproductive agricultural
policies.''
Iraq has around 8 million hectares (17.6 million acres) of arable
land which comprises less than 15% of the country's total land area.
However, only around half of the arable land is being cultivated. Most
of the arable land is concentrated in the north and northeast, where
winter crops--chiefly wheat and barley--are grown, and in the Tigris
and Euphrates river valleys. It would be very difficult to build an
agricultural economy on these traditionally low value coarse grains.
The ongoing reliance on subsistence farming causes Iraqi
agriculture to look remarkably similar to that of a century ago. The
lack of significant agricultural equipment is an impediment to
improving food production and that contributes to keeping around 30
percent of the population actually involved in agriculture.
The lack of modern irrigation systems limit the opportunity to take
advantage of abundant water supplies in some regions. Even in the
Fertile Crescent, agriculture under-performs because of the inability
to maximize the benefits of water. U.S. and international assistance
have improved the situation but the problem is enormous and won't be
solved anytime soon and perhaps never will be.
Iraq's failure to address agricultural production began decades
ago. Before the Iran-Iraq War, it was common for Iraq to send some of
its best students to the U.S. to obtain advanced degrees in agriculture
but the war stopped that. Having U.S. trained scientists in their
universities and research facilities was a tremendous benefit to the
country. A fractured relationship with the U.S. and the redirection of
finite resources to other areas, including the almost decade long war,
ended the program. The closing of this program has no doubt contributed
to the overall decline in the ability of the country to feed itself.
I saw our U.S. military at work in Iraq. Active duty, Reserve and
National Guard units were working in concert with the Iraqis to secure
the country. They were also working to reestablish some fundamental
services that had been lost and some that had never existed. Civil
Affairs teams and Provincial Reconstruction Teams were working to help
set up or reestablish local governance, or to improve electrical
services, or to improve water availability and many other programs.
Legal and medical teams were working to help establish a judicial
system and reliable medical services. Each of these teams brought with
them the considerable civilian skill sets that they employed on their
everyday jobs back home and the value of this was on display in many
ways. These were daunting challenges but our men and women in uniform
were doing what they always do. They were attacking the problems head
on and without complaint and while progress was slow, they were
improving conditions for the people.
Afghanistan--There are similarities between Iraq and Afghanistan
but there are also striking differences. Agriculture is of utmost
importance in Afghanistan and is essential to the country's food
security. More than 50% of Afghanistan's population earns their
livelihood from agriculture and agriculture accounts for about 40% of
Afghanistan's GDP. The tribal nature of the population and commitment
to maintaining age old disputes combined with a lack of allegiance to a
central government make it very difficult if not impossible to unify
the population.
Prior to decades of conflict, Afghanistan actually enjoyed a
favorable international reputation for the production of several fruit
and nut types. Years of neglect have devastated Afghanistan's farmland,
displacing millions of people, and destroying the country's
infrastructure. Particularly damaging to Afghanistan is that the
country lacks agricultural infrastructure such as an adequate
irrigation system and in such an arid country, irrigation is the
lifeblood of agriculture. This follows a simple axiom--no water, no
agriculture.
During a 2006 trip to Afghanistan, we convoyed across the
countryside from Kabul to Bagram. As we did, we witnessed far too much
subsistence farming and essentially no production agriculture. We saw
mothers cooking over open fires with small children nearby. Children
who should be in school but for whom that was not an option. This was
the very essence of poverty with no obvious means for improvement.
I also saw our U.S. military at work. Active duty and National
Guard combat units were doing the heavy lifting of securing the country
and protecting the populace. Reserve units were working to train the
fledgling Afghan army. Agricultural teams were working there to teach
and train and improve the ability of the people to self-sustain. These
were daunting challenges but our men and women were doing what they
always do and that was to conduct the mission that they had been
assigned.
Agriculturally, Afghanistan still lacks the capability to deliver
the kind of help that farmers need to make enduring changes to what
they have been doing for generations. Parts of Afghanistan are likely
ready for such a system while others are not. Agricultural assistance
provided by the U.S. to Afghanistan has made a difference but it would
be naive to believe that short-term support, even in millions of
dollars, can overcome many generations of neglect. Food insecurity is a
real concern in Afghanistan.
I believe that several things can be done to improve the situation
in Afghanistan. Underdeveloped countries lack the equivalent of an
Extension Service and without that, there is little chance that people
will find appropriate solutions to the problems on their own. USAID now
has such a program--the Afghanistan Agriculture Extension Project II
(AAEP II). This program follows the traditional extension model where
representative farms are set up and where local farmers can get hands-
on, on-the-ground training.
USAID, USDA, international partners and the Afghan Government are
working together to increase the sales of licit farm products, create
thousands of new jobs and bring fragile land areas under improved
management. This work must be continued.
In the 1960s and 1970s, Afghanistan sent outstanding graduate
students to U.S. land-grant universities to study and train. That
stopped with the rise in conflicts in the 1980s. Reestablishing this
program would provide the U.S. trained scientists so desperately
needed.
An entrenched and inflexible bureaucracy plagues many
underdeveloped countries and likely more so in Afghanistan than other
places. Success will require endurance and diplomacy.
Kosovo--In 2003, during a short visit to Kosovo, I saw firsthand
what civil war can do to a country. From the vantage point of a Black
Hawk helicopter, the land below looked like much of Western Europe
except that fields which should be green with crops weren't producing
crops at all. Individuals could be seen guarding one to three sheep and
others guarding a single cow.
The reasons were simple--this was to ensure the safety of the
animals, keeping them away from unexploded ordinance that infested the
area; and second, to keep the animals from being stolen.
Rampant unemployment was also an issue. In our own country, we
recognize just how fundamental it is to have people working and
contributing to their own success. Cultural differences and long
standing disputes frequently trump any possibility of that happening in
other parts of the world.
Central America--Guatemala and El Salvador--I've had the
opportunity to be in Guatemala and El Salvador where the U.S. Army
annually sends Reserve Component units to build modular schools, drill
water wells, and conduct medical and veterinary missions in a program
called ``New Horizons''. The program serves the dual purpose of
providing essential training for the military units and individual
soldiers while providing critically needed assistance to the local
population.
As valuable as these efforts are, they cannot overcome the effects
of Guatemala's many problems. Almost 80% of the population lives in
poverty and the country is in the midst of a food crisis. The weak
domestic economy, ongoing political instability and social inequality
make for an uncertain future. El Salvador suffers from many similar
problems including high poverty, low GDP, and poor agricultural sector
performance.
Summary
In summary, despite formidable challenges, we will respond as we
always have, aggressively and appropriately, to all concerns about our
own food security. With regard to the rest of the world, we will
continue to embrace our traditional role of assisting the less
fortunate in dealing with their own food security.
I would also say that as a nation and as individual citizens, we
owe a debt of gratitude to those who rise early in the morning,
laboring throughout the day and frequently into the dark, to produce
the food and fiber that we rely on for sustenance every single day.
Similarly, we owe that same debt to those who rise early in the
day, put on a uniform and the gear of their profession and move out
smartly to provide the protection and ensure the freedom that we all
hold so dear and that we need to go about our daily lives.
I trust that we will forget neither group. Thank you for allowing
me to share some thoughts on the contributions of both.
I'll be pleased to respond to your questions.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Major General Owens, 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF MG DARREN G. OWENS, (RET.), TEXAS ARMY NATIONAL
GUARD; CHIEF OF THE COMMON MANAGEMENT AND PRICE SUPPORT, TEXAS
STATE FSA OFFICE, BRYAN, TX
Mr. Owens. Chairman Conaway, Ranking Member Peterson,
Members of the Committee, staff, and guests, it is a pleasure
and honor to be invited here today to talk with you about the
interrelationship of comprehensive farm policy to national food
security and national security.
I firmly believe that America's first line of defense is
our ability to feed and clothe our people. Without American
agriculture providing adequate supplies of food and fiber at a
reasonable cost, we would be dependent on other nations, and
that could place the food security and ultimately the security
of the nation at risk.
Food insecurity is caused by either a lack of adequate
supplies of food or a lack of affordability of food. Regardless
of the cause, food insecurity can have devastating effects.
We saw the lack of an available, affordable, sustainable
food supply result in discontent, which then led to increased
criminal and anti-government activities in order to supplement
family income just to afford food. These activities, including
assisting with smuggling of food and clothing products to avoid
tariffs, smuggling of weapons and drugs, deforestation of
hillsides, facilitating attacks on coalition forces,
facilitating human trafficking, an individual or group of
individuals would do whatever was required to provide enough
food for their families, even if those actions were against
their cultural and personal beliefs. All of the criminal and
anti-government activities done to improve their own food
security had adverse effects on the overall stability of the
regions.
I believe the comprehensive farm policy and integrated farm
programs established in the United States that ensure adequate
supplies of food and fiber, available here at a reasonable
cost, has allowed us to maintain a healthy people and economy.
The agricultural development work carried out by the National
Guard taught us a lot of lessons. What we found was that there
was an important relationship between a comprehensive farm
policy and the food security, and ultimately the national
security of a nation.
I had the privilege to serve in positions that gave me a
unique perspective of how policy directly affects both food
security and national security. An important lesson learned was
that agriculture development was critical to counter insurgency
in areas where food security was an issue. We learned that in
order for agriculture development to be successful, it had to
be carried out in a comprehensive manner, and that every
program needed local participation and engagement in order to
be successful. Utilizing the agriculture expertise within the
National Guard and taking advantage of their unique reach-back
capability to the land-grant universities in a comprehensive
approach that was based on key aspects of U.S. farm policy
demonstrated that food security had a direct positive impact on
national security. We learned that the success of agriculture
in other nations' economies was also critical to U.S. security.
The ability of partners to commit military resources is
partially dependent on their economic well-being.
Today, many of the potential hotspot countries are very
dependent on agriculture as a core element of their economies.
I discuss in my written statement how Agribusiness
Development Teams contributed in Afghanistan, but that part
doesn't get as much notoriety as how the ADTs helped get women
into the agriculture workforce. That not only contributed
economically, but added a broad moral contribution to the
stability of Afghanistan through the further education and
involvement of Afghan women at a critical time.
Our work showed us that a comprehensive farm policy that
emphasized education, research, extension, market
stabilization, conservation, watershed management, and improved
land productivity all carried out in conjunction with rural
development to improve infrastructure, combined with standards
and regulations to protect consumers really works. It showed us
that farm policy can positively impact security, as well as the
overall security of an area.
Another valuable lesson we learned is that we cannot
duplicate the tremendous capability and value that our rural
communities add to the nation. The strength of our communities
is what makes us special. You can build a national government.
You can build a national military. You can even write a
constitution. But without communities of educated and
experienced leaders, it never comes together as a nation. A
nation without food security has only one problem, and it will
destabilize the entire nation, and that impact can be felt on a
global scale.
As you think about the future of farm policy, never forget
that one of the primary purposes should be to ensure the food
security of the nation and the sustainability of food and fiber
production for our grandchildren's grandchildren.
Thank you for letting me speak today, and I look forward to
answering your questions.
[The prepared statement of MG Owens follows:]
Prepared Statement of MG Darren G. Owens, (Ret.), Texas Army National
Guard; Chief of the Common Management and Price Support, Texas State
FSA Office, Bryan, TX
The Interrelationship of a Comprehensive Farm Policy to National Food
Security and National Security
Chairman Conaway, Ranking Member Peterson, Members of the
Committee, staff and guests, it is a pleasure and an honor to be
invited here today to testify about the interrelationship of a
comprehensive Farm Policy to National Food Security and National
Security.
My name is Darren G. Owens. I was raised in Pecos, Texas and
graduated from Texas A&M University with a degree in agriculture
economics. At the same time, I received my commission in the United
States Army. I served on active duty then returned to Texas where I
worked for an agribusiness and joined the Texas Army National Guard. I
then went to work for the Agriculture Stabilization and Conservation
Service which is now the Farm Service Agency. In the Farm Service
Agency I was a county Executive Director, a District Director, a
Program Specialist, and the Chief Program Specialist. I retired from
the Army National Guard as a Major General after serving in several key
leadership positions.
First, I would like to thank the Members of the Committee for what
you do, not only on behalf of America's farmers and ranchers but for
each and every American consumer. I firmly believe that America's first
line of defense is our ability to feed and clothe the people. Without
American agriculture providing adequate supplies of food and fiber at a
reasonable cost we would all be dependent on other nations and that
could place the food security and ultimately the security of the nation
at risk.
Food insecurity is caused by either a lack of adequate supplies of
food or a lack of affordability of food, and can have devastating
effects. From my experience, I know a man will sell his soul to do
whatever it takes to feed his family. We do not want to experience that
in the United States. I believe the comprehensive farm policy and
integrated farm programs established in the United States have helped
to ensure adequate supplies of food and fiber at a reasonable cost.
This has allowed us to maintain a healthy people and economy.
I want to visit with you today about lessons we learned while doing
agriculture development in Kosovo and implementing the Army National
Guard Agribusiness Development Teams in Afghanistan. What we found was
a profound importance and relationship between a comprehensive farm
policy and the food security--and ultimately, the national security of
the United States.
Before my retirement from the Army National Guard in August of 2011
I had the privilege to serve in positions that gave me a unique
perspective of the need for comprehensive farm policy and how it
directly affected both National Food Security and National Security. In
2005, I was serving as the Assistant Division Commander for Maneuver of
the 36th Infantry Division when the Division Headquarters was mobilized
for service in Kosovo to conduct peace enforcement operations. I was
selected to command the Multi-National Task Force East composed of U.S.
National Guard, U.S. Army Reserve, and active component units from 13
states and Puerto Rico as well as multi-national units from Poland, the
Ukraine, Armenia, Romania, Greece, and Lithuania. Our area of
responsibility was predominantly rural and agricultural areas of
eastern Kosovo that contained a few mid-sized cities.
We learned a few very valuable lessons about rural areas and
communities in foreign countries that enabled us to take advantage of
unity of effort and to accomplish our mission. What we observed was
that rural areas and communities in Kosovo functioned basically the
same as rural communities in the United States. The cultures were
different, the religions were different, but the communities functioned
basically the same. Agriculture was the dominate industry and source of
income in these areas, giving us the opportunity to use our civilian
skills to implement agriculture and rural development projects. We
found that the same principles of agriculture extension, education, and
development applied in Kosovo.
The United Nations (UN) and the NATO-member countries working in
Kosovo had established a government for Kosovo very similar to those in
many European nations, with separate ministries responsible for
agriculture development, rural development, roads, and electricity. All
ministries had competing goals and objectives with no overarching
strategy or policy. We also found that multiple aid agencies from the
U.S., European Union (EU), UN, and numerous NGOs were working in the
area, most with competing goals and objectives, and once again with no
overall cooperation or policy.
Because most of the units assigned to our Task Force were U.S. Army
National Guard units and based on previous work we had done with other
nations and our experience in conducting U.S. domestic operations in
support of civil authorities, we knew the importance and power the
civilian skills of National Guard Soldiers brought to the mission. So
we immediately built a database of all the civilian skills we had in
our units. Once on the ground in Kosovo we began to use the civilian
skills of our Solders in conjunction with military operations.
We identified several challenges that in the end impacted what we
could do with Agriculture. Unemployment in our area was above 50% with
more than 50% of the population living in poverty and more than 10%
living in extreme poverty. Most households spent 40% to 50% of their
annual income on food. More than 50% of the population in our area
experienced food insecurity part of the year. There were many small
agriculture producers and a very high dispersion of land tenure. Most
farms had low productivity and produced poor-quality products. Most
sustainable food supplies came from imports that appeared to be
supported by a combination of dumping policies and foreign-based
competition. Almost all crops produced in our area were immediately
sold or consumed at harvest due to a combination of a lack of storage
or a lack of regulation of warehouses with no means to enforce
contracts between buyers and sellers. The Kosovo Ministry of
Agriculture lacked a sufficient local extension service program. Many
of the agriculture production practices used technology from the 1930s
with some mechanization using old Soviet equipment. There was a general
lack of knowledge in production, conservation, and marketing practices.
The effects of the civil war in Kosovo appeared to primarily impact
rural areas and their populations. The conflict had adverse effects on
food production and quality, and appeared to be the major driver of
food insecurity and malnutrition in the rural populations of Eastern
Kosovo. The lasting result of the conflict was a disruption of food
production and food systems. The livestock that remained was of
relative low quality and the combination of high food prices and low
family income directly limited the access to food for parts of the
year. The direct food assistance helped those in situational poverty to
improve their overall situation. However, we found that direct food
assistance had little impact on improving long-term food security.
Populations such as the Roma minorities who had experienced
generational poverty were not able to overcome the cultural pressures
to redistribute or trade the food aid for the benefit of others, thus
never allowing an individual or family to improve their situation.
The lack of an available, sustainable food supply resulted in
discontent, which then lead to increased criminal and anti-government
activities to supplement family income in order to afford food. These
activities included assisting with the smuggling of food and clothing
products to avoid tariffs, smuggling of weapons and drugs,
deforestation of hillsides, and facilitating human trafficking through
Kosovo to Europe. An individual or groups of individuals would do
whatever was required to provide enough food for their families, even
if these actions were against their cultural and personal beliefs. All
of the criminal activities done to improve their own food security had
adverse effects on the whole community and the overall stability of the
region.
We found we could build resilience and improve the stability of our
area by conducting comprehensive rural development activities that
directly contributed to our peace enforcement efforts. By working with
each group interested in providing assistance to rural Kosovo we begin
to achieve some unity of effort resulting in unified action that began
to make a difference in food security. As food security improved we
began to see improved overall security and peace within the region.
For example, one area in our sector contained many small dairies
attempting to sell milk locally. Due to the lack of roads, electricity,
and milk storage facilities, the dairies had no points of distribution
that encouraged additional production. Their existing production per
cow was very low and bacteria counts were uncontrollably high. Every
community in Kosovo wanted improved roads, access to reliable
electricity, and a market for their products. With no national food
policy or rural development plan in place for Kosovo at the time, all
development efforts went to the loudest voice or to projects that
looked good in the news regardless of the overall impact. By working
with the Netherlands Mission to Kosovo we were able to identify a
company interested in building a processing plant for yogurt. This
would require a location with good road access, reliable electrical
service, and a steady supply of milk that met the minimum EU safety
standards. None of these existed in our region.
With the aid of National Guard Civil Engineers within our units we
were able to work with multiple Aid Organizations, NGOs, and the Kosovo
Government to target road access to a central location and a plan for
construction and installation of critical infrastructure including
reliable electrical service. The company began construction while
National Guard Soldiers with agriculture skills began work with the
local Kosovo version of an extension service and focused on two
specific areas that would ensure a dependable supply of milk meeting
sanitary requirements. First, the teams applied the basic concepts of
extension education and identified key centers of influence and early
adapters of technology within communities. Through demonstration and
education they taught ways to improve feed, reduce parasites, improve
sanitation in order to reduce bacteria levels, and overall increase the
volume of milk available that would meet the plant's standards. Some of
this was done without direct aid; instead, using innovative cost-share
programs that required individual dedication and community
participation. Second, the teams worked with local groups USAID, Dutch
NGOs, and the Kosovo Government to build and develop a livestock market
in which individuals could work together to improve the quality of
livestock herds through sale, trade, and the use of artificial
insemination.
In less than a year, the security and sustainability of food for
the area was significantly improved by comprehensive agriculture and
rural development which resulted in the improved security of the
region. From this lesson we learned that improving food security of
individuals through agriculture development at the local level reduced
the willingness of the citizens to participate in criminal or anti-
government activities, and in turn, gradually improved overall security
of Kosovo. We were able to expand this model across our area of
responsibility and improve access to food and fiber through coordinated
agriculture development activities.
We learned that food insecurity contributed greatly to the
continued conflict in rural areas where there was no sustained or
coordinated commitment to agricultural policy, education, research, or
development by the nations involved in conflict resolution in the
Balkans and other areas of conflict. We were not thinking of resolving
food security for the world, but for specific rural areas in conflict
where U.S. forces were currently deployed. We learned that these areas
did not need new or innovative science and technology to improve their
food security. They only lacked a basic, comprehensive farm policy that
would provide methods and principles that would help ensure a
sustainable food supply, a stable agriculture market, soil protection
measures, improved farm income, and adequate supplies of quality foods
and fibers. It was quickly evident that much of the farm policy that
the United States has in place since the establishment of the
Department of Agriculture would also benefit Kosovo and the Balkans.
Programs with objectives integrated with the national welfare and
security of Kosovo were needed.
We realized that the same principles from Kosovo could be applied
in Afghanistan. Our efforts in Kosovo and the potential they held for
Afghanistan were recognized by LTG Clyde Vaughn, Director of the Army
National Guard. In 2007, Secretary of the Army Pete Geren, LTG Vaughn,
and Mr. Charles Kruse, President of the Missouri Farm Bureau were able
to engage Senator Kit Bond of Missouri, Member of the Senate Armed
Services Committee about the Agribusiness Development Team (ADT)
concept. With the help of these individuals and support from Congress,
the American Farm Bureau Federation, the University of Missouri, Texas
A&M University, the Missouri National Guard, and the Texas National
Guard, the Army National Guard began developing what became the
Agribusiness Development Teams deployed to Afghanistan. The Governor of
Missouri volunteered his state to take the lead with the first team and
Texas followed with the second team.
According to the DOD and the CIA, Agriculture had been the mainstay
of Afghanistan's largely subsistence economy for decades. In periods of
political stability and economic investment prior to the conflict with
Russia, Afghan agriculture had flourished as a source of valuable
agricultural products. The agricultural sector employed more than 80%
of the Afghan workforce but only generated about 35% of the Afghan GDP.
It was projected at the time that for the next 20 or more years,
agriculture would remain the most important part of the Afghan economy
and that agriculture had tremendous potential for growth. The U.S.
Embassy in Afghanistan told us that Afghanistan was a chronic food-
insecure nation and that significant food imports were required to
provide adequate supplies of food and fiber. Factors contributing to
food insecurity included the lack of warehouses for storing
commodities, regulations for maintaining quality of a commodity, rules
of arbitration to settle disputes between buyers and sellers, and the
lack of sanctity of contracts in general. Food that was produced
suffered much field loss and was sold immediately. The same food that
was being produced was purchased later in the year as imports at
extremely high prices.
These facts and the knowledge we had gained in Kosovo led to the
concept of utilizing both the civilian skills of Army National Guard
Soldiers and the unique reach-back capability of local National Guard
units to state land-grant universities and state level agriculture
organizations and commodity groups to provide extensive and unified
agriculture development through the Agribusiness Development Team
concept.
Based on the efforts of LTG Vaughn, the National Guard Bureau
approved deployment of Agribusiness Development Teams (ADTs) in
Afghanistan. The ADTs consisted of a core group of agricultural
advisors that actively supported the furtherance of the U.S.
Agricultural Strategy goals and objectives. The ADTs focused on
providing extension services to Afghan farmers, building provincial
level agriculture government capacities to provide comprehensive
agriculture programs and to effectively utilize funds for agricultural
projects.
The Agribusiness Development Teams were designed to conduct
counterinsurgency and stability operations by building Government of
the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan (GIRoA) capacity in agriculture and
sustained agriculture development. This was done in order to facilitate
the establishment of a safe and secure environment, enhance the rule of
law, establish sustained economic development, develop sustained
governance, and foster social well-being.
Mohammad Asif Rahimi, Afghan Minister of Agriculture, Irrigation,
and Livestock probably described best why we believed the ADT concept
would be successful when he said, ``Agriculture is the dominant factor
in the Afghan economy, in food security, in livelihoods, sustainable
resources, and national security. Agriculture will determine whether
Afghanistan will succeed or fail.'' Our previous experiences taught us
that a profitable and sustainable Agribusiness Sector was an
operational Center of Gravity (a source of power that provides moral or
physical strength, freedom of action or will to act) at the provincial
level. National Guard Soldiers' civilian skills delivered through ADTs
could provide critical capabilities that were considered crucial
enablers for the Center of Gravity to function and that were essential
to the accomplishment of the objective in areas considered non-
permissive for normal development activities. These capabilities were
agriculture research, agriculture extension, agriculture credit,
business and marketing development, and agricultural education.
ADT effectiveness was based on the development of relationships,
mentoring, continuity, and predictability. The ADTs were unique in
their ability to deliver agriculture expertise with autonomy and
freedom of movement on the battlefield in a non-permissive environment.
The ADTs partnered with the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the U.S.
Agency for International Development, the Islamic Republic of
Afghanistan, the Afghan provincial government of each province where
teams were deployed, with various Afghan colleges and universities, and
other government and NGOs in the areas to maximize the use of resources
and ensure unity of effort with all agriculture development work to
improve food security.
The ADT mission supported the core goal of the U.S. mission in
Afghanistan to ``disrupt, dismantle, and eventually defeat al-Qa`ida in
the region and to prevent its return''. In addition, the ADT mission
pursued the U.S. strategy of reversing the Taliban's momentum and
denying it the ability to overthrow the government. The mission would
strengthen the capacity of the Afghanistan Security Forces and
government so they could take the lead responsibility for Afghanistan's
future. I will say that neither the U.S. Agricultural Strategy for
Afghanistan nor any subsequent document provided any discussion on how
to execute the strategy.
The ADTs focused on meeting the goals of a combination of U.S.
Agriculture Strategy in Afghanistan, Ministry of Agriculture,
Irrigation and Livestock (MAIL) priorities, and in building the Afghan
Agriculture Sector. The technical assistance and institutional capacity
building done by ADTs was focused on GIRoA capacity building and
sustainable agricultural development at the provincial and district
level. Transition and institutional sustainability of all ADT
activities was clearly emphasized. Each activity was nested into USFORA
and U.S. mission Afghanistan strategy, the teams identified MAIL
involvement in each ADT program from planning to completion into
sustainment, and articulated an end state with transition to Afghan
responsibility.
ADT commanders sought opportunities for improvement, including
continually working to clarify the mission: ADTs served both in the
conduct of stability operations (which included both counter insurgency
and counter narcotics) and the carrying out of agriculture development
focused on improving food security in order to improve overall security
in their area of responsibility. An understanding of the expected
outcomes needed to be assessed and reaffirmed on a regular basis in
order to better direct the ADT efforts. The teams focused on functional
coordination: there were multiple actors and activities with
significant opportunity for functional coordination which when working
together multiplied the effects of our ADT efforts; ADT Commanders were
encouraged to maximize these opportunities.
The ADTs had two major goals and six objectives to achieve those
goals, all nested within U.S. Agriculture Strategy for Afghanistan.
These goals and objectives include the following:
Goal 1: Increase agriculture sector jobs and income:
Obj. 1.1: Establish food security by ensuring
adequate supplies of food and fiber.
Obj. 1.2: Increase agriculture productivity.
Obj. 1.3: Regenerate agribusiness.
Obj. 1.4: Rehabilitate watersheds and improve
irrigation infrastructure.
Goal 2: Increase confidence of Afghan's in their government
through the MAIL:
Obj. 2.1: Increase MAIL capacity to deliver services
to rural farmers and herders.
Obj. 2.2: Promote the private-sector and farmer
associations through the MAIL.
We accomplished this by establishing specific ADT Lines of
Operation. These lines of operation came from a review of U.S. farm
policy that had been implemented over many years. We looked at what
enabled the U.S. to have a stable and affordable supply of food and
fiber that maintained a healthy people and economy.
The following lines of operation were developed and implemented by
the ADTs:
1. Agriculture Extension: Develop and empower provincial and
district level GIRoA Director Agriculture Irrigation
Livestock (DAILs) and Agriculture Extension Agents (AEA) in
order to build capacity of government, connect the people
with government, and enhance the MAILs ability to deliver
basic agriculture extension services while using projects
to reduce corruption and further legitimize the GIRoA.
2. Agriculture Economics: Establish food security by ensuring
adequate supplies of food and fiber, achieve sustained
agriculture economic development, regenerate agribusiness,
rehabilitate watersheds, and improve agricultural
infrastructure.
3. Agriculture Education: Ensure effective and sustainable transfer
of technology through the DAIL, AEAs and regional
universities as well as ensure continuous long-term
improvement in the agriculture sector.
4. Agriculture Administration: Increase capacity of Director
Agriculture Irrigation Livestock (DAIL) and Agriculture
Extension Agents (AEA) to deliver basic agricultural
services to increase trust of the people in GIRoA by
improved MAIL administrative functions and reduced
corruption.
5. Information Operations: Integrate Agriculture messaging and
programming into Provisional Reconstruction Teams (PRTs)
and battle space owner's information operations in order to
connect government with the people.
Each ADT was required to work and conduct actions with Battle Space
Owners. This focused on carrying out unified actions and assisting all
groups in the area to coordinate agriculture activities. In addition to
delivering agriculture expertise, the ADTs assisted the battle space
owners in preparing the battle space for sustained agriculture
development by:
1. Assisting battle space owners in identifying key districts and
prioritizing the need for agriculture assessments.
2. Identifying agriculture development requirements and priorities
by doing provincial and district agriculture assessments.
3. Assessing the staffing of DAIL and AEA positions and prioritize
the fill of vacancies.
4. Assessing the status of USAID, USDA, USACE, PRT, and NGO
agriculture activities within each key district, including
the current level of coordination and collaboration.
5. Assessing the willingness of and requesting the battle space
owner to commit resources to agriculture development (i.e.,
weather, contracting, legal, engineer, security force, and
IT personnel).
6. Establishing priorities for and beginning engagement with
regional universities and agriculture high schools.
7. Establishing priorities for watershed rehabilitation and
engineering projects.
8. Coordinating agricultural public affairs activities and assess
local media resources for delivery of agricultural themes
and messages.
ADT Commanders were directed to use established criteria to set
conditions in transitioning agriculture related activities to DAILs and
other civilian personnel as deemed necessary. Scorecards were used to
constantly measure and demonstrate progress toward meeting U.S. goals,
objectives and the desired end state. Each ADT did this by measuring
the following:
1. Improved agriculture productivity.
2. Increased commercial viability of small and medium farms and
agribusinesses.
3. Improved stability in insecure areas.
4. Improved integrated water management.
5. Improved agriculture education.
6. Improved GIRoA agriculture research and agriculture extension
services.
7. Improved MAIL/DAIL/AEA core administrative functions.
The ADT concept required a comprehensive approach to improving food
security which resulted in overall improved security in each province.
ADTs were doing good work; however, their full impact on Afghan
agriculture and meeting the goals of U.S. Agriculture Strategy required
the Whole of Government. Deployed and forming teams had to work
tirelessly to bring essential elements to bear in reaching the desired
End State. Integrating elements here in the U.S. helped the ADTs
accomplish much more sustainable results than if they had been working
individually.
Each ADTs work with the land-grant university of their state and
the cooperation of each cooperative extension service was instrumental
in the training of each team and in the execution of their mission.
Each land-grant university helped us develop a training model that was
used for each team and that enabled sustained follow up and support for
the teams. For example, both the Texas AgriLife Extension and the
Borlaug Institute of Texas A&M University worked with the Texas ADT
teams to train for deployment and coordinate activities for development
in the teams' areas of responsibility. This included adding an
Afghanistan County to the AgriLife intranet giving the teams the same
access to agriculture experts as any county extension agent had and
working together with the Borlaug Institute on range land surveys in
the ADTs area of operation where the security environment prohibited
the movement of civilians. The Borlaug Institute worked with the Texas
ADT to host training for a group of provincial and district extension
agents here in the U.S. The land-grant universities were great partners
who all worked together to deliver the best possible products. For
example, we never fielded a team from New Mexico, yet New Mexico State
University eagerly worked with the other land-grant universities and
provided advice and help to the teams on solving irrigation problems
with canal systems similar to those used in New Mexico. While North
Dakota did not field a team North Dakota State University assisted in
training the Minnesota ADT. UC Davis, Purdue University, Washington
State University, University of Maryland, and Texas A&M carried out
extension training programs for USAID and worked with the ADTs.
The ability to meet the ADT goals and objectives would not have
been possible without the help of our entire United States Agriculture
community. It is difficult to explain all the assistance provided to
ADTs from every part of the American agriculture sector and how this
support enabled the teams to begin the development of comprehensive
farm policy at the provincial and district level. USDA's Commodity
Office provided copies of warehouse storage agreements, warehouse
inspector handbooks, Texas Department of Agriculture provided copies of
warehouse regulations, Texas Grain and Feed Association provided rules
of arbitration between buyers and warehouses, and the University of
Nebraska had the documents translated into Pashto and Dari. Private
agriculture business firms eagerly contributed advice and equipment to
the teams. State producer and commodity groups helped the teams with
recommendations for crops, practices, and solutions for storage and
handling. For example, the Lamesa Cotton Growers and the AMS Classing
offices assisted in establishing a system to have Afghan cotton classed
and graded, the National Grain Sorghum Producers Association connected
the teams with private seed companies who provided recommended
varieties of grain sorghum for the altitude and climate of Afghanistan
that could be used in demonstration plots. I do not know of any group
that ever turned down a team's request for assistance. The ADTs were
able to coordinate their activities on the ground with the USDA, USAID,
Department of State (DOS) and many NGOs.
I believe the work of the ADTs was effective at denying recruits to
the insurgency by increasing employment, improving effective public-
sector services in agriculture that increased Afghans' food security by
improving sustainable and affordable supplies of food, and increasing
the confidence in and connectedness of the people with their
government. I also believe that the experience of the ADTs reminds us
that food security is critical to national security and that the best
way to ensure food security is to have a comprehensive farm policy that
ensures adequate, sustainable supplies of food and fiber are available
at a reasonable cost, now and in the future.
The ADT mission was in place from March, 2008 to January, 2014.
There were 52 separate teams totaling 3,025 Army and Air National Guard
personnel. The teams came from 17 supporting states including:
Missouri, Texas, Indiana, Kentucky, Nebraska, Kansas, South Carolina,
Georgia, Oklahoma, Wisconsin, Arkansas, Nevada, Minnesota, Mississippi,
Illinois, California, and Iowa. The teams deployed into 16 supported
Provinces in Afghanistan including: Nangarhar, Kunar, Khowst, Paktika,
Paktya, Laghman, Kapisa, Parwan, Bamyan, Ghazni, Zabul, Kandahar,
Hilmand, Wardak, Logar, and Panjshir. The teams executed over 700
projects totaling more than $45 million. It was a dangerous mission
even though we knew of no ADT team that was attacked while conducting
an actual ADT mission. However, movement to the field to conduct their
ADT missions or in support of other missions was dangerous and the
teams suffered several vehicles destroyed, Soldiers injured, and three
Soldiers killed in action while providing support. In 2009, the Texas
team lost two Soldiers: Sergeant Christopher Staats of Fredericksburg,
a Texas A&M graduate and an environmental scientist, and Sergeant
Anthony Green, a farmer and specialist in animal husbandry from
Yorktown, Texas. In 2011, Missouri ADT4 lost one Soldier: Sgt. 1st
Class Robert Wayne Pharris, of Seymour, Missouri.
A primary lesson learned from the agriculture development work we
did in Kosovo and Afghanistan was that agriculture development was
critical to counter the insurgency in areas where food security was an
issue. We also learned that in order for agriculture development to be
successful it had to be carried out in a comprehensive manner. We
learned that piecemeal large-scale agriculture development resulted in
failure. For example, the first wheat projects conducted by USAID
produced the wrong variety of wheat. The teams also learned that large
projects and unbridled spending contributed to increased corruption and
cost of materials and labor. The teams also demonstrated that even
small-scale projects given to individuals or groups can create
dependence rather than self-reliance. Every project needed local
participation in order to be sustainable.
Utilizing ADT expertise with their unique reach-back capability in
a comprehensive approach based on key aspects of U.S. farm policy
demonstrated that food security has a directly positive impact on
national security. The projects emphasized education, research,
extension, market stabilization, resources conservation, watershed
management, and improved land productivity. The coordination of rural
development to improve infrastructure for storage and processing of
commodities, road networks to facilities, and marketing of commodities,
combined with standards and regulations to protect consumers showed us
that farm policy can positively impact food security as well as the
overall security of an area.
At the onset of the ADT collaborative process we learned that a
comprehensive framework for collaboration was needed between the ADTs,
USAID and other USAID programs, USDA, DOS, International Community (IC)
agriculture programs, and GIRoA ministries before we started the
mission. This framework needed to be integrated with agriculture
programs linked to our national security interest with a top/down/
bottom-up focus. From the beginning, the continuity of effort (or the
lack of it) was a real struggle. The ADTs followed agriculture
development programs that appeared to have been a series of 1 year
development programs rather than one long-term program focused on
continuity, sustainability, and unity of effort.
As the ADT mission progressed, the comprehensive framework,
continuity, sustainability, and unity of effort continued to improve.
The true success of the ADTs was due to the hard work of the
National Guard Agribusiness Development Team Coordination Office. This
team, first lead by Colonel (U.S. Army, Retired) Marty Leppert, a
Wisconsin National Guard Solider, and then by Colonel Howard Schauer, a
Nebraska National Guard Soldier, who transferred to the Texas Army
National Guard after the end of the ADT mission, who is now serving
with the 36th Infantry Division Headquarters in Afghanistan. They were
both supported by Chief Warrant Officer (U.S. Army, Retired) Anthony
Romano. This team was responsible for coordinating with the individual
state National Guards, the land-grant universities to ensure each team
was trained, equipped, mobilized, deployed, returned home safely, and
ensure the continuity and unity ADT efforts. This team and the members
of each of the ADT missions are true heroes and we are blessed to have
great Americans like these willing to make a difference.
The ADT mission showed us it takes a lot of coordination with many
groups and agencies to improve the food security, and ultimately the
entire security of a region. The ADT mission provided renewed evidence
that comprehensive farm policy ensuring adequate supplies of food and
fiber at a reasonable cost carried out by the Federal Government, the
individual states, and the land-grant universities working together for
a common goal can ensure food security and significantly add to the
national security of the United States. A nation without food security
has only one problem. That one problem has proven that it will escalate
into many other problems destabilizing every aspect of an entire
nation, and that impact can be felt on a global scale.
Chairman Conaway, Members of the Committee, thank you again for the
opportunity to share with you today, my experiences and lessons learned
from my many years of service. There are a few things I would like each
of you to think about for the future. First, never forget the
importance of agriculture. The Operations Officer of the first Texas
ADT said it best, he said ``Agriculture crosses all social, ethnic, and
religious divides, it truly is an international language.'' This
reminds us that food security is important to all people. As you think
about the future of farm policy never forget that one of the primary
purposes of all programs should be to ensure the food security of the
nation and the sustainability of food and fiber for our grandchildren's
grandchildren. Then one last thing, there are times when I watch the
news and I worry about the future of the United States, but when I
spend just a few minutes around the individuals serving in our Armed
Forces or those engaged in American agriculture I am reminded we have a
solid foundation and that our future is in good hands.
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman.
Colonel Ahlness, 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF COL ERIC D. AHLNESS, (RET), U.S. ARMY; NORTH
AMERICAN LEAD FOR DIVERSITY AND BUSINESS
IMPACT, CARGILL, INCORPORATED, WHITE BEAR LAKE, MN
Mr. Ahlness. Chairman Conaway, Congressman Peterson,
distinguished Members of the House Agriculture Committee, thank
you for the privilege and honor of sharing my story and
answering questions today. I especially thank Congressmen
Peterson, Walz, and Nolan for their stalwart support of the
Minnesota National Guard over the years.
In 2008, the National Guard implemented the Agribusiness
Development Team strategy to engage the largely rural
population of Afghanistan to increase farmer prosperity and
ultimately greater security, as villages connected to valued
government extension services, making a lasting and sustainable
difference.
Five years ago, I led an ADT for a year-long deployment to
Zabul, Afghanistan. Zabul is northeast of Kandahar, and is a
high desert plateau bisected by the Tarnak River. Zabul is very
rural, very poor, illiterate, and very traditional. Local
villages lack access to government agricultural services and
knowledge of good agricultural practices.
Our ADT had three main missions. First, was to increase
farm production and farmer livelihoods. Second, was to build
government agricultural extension capacity at the provincial
level; and third, was to improve market access for farmers and
spur further value chain development.
To accomplish these missions, we developed an interagency
approach, worked with U.S. Embassy platform in Kandahar, and
held regular meetings with the USDA in Kabul.
The ADT gained the trust and access where others faced
stoic or armed resistance. Arghandab is a remote rural district
in Zabul province. The villagers are conservative members of
the Pashto Tribe. Our military had tried to extend governance
to this remote area, but locals resisted, not seeing the
benefit against probable Taliban retribution. However, when
offered veterinary services and farmer training, the elders of
the community rapidly accepted the invitation and veterinarians
and agronomists flew to Arghandab to provide livestock
inoculations and training to the locals. This mission
facilitated an opening of doors that were previously closed to
us and our partners.
Another very successful program trained widows to operate
an egg business by providing them five hens, feed, and training
to run a business which provided them food and income for their
families. One of our graduates returned to tell us that she had
62 hens and made $6.75 per day, which is almost $3 more than an
average day-worker makes in Zabul. This is a prime example that
a small investment in hens, feed and training creates a
sustainable, value-based, growth business that is scalable and
repeatable.
We also increased farm crop production by using bees to
pollinate crops more effectively. Numerous efforts to introduce
European bees failed, as the bees fell prey to wasps, were
vulnerable to mites, and had a difficult time foraging on the
local fauna. The hives collapsed as a result. We re-introduced
Asian bees to the province for non-commercial pollination which
increased local crop yields. The positive results prompted
broader use of Asian bees and our partners in the USDA spread
the technique to other provinces.
Of special note is the work that was Afghan inspired and
led, was the development of a provincial chapter of the Afghan
Chamber of Commerce. This cooperative brought together 270
traders and business leaders to set business priorities and
goals for the province. This signaled a successful transition
from U.S.-led to Afghan-inspired leadership and strengthening
of the agricultural value chains of the province. This
initiative supported efforts to reduce post-harvest loss by
converting excess shipping containers for grain storage in
remote areas and efforts to create a greater Kandahar trade
zone where high value goods, such as pomegranates, were
exported to the Mideast.
The ADT strategy was a success because it took the approach
that we can prevent the seeds of conflict, by planting seeds of
hope and prosperity. It took the ADT at the point of the spear,
and virtually all my soldiers qualified for combat badges. It
took interagency partners to array the many aspects of power,
knowledge and influence, and Afghans willing to risk their
lives to implement the programs. This collaboration led to an
outcome where farmers were empowered with knowledge, local
agricultural extension capabilities were enhanced, and
infrastructure developed so locals could own a sustainable
approach to rural development. Our deployment was captured in a
documentary produced by Minnesota Public Television and the
link to the video has been submitted as part of my written
testimony. This documentary of our deployment was aptly named,
Bridging War and Hope. This is what we did. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of COL Ahlness follows:]
Prepared Statement of COL Eric D. Ahlness, (Ret), U.S. Army; North
American Lead for Diversity and Business Impact, Cargill, Incorporated,
White Bear Lake, MN
Chairman Conaway, Congressman Peterson, and distinguished Members
of the House Agriculture Committee, thank you for the privilege and
honor of sharing my story and answering questions today. I especially
thank Congressm[e]n Peterson and Walz for their stalwart support of the
Minnesota National Guard over the years.
In 2008, the National Guard implemented the Agribusiness
Development Team, or ADT, strategy to engage the largely rural
population in Afghanistan to increase farmer prosperity and ultimately
greater security as villages connected to valued government extension
services make lasting and sustainable difference. Five years ago, I led
ADT for a year-long deployment to Zabul, Afghanistan. Zabul is
northeast of Kandahar and is a high desert plateau bisected by the
Tarnak River. Zabul is very rural, very poor, illiterate, and very
traditional. Local villages lack access to government agricultural
services and knowledge of good agricultural practices.
Our ADT had three main missions--First, was to increase crop
production and farmer livelihoods. Second, was to build government
agricultural extension capacity at the provincial level. And, third,
was to improve market access for farmers and spur further value chain
development. To accomplish these missions we developed an inter-agency
approach, worked with the U.S. Embassy platform in Kandahar, and held
regular meetings with USDA in Kabul.
The ADT gained the trust and access where others faced stoic or
armed resistance. Arghandab is a remote, rural district in Zabul
province. The villagers are conservative members of the Pashto Tribe.
Our military had tried to extend governance in this remote area but
locals resisted, not seeing the benefit against probable Taliban
retributions. However, when offered veterinary services and farmer
training, the elders of the community rapidly accepted the invitation
and veterinarians and agronomists flew to Arghandab to provide
livestock inoculations and training to the locals. This mission
facilitated an opening of doors that were previously closed to us and
our partners.
Another very successful program trained widows to operate an egg
business by providing them five hens, feed, and training to run a
business which provided them food and income for their families. One of
our graduates returned to tell us that she had 62 hens and made $6.75
per day which is almost $3 more than average day-worker makes in Zabul.
This is a prime example that a small investment in hens, feed and
training creates a sustainable, value-based, growth business that is
scalable and repeatable.
We also increased crop production by using bees to pollinate crops
more effectively. Numerous efforts to introduce European bees failed as
the bees fell prey to wasps, were vulnerable to mites, and had a
difficult time foraging on the local fauna. The hives collapsed as a
result. We re-introduced Asian bees in the province for non-commercial
pollination which increased local crop yields. The positive results
prompted broader use of Asian bees and our partners in the USDA spread
the technique to other provinces.
Of special note is the work that was Afghan inspired and led, was
the development of a provincial chapter of the Afghan Chamber of
Commerce. This cooperative brought together 270 traders and business
leaders to set business priorities and goals for the province. This
signaled the successful transition from U.S. lead to Afghan inspired
leadership and strengthening of the agricultural value chains in the
province. This initiative supported efforts to reduce post-harvest loss
by converting excess shipping containers for grain storage in remote
areas and efforts to create a greater Kandahar trade zone where high
value goods, such as pomegranates, were exported to the Mideast.
The ADT strategy was a success because it took the approach that we
can prevent the seeds of conflict, by planting seeds of hope and
prosperity. It took the ADT at the point of the spear, virtually all my
soldiers qualified for combat badges, it took inter-agency partners to
array the many aspects of power, knowledge and influence, and Afghans
willing to risk their lives to implement the programs. This
collaboration led to an outcome where farmers were empowered with
knowledge, local agricultural extension capabilities were enhanced, and
infrastructure developed so locals could own a sustainable approach to
rural development. Our deployment was captured in a documentary
produced by Minnesota Public Television and the link to the video has
been submitted as part of my written testimony. This documentary of our
deployment was aptly named, Bridging War and Hope. That is what we did.
Thank you.
Extended Remarks
Introduction
Chairman Conaway, Congressman Peterson, and distinguished Members
of the House Agriculture Committee--Thank you for privilege and honor
of sharing my story and answering questions today. I especially thank
Congressm[e]n Peterson and Walz for their stalwart support of the
Minnesota National Guard over the years. I had the pleasure of working
with the Minnesota Delegation for more than 5 years as the Government
Relations Officer for the Minnesota National Guard and was continually
impressed how the delegation balanced the needs of the country
alongside the priorities of the state.
Background
The Reserve Component of the U.S. Military has a unique capability
that the Active Component is unable to replicate. That is the set of
civilian skills that reservists develop as a part of their civilian
career. For example, I had soldiers who were also value chain experts,
beekeepers, and agronomy experts. The National Guard Bureau recognized
the critical role that agribusiness skills could contribute to
increased security in Afghanistan and in 2008 implemented the
Agribusiness Development Team concept. This is strategic as 80% of the
Afghan economy is dependent on agriculture and more prosperous farmers
and villages tend to be less extreme. This is especially true if the
village has positive connections with the government. The ADT concept
includes fielding 58 person teams with a core of a dozen agricultural
experts to serve in sequential year-long deployments over a 5 year
period within a specific province. The agricultural experts could be
selected from the Army or Air National Guard or through an intra-
component support process to include members from the U.S. Army
Reserve. The positions were rank--immaterial as our focus was on
securing uniformed members that would use their civilian acquired
expertise to impact the mission.
The teams initially established relationship with the DAIL, the
Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Irrigation provincial leader, to
build government capability, and started providing training to local
villages to increase the prosperity of the farmers. One of the
provinces selected for this training was Zabul.
Zabul is northeast of Kandahar and is a high desert plateau with a
range of mountain to the south on the border with Pakistan and to the
north with the Hindu Kush range which dominates central Afghanistan.
The Afghan ring road, the main communications artery of the country
runs along the Tarnak River which is fed from the snow run-off of the
Hindu Kush and serves as the irrigation source for the peoples of
Zabul. Zabul is very rural, very poor, illiterate, and very
traditional. The population is between 250,000 and 750,000. The high
school graduating class in 2011 was 255 for the province. My team was
the third ADT team in the province. The first teams established the
relationships, provided training to the DAIL and villages; whereas, our
role was to start transitioning lead to the DAIL and strengthen
relationships with USDA, DOS, and NGOs as the military mission was
reduced. The mission was successful and the fourth ADT team closed the
mission in 2013 recognizing that the provincial capability, civilian
agency oversight, and NGO partnerships were adequate to maintain
momentum and success.
Afghanistan: International Security Assistance Force (ISAF)--Provincial
Reconstruction Teams (PRTs)
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Source: http://www.exploretheworldmaps.com/zabul.html.
Mission Goals
Our ADT had three main missions--First, was to increase crop
production increasing prosperity of the farmers, Second was to build
government training capabilities at the provincial level and we assumed
a third mission to improve the value chain to help increased crop
production made it to markets. Our reasoning was that if you increase
production without a corresponding improvement in the value chain and
markets the benefit to the producers would be minimal.
[Agribusiness Development Teams in Afghanistan]
[Center for Army Lessons Learned]
[Chapter 2]
[Unity of Effort]
U.S. Agriculture Assistance Strategy for Afghanistan
According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), the
U.S. agriculture strategy for Afghanistan mobilizes support for
the Afghan Government, MAIL, and the private-sector to
revitalize Afghanistan's agriculture economy and increase
income and jobs. Shared objectives of MAIL and the U.S.
Government (USDA, U.S. Agency for International Development
[USAID], ADTs, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) within the
context of national agriculture development framework include
the following:
Goal 1: Increase agriculture sector jobs and income.
Increase agriculture productivity by increasing
farmers' access to inputs
and effective extension services.
Invigorate agribusiness by increasing linkages
between farmers, markets,
credit, and trade corridors.
Rehabilitate watersheds and improve irrigation
infrastructure.
Goal 2: Increase Afghans' confidence in their government.
Increase MAIL's capacity to deliver services and
promote the private-sector
and farmer associations through direct budget and
technical assistance.
Promote Afghan agricultural commodities via
intranational and inter-
national commerce.
Guiding principles:
The Afghan Government leads.
Agriculture assistance will have a strong focus on
counterinsurgency objec-
tives and investment in sustainable agriculture growth
throughout Afghani-
stan.
Government involvement in markets should focus on
regulation and ena-
bling the private-sector.
Projects should be linked to key value chains where
possible and to com-
munities, with technical guidance from provincial
agriculture working
groups.
Source: Center of Army Lessons Learned, Handbook No. 10-10,
dated November 2009, Agribusiness Development Teams in
Afghanistan: Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures. http://
usacac.army.mil/sites/default/files/publications/10-10.pdf.
Agribusiness Development Team (ADT) Engagements
To accomplish these missions we developed an inter-agency approach
where we worked closely with the military Provincial Reconstruction
Team, The Department of State, USAID, and the Department of
Agriculture. We conducted weekly working group sessions and daily
coordination to insure our efforts were synchronized, sustainable, and
as time progressed increasingly Afghan inspired and led. We also worked
with the Embassy platform in Kandahar and had regular engagements with
the USDA in Kabul. We moderated our expectations based on what was
sustainable in a province where the literacy rate was less than 10%,
life expectancy was 47 years, and the only publicly generated power was
funded by the U.S. Government for part of the provincial capital of
Qalat.
The ADT gained the trust and access where others faced stoic or
armed resistance. Arghandab is a remote, rural district in Zabul
province. The villagers are conservative members of the Pashto Tribe.
Our military had tried to extend governance in this remote area but
locals resisted, not seeing the benefit against probable Taliban
retributions. However, when offered veterinary services and farmer
training, the elders of the community rapidly accepted the invitation
and veterinarians and agronomists flew to Arghandab to provide
livestock inoculations and training to the locals. This mission
facilitated an opening of doors that were previously closed to us and
our partners.
This mission was conducted early in our deployment so we served as
the lead element for the mission with the veterinarian and agricultural
staff for the Department of Agriculture Irrigation and livestock (DAIL)
working in support. As became increasing common throughout our
deployment we partnered with the local military forces to provide the
majority of the security during the mission. The ADT had the capability
to conduct independent missions with our organic security platoon (34
soldiers). However, we found we could conduct more missions and build
stronger relationships with the locals if we deployed small teams of
agricultural generalists with a small personal security team in forward
areas. We then flew our agricultural experts (i.e., vet, beekeeper) to
the areas when we wanted to provide the capability. This also reduced
our vulnerability to the most dangerous threat during the first half of
our deployment--the Improvised Explosive Device (IED).
The DAIL staff served as the lead team for delivery of training to
the local villages. The ADT staff observed and used interpreters to
monitor the sessions and peak with elders and local farmers about the
issues that they faced in their area so we could better plan future
engagements and work with the district governor to develop policies and
deliver services to the locals. The veterinarian team inoculated
animals that local farmers and nomads brought to the area. We also
enlisted the aid of the local paravet (a trained individual who
provided animal care in remote areas) to administer the inoculations.
The DAIL charged a nominal fee for each shot so to insure the locals
were personally invested in the effort and gave the proceeds to the
local paravet to compensate him for his efforts and to avoid an
unintended consequence that our efforts cause `unemployment' or loss of
work for the paravet.
Over time, the DAIL increasingly took the lead in delivery of
training and providing resources to the farmers for these events. By
the end of our deployment the DAIL had conducted 17 independent
agricultural seminars supported by Afghan military and police.
A very successful program conducted by ADTs and partners involved
training widows to care for egg laying hens, provide them five hens and
feed, and encourage them to run a business to provide them food and
income for their families. One of our graduates returned to a follow on
training to inform us that she now had 62 hens and made about $6.75 per
day which is more than average day-worker in Zabul. This is a prime
example that a small investment in hens, feed and training creates a
sustainable, value based, growth business that is scalable and
repeatable.
We were also very interested in increasing production by using bees
to pollinate crops more effectively. Numerous efforts to introduce
European bees failed when implemented on a small scale as the bees were
prey to wasps, were vulnerable to disease and mites, and had a
difficult time foraging on the local fauna. The hives often collapsed
as a result. We re-introduced Asian bees to the province for non-
commercial pollination which increased yield and resisted the other
threats to the hive. The initial positive results prompted broader use
of Asian bees. Our partners in the USDA were key in spreading lessons
learned to other provinces.
Of special note is the work that was Afghan inspired and led, was
the development of a provincial chapter of the Afghan Chamber of
Commerce. This cooperative brought together 270 traders and business
leaders to serve as a lead in business priorities and goals for the
province. This Afghan initiative signaled the successful transition
from U.S. lead to Afghan inspired leadership and strengthening of the
value chain in the province. It also created a new and positive
connection between a poor, remote province to the national capital and
its business community.
Finally we worked daily with the USDA to increase the capability of
the Afghan agricultural staff. Training spanned the spectrum of
agriculture and extended onto cooperative design, budget planning, and
office productivity. During the year we were in Zabul, we shifted from
leading agricultural training, to facilitating and enabling training,
to promoting the efforts of the afghan staff. We partnered especially
closely with the Department of State in ensuring that funds funneled
through the central government would be available to the provincial
staff to insure their ongoing viability and vitality after conclusion
of the ADT mission. During Ramadan, in recognition of the shortened
work days, we conducted office productivity training ranging from e-
mail protocols to work group dynamics.
Unclassified
ZADT Mission 010 Veterinarian & Marketing Seminar--Arghandab
Who: Zabul ADT, DAIL Staff, and Zabul Civil Affairs (CA)
What: Zabul ADT members in conjunction with DAIL Staff, and Zabul
CA conduct Vet Sem., Animal Vaccinations, and Marketing Sem. in the
Arghandab District from 28 Nov to 02 Dec. 11.
Where: Arghandab District
When: 28 November to 02 December 2011
Result/BLUF:
DAIL staff trained local villagers on animal disease,
vaccination, marketing, and identified a Collection Center
site in conjunction with Zabul ADT.
Summary:
One day each of vet and marketing seminars and 3 days of
vaccinations.
DAIL Para Vet trained 71 villagers about animal disease
and vaccination benefits.
DAIL Para Vet and Assistant vaccinated approximately 392
sheep, goats, and cattle for enterotoxaemia, anthrax, FMD,
& de-worming.
DAIL staff conducted marketing and collection center
training. Worked with local Key Leaders to identify a
potential site for the center.
Going forward:
Coordinate another trip with DAIL and CA for additional
veterinary seminars.
Work with DAIL to station an Extension Agent in Arghandab
district.
Coordinate trip with DAIL to further develop collection
center and co-op concept.
Coordinate trip with DAIL for agriculture seminar to plant
disease and pest control.
Trip scheduled to assess water issues in January 2012.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
DAIL Para Vet delivers animal DAIL staff and local farmer
disease information to local vaccinating sheep.
livestock owners and explains the
benefit of vaccination.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
DAIL Agriculture Specialist Local farm and orchard.
providing marketing training to
local farmers and merchants.
Unclassified
Zabul ADT; DAIL Women's Poultry Training Qalat; Zabul Province
DTG for Event 180900JUN12 to 191200JUN12 Zabul ADT MISSION 198
Who: Akram Nayab (Provincial Management Specialist); Dr. Abrahim
(DAIL Livestock Manager), and 25 Afghan poor women
What: Women's poultry training
When: 180900JUN12 to 191200JUN12
Where: DAIL nursery
Why: Provide poultry training and supplies to widows and women
Summary:
On the first day of training, Dr. Abrahim instructed
participants on poultry diseases and vaccinations. On the
second day, he discussed poultry hen rations. Hens and feed
were distributed to class participants following the
completion of training. Akram Nayab served as the monitor
and evaluator for both days.
Twenty-five (25) women participated. Widows and other poor
women were selected to be participants. At the end of the
training, each trainee received five laying hens and 25 kg
of feed. This is the equivalent of 5,300 Afghanis
(approximately $110) in value. The women were pleased to
receive the hens and feed.
Participants said there are many women in need in Zabul,
and that the poultry training provides them a sustainable
means to generate food and income for their families. One
woman attendee who had participated in a training last
year, stated she had received twelve hens and 50 kg of
feed. She now has 62 hens and gets 50 to 57 eggs every day.
This provides income for her family. By Akram's
calculation, the income generated is 321 Afghanis per day
(approximately $6.68), which is more than the average wage
of a day-worker in Zabul.
Context:
This is the second poultry training conducted by the DAIL
in Qalat this spring/summer. The DAIL is particularly
dedicated to providing programming and resources to women
of the province. In 2010, the DAIL, with ISAF partners,
implemented a garden project at the Qalat Girls High
School. The DAIL has also been active in the garden project
at the Directorate of Women's Affairs compound.
Program is currently supported by CERP but as the DAIL
budget improves the program will shift to on-budget
funding.
Commander's Assessment:
This was a completely DAIL-planned, led and implemented
event. The DAIL staff recognize the need to be proactive in
planning seminars to reach their intended target audiences.
They have successfully planned a number of seminars and
have often been using the Qalat DAIL nursery as a seminar
location. This allows for seminars for farmers and other
constituents from areas without a current extension agent.
Anecdotal evidence suggests providing training and the
initial resources of laying hens and feed can provide a
sustainable source of food and income for women.
The importance of classes such as is reported here to the
residents of Zabul is further evidence of the importance of
filling DAIL tashkil positions throughout the province,
budgeting, and accessing funds for trainings.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Dr. Abrahim teaches the poultry A boy helps his mother with her
class. chickens.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
42S UA 03497 54959. A woman prepares to leave
[w]ith her chickens and feed.
Unclassified
Zabul ADT; Beekeeping Training; Foladgay, TWJ; Zabul Province
DTG for Event 290900JUN2012 Zabul ADT MISSION 201
Who: Zabul ADT
What: Beekeeping training for Asian honeybee demonstration project
When: 291000JUN12
Where: Foladgay, Tarnak wa Jaldak District, Zabul Province,
Afghanistan
Why: To enhance agricultural production
Summary:
Conducted mounted movement to Foladgay.
Provided follow-on beekeeping training on hive
inspections, swarm management, pests and diseases, how to
move hives, and honey collection.
The villagers stated that the bees were killing the wasps
that tried to enter the hives. This pest has destroyed
previous bee keeping efforts using the European bee.
Hive inspection found healthy hives actively storing new
pollen and honey. No sign of Varroa mite infestation noted.
Queens either spotted or their presence indicated through
new larva.
One hive was full of dead bees. The hive was apparently
delivered with a dead colony. The cause of the deaths
appears to be stress from moving. It will be replaced by a
colony from the demonstration farm.
Context:
Foladgay is the first village to receive colonies of the
native Asian honeybee (Apis Cerana). Previous beekeeping
projects used the imported European bee (Apis Mellifera).
DAIL extension agent identified the demonstration location
but lacked expertise to conduct the training, he is not
interested in further development of these skills.
The goal of this project is to demonstrate the
sustainability of the native Asian honeybee and restore
traditional Afghan beekeeping practices. Previous village-
level European bee projects in Afghanistan usually fail due
to Varroa mites and wasps. The native Asian honeybee has
evolved active defenses against local pests.
Commander's Assessment:
The Asian honeybees are better suited for village level
projects than their European counterpart. The European
honeybee is better suited for large-scale, commercial,
mobile beekeeping operations.
The Asian honeybee is tolerant of local environmental
conditions that destroy European colonies without active
intervention.
The Asian bee project will increase production and improve
quality of key agricultural products in the village such as
almonds, pomegranates, and apricots. It will improve food
security by increasing garden and forage yields.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
ZADT apiculturalist explaining Learning to use smoker to enter
brood cell types. hive.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
42R TA 64807 31525. European bee (left) Asian bee
(right).
Unclassified
Zabul ADT; Zabul Trader's Association; Qalat District; Zabul Province
DTG for Event 291500AUG12 Zabul ADT MISSION 242
Who: ZADT, USDA (Robert Eaton), Zabul Provincial Advisor (Aziz
Jamilzai), Director of the Zabul Trader's Association (Abdul
Akbary) and his Deputy Director (Abdul Ali)
What: KLE with Zabul Trader's Association Leadership
When: 29 August 2012
Where: Governor's Compound, Qalat, Zabul Province, Afghanistan
Why: Determine current status of Zabul Trader's Association
application package, and discuss trader's plans
Summary:
The team met with Abdul Hay Akbary, the Director of the
Zabul Trader's Association, who owns a market in Qalat.
Also present for the meeting was his deputy director Abdul
Ali, who also manages a cooperative in Qalat. Abdul Ali
stated that the cooperative has 1,300 members, but that
they are uneducated and the cooperative does not receive
GIRoA support. Membership investment funds have thus far
only been used to trade almonds. Farmers and traders are
open to mentoring. Abdul Ali stated, ``we will push the
direction if we are shown the way.''
Currently the men, acting as individual traders, work with
farmers throughout Zabul province who sometimes transport
their farm products to Qalat cooperatively (e.g., farmers
from one village jointly hire a transport). There is no
plan to begin a farmer's organization in Dey Chopan as has
been reported.
Both men expressed an interest in credit access. Abdul Ali
said he had creditors interested in investing with him
until they discovered that his property (collateral) was
owned jointly by multiple brothers.
Both men expressed a very strong desire for cold storage
and initiated a discussion on this topic. They stated there
are significant price gains within a month of harvest.
Roots of Peace was introduced as a potential facilitator to
link Zabul traders and owners of existing cold storage
facilities in Kandahar. The traders agreed to meet with
Roots of Peace and try and set up a visit to cold storage
facilities in Kandahar.
Context:
Sayed Aziz Jamalzal and Mohammad Daoud Popal (Zabul
Agricultural Advisor) originated the concept of introducing
a trader's association in Zabul province. They worked with
GIRoA officials, ZADT, ZPRT, USDA and traders to gauge
interest and develop a plan. Association leadership was
selected, application materials have been submitted and
signed by the Zabul Director of the Economy and currently
await a letter of support from the provincial governor. The
documents will be submitted by applicants to ACCI (Afghan
Chamber of Commerce and Industries). See the storyboards
for ZADT missions 102, 107, 115, and 133.
Commander's Assessment:
The Zabul Trader's Association has a strong team of
leaders although they report that individual members do not
have a history of working collaboratively. Support and
mentorship from the provincial government and ACCI will
help them learn the value of working cooperatively and how
to do so to gain value in the marketing channel.
Farmers and traders maintain a strong interest in cold
storage. Roots of Peace has helped grow cold storage
facilities within RC-5. NGO experience and potential
support, nearby facilities to visit, and the ability for
lessons learned from existing cold storage managers in
Kandahar have potential to help direct those in Zabul.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Robert Eaton and Aziz Jamilzai Abdul Ali makes a point while
listen to the director and deputy Abdul Hay Akbary listens.
director.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
42SUA0311454151. Documents about marketing
channel success in Kandahar
brought for further review.
Unclassified
Zabul ADT; Professional E-Mail Writing Workshop; Qalat; Zabul Province
DTG for Event 020900AUG12 Zabul ADT MISSION 230
Who: ZADT, TF-21 CIMIC, 9 DAIL staff members
What: Professional E-mail Writing Workshop
When: 02 August 2012
Where: DAIL compound, Qalat, Zabul Province, Afghanistan
Why: To instruct the DAIL staff on effective and professional E-
mail procedures, format, and functions
Summary:
A workshop on Professional E-mail writing was conducted
with nine DAIL staff members on 02 Aug. 2012 (0900-1100).
Major Jonathan Pike was the instructor along with the
assistance of an interpreter.
A PowerPoint presentation as well as student handouts,
greatly enhanced the learning process. ZADT provided
notebooks to organize the training materials, and also
supplied pencils and paper for note taking.
Various topics were covered in the workshop, to include:
Etiquette, E-mail format, subject, address, greetings,
opening sentences, body, closing, and signatures. A
discussion on why E-mail is important and how it relates to
them as DAIL staff employees were also objectives of the
lesson. Practical exercises were given to reinforce the
lesson by using blank e-mail worksheets reviewing their new
skills.
At the conclusion of the workshop, ADT issued certificates
of training to each of the participants. These documents
were very much appreciated by the staff
The students were attentive and participated in many of
the discussions. Out of the nine students, three had
limited E-mail knowledge prior to the class.
Context:
The Professional E-mail workshop continues to build and
scaffold the series of business related topics offered by
Zabul ADT.
The intent of the Ramazan courses is to continue positive
mentorship of the DAIL staff and provide examples of
effective management tools for the future. The classe[s]
were requested by DAIL to increase the professionalism of
his staff.
Commander's Assessment:
Professional E-mail writing is essential in any
organization. This skill will continue to promote good
practices and professionalism among the DAIL staff,
developing a sense of pride and job validation.
The end result is the development of a more effective
government network and an increased opportunity to provide
services to the people of Zabul Province.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
DAIL staff listening intently ZADT instructor listening to
and taking notes. questions.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Zabul DAIL compound. Students in discussion about a
plant disease.
The five examples above highlight the 249 agricultural mission
reports that the Zabul ADT files during the year-long deployment. The
Zabul ADT completed more than 800 distinct missions outside the gate
throughout the province, in the Kandahar region and to Kabul. By
projecting a forward presence, building strong relationships with local
government, elders, farmers, and business leaders, and implementing
pragmatic force protection measures, the Zabul ADT was able to excel at
its mission while setting the conditions to return to the U.S. without
casualties.
The Zabul ADT comprised of a command, staff and agricultural
experts from the Minnesota Army National Guard, a security platoon from
the Mississippi Army National Guard, and veterinarians from the Army
Reserve in Missouri and Washington states. We also received a mid-tour
replacement from the California Army National Guard. The maturity,
competency and integrity of the individuals allowed us to successfully
deploy small teams to accomplish the mission. Several examples of
excellence are:
Sergeant First Class Hunter from the Minnesota National
Guard (Value Chain development expert at Cargill, Inc.) lead
the effort to turn over control of our southern demonstration
farm to Afghan officials while insuring its continued
sustainability and viability with local resources. He also
supervised the evaluation and mentoring of a new cooperative
and served as the NCOIC (NCO In Charge) of our southern team.
Sergeant First Class Banta and Specialist Crutchfield from
the Mississippi (Security Platoon Sergeant and designated
marksman) lead an immediate response to a `blue on green'
(Afghan Army member attack on U.S. service members) which
secured our base and eliminated the threat without further loss
or injury to U.S. or coalition members.
Master Sergeant Doten from the Minnesota National Guard
(Geologist, Hydrologist, Beekeeper) studied and analyzed the
soils of the province and determined that the textbooks were
incorrect about the formation of the soils in the province.
Rather than being composed by the rocks breaking down over
millennia he found that the soils were actually blown up from
the deserts of Kandahar over tens of thousands of years. This
greatly influenced our advice on use of water and crop inputs
for farmers. His introduction of Asian bees in Zabul was also a
ADT best practice.
Major Wachenheim from the Minnesota National Guard
(Agricultural Economics Professor) served as the daily liaison
with the Department of Agriculture Irrigation and Livestock,
The inter-agency team, and lead our female engagement team
effort in the provincial capital.
First Lieutenant Robertson from the Minnesota National Guard
(Laboratory Technician) emerged as one of our most effective
leaders to engage local Afghan leaders, elders, and farmers.
She pioneered the effort to provide agricultural (garden)
training to a girls school and lead engagements in two of our
most remote and dangerous areas.
The Mississippi Army National Guard Security Force as a
whole. The nature of the work demanded that the leadership and
agricultural experts meet with and conduct training without
their protective gear and focusing on the agricultural message.
The security team provided or managed personal, inner security
and external security for more than 800 missions. Despite
operating in a combat environment, we never had a casualty from
enemy action.
Training for Mission. The following article was written to
highlight the experiential learning conducted to prepare the ADT for
its mission in Zabul, Afghanistan. (Source: Prepublication article for
NACTA Journal)
Experiential Learning for a Combat Deployment
Cheryl J. Wachenheim,
Department of Agribusiness and Applied Economics,
North Dakota State University Fargo, North Dakota;
Eric Ahlness,
North American Diversity and Business Impact Lead,
Cargill,
Wayzata, Minnesota.
Abstract
Traditional military pre-deployment training for the Zabul
Agribusiness Development Team was supplemented with externally-
led training specific to their assigned agriculture mission. A
training plan was developed using Dewey's Experimental Learning
Theory. The Team fostered partnerships within academia, with an
Amish community and with both a small technology firm and the
nation's largest agricultural cooperative to provide this
training. Academic training at North Dakota State University
included lessons on and hands-on experience with livestock,
plants and the associated production considerations such as
plant pathology, use of chemicals, soils, and beekeeping.
Faculty offering training focused on the environment and
agriculture common to Zabul, the province to which the team
would deploy. This training was supplemented by regional
partners. Viticulture and tree crops, both common in Zabul
Province, were covered in training offered by the Agricultural
Development for Afghanistan Pre-Deployment Training Program in
California where the soil and climate are similar to those
found in Southeastern Afghanistan. To help the team adapt to
differences in technology, lessons were sourced from an Amish
Community and Adaptive Technologies, Inc. Cooperatives training
was offered by CHS, Inc.
Introduction
The Zabul Agribusiness Development Team (ZADT) of the
Minnesota Army National Guard received orders for a 1 year
deployment to southeastern Afghanistan. The team consisted of
twelve agricultural experts as defined from their education
and/or their civilian work experience. They were augmented by a
support team of twelve including the commander and his staff,
and by a security force from the Mississippi National Guard
comprised of thirty-four soldiers. The assigned mission was to
mentor the Director of Agriculture, Irrigation and Livestock
(DAIL), his staff and extension personnel, cooperative
leadership, farmers, and agribusiness entrepreneurs and to
otherwise assist the province in growing their agricultural
capacity. Irrespective of the combat environment, this
mentoring would take place in a region without supporting
infrastructure such as adequate roads, electricity, or credit
and without technologies commonly used in countries with a
developed agriculture to include machinery and equipment,
irrigation, improved seed varieties, commercial pesticides, and
artificial insemination. Adding to the challenge was that the
presence of familial education where agricultural techniques
are passed down from generation to generation was reduced by
thirty years of war.
The team was to be deployed to a location with a different
history, culture, and especially climate than their home
region. While team-members were collectively familiar with a
multitude of crops as well as commercial cow/calf, cattle, hog,
sheep, and poultry operations, they were unfamiliar with many
of the crops grown in Zabul, including pomegranates, almonds,
and grapes for raisins. The team also had no experience with
livestock breeds common to the region or with technologies
currently employed including hand tillage, hand seeding, trench
water holding combined with drip irrigation, and hand milking
and slaughter. With the resources of the military and team-
member networks, and under the noted challenges and
constraints, the team was directed to leverage all available
resources so as to ensure they were mission capable and mission
ready. This paper describes the comprehensive education and
training plan developed and implemented towards this end
following the Dewey Model of Experimental Learning (Dewey,
1938) in which the social environment serves as the background
within which learning occurs. The plan included training,
networking, and building reach-back capability. Key partners
included industry, nonprofits, 60 government agencies, and
universities.
Objectives for Training
Two overarching decisions drove development of the training
plan. The first was the scope and depth of training. The
question was which of two approaches would be more mission-
supporting: a broad training approach which would expose team
members to the wide array of conditions, products grown, and
technologies utilized in Afghan agriculture, or a more narrow
training focus that would provide the team and perhaps
individual team members in-depth training on specific products,
markets and technologies with promise in the region.
The second decision was to what extent to involve external
parties. Generally soldiers are trained for deployment by
military personnel or those directly contracted by the military
for that purpose. This includes military-designed training for
those who will work with local-nationals on development-related
projects either because of their Military Occupational
Specialty (e.g., combat engineer, civil affairs) or because of
their specific mission (e.g., Provincial Reconstruction Teams).
There is, however, not a training designed for teams assigned
agricultural development, which is an important reason the
military sought agriculture expertise based on civilian
experience among National Guard soldiers. Expertise has its
limits, however, especially given the difference in agriculture
between the Midwestern United States and Afghanistan. The
leadership therefore concluded the team would need to resource
outside expertise; expertise that could greatly leverage the
military's training and team members' knowledge and experience.
Concerns associated with external involvement in training
included creating a dependence on others who may not be
accessible when needed or who may not have the on-ground
information necessary to make the right recommendation, and the
time, expense and social capital involved with recruiting
external consultants for one unique mission.
The leadership decided on a hybrid model that would empower
the team with a broad brush of knowledge as well as provide
them an understanding of the in-country environment prior to
leaving the United States. Military training was supplemented
by committed partners willing and able to share their time and
expertise both prior to and during the deployment. The intended
training outcome was a practical understanding of agriculture
in Afghanistan and how additional knowledge, know-how, or
technologies could be actively employed and sustained within
Zabul Province.
The plan was comprised of multiple individual training
missions conducted outside of and in addition to the required
warrior training associated with moving and working in a combat
environment.
Regimented pre-deployment training was provided by the
Minnesota National Guard and the U.S. Army, including, but not
limited to, individual and group warrior tasks, language and
cultural training, and maintenance and operations training for
a range of vehicles, weapons and equipment. This paper focuses
on the external training designed and implemented by the ZADT
leadership specifically for this mission. In planning the
training, the key objectives were to obtain:
Exposure to the agriculture and supporting infrastructure in
Zabul province;
A developed understanding of the evolutionary path of and
constraints facing the same;
Knowledge of tools, machinery and equipment, and physical
and operational technologies appropriate for the existing
infrastructure;
Experience in developing plans for sustainable agricultural
production systems employing these assets in conditions
found in Zabul Province; and in educating and training
farmers, agribusiness entrepreneurs, and supporting
government and non-government organization participants to
implement them; and
Access to outside expert assistance throughout the
deployment.
Theoretical Background
Experiential learning can be broadly defined as a pedagogical
process that includes an action by a learner that has
consequences (Dellaportas and Hassall, 2013). The ZADT training
was designed to focus on experiential learning and, in planning
the training, leaders adopted the framework proposed by Dewey
(1938). Experiential learning guidance has been refined and
expanded since formally being introduced by Dewey in the 1920s
and outlined in his book entitled ``Experience and Education''
(Dewey, 1938). Specific contributions by Kolb (1984) and Lave
and Wenger (1991) were incorporated into the plan.
Dewey's work identifies four key learning environment
attributes: (1) learning takes place within a social
environment; (2) knowledge and content of organization should
put students in an environment that allows them to develop
social relationships, learn, and solve problems; (3) learning
should include a relevant experience that reflects the intended
pedagogical objective and should occur in an environment
including a well-defined teacher's role and a framework of
student learning; and (4) learning outcomes should include
reflection and represent that the student is better able to
acquire knowledge because of the learning process.
Kolb's model defines the pedagogical process to include the
following four key elements: (1) concrete, personal
experiences; (2) reflective observation; (3) abstract
conceptualization, wherein students are expected to think
logically and make decisions or draw conclusions from the
learning process itself; and (4) active experimentation,
wherein students are able to apply the concepts learned from
one experience to a different experience. Kolb's contribution
of explicitly defining the role of active experimentation is
important because soldiers would be applying concepts learned
during training to a variety of situations in Afghanistan.
Situated Learning more explicitly includes the social
interaction and collaboration components of Dewey's initial
model. In Situated Learning, the social process is a key
element of the process of acquiring knowledge in one situation
and transferring it to other situations (Dellaportas and
Hassall, 2013).
Situated Learning shares the definitional component and
philosophy of other experiential learning models that learning
is best when the student is actively engaged in the process,
and, although less thoroughly stressed, when students
thereafter reflect on the process.
Added to the framework provided by the aforementioned models
of experiential learning was consideration of the unique
culture of the military learning environment. Characteristics
of military education result from the nature of the military
structure and culture and the mission-focus of most military
exercises. The special nature of the soldier-student has
implications for the relative effectiveness of training (Moon
and Schma, 2011). Smucny and Stover (2013) identify the unique
characteristics of military learners to be their focus on the
mission and an assumption of duty inherently associated with
this mission (``mission first''); their comfort with a well-
defined hierarchy; adherence to discipline; an expectation of
hard-work and team-work by all members; and an advanced level
of comfort with a high-stress, uncertain environment. We argue
that this makes less important the need to make students
interested in the learning process as presented by Efstratia
(2014) and others. If it is being taught; military members are
trained to assume it is important and what they need to know
about why or how it is important will be shared if and when
dictated by their higher commands.
The Training
With the theory of experiential learning at its core, and
keeping in mind the unique culture of the military, the
supplemental training program for the ZADT was defined. The
plan consisted of academic, university-led training; low-
technology agriculture hands-on learning; cooperatives
training; and additional cultural training to augment that
provided by the military. Each of the components is discussed
in turn including resource needs and how the training
contributed to individual training objectives and the overall
goal of access to the knowledge, experience and resources
necessary to train and mentor the team's Afghan partners.
University Training and Reach-Back Support
A week-long training session focused on agriculture of
importance in Afghanistan was held at North Dakota State
University (NDSU). [A detailed training schedule for this and
other training can be obtained from the corresponding author.]
The training was led by NDSU professors and extension
specialists and included 1 to 4 hour blocks of instruction on
alfalfa production, wheat production, vegetable production,
soils, water, plant pathology, beef production, animal health,
entomology, beekeeping, chemicals and fertilizers, and
machinery and equipment. As none of the faculty and staff
leading the instruction was an expert in Afghan agriculture,
providing this selfless contribution required considerable
learning on their part in preparation to teach us.
Examples of the resulting training included livestock
specialists in beef and sheep covering the animal husbandry
techniques appropriate for important breeds in Southeast
Afghanistan. An alfalfa specialist covered the historical
varieties used in the target region of Afghanistan and
discussed how thirty years of war had changed this crop (and
others, especially perennials). A 4 hour block of instruction
on evaluating and working with different soil types, including
a 2 hour laboratory, helped put in context the soil-dependent
instructions from the plant science experts instructing the
team.
The added advantage from the university training was that the
subject matter experts agreed to serve as reach-back resources
for the team, and did so. For example, the instructor on
beekeeping was able to evaluate and come up with a solution to
problems in beehive establishment and in controlling pests
(wasps) once the team faced these challenges while in-country.
A plant-sciences instructor was able to identify a fungal
infection in a vineyard using close-up pictures and a detailed
explanation of the environment and the infestation and its
evolution.
Dewey's model and the predicates of the Situated Learning
Model stressed the importance of building this social
environment. Doing so was a unique challenge for this military
unit. While there are a number of extensive operations that
involve collaboration with outside entities in planning and
mission implementation, and these increasingly and more
formally include civilian partners, including external civilian
expertise as a pivotal resource for a specialized mission is
still unique for military units at the level of the company-
sized element. In this case, part of the training plan was for
the unit to become somewhat dependent on a group of voluntary
civilian experts. The experts became part of the soldiers'
social environment and remained as such during the deployment
period.
Because North Dakota has little poultry production and no
known working camels, NDSU did not have experts in these
species. To supplement the NDSU training, the team therefore
reached out to others in the region. The Red River Valley Zoo
(also in Fargo) provided instruction on camels. And, a large
local egg layer provided instruction on poultry care. The added
advantage of the latter is that the family also owned a winery
and grew a wide variety of grapes, another key crop in
Afghanistan.
As there is also a notable lack of orchard crops such as
almonds, walnuts and pomegranates, and of vineyards in the
Midwest, the team also participated in an a revised version of
the Agriculture Development for Afghanistan Pre-deployment
Training (ADAPT) offered by a consortium of universities led by
the California State University system, and offered on a
regular basis on or near two CSU campuses. ADAPT includes both
classroom and field training and demonstration. Details
regarding the history, objectives and offerings of the program
are presented in Groninger, et al. (2013).
Briefly, ADAPT is led by field-experienced researchers,
extension specialists and those with in-country time, many of
whom are available during deployment for technical assistance
and advice. The training considers the wide diversity of
environments in Afghanistan including heterogeneity created by
vast differences in altitude, water availability and kinetic
activity. The program goes beyond teaching and demonstrating
appropriate agricultural practices to include lessons about
interacting with and assisting Afghan farmers and officials
such as extension specialists. While the program is designed
for 40 hours over 5 days, the team's training requests were
specifically designed towards those crops common in the
deployment province and for which technical specialists were
not available at NDSU. The team asked that the training focus
on tree crops and grape production. They spent 3 full days in
with subject matter experts. Training included classroom
lessons as well as hands-on tours of and experience at regional
farms and vineyards and discussions with farmers about the
nuances of production, storage, and logistics of specialty
crops. Details are shown in Table 1.
Amish Farms Visit and Support from Compatible Technologies, Inc.
A second training focus was on agriculture without modern
technology; without tractors, combines, sprayers, and the like;
something for which team members had no frame of reference.
They found such an environment in a local Amish community near
Utica, Minnesota. The team spent 3 days with the Amish learning
about animal and crop production without modern diesel-powered
machinery and equipment, and about generator powered
technologies necessary as a means to operate tools and machines
without electricity. This training proved invaluable, and it
was not just the know-how the team took away. Working with the
Amish reminded team members that there remains an incredible
innovative spirit among farmers and that there are solutions to
nearly every challenge if one is willing to flex their mind a
bit. For example, a visit to an Amish harness shop demonstrated
that electricity is not required to power an industrial
strength sewing machine; a generator will do. This later proved
to be an important lesson when the team was faced with a lack
of and inconsistent electricity once in-country. Another
example was the demonstrated lesson that automatic sprinklers
are unnecessary in a greenhouse when elaborate drip irrigation
systems with water moving by gravity can be developed using
simple plastic piping.
Some other tricks of the trade were introduced prior to the
deployment by another training partner, Compatible Technology
International. This nonprofit organization develops
technologies for use in developing countries; and other
situations without supporting infrastructure. They provided the
team with a durable, manually operated hand-grinder and other
simple yet very effective technologies. They also reminded the
team that technology is not always required. Afghans learn how
to sow seed so accurately that the resulting planting
populations mimic seeds planted using air seeders.
Following the experiential learning models, this component of
the training program was comprised of ``real-world'' learning
exercises where student-soldiers not only would learn by doing,
but would be expected to apply the learning to decision-making
in other situations. The training specifically included a step
that required learners to identify known situations in the
Afghanistan agricultural and agribusiness environment, and to
apply what was learned during the training to their forthcoming
environment. Specifically, learners developed plans on how to
improve production efficiency in an environment with a low
level of technology adoption and little infrastructure.
Finally, including the Amish and Compatible Technology
International further expanded the community of partners (i.e.,
the social environment).
Cooperative Training
The final component of the agriculture and agribusiness
training was on the role of cooperatives. Cooperatives were
present only in name in Zabul province, but they had
considerable potential. CHS, Inc. graciously provided the ZADT
with 3 days of education and practical exercises on the
structure and operation of cooperatives, including lessons in
strategy development and program implementation. This uniquely
designed training was held at their corporate headquarters in
Inver Grove Heights, Minnesota. CHS brought in a team including
members who had worked on agricultural development in
Afghanistan and those who had spent time in Afghanistan working
with local entrepreneurs. The focus was on developing a plan
for cooperative development, securing and utilizing resources,
and implementing a plan for continual assessment. The training
content followed closely training objectives, provided here.
Training objectives were that the team:
Learn the structure, function, services offered and history
of agricultural cooperatives with a focus on application to
Zabul Province and other Pashtun regions of Afghanistan.
Become familiar with the unique governance of western
cooperatives, and the roles and responsibilities of members
and the Board of Directors and be able to compare and
contrast such with the formation and operation of
cooperatives in developing countries.
Become familiar with community development in Afghanistan
including the interface between civilian agencies and the
military.
Understand the legal environment in Afghanistan, cooperative
law and corporate law and how one can influence legislative
change.
Learn from examples of cooperatives in the Developing World
including those in Armenia, Niger, Afghanistan, Central and
Eastern Europe, Russia, and Mongolia.
Gain an understanding of Afghan cooperatives and cultural/
environmental issues.
Be able to advise Afghan entrepreneurs on starting
cooperatives or revising their existing cooperative
structures.
Understand and be able to identify means to overcome
challenges associated with starting agricultural
cooperatives in Afghanistan.
Embrace the role as a technical advisor including defining
responsibilities in development and gaining producer buy-
in.
Know where to find information while on assignment including
Cooperative Education Resources, E-Extension demonstration,
and Cooperative Network.
Develop relationships with the training experts to
facilitate reach-back efforts during deployment.
Cultural Training Supplemental to U.S. Army Training
Finally, the team supplemented the army's language and
cultural training with additional training focused on the
Pashtun region taught by Afghan-nationals. These individuals
shared a traditional Afghan meal with the team; using
experiential learning to make sure student-soldiers had a solid
grasp on the cultural nuances. The team spent this time with a
former Afghan Minister of Agriculture and his family. He was
able to evaluate the agricultural training and provide an
assessment of the development plans created during the
training. As with the other partners, he stayed in regular
contact with the team during the deployment, providing a
sounding board and adding advice and interpretation as the
mission evolved. Again, the learning objectives well articulate
the training content. The learning objectives were to:
Improve the team's understanding of Afghanistan and its
people including the various ethnic groups and the nomadic
population.
Develop an acute understanding of the Pashtun people
including the role of the village, the extended family,
tribal structure, and Code of Conduct (Pashtunwali),
dispute reconciliation, and the role of women.
Expand the team's knowledge of Afghanistan's geo-strategic
importance as well as its history, culture and ethnic make-
up.
Increase understanding of the social, economic, political
institutions, and laws in present-day Afghanistan.
Assist to build awareness, knowledge and understanding of
critical situations resulting from communicating and
interacting with Pashtun Farmers.
Enable team members to observe, understand, and participate
in personal, cultural and situational behaviors including,
cooking and eating, dress, holidays, religion, education,
and health care.
Upgrade knowledge about how to manage across cultures, how
to observe and act in particular cross-cultural situations,
and how to prevent cross-cultural conflicts while working
in various rural Afghan communities.
Understand cultural dilemma and barriers and identify steps
to break down barriers including recognizing communication
norms in a tribal society.
Be familiar with the rural economy in Zabul including the
agricultural processing industry.
Role of Partnerships
Much of the training developed was built or otherwise
supported by partners from outside of the Department of
Defense; partners not generally compensated financially for
their contribution. As defined by Dewey (1938) and others,
explicitly recognizing the role of partners and the social
environment defining the relationship with them and others is
an important component of a successful learning environment.
The team asked a lot of their partners and they exceeded even
the team's lofty expectations.
One of the important contributions of this paper is its
presentation of a successful attempt to leverage limited
resources. The team found the most successful strategy to
compel partners to provide their time, knowledge, experience
and resources and to maintain their support throughout the
deployment to be appealing to the value of their contribution.
Given that it was a military mission, it was natural to appeal
to their patriotism; many individuals and firms want to help
serve even if they cannot be directly involved on the ground
and in-country. Team leadership and members spent considerable
time and effort articulating to their partners the value they
brought to the mission and to the lives, not just of the
involved soldiers, but of the farmers of Afghanistan. Putting a
face on the people that would benefit was effective. While they
could and did put a face on the individual soldiers, it was
more challenging to personify those Afghans with whom they
would work closely. One common marketing strategy employed by
charitable organizations operating throughout the world is to
allow donors to adopt individual children, animals and even
villages. A simple Internet search provides an overwhelming
number of such opportunities. However, the team was not looking
for individual sponsors or even monetary contributions; they
were rather searching for partnerships in knowledge. Because of
the specificity of need: training and reach-back technical
assistance, it was natural for the team to appeal to their
partners by being transparent in the belief that few could
match their ability to help the team help Afghans; to let them
know that the team sought them out because they placed great
value on their expertise. All the partners stepped forward as
citizens of the world.
Discussion
The components of Dewey's Experiential Learning Model were
adopted during planning and implementation of training for the
Agribusiness Development Team mission. First, the roles of the
unit leaders, soldiers, and civilian partners were carefully
and precisely defined. Specifically, the hierarchically defined
structure of the unit was challenged and revised so that the
student-soldier accepted more responsibility for their own
learning and the learning of their peers. The unit also worked
to foster partnerships and other relationships.
Second, the knowledge and content organization of the
learning was specifically designed to put students in a real-
life environment where they could learn and to try out ideas
generated during that learning process. For example, the plan
designed for students to learn the process, use, and
application of soil assessment included multiple steps.
Students were first asked to identify soil-related challenges
they would encounter in Afghanistan. They then worked to
identify solutions to overcome these challenges. The design of
these learning exercises also helped the team build
relationships with one-another, their reach-back team and
others comprising the social environment.
Third, was the actual application of experiential learning.
This was an adaptation of the mission training and preparation
style used by the military and informally termed ``crawl, walk,
run''. In this model, the basic design of a mission is planned
and described without much participation by the learners
(crawl). It is akin to the lecture style of teaching, and
generally includes a diagram or model elements involved in the
mission to demonstrate the plan (e.g., rocks used to represent
vehicles). The second phase involves a trial run of the mission
so actively engaged learners can practice and the leadership
becomes aware of what works and what may not work (walk).
Finally, the mission is implemented. One of the most notable
learning-by-doing experiences focused on how to conduct a Shura
(meeting) with village elders through an interpreter. The
exercise resulted in students not just ``practicing'' applying
the techniques they had previously learned, but itself resulted
in a set of sequential practice exercises to help the learner
define the situation (e.g., importance of meeting participants
in the village; dynamic between participants; need for an
interpreter), identify the appropriate strategies to conduct
the Shura according to the encountered situation; and complete
a reflective exercise that was then used by follow-on teams and
in subsequent hypothetical Shuras conducted by the student
teams.
The final principal in Dewey's model is reflection. It is
doctrinal in the military that, after a mission, whether it is
an all-day movement across rough terrain to engage the enemy or
a 2 hour class on risk analysis, learners, teachers, and any
other participants or observers conduct an After Action Review
(AAR). This group form of reflection consists of restating the
mission; identifying what went right and what could use
improvement; and specifying alternatives for any follow-on
missions. These are later filed for consideration by others who
will conduct a like mission or compiled with AARs from other
missions and units so as to become ``lessons learned''. In the
case of the ZADT training, the use of experiential learning
theory moved an AAR from ``how did it go and how might it be
improved?'' to ``what did we learn from this activity and how
can we apply this learning as we plan for and implement
missions in Afghanistan?''
Summary and Conclusions
Traditional military pre-deployment training for the ZADT was
supplemented through external to Department of Defense
partnerships offering training specific to the team's
agribusiness development mission. Training was offered through
academic partnerships including broad training by staff and
faculty at NDSU on agriculture common in Zabul and supplemented
by regional partners to cover animal agriculture not specific
to North Dakota. Viniculture and tree crops, common in Zabul,
were covered in training offered by the ADAPT program. Training
and experience adapting to low-technology agriculture was
received through visits to Amish farms and the support of
Adaptive Technologies International. Finally, training was
offered by CHS and their partners on the cooperative structure,
including intensive and hands-on application in developing
countries where the cooperative concept is new and the benefits
are not yet fully realized. CHS employees and partners shared
their Afghan-specific experiences within the context of how the
ZADT might help Afghan farmers and officials grow cooperatives
to overcome challenges with lack of infrastructure.
The training proved invaluable. The team went on to complete
over 800 missions, many joint with the International Security
Assistance Force and Afghan military partners as well as with
leadership and staff of the Directorate of Agriculture,
Irrigation and Livestock and other ministry entities and with
cooperative leaders. There were successes including the
development of a province-level trading organization and the
building of a community slaughterhouse as a public-private
partnership, introduction of bee hives as a means to increase
yields, repair and redesign of irrigation systems, and
introduction of value-added activities such as drying fruit
crops and de-shelling nuts. The team worked with local
entrepreneurs on projects such as yogurt production from goat
milk and an egg hatching facility. And, they worked with
farmers who adopted low-technology practices to improve their
productive efficiency.
The ZADT agricultural experts were split among Kandahar
Airfield, five forward operating bases, and a combat outpost.
Three of the forward operating bases were adjacent to
demonstration farms set up in partnership with the DAIL. The
team met weekly by secure Internet connection to discuss
progress, identify challenges, and share successes and ideas.
Team members also had and used reach-back capability,
consulting with stateside experts on everything from tree fungi
to killing wasps that were depopulating bee hives. They
efficiently exploited the social environment they had
established during the training period.
Aside from the logistical and security needs due to the
combat environment, one of the most pervasive challenges was
reluctance among Afghan farmers to make changes in what they
raise or how they raise it including livestock, crops, vines,
or orchards. Myths had been passed down through hundreds of
years that may have at one time in one environment been valid
such as not to water trees or plants when they are flowering.
Many of their ways of farming were solidly ingrained and used
even when they were no longer well adapted to current
conditions. For example, farmers continued to use trench
irrigation even after irrigation system improvements provided a
consistent water source for their gardens. The team also
quickly learned that when farmers are raising a subsistence
level of food, regardless of the potential of a new and simple
to resource and use technology, the known system in place
easily trumps the risk associated with change. The cost of
failure is very high in a subsistence environment. Finally,
most farmers had not been formally educated. So, while the team
expected it to work reasonably well to explain in considerable
detail how adopting certain production practices would increase
yield, their inexperience at formal learning made this method
less than effective. If the team could not convince them to try
a practice while still in-country, there wasn't much promise
for their ability to sustain it once we left.
Key lessons from planning, implementing and assessing the
result of this training plan extended beyond what worked to
increase the technical expertise of the team. Experiential
learning served as an unmatched method to teach and observe the
effectiveness of the lesson when there is a short window for
learning. This was true as the team learned from their experts
and as they taught their Afghan partners. From the training,
the team also learned that there are plenty of ways to gain
knowledge and experience if you think creatively. The process
reinforced the belief that including partners provides multiple
benefits including leveraging expertise and knowledge and
gaining additional resources, including those not previously
considered. That is, that the social environment that exists
during the learning phase can be extraordinarily important when
the knowledge and experience is later put to test. Obtaining
buy-in to the project among the trainers and therefore their
willingness to support the ZADT through the training and while
deployed involved selling them on the idea that they can help
the team, and its individual members, like no one else can and
otherwise emphasizing the importance of their participation to
the mission. The team quickly realized that the concept that
success has to be a team effort extended beyond the unit, and
found it not only important, but natural to regularly
acknowledge their contributions, not only immediately following
the training, but during and especially after they witnessed
achievements brought about in part due to their direct
involvement. That is, the social environment existing during
the training needs to be fostered to be retained.
While this project was unique to training and support meant
to augment that provided by the Department of Defense, the
planning and implementation process reinforced the reality that
external partners not only have an incredible level of
expertise and experience to share, but that they generally want
to do so; all it takes is a simple request. And, this
reinforcement has paid dividends in the college classroom. A
member of the ZADT brought back her experiences in leveraging
external partnerships to bring her existing partnerships with
industry to a whole new level at NDSU. She redesigned her sales
class so as to include repeated, direct, and meaningful
interaction between students and professionals; professionals
who will actively and with true compassion mentor students
through the application of lecture- and book-learned tools and
skills, and who are willing to serve as a life-long resource.
Literature Cited
Bower, Glenna. 2014. Theory and Practice: Utilizing Dewey's
Experiential Learning Theory to Implement a 5k Road Race.
Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport and Tourism Education
495 15: 61-67.
Dellaportas, Steven and Trevor Hassall. 2013. Experiential
Learning in Accounting Education: A Prison visit. The British
Accounting Review 45: 24-36.
Efstratia, Douladeli. 2014. Experiential Learning Through
Project Based Learning. Procedia--Social and Behavioral
Sciences 152: 1256-1260.
Groninger, John, Charles Ruffner, Ryan Brewster and Paul
Sommers. 2013. ADAPT: Training for Agriculture's Seminal Role
in Stability Operations for Afghanistan and Beyond. Small Wars
Journal 9(8).
Lave, Jean and Etienne Wenger. 1991. Situated Learning.
Legitimate Peripheral Participation, Cambridge: University of
Cambridge Press.
Moon, Tracey and Geraldine Schma. 2011. A Proactive Approach
to Serving Military and Veteran Students. New Directions for
Higher Education, no. 153. Wiley periodicals, Inc.
Table 1. Zabul Agribusiness Development Team Training with ADAPT Program
Personnel
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Location Training
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Rominger Farms, Almond orchard
Arbuckle, California development and
maintenance, low-volume
irrigation, and basics
of supporting soil
2, a.m. UC Davis campus e-Afghanz; soil
properties and grapes;
structure and function
of roots; and grapevine
training and pruning
2, p.m. UC Davis vineyard, El Training and pruning,
Dorado County, head, vertical cordon,
California cane, application to
Afghanistan
3, a.m. CSU Fresno Viticulture and Enology:
the grapevine and
cultivar, vineyard
establishment, and
cultural practices and
harvest
3, p.m. CSU vineyard Field observation and
pruning, raisin
processing
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Use of Asian Honeybees for Sustainable Apiculture in Afghanistan
Zabul ADT, MSG James Doten, July 10, 2012
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Editor's note: The submitted document by COL Ahlness did not
contain the referenced graphics. The graphics herein are from
the UC Davis article.*
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The article is available at: http://afghanag.ucdavis.edu/
c_livestock/bees/Rep_Bees_Apis_Cerana_in_Afghanistan_James_Doten.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Background
The use of honeybees in agriculture (apiculture) is a well-
known technique to improve crop production. In Zabul Province
the main agricultural products are almonds, pomegranates, and
grapes. Farmers also grow significant quantities of apricots
and figs. Pollination is critical for crops such as almonds
which require cross-pollination. Natural pollinators exist but
successful apiculture can result in a 40% increase in almond
yield. Apiculture also significantly increases yields for
pomegranates, apricots, and figs. Grapes are self-pollinating
and do not benefit from apiculture.
In addition to increased yield, the quality of the product
will improve as a result of fully pollinating the flower. An
apple requires up to five trips before becoming fully
fertilized. Bees are efficient pollinators because of their
behavior, known as foraging consistency, in only working one
plant species per trip. A bee will visit hundreds of flowers
each trip, each bee makes about ten trips a day. If placed near
an orchard the bees will consistently pollinate the orchard
during its specific bloom. Growers in the United States take
advantage of this behavior by moving hives into an orchard near
bloom season. As long as the food source is near the bees will
pollinate only the desired plants in the orchard. The bees are
then moved to another location to match different bloom times.
Apiculture in the United States uses the European honeybee
(Apis Mellifera). This species is suited for moving across the
country and is known for its prolific honey production. Hobby
beekeepers maintain small stationary apiaries (where bees and
hives are kept) containing the European honeybee. The equipment
and practices have been standardized in both commercial and
hobby beekeeping.
Problem Statement
Attempts to introduce small-scale beekeeping for rural
development in Afghanistan have failed. Environmental threats
destroyed previous projects using the imported European
honeybee. Using the native Asian honeybee (Apis Cerana) shows
promise in developing sustainable apiculture by restoring
traditional Afghan beekeeping techniques.
Threats
Colony Collapse Disorder
Within the past 10 years beekeeping in the United States has
been threatened by colony collapse disorder (CCD) and Varroa
mite infestation (Figure 1). CCD has been associated with
commercial beekeeping and resulting tendency to concentrate
colonies from across the country in one location. It has not
impacted isolated apiaries of the hobby beekeeper. One of the
theories behind CCD affecting commercial operations is their
use of high-fructose corn syrup and an associated pesticide
found in the syrup. Hobby beekeepers do not use the corn syrup
and thus did not experience CCD to a significant degree.
Varroa Mite
Varroa mites plague bee colonies and can devastate a colony
within months. The mite attacks both adult bees and developing
larvae. After feeding on the pupa during development, the
emergent bee is infested with as many as six new mites,
starting the cycle over. The Varroa mite problem is growing.
First encountered in Florida in the late 1980's the
infestation soon spread. The Varroa mite is the greatest threat
to apiculture using Apis Mellifera (European). It weakens the
bee and also carries the deformed wing virus (DWV). With the
mites present, the virus concentrations increase a million-
fold. The Varroa mite is devastating to European honeybee
colonies. The mite wiped out all feral European honeybee
colonies in the United States. Since the emergence of the mite
problem in the United States, beekeeping as a hobby has been
reduced by 50%.
The mite infestation requires active intervention to prevent
a colony from being destroyed within months. In the United
States, efforts are being directed towards developing a strain
of bees that exhibit hygienic behavior in removing infected
pupae from the hive. These varieties are not well distributed
and are unavailable in Afghanistan. Miticides can control
infestation, but these are not a cure and are not available to
small scale beekeepers in Afghanistan. Essential oils can also
reduce infestation levels but are not available to farmers in
Afghanistan. The Varroa mite is native to Afghanistan; its
presence makes it hard to develop sustainable small-scale
apiculture projects.
[Figure 1. Mite Infested Bee]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Previous attempts to develop apiculture in Afghanistan
followed the U.S. model. Imported European honeybee colonies
were used to start small-scale operations that emulate hobbyist
beekeeping in the United States. If infected, the Varroa mite
will destroy these hives within months of infestation.
The Varroa mite is native to Afghanistan. It is a pest to its
natural host, the Asian honeybee, Apis Cerana (Figure 2). Apis
Cerana is one of four honeybee species native to Afghanistan,
but the only one capable of being kept in hives. The Asian
honeybee coevolved with Varroa mite and developed a grooming
behavior that reduces it from a threat to a nuisance. The Asian
honeybee lifecycle, when compared to European honeybee, also
does not allow as many mites to develop in the egg-laying stage
during pupation.
[Figure 2. Apis Mellifera (left) and Apis Cerana (right)]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Wasps
Another threat to European honeybee projects in Afghanistan
is the presence of large wasps (hornets) native to the region.
The wasps (Figure 3) overwhelm the bees' defenses, kill the
bees defending the hive, and then steal the larvae and honey.
When attacking, the wasps can destroy a European honeybee
colony within 4 hours.
Previous U.S. Army European honeybee projects in Zabul were
destroyed by wasps before the Varroa mite could have an effect.
Interviews with local farmers show that the wasps are prevalent
throughout the province. ZADT developed local wasp traps, but
they are not 100% effective in preventing hive loss from wasp
predation. The wasps are aggressive and make it difficult for
farmers to work in their orchards.
[Figure 3. Wasp]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The wasp is a natural predator of the bees. The imported
European honeybee does not have defense against the wasp. They
attempt to sting the intruder; however, their stinger cannot
penetrate the thick skin of the wasp. The Department of
Agriculture, Irrigation, and Livestock (DAIL) employees
reported the wasps destroyed their European honeybee colonies
soon after starting the project. None of the DAIL apiculture
projects using European honeybee lasted more than 3 months. The
native Asian honeybee coevolved with the wasp and has developed
an effective defense despite being \1/3\ smaller than European
honeybee. The Asian honeybee surrounds the wasp in a ball with
100 to 150 bees. The bees beat their wings to increase the
temperature inside the cluster in a defense known as thermal-
balling (Figure 4). The temperature is raised above a lethal
level for the wasp but below that of the Asian honeybee. The
wasp will kill solitary foragers of the Asian honeybee without
triggering the defense mechanism. However, when the wasp tries
to enter the hive, the Asian honeybee actively defends the
entrance. Villagers with colonies of the Asian honeybee
reported the bees successfully defeated wasp attacks. ZADT
members witnessed this defense at a demonstration project.
[Figure 4. Thermal-balling]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Asian honeybee has coexisted with these wasps throughout
its territory. The Japanese are actively restoring their
traditional beekeeping traditions using Apis Cerana in Japan.
Part of the reason for switching from the European honeybee is
the large Japanese hornet. Japanese scientists studied the
thermal-ball defense and were the ones to discover how it
works. In Japan the Asian honeybee honey commands a price four
times as high as the European honeybee honey. Sustainable
apiculture using the Asian honeybee is wide-spread throughout
southern and southeastern Asia.
Comparison
Table 1 summarizes The International Centre for Integrated
Mountain Development's (ICIMOD) comparative study for small-
scale rural apiculture development projects.
Table 1. ICIMOD Apis Cerana versus Apis Mellifera
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apis Mellifera
Parameter Apis Cerana (Asian) (European)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Initial investment Very low High
Colony management costs Negligible High
Risk involved Low High
Potential for stationary Suitable Not suitable
beekeeping
Susceptible to mites and Resistant Susceptible
predators
Eco-services High Low
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The University of California--Davis (UC-Davis) developed an
economic analysis of honeybee business in Afghanistan. The
results of the UC-Davis study found that stationary beekeeping
with the Asian honeybee is profitable even at small scales.
They found it well-suited for small stationary beekeeping
projects. They also concluded that the European honeybee
requires at least 100 colonies before it is economical. In
addition, the UC-Davis study found that the European honeybee
was well suited for migratory beekeeping. It tolerates movement
around the province to follow key crop blooms.
Once established, the Asian honeybee does not tolerate moving
the hive. The Asian honeybee is only for stationary beekeeping.
Studies show the Asian honeybee is a more efficient pollinator
than the European honeybee. Crop yields are higher using the
Asian honeybee. The Asian honeybee operates at lower
temperatures, so they begin pollinating earlier than the
European honeybee. This is critical in Zabul Province's almond
production which begins to bloom in March. The Asian honeybee
is more effective in pollinating key crops and can pollinate a
higher variety of plants. With smaller hives and colonies, the
Asian honeybee requires less forage for survival.
The European honeybee colonies are larger and produce a large
quantity of surplus honey. Asian honeybee colonies are smaller,
producing less honey. The foraging range of the Asian honeybee
is \1/2\ that of the European honeybee. This means it covers
only a quarter of the area. However, the range of the European
honeybee exceeds the requirements of most villages. The Asian
honeybee adequately covers a village and surrounding areas.
Strengths
Apis Mellifera
The European honeybee is well suited for large scale,
commercial operations of at least 100 hives. At this scale
equipment and maintenance costs are covered by honey
production. The species works well for migratory beekeeping. It
works best in monoculture environments such as an almond
orchard. They have a larger foraging area than the Asian
honeybee and produce more honey per hive. Migratory beekeeping
on a large scale returns $2 for every $1 invested. The high
initial investment and low returns make it unprofitable at
smaller scales.
Apis Cerana
The Asian honeybee is well-suited for small scale stationary
operation. It is economical at any scale because of the small
initial investment, simple equipment requirements, and
negligible operating costs. Asian honeybee projects return $4.5
for every $1 invested. The Asian honeybee is a more efficient
pollinator resulting in greater increases in village income
through pollination services more than the European honeybee.
One estimate cited by UC-Davis claims $14 benefit for every $1
invested due to increased production. The Asian honeybee is
native to the region and tolerant of pests and diseases such as
mites and wasps that destroy imported the European honeybee.
The equipment is simpler, smaller, and less expensive than
that for the European honeybee. By using simple designs such as
the Japanese box pile hive, villagers can locally reproduce the
hives easier than standard European bee equipment. The Asian
honeybee can sustain itself even when orchard crops are not
blooming by foraging in the surrounding area for desert
flowering plants. The Asian honeybee is known for its ability
to survive and thrive in harsh, marginal conditions.
Weaknesses
European Honeybee
The European honeybee is an exotic, imported species that is
vulnerable to environmental threats such as mites and wasps. It
is more expensive than the Asian honeybee to set up and
complicated to maintain. It requires a minimum of 100 hives
before breaking even. The high initial investment and low
returns make it unprofitable at smaller scales. The European
honeybee requires migration, intensive management, standardized
equipment, and a larger foraging area with a monoculture-based
agriculture. European honeybee projects usually fail in
Afghanistan despite extensive intervention.
Apis Cerana
The Asian honeybees have a smaller foraging range and are
ill-suited for migratory beekeeping. They produce less honey
per hive but the honey is considered more valuable in overseas
markets. The Asian honeybees cannot be raised near areas where
European honeybees are used as they will raid honey from the
European hives.
Analysis
Army sponsored apiculture projects previously focused on the
European honeybee for several reasons. Past projects
concentrated on honey production rather than pollination as the
primary desired result. European honeybees are superior honey
producers with its larger hives. Also, practices in the U.S.
solely use the European honeybee as our techniques were adopted
from Europe. The European honeybee is well suited for the type
of agricultural practices in the United States. Army
practitioners from the United States are only familiar with the
European honeybee and are unaware of the Asian honeybee as an
alternative.
The Asian honeybee is the traditional honeybee used by Afghan
beekeepers, particularly in the mountainous, border areas of
Pakistan. Prior to the Soviet invasion, large-scale commercial
beekeeping was practiced using the European honeybee similar to
the United States. This capability was destroyed in the
resulting occupation. Our attempts to rebuild apiculture mimic
how we do it in the United States. The focus is on small-scale,
income-building for vulnerable populations. Given the high
initial costs, these were largely subsidized operations. Given
the intensive management requirements of the European honeybee
in this environment, the project success rate is likely very
low, if not near zero.
Recommendation
Using the Asian honeybee as an alternative provides the Army
a sustainable apiculture option that is economical. It restores
traditional Afghan practices and is well suited for the
environment. The Asian honeybee provides more efficient
pollination. This will significantly improve rural income
through better yields and improved quality of key agricultural
products. It will require additional training of Army personnel
to learn about the Asian honeybee and how it differs from the
European beekeeping. The Asian honeybee is well suited for
small-scale, village level rural development. The European
honeybee is still relevant. However, it use should be
concentrated on developing large-scale, migratory commercial or
cooperative operations.
Conclusion
The ADT strategy was a success because it took the approach that we
can prevent the seeds of conflict, by planting seeds of hope and
prosperity. It took the ADT at the point of the spear, virtually all my
soldiers qualified for combat badges, it took inter-agency partners to
array the many aspects of power, knowledge and influence, and Afghans
willing to risk their lives to implement the programs. This
collaboration led to an outcome where farmers were empowered with
knowledge, local agricultural extension capabilities were enhanced, and
infrastructure developed so locals could own a sustainable approach to
rural development. Our deployment was captured in a documentary
produced by Minnesota Public Television and the link to the video has
been submitted as part of my written testimony. This documentary of our
deployment was aptly named, Bridging War and Hope. http://
www.mnvideovault.org/mvvPlayer/
customPlaylist2.php?id=23789&select_index=0&
popup=yes *
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Editor's note: the video referred to is retained in Committee
file.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
That is what we did. Thank you.
The Chairman. I want to thank the gentlemen for your
testimony this morning. The chair would remind Members that
they will be recognized for questioning in the order of
seniority for Members who were here at the start of the
hearing. After that, Members will be recognized in order of
arrival.
With that, I recognize myself for 5 minutes.
General Owens, in your testimony you connected farm policy
directly to the consumer. Affordable food and fiber is often
taken for granted. Each of you, highlighted some of the key
elements that allow U.S. agriculture to thrive. Infrastructure,
fertilizers, irrigation, GE seeds, research, extension, risk
management tools created so that we will have a stable system.
What happens if we stop supporting the very things that have
allowed our country to have the safest, most affordable, and
the most abundant food supply? And in your years of service,
how quickly can a country correct course if they become food-
insecure due to poor national policies?
Major General Sholar, we will start with you.
Dr. Sholar. Well, there is a direct link, sir, where we are
the most food-secure nation in the world, but we really have a
very limited supply when we start using it up. We have an
oversupply of all of our grains right now, but that can go
quickly. We have to stay focused on what got us to this point,
and that is the working in concert of research extension, our
farm communities, Congress, all of it tied together has gotten
us to this point and we have to continue to invest. We cannot
take a knee. We can't take a time out. That is our challenge,
to find those dollars, because as everyone knows, there is
fierce competition for resources, but our two most basic needs
as people are defense and sustenance.
And so that is our challenge. That is everyone's challenge,
to find how we are going to support all of that in the future.
The Chairman. Major General Owens?
Mr. Owens. Mr. Chairman, the food security of the nation is
very dependent upon our critical infrastructure and the way we
have used our farm policies. What we have seen is that without
infrastructure, you cannot sustain agriculture production, and
the hardest part to rebuild is the infrastructure itself, the
road networks, the electrical networks, the storage facilities,
the warehouses, the processing plants. Those are all difficult
and take a very long time to replace. We have been blessed in
this nation with farm policy that has ensured we have
maintained that infrastructure and our ability to produce food.
The other part of that is our ability to maintain the
productivity of the land. Once the land is destroyed by poor
farming practices--we see what happened in the United States in
the 1930s with the Dust Bowl. It takes a long time to recover
from that, and so it is important that we keep those policies
and principles in place that maintain the productivity of the
land for future generations. We believe that farm policy is a
big key to making that happen. That has to be a comprehensive
approach between the Federal Government, the state governments,
the land-grant universities, all put into one place. I think
that would help us continue for the future.
The Chairman. Colonel Ahlness?
Mr. Ahlness. Thank you, sir. What is incredibly powerful as
I trained for my mission was seeing the diversity of
agriculture in the U.S. and the strength it showed. When we
started looking at the crops that grew in Zabul Province,
pomegranates, almonds, grapes primarily as raisins, we found
experts in the U.S. who were able to help us out locally on
some of the crops, but we went to California for learning about
crops such as almonds and so forth. So that really helped us
move. And then looking at the strength of the extension
service, which we tried to grow within Afghanistan was
incredibly important, because we saw how that lent great
support to making sure that our agricultural processes and
skills were upheld.
And then finally, too, that there is a place for even non-
traditional aspects as well. For example, we went to Utica,
Minnesota, to an Amish community to find out how farmers
produce modern agriculture without electricity, and we found
how they produced a very rich strawberry crop by using
traditional practices and drip irrigation, which we are able to
transfer then overseas as part of the rural development
program.
And then finally, most importantly, just a rich diversity
of skills that my team brought, based on their different
experiences within the agribusiness system allowed us really to
leverage that overseas in an effective manner.
The Chairman. Well I thank each of you for your long years
of service to our country. I watched in Afghanistan and Iraq
the impact of the ag-centric work that went on. We squandered
an opportunity in Iraq early on to not better reengage their
agricultural industry to try to stabilize that country. I
appreciate your testimony this morning, and with that, I will
turn to the Ranking Member for 5 minutes. Collin?
Mr. Peterson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Colonel Ahlness, can you tell us more about the Chamber of
Commerce group, currently your agribusiness development team?
It must have been successful in that they decided to go ahead
and do this, so can you tell us how that all developed?
And the other thing I would like to have you expound on is
when I was over visiting our Guard folks when they were
deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan, the commanders always
commented about how the Guard people had these folks that
understood agriculture, understood rural situations and
actually did a better job than the regular Army because they
brought people that had these skills to the table. How big of
an impact do you think that had in our overall situation?
Mr. Ahlness. Thank you, Congressman Peterson.
Regarding the Afghan Chamber of Commerce, before we
deployed, we worked closely with Cenex Harvest States. As the
largest cooperative in the U.S., we said, ``Hey, can you train
us how to develop cooperatives?'' They provided us 3 days of
training with bringing in experts to help us really understand
how can we help formulate these cooperatives to help move
Afghanistan ahead. When we got there, we started looking
through, and in fact, one of our partners who is an Afghan
local who is contracted by the U.S. Government, he said there
is a desire to form an association of traders, which really
addressed one of our key missions, which was developing the
value chain. We allowed him to move forward with this
initiative and provided him guidance and support so he could be
successful. By the end of our deployment, the organization was
formed. There were 270 members, which gave greater access to
farmers to choose who they sell to, so they are able to sell
their increased production for a greater amount of money,
decreasing the food insecurity for themselves, their family,
and their villages.
Since that time, that has continued. I was in contact with
people in Afghanistan, and now since that time, that has
expanded to four other provinces nearby in Ghazni Province and
an a couple of other areas, because of the successful nature of
that, and the other provinces saying, ``Hey, this is working
well for Zabul and it is bringing greater prosperity, so we
want to expand it.'' And that was done through our partnership
with USDA.
Mr. Peterson. How many co-ops were formed? Did you actually
help form co-ops within the area that are still operating?
Mr. Ahlness. Congressman Peterson, yes. That one, the
Afghan Chamber of Commerce, the Zabul chapter, that is still
continuing. We started several other ones. We did one in the
southern region, which is by demonstration farm. We were trying
to get local farmers together so they could produce more of a
traditional co-op, and that was slow in starting because it is
really hard to get people to understand how can you do it where
you buy it in and you have to sell it at a profit to the
members so you can re-buy and continue along and pay minimal
overhead, but make sure it is done properly. In fact, Tony
Hunter was my guy who was doing that down there, spending time
with them, and it was a long growth process. I don't know if
that is still continuing, but a lot of it is how can we plant
the seeds and get them started, and it may not take at that
place, but it may take at another location.
Mr. Peterson. So they didn't have any concept of a co-op?
Nothing like that had ever existed there before?
Mr. Ahlness. There is a concept of co-ops and they have
used it. Unfortunately, a lot of times people are looking at it
as how could they use it as money infusion to what they are
doing, and what we want to do is say we will invest money to
get it started, but understanding that the military is short-
term, ADTs were for 5 years. How are you going to sustain it
after that? We really helped them develop their business plans
and think about the long-term, rather than just the immediate
money that maybe we could provide.
Mr. Peterson. And so that was part of what you did to train
their leadership, whatever leadership they had, to understand
how to go about this? Is that part of what you were doing?
Mr. Ahlness. Yes, Congressman. We would work with the
village elders and then also with the business leaders to make
sure it was something that they wanted. We would really find
where is the intersection of the main crops that they are
producing, what were the needs, as far as crop inputs, and then
trying to make sure that if we pull together a cooperative,
that they get quality materials. A lot of times in these
undeveloped areas, the quality of crop inputs is suspect, so we
are always trying to help them figure out how do you get the
right amounts, make sure the quality of the pesticides, for
instance, are adequate, so that way they would apply them in
the proper way. Otherwise, what happens sometimes is those
things get cut by the distribution people and so they just
think more is better, and that is not what we wanted to
achieve.
Mr. Peterson. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Mr. Gibson, 5 minutes.
Mr. Gibson. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you and
the Ranking Member. This is an outstanding hearing today, and I
want to thank the panelists. I appreciate your strong
leadership for our nation, and now continuing in such a noble,
important calling for all of us.
And I noted at the outset of this hearing, both the
Chairman and some of the panelists were making the point that
at the founding of our country, we had about 95 percent of
Americans involved in agricultural pursuits of one kind or
another, and there was also a time that we had a small standing
force, and really, most Americans were involved in protecting
and securing our country. And now, as we note, less than one
percent actually are farmers, are involved in agricultural
pursuits, narrowly defined, and really less than one percent
are involved in securing our nation. And so that makes for an
important and interesting observation and analysis with regards
to civil military relations, and civil farmer relations. And
this Committee is indebted to you for taking time out of your
schedules to be here today.
My questions really are based on those prefacing remarks,
and that is this: As you go about your busy daily lives, how
much interaction do you have with the next generation who we
are hoping to inspire to become farmers? We know that,
according to the USDA, we need about 100,000 new farmers in the
next 10 to 15 years, given the fact that as proud as we are of
farmers, the average age is just shy of 60 now. And given that,
I am interested to know what advice you can give this Committee
as we look to help formulate Federal policies, work with state
and local policies to help inspire those to come to the
calling.
And as you respond to that, I would be interested to know
that Colonel Boswell, before he left this Committee, myself and
Sergeant Major Walz, we sponsored an amendment in the last farm
bill that created a liaison at the USDA. I am interested to
know, are you having any interaction at all with that liaison,
and if so, how is that going and what insight you might have
for us?
Dr. Sholar. Congressman, I would just start by saying at
the university, we have a similar problem in getting students
coming from ag backgrounds, so we are proactively recruiting
city kids, if you will, to enter the ag profession.
Unfortunately, most of them want to, or maybe fortunately, want
to go into industry or adjunct parts of agriculture. Very few
of them are focused on going back to the farm or going to the
farm since that is a much harder thing for them to visualize.
We probably are at the point in our country where we need to
talk about incentivizing those who don't have ag backgrounds to
more proactively look at careers in agriculture that involve
production agriculture, not just the ancillary pieces. That is
probably something we have not done. I know this Committee and
others are very focused on helping our veterans get into
farming and I am aware of that, and I know we are having some
success there, but we probably should be looking at other
pieces as well.
Mr. Gibson. Thank you, Major General. Other panelists?
Mr. Owens. Mr. Gibson, first, thank you for your many years
of service. We appreciate that very much.
One of the areas that we have been able to work with is we
have seen that a lot of our agriculture commodity groups and
producer groups have been very proactive in reaching out to the
next generation. And that any emphasis we can give to help them
reach out and the programs that they sponsor to encourage
people to come into production agriculture will be very
beneficial.
It is very difficult when you reach out and try to think
about the cost of beginning to farm. That is what makes most of
it prohibitive, and it is just unbelievable what it would take,
and so many of us, rather than staying in rural communities,
begin to take other careers that are related to production
agriculture, but not directly in production agriculture. And
the continued emphasis and ability to get into production
agriculture would be very beneficial.
Mr. Ahlness. Thank you for the question, Congressman. It is
interesting, when I was graduating from high school I wanted to
go into agriculture and go in the Army, but I knew I wasn't
able to start a farm, so I went in the Army. I didn't
understand the rich variety of jobs that are available in the
agribusiness sector. Now I am beginning to appreciate that, as
I am working at Cargill, what we do is we work with the
universities. And it is kind of nice to go in and say, ``Hey,
you need to provide us a rich variety, a diverse group of
people to come in,'' and I see some universities really have
good outreach programs. They also do good partnership with us
at different times, and so we just continue to encourage that
and invest in that to make sure we can get the best quality
people in the future.
Mr. Gibson. Thank you, gentlemen. Thank you for those
responses. My time has expired. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you, gentleman. David Scott, for 5
minutes.
Mr. David Scott of Georgia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I
would like to continue because Congressman Gibson has really
hit the nail on the head, because we have a national security
crisis right in this country, and that is the average age of
our farmers now at 60 years of age. That is a national crisis,
and Major General Sholar, is that right, you also hit the nail
on the head because we have to use our land-grant institutions
to solve this national crisis. And I certainly agree with your
comments, and all of your comments, but we have to tackle this
issue of getting a new generation of beginning farmers out
there. We have no choice in this matter, or else our own
national security will go down if the age of our average farmer
continues to climb and we are not doing anything to address the
issues as to why and how to solve it. And I believe firmly that
you also hit the nail, Major General in the middle there,
because this is an economics issue. It is an issue of
marketing. It is also an issue of information, and more than
anything, it is an issue of utilizing our land-grant
institutions for the reason we put them there. The land-grant
institutions were the salvation of the South after the Civil
War that formed the foundation that raised the South to be
competitive. That was why they were established.
Now we have this crisis. If we were able to increase the
area of giving funding to our land-grant schools, as you
mentioned, Dr. Sholar, it is research, it is teaching, it is
extension. Why not create an additional area of funding we can
give to offer those young people loan forgiveness for their
student loans and scholarships if they go into farming? Because
we did the same thing when we had a shortage of veterinarians.
We answered that because we took up the loan forgiveness and
scholarship aid to those, and we had more veterinarians in.
Because first, when these young people, as you pointed out,
the Major General there in the middle, I can't see your name,
the cost of an acre of land just to even start a farm is
$8,000. To get a tractor is $75,000. These are things that we
address, and then they have to face paying these student loans,
not having those things in them. I just wanted to get y'all's
opinion on that, because this is something that several of us
on this Committee are working towards in hopes that we can
create this additional avenue of funding to address helping our
young people. We want to help them to take that economic burden
off, at least through scholarships and loans, with a
requirement that they go into farming. Then they have an
inducement to do so.
Major General Sholar, am I making sense on this?
Dr. Sholar. Yes, sir, you certainly are.
We have selectively incentivized different groups of
individuals throughout our history to do those things that we
thought were most important for society as a whole. As a person
who has had a foot in each of these worlds for more than 40
years each, I have a vested interest. As I travel the
countryside, both in my home state and around the rest of the
southern Great Plains, and even the South, it is not uncommon
to see a piece of equipment sitting in a farm equipment yard
that has one or two times the value of the house that that farm
family is living in. That is a very difficult proposition for
someone to visualize themselves going into that profession,
knowing that that might be the case.
If we could, at the minimum, offer some assistance to those
who are contemplating going back to the farm, a lot of this
won't be new individuals who are unfamiliar with farming, but
those who cannot go back to the farm. Whatever we can to do
incentivize those individuals, I would say we really should be
taking a hard look at that, sir.
Mr. David Scott of Georgia. All right, thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Scott. Mr. Benishek, for 5
minutes.
Mr. Benishek. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you,
gentlemen, for being here this morning with us.
We talked about a lot of the things that we have in this
country as far as infrastructure and support for our farmers. I
had the privilege of going to Africa with the Chairman, and the
most profound thing that I thought about when I visited a
couple of these countries was the fact that there was no
private property or rule of law, so that it was very hard for,
Ethiopia comes to mind. It was hard for a farmer to invest in
the land when it wasn't theirs. They had to lease the land from
the government, and they weren't sure if they were going to
have that land in the future.
So in your experience going around the world, to me, that
is the rule of law and property rights before you are going to
start investing in agriculture. Can you tell me your
experiences in that regard with the places that you all have
served as it relates to my question? Are there things that
America could do to improve those rights or encourage
governments? Can you name some places where that is an issue?
Major General Owens, maybe you could start.
Mr. Owens. Yes, sir, and I will tell you that wherever we
went, two of their biggest problems, one is the rule of law.
Without the rule of law, you have no sanctity of contracts, you
have no arbitration between buyers and sellers of commodities.
You just are not able to conduct normal, routine business that
allows them to build an economy of any scale at all. Property
rights, what we found was there was really broken down with no
individual property rights. We think about these places that
have been taken over and in conflict for multiple years. One of
the first things they do is each group comes in and confiscates
and takes over the ownership of the land, and there are lost
records and there are disagreements. Some of those land records
and disagreements went back hundreds of years, trying to argue
who owned the property in Kosovo or who owned the land in
Afghanistan, and whether it is under control of the village and
the culture and the tribe or whether it is under the control of
an individual.
And so if we can find a way to continue and establish
property rights and resolve differences in land disputes, and
then be able to enforce the rule of law, which personally, I
believe that in those cases we found that the first rule of law
had to be enforcing contracts, and being able to have an
agreement between buyers and sellers of commodities, or you
were not able to build an economy at all.
Mr. Benishek. Colonel, do you have any input?
Mr. Ahlness. Thank you, Congressman. Yes, I would add
education. Education is critically important to what is going
on in developing countries, and applying that not only to the
males, but the female population.
One of the things that we did deliberately is when I was
building my team is I made sure I was aiming for six to eight
females on my team, because in Afghanistan, it is a very
traditional environment, as a man I was not able to speak to
women. That would be considered an insult or it would be not
the proper cultural way to act. But with having women on my
team, I was able to engage the 50 percent of the population I
was unable to otherwise, and we were able to make differences
in the lives of the people, improving the quality of life of
the village overall, to make it be successful. And a lot of it
came down to basic education. Absolutely, rule of law,
education, you need to have a balanced approach trying to get
things moving up together in collaboration with one another so
people can be successful.
Mr. Benishek. Major General Sholar, do you have anything
you would like to say?
Dr. Sholar. Interestingly enough, if you look at France and
Germany, and I have looked at agriculture there a number of
times, they don't own the land but they have a vested interest.
They are incentivized to do well with that land. They don't
live on the farms. You won't find a French farmer living on the
land, and yet in many cases, their yields will be twice as much
as ours. They are being incentivized in other ways.
I was in China a number of years ago, and they had gone
from the community or collective farms to allowing individual
farmers to own certain parts of fields.
Mr. Benishek. Well who owns the land in France?
Dr. Sholar. Pardon me?
Mr. Benishek. Who owns the land in France if not the
farmer?
Dr. Sholar. The government. Same for Germany, and yet, the
agriculture production is just spectacular. Some that we only
wish we could emulate in some cases.
But in China, a farm family owns eight rows. Another family
owns eight rows. Another family owns eight rows. But this was a
great improvement from where they had been before where
everything was consolidated and pooled and no one owned
anything.
So there are probably various models that can be used. Yes,
in particularly these underdeveloped countries, they need to
have more say in what comes out of their labor. They don't now,
and so whatever we can do to advance that cause would be very
helpful.
Mr. Benishek. Thank you.
The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired. Mr. Costa,
5 minutes.
Mr. Costa. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for holding
this hearing. I think it is very important. Those of us here on
the Committee understand the critical nature of agriculture's
importance, its productivity, as well as to our national
security, and world security. And so I am glad that you are
holding this hearing, and frankly, we ought to do more to tell
that story, because obviously, our ability to be successful
over the last 200 years began with an agricultural nation that
became very successful at it. Our reliable food supply is part
of our national security. It gets taken for granted, but in my
home State of California, we produce \1/2\ the nation's fruits
and vegetables, and it is such a diverse cornucopia. My family,
like a lot of the families here and Members of the Committee,
have been involved in farming and agriculture for generations.
But Major General Sholar, in your comment earlier in
Afghanistan, and I have made multiple trips to Afghanistan as
well as Iraq and other parts of southeast Asia and the Middle
East and China, that whole area. When you said, ``No water, no
agriculture,'' that is just as applicable in California. We
say, ``Where water flows, food grows,'' which is the counter to
your comment. And clearly, with the planet having seven billion
people, it clicked about 18 months ago and by the middle of
this century, another two billion, or nine billion people,
imagine going from seven billion to nine billion in a period of
50 years. More demands, the importance of a food supply, are
just obvious and critical. Our ability to provide water to
ensure that not only for in every region of America, but in
other parts of the world with climate change, it is going to be
absolutely essential. Our weather patterns have changed
dramatically in California, and we have a broken water system.
There are a lot of factors that go into that, but if in one of
the richest states in the nation and the richest nation in the
world with the technology and the know-how to manage and plan
for the future, we can't get past the politics, and that is our
problem in California primarily, the politics of water. God
help the rest of the world where, as you noted, subsistence
farming is where many of these countries are stuck in. And if
they are hand-to-mouth on subsistence farming without the
ability to have the reliability, the rule of law, all of the
aspects of security in those nations but in a global sense is
going to determine whether or not nation states can live
together amicably or not in this century. Frankly without
water, I believe water will become, as we continue to see
changes in weather patterns, one of the major resource issues,
like energy, as to whether or not nation states can get along
together amicably or not. And we see those dynamics already
taking place. In Kashmir and India and Pakistan, disputes on
water are absolutely critical.
So I look at this security issue with agriculture, not only
in terms of, well, you have served our nation and you tried to
provide solutions to problems in those areas that we have all
witnessed, but it is also our own national security. And it is
complicated because the majority of Americans believe their
food comes from a grocery store. According to the American Farm
Bureau that two percent of America's population is directly
involved in the production of food and fiber, when you look at
farmers, ranchers, and dairymen. And in California, it is less
than two percent, but yet, we produced $56 billion of
agricultural products at the farmgate last year in California.
So it is amazing that such a small percentage of the
population of the United States and in every region of America
can do so much, and there are a lot of reasons for that. Our
land-grant universities that have distinguished themselves over
100 years, new technologies, new science, new ability to
produce these products.
Mr. Chairman, my time has expired, but this is an issue
that we have to stay on for all the right reasons, because it
is not just the world's security and food supply, but it is
America's security, and it makes it difficult for all of us to
do our job when the majority of Americans think their food
comes from a grocery store.
The Chairman. I appreciate the gentleman's comments. The
gentleman's time has expired. Austin Scott, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and
gentlemen, thank you for your service to the country. In so
many ways, this very issue that we are talking about hit home
with me when I was in South and Central America looking at
their agricultural capabilities, and the bottom line is, they
can grow a lot of crops, but they can't get them to a market
and they can't export them, and that means that their people,
because of the lack of infrastructure, have been unable to
capitalize on that, both at the local level and at the national
level.
One of the things that I am concerned about, I mention this
before I get into the question, would be: who is going to be
farming 10 years from now? As both sides of my grandparents
farmed and none of the grandchildren farm anymore, and certain
taxes, like the Federal Estate Tax that are just absolutely
devastating to our family farms, and something that I wish that
we could find a way to resolve.
You have spoken on this issue before, but I just want to
reiterate on this. The crop is successfully harvested in so
many of the countries out there, the storage and transportation
issues still pose a major threat to the food security. One of
the things that is important in that storage is the energy
supply and the ability to refrigerate that product. What low-
cost alternatives or innovative ways to store and transport
food have you seen that can be applied overseas while still
maintaining the quality and the safety of the food, and what
can other countries learn from the United States to help
alleviate these problems?
Mr. Owens. Mr. Scott, the infrastructure and our ability to
store and market and move those foods, as you said, is
critical. What we learned in places like Afghanistan and Kosovo
was they did not have the electrical networks to have reliable
electricity in order to have cold storage, for instance, the
way we are used to cold storage, and that is where we asked
each of the ag development teams and the land-grant
universities to develop innovative ideas and going back to cool
storage, and in some cases, utilizing solar energy where there
was no electrical energy. Innovative ways to utilize storage
connexes, buried to create underground cool storage, and ways
that they could maintain the quality of commodities for an
extended period of time. It may not be for the period that we
could store it here in the United States, but we could store it
for an extended period, extending their marketing period and
the period of which they could then generate income for their
families.
The other thing we saw is that there had to be a
comprehensive look at all development. You had to look at
roads, you had to look at where to put electricity. It is like
where did you want to process a commodity? That is where the
roads had to go to, that is where the electricity had to go to
first. We have a lot of individuals that want to do a lot of
good, and everybody wants electricity. Everybody wants good
water. Everybody wants good roads. But you had to come in with
a comprehensive policy and target that in order to enhance the
agricultural ability to store, process, and market those
commodities.
Mr. Ahlness. And if I could just add to Major General
Owens' comments, it is really key to look at, as he said, the
cool chain, because a cold chain just isn't possible. It is not
economically feasible or practical in places like Afghanistan,
rural Afghanistan. What we did is we looked at how could they
be transporting things at night, rather than just doing
transportation in the day to help keep it cool. But also,
changing how they approach trade. Instead of trying to sell
grapes, they sold raisins. We used their traditional practices
and leveraged that so that they could sell their product
regionally instead of trying to rush something that is not
sustainable, that is relying on dollars that won't be there in
the long run to set up for them. And then limiting to the
extreme high value crops, like pomegranates, trying to get them
out and using the cool value chain type of process.
Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia. Did you look at a dehydration
and then rehydration, you can carry a lot less when you are
carrying water.
Mr. Ahlness. Right, Congressman. No, we did not. We were
looking at how could we use traditional practice as much as
possible, things that were culturally acceptable to them,
rather than trying to introduce something brand new into the
process.
Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia. Thank you for your service in
many ways, and this is one of the things that America sometimes
takes for granted in this country, that every time we walk in
the grocery store, there is going to be food on the shelves,
and thank you for being a part of the solution.
The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired. Mr. Walz, 5
minutes.
Mr. Walz. Well thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I would like to
stress, and thank you personally. This series of hearings on
agriculture and national security and the broader global food
insecurity issue is smart policy. Your intersection of
leadership here and in the Armed Services Committee, like my
colleagues, Mr. Gibson and Mr. Scott, that we care about this
really makes a difference, so thank you for that. And to each
of you for so many reasons, but it is important that you are
living proof of the incredible asset and the dynamic nature of
our National Guard, which you make it very easy to advocate as
the one force of how we get at this. And you are making a point
that all of us are stressing the idea of how do we bring all of
America's smart power tools to the fight in making sure that
these countries do not become havens of the destabilized, and
each of you have stressed it in such clear terms that food
insecurity: we can spend a lot of money training rebels and
equipping them, but if you have a hungry population with no
stability, that is not going to do us any good. And it is
really interesting that we brought it here, because the
policies we make here really matter. Recently, General
Rodriguez, the commander of AFRICOM, asked Congress to change a
policy to allow him to transfer DOD funds over to USAID in
support of his mission for the very things that you are doing.
He gets it, but that money is siloed up. The policies are
siloed up, and we are not able to get at these success stories
that you are showing. I appreciate each and every one of you
for what you are doing.
Just a couple specific or maybe questions you can help me
understand. This one, Major General Sholar, to you. Dovetailing
off this USAID piece, USAID was asking for some of these funds.
They have some or whatever. They are setting up an extension
service type of program in Afghanistan. I would like you to
talk a little bit about that, because the challenge for many of
us is we know you can do the good work. I know Colonel Ahlness
will do the work and his team will do the work, which I
encourage all of you to watch the documentary he is talking
about, if you want to see this in practice. Our concern is
long-term sustainability when we hand it over to the Afghanis,
and if you could speak on that maybe?
Dr. Sholar. Thank you, Congressman, for the question. I was
in Afghanistan one time, 2006. I was in Iraq several times. I
would like to say that my knowledge and information about
Afghanistan is dated; however, when things don't change over
centuries in a country like that, a decade is a blink of an
eye. It is interesting to hear my colleagues here talk about
the success they had, and I am impressed with that. They did
get a lot of traction, but it is still a very, very difficult
place to operate.
I am heartened by the fact that USAID is setting up or has
set up an extension service there. It is the age old question,
do you give the man the fish or do you teach him to fish?
Mr. Walz. Yes, correct.
Dr. Sholar. And in this case, and in all the cases, it has
to be some of both. We will get no traction in those countries
unless we lead them to some success, and we are doing that, but
it is going to be a long haul.
And I would kind of close my comment on this by thinking
about something that a colleague from Afghanistan told me many
years ago about his country, and he was talking about the
bureaucracy, but in today's vernacular, what he was describing
is bureaucracy on steroids. It is very difficult for those
leaders to have the best interest of their population at heart
when they have their own issues, and we see that in all the
countries we are working on of that nature.
Mr. Walz. I agree, and I thank you for that.
Colonel Ahlness, I will go to you. We talk in the
theoretical here of stabilizing nations. Well that is great,
and that is our ultimate goal, but the strategy in the day-to-
day stuff is those micro projects. You talked a little bit in
your written testimony, Colonel Ahlness, in the Women's Poultry
Training Program, small program, small investment. How big an
impact and how can we duplicate that and make that spread?
Mr. Ahlness. Well, in fact, that did spread because as we
work these programs, we shared it amongst the ADTs, and we had
monthly teleconference meetings that we shared amongst a
country and would share these ideas about how it worked, how to
make it effective, what were the best practices so it could be
put in other areas. And that program was run specifically for
widows, the most vulnerable population, and helping them to
reach their own success to be successful for themselves. But
also, there are other similar programs we could run and other
types of training programs for the other farmers, help them be
successful as well.
Mr. Walz. The continuation of your program, it has been 4
years, Colonel Ahlness, since you were there. Are you getting
feedback and what are you hearing about the seeds, literally
and figuratively, that you planted there? What is happening
today without you there and your team there?
Mr. Ahlness. Well, and that was a key thing, Congressman,
of the ADT was to make sure we had a 5 year program, so as a
third, we were trying to transition the Afghans to lead. The
first couple teams developed the program, got things going,
transitioning, the fourth and fifth teams turned it over and
supervised to our government agencies or the NGOs who had
helped make sure things would be successful, and then also
would try to make sure the Afghan Government budget system
works so that they would get the money to implement the
programs, rather than having it come from us.
Mr. Walz. Smart stuff. Thank you, Mr Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Davis, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Davis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you again to
our witnesses for being here. I apologize for having to leave,
but I do want to let my colleagues know, I talked to one of our
colleagues, Mr. Bost, who is at home holding his 11th
grandchild, so when you see him, offer him congratulations.
Major General Sholar, you mentioned the expected population
growth in your opening comments, and I can remember sitting in
Decatur, Illinois, 20+ years ago listening to Paul Erlich
talking about the population explosion and how we weren't going
to be able to feed the world. Some of the biotechnology
advancements that we have seen in American agriculture have
allowed us to do that.
With both of those instances, with the expected population
growth and biotechnology, how important of a role do you think
biotechnology is going to play in developing countries that you
talked about and the rest of the panel has talked about?
Dr. Sholar. Well thank you, Congressman. If you look at a
continuum of agricultural innovation and development, maybe you
start with the turning plow, the cotton gin, somewhere in
there, hybrid corn, and then maybe GE crops, genetically
engineered crops, have made a dramatic impact on our country.
They are making some impact in the rest of the world. Let's say
they are not as embraced as maybe they are in our country.
Mr. Davis. Do you agree with that?
Dr. Sholar. No, I don't, Congressman, because if you look
at the study that was just released by the National Academy of
Sciences, 900 studies that they took a fresh look at, 50
scientists over a 20 year collection of studies and they have
declared that GE crops are safe. This is something we have long
believed to be true. It is really good to have someone else say
that, someone with some credibility and authority.
And this gives us the opportunity to move ahead to the next
generation. It won't stop all the naysayers certainly, but it
is a huge success story. But there is a whole generation of GE
crops waiting to be discovered. The technology is still in the
lab. But they are going to cost money. They are going to cost
money for the producer to grow them. The seed is going to cost
more, and we are going to need to sell those crops. Whether
that could be immediately available to those developing
countries remains to be seen. We may need something in
parallel. Norman Borlaug, the green revolution. It is
abundantly clear we are not going to feed those nine billion
people with current policy, current growth.
Mr. Davis. Thank you, Major General, and Colonel, thank you
again for your service, too. You mentioned your time in
Afghanistan recently, and can you talk a little, in that
aspect, about storage and transportation issues, and what may
be happening here in America that we can then translate over
into societies like in Afghanistan that you are trying to help
become self-sustaining, and how can we then market those
advancements that we have here that may or may not work in a
country like that?
Mr. Ahlness. Thank you, Congressman. Well, looking at
Afghanistan, there is virtually nothing there right now, so you
have to look across a border and come up with practical,
reasonable ways for them to move forward. That is why we
selected pomegranates as one of the crops for them to try to
export regionally, because it is a high value crop that
tolerates a cold value chain well. We were able to do that well
and move it forward, but we had to be cautious with other crops
like grapes that just didn't have the cold value chain to move
forward. We help at the local level by, first of all,
increasing production. That was one of our base missions.
Second, developing a co-op so that there is an association of
traders so there is choice to buy it, and when production does
increase, it gets off the farm, and then working with the
Department of State, USDA to build some of these regional
partnerships so that they have a place to export it to. It is a
slow growth and trying to get it to where you raise the water
and all the ships raise at the same time is what our objectives
were, but it has to be modest and very sustainable,
acknowledging their poor infrastructure.
Mr. Davis. Major General Owens, do you have any comments on
either of the subjects in the last remaining seconds I have?
Mr. Owens. Well, the two things that we would look at, one
is what Colonel Ahlness has talked about was we had 52 separate
Agribusiness Development Teams deployed in Afghanistan that all
tried different tactics with this, and each region had its own
problems with different commodities that needed to be grown,
which created value, and there was no storage or ability to
move and market those commodities, and the need to grow
commodities to actually feed the people, such as wheat, and
those interacted together. So our critical infrastructure is so
important to maintain and keep for the future.
Mr. Davis. Thank you all. My time has expired.
The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired. Mr. Nolan,
for 5 minutes.
Mr. Nolan. I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for
conducting this hearing, and thank our witnesses here for your
distinguished services, particularly in such a dangerous place
as Afghanistan has become. I would be remiss if I didn't point
out how proud we are of the National Guard in particular, but
Minnesota National Guard in particular has performed so
brilliantly in all of its deployments throughout Iraq and
Afghanistan and other places like Kuwait. We are so very proud
of all of you.
I, for one, am particularly proud of the Minnesota Guard's
effort on agriculture in Afghanistan. Some 40 years ago, this
Committee established a bipartisan presidential commission on
world hunger, and determined that food first was the foundation
of security in the world. And it wasn't producing ornamental
flowers and fat cattle for export back to the United States, it
was showing widows how they could put together a little
henhouse with eggs and some grain, and to be able to make a
living. And so we are so very proud of that effort, and
clearly, that is the key. That is the key to securing peace in
this world.
So that is a compelling story I found with interest your
story. We have joked about it, but it is the God's truth and
other Members here have talked about it. You thought about
going into farming or getting a job, and those of us from the
farming country know that if you want to be a farmer, you still
have to figure out how to make a living. And you found a
brilliant way to combine both, and nice work at it.
I wish we had more time. I have so many questions here I
wanted to ask. I have looked through some of the Inspector
General's reports on Afghanistan, and because it is such a
dangerous place, because you can't inspect, because you can't
audit. My question: how dangerous is it? If you can't inspect,
you can't audit, we get reports that a lot of the money,
whether it be USDA, USAID, non-governmental, governmental, so
much of it ends up in the wrong places. How corrupt is it, and
how much progress have we made in steering people away from the
poppy seed production into food production?
You talked about the importance of the co-ops, and you read
stories where they had a brilliant crop and just an abundant
production, and it ends up rotten because they don't have a way
to get it to the market. There are kind of some broad
questions. If I could, I would like to start with you, Colonel
Ahlness. How dangerous was it? How corrupt is it? We hear it is
the number one narco-state in the world. Business communities
say it is the most corrupt nation in the world. I can't imagine
what it must be like to have to work in that kind of an
environment, because of its importance and because of its
danger, but thank you. Please respond.
Mr. Ahlness. Thank you, Congressman, and Afghanistan is an
incredibly corrupt place, and it is very difficult. That is why
when I went in, I said money is not going to be a metric for
us, so we are not going to measure our success on how much
money we spent. We want to build it based on how successful we
are.
For example, one project, we wanted to build a 10 acre
perimeter for stockyard, and when we first started and the
first bid went out, it came in at $2.1 million for that wall,
and I said no. But the Afghanis' culture is to come in with a
wildly high bid and then negotiate down, but we had to work on
10 U.S.C. rules, which is take the lowest acceptable bid. As a
commander, I said all those bids aren't acceptable. We had to
do that four times until about 8 months into our deployment we
finally built it for $60,000. But that is just the way it is,
and unfortunately, people don't have the cultural
understanding, so a lot of times, we way overpaid and the
Afghans actually looked at us as corrupt because we way
overpaid for things and we didn't negotiate. But we have to
follow our own laws as well, so sometimes our laws get in the
way of what we need to do well.
Just one other thing is the way to beat poppies, there
wasn't a lot of poppies in our area, it was an Afghan issue and
the Afghans addressed it, and they addressed it as a value
decision. We could not out pay for farm produce if someone
chose to produce poppies, but we talked to them and the Afghans
talked to them, and said do you want your sons to get hooked on
this and they would say no, and as a result then people won't
do it. And that is what has to be a valued decision.
Mr. Nolan. Thank you so much. My time is up.
The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired. Mr. Kelly,
5 minutes.
Mr. Kelly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for talking on two of
my favorite topics in the world, which is agriculture and the
military. I have spent about 30 years and I have served with
Colonel Briorf. If you knew him, I went to war college with
him, have worked with the 36. I have also worked with the Red
Bulls and a war fighter a couple of years ago, so I understand
the importance of our National Guard.
Colonel, you had a comment, money is not a metric or not
the metric to use when you are dealing with them. And having
been in Iraq, but Afghanistan, I know the cultures are similar
in a way.
We have had many hearings on whether or not to use bags of
rice with USAID written on them or vouchers or money. Which do
you think is less likely to be used in a way that we intended
it to be used?
Mr. Ahlness. I think you are right, Congressman. It is best
if we can bring in the services, and better yet, if we can
align our resources so we can monitor and track it going
through their government systems so we can help train them to
do it the right way and supervise it, and hopefully catch them
doing the right way and keep them doing it the right way so we
can be successful.
Mr. Kelly. But it is very easy for money or vouchers or
other things to be misappropriated in these countries which are
still forming and where corruption is a little different. They
have different cultural values than what we have, correct?
Mr. Ahlness. Absolutely, Congressman, and it is well known
that a lot of U.S. money ended up in Afghani bank accounts in
some third world country, or as the general just relayed to me
this morning, there are a lot of very big houses around the
Ministry of Agriculture in the Bagram area, so I mean, we knew
that money was diverted where it shouldn't have been.
Mr. Kelly. And again, I thank all you gentlemen for your
service, both in agriculture and in the military. I actually
said it on the 4th of July this year. One percent of our nation
serves in our military forces, and you guys said two percent,
but it is between and one and two percent farm, and so you are
in both of those categories and that is very important to me.
One of the things I want to focus on is the National Guard.
Mississippi has a partnership with Uzbekistan. Each day, it has
a partnership program with the states. Many times, we focus on
the military training aspect of that. Have we looked at or do
you think there is potential to use that same program to help
them set up systems and co-ops and those things with those
state partnerships with the National Guards to help them set up
a working----
Mr. Owens. Mr. Kelly, thank you for your service, and yes,
sir, the State Partnership Program is very unique. General
Ahlness would probably let you know that it was a Mississippi
security detail that provided security for that Minnesota ag
development team in Zabul Province, and Mississippi was gladly
one of those states that helped us deploy Agribusiness
Development Teams.
The State Partnership Program is limited today to military
to military relationships. There is a potential in those areas
such as Africa and other places where we have state partners
for military and civilian relationships, and I would encourage
the Committee to really look at how do we get to a point where
we can have military to civilian that then can translate to
civilian to civilian. Because right now, it is military to
military and then you don't go to the civilians, and that state
partnership gives you a lot of capability and reach-back to
those individual states with those state partners, and they
develop such an important relationship. And you will know that
in Mississippi, they bring our partners over and train them in
Mississippi, and Mississippi National Guardsmen go and train
them, and we have a great potential in the conduct of what we
would call stability operations, either the phase 4 of a
conflict or even after a total conflict, or maybe in prevention
of a conflict in places that the State Partnership Program, if
it was expanded to allow for military to civilian engagements,
could use things like the Agribusiness Development Teams.
But I will tell you that a whole brigade combat team like
the 155th in Mississippi brings a whole community of civilian
skills to the table that have the potential to, we were able to
fix a factory in Afghanistan that was a furniture factory
because we had a mechanical engineer and a furniture design
engineer that were Calvary scouts.
Mr. Kelly. Let me real quickly, General. Stability is based
on food sources in many cases. Is there any statutory
prevention that keeps the partnership program from being used
like that.
Mr. Owens. There is a statutory prohibition of the military
to civilian engagements at work.
Mr. Kelly. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired. Mr.
Ashford, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Ashford. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. This is a
very intriguing topic, and I know back in Nebraska and my
district I am always kidded because Omaha, and for being on the
Agriculture Committee, because we only have one farm in Douglas
County. We actually have ten, not one, but we obviously are
exceedingly interested in agriculture. It is our number one
industry.
This concept that you are talking about, Major General
Owens, and everyone is talking about where the veteran National
Guard member or veteran comes back to Nebraska and wants to go
into farming or agriculture is very compelling. And when we
talk to our veterans, without a question, it is one of the top
two or three professions that these veterans want to get in. No
question about it. And we have our veterans job fair type
things or meetings, we talk about entrepreneurship and starting
your own business and so forth, it comes back to agribusiness
in some way, or agriculture.
I am very interested in your comment about how someone
comes back from service, leaves the military, gets into
agriculture. They would be a fabulous ambassador to go back
dealing with other civilians--not with military, necessarily,
in those countries, but civilians, and that is what you are
referring to. Is that essentially what you are talking about,
Major General?
Mr. Owens. What we are referring to is we have many
veterans which have come back and have served on active duty
and then joined the National Guard returned home, and those
National Guard units have developed partnerships with states
and countries all over the world and those partners right now
are limited to military to military engagements and training
and development. There is no potential to use those civilian
skills that they have within those National Guard units in
those individual states like Nebraska, and work with their
partners to train on a civilian side and then be able to hand
that off at some point to a civilian.
Mr. Ashford. Right, that is an excellent idea, but in
addition, and we have our partner countries as well as you
suggested, and the National Guard does engage in those military
to military collaborations, but it would be an excellent idea
to expand that.
But also as an opportunity for veterans who aren't in the
National Guard who have served in these countries, and whether
it is in Africa, for example in some of our industries in
Nebraska are engaged in a single pivot farm operation in Africa
where you can do a single pivot valley irrigation, Valmont
single pivot irrigation system, and have ten or 12 small farms
that actually are starting to produce and distribute food in
those countries, and mostly in east Africa. But those people
that are coming back, going to work for Valmont, let's say, can
go back to Africa as part of these kinds of programs, even
though they have left the service. I see that as an opportunity
as well as your example. I don't know if you have any other
comment. Colonel, do you have thoughts?
Mr. Ahlness. Yes, thank you, Congressman, and that is one
of the reasons that I ended up at Cargill is that Cargill
recognizes the value proposition of hiring veterans, and so I
bring to that force and we joined American corporate partners
where we help mentor veterans as they are considering their
transition about how do they make it to corporate America, and
in our case specifically, in the agribusiness realm. And then
we are also looking at how can we go to the bases or posts
where service members are being discharged as they transition
out of active duty, and they want to come back home. And of
course, our company, Cargill, is across the nation, 750
locations, so we want them to come back and work for us. Those
are the value propositions veterans make, and we are trying to
bring them into the business.
Mr. Ashford. And you are doing an excellent job in Nebraska
at Cargill, and thank you for that. Near my district, the
Cargill plant there is a major employer of veterans, and then
actually exchanging those people going back. Let's say they are
working for Cargill and 6 months leave from Cargill and go back
and work with a National Guard unit, even. A lot of flexibility
could be built into that.
Mr. Ahlness. Yes, Congressman. We are full engaged or
signed on to the ESGR Statement of Support, so we fully support
that above and beyond the legal requirements.
Mr. Ashford. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. The gentleman yields back. Mr. Newhouse, 5
minutes.
Mr. Newhouse. Thank you very much, Chairman Conaway, for
holding this hearing. I want to thank all three of you
gentlemen for being here, and thank you for your service, both
in the military as well as your work helping other nations
rebuild their infrastructure.
I couldn't help but remember something I heard a long time
ago. Former Secretary of Agriculture, Earl Butz said something
like you can't talk politics to a starving man, which if you
think about that, it is a lot about what we are talking about
here, how important food stability is in a peaceful world that
certainly all of us are striving to achieve. I appreciate all
of your work in helping people be more sustainable in their
food supply.
I did have a couple of questions that I wanted to talk
about or ask you about. In my former life, I was the Director
of Agriculture for the State of Washington, and I had the
opportunity and privilege of going on several trade missions to
help increase international trade. And I realize that some of
the work that you folks have been involved with, trade means
different things. It may not be across the ocean, it may be
just a few miles down the road. But I wondered if you could
talk about the importance that trade, it sounds to me like that
you have worked on that, Colonel, and both Major Generals have
as well, increasing the people's ability to produce a little
extra to augment their income. Could you talk about how
important that is in building relationships? We are engaged in
a lot of discussions right now concerning international trade,
increasing partnerships aboard, and is that something that you
saw as important in helping a country or a people better
themselves? Colonel or Major General, whoever would like to
start.
Dr. Sholar. Let me just, Congressman, start by correcting
the record just a bit. I am an Army Reservist, not a National
Guardsman, with deference to my colleagues to my left. We work
close together----
Mr. Newhouse. I am sorry if I made that mistake.
Dr. Sholar. No, that is okay. I just would be remiss if I
didn't point that out.
I will say that my convoy security guard when I was in
Afghanistan was from the 45th Infantry Brigade, Oklahoma
National Guard, and I was proud to have them.
At one time, Afghanistan was noted for the high quality of
several of their fruit and nut products for export, world
renowned, and now we have broken infrastructure, broken
production, broken export, broken everything. They can't
produce for themselves. That is how quickly things can
deteriorate when there is not a focus on doing things right.
And so I will pass the baton to my colleagues here, but at
one time they were so much better than they are now.
Mr. Newhouse. That is interesting. Thank you.
Mr. Ahlness. Yes, Congressman, I do that too. Everyone
talks about the great raisins that came from Afghanistan in
1973, and how they used to be in the stores here in America,
but as was said, 30 years of war has destroyed the
infrastructure and a lot of the knowledge around that.
What we tried to do is work how could we demonstrate? I
talked about pomegranates. We worked with the Department of
State so that they could use excess air capacity that came in
and actually to pay for that and ship over to the Mideast so
they could see that what is in the realm of possible. We
demonstrated the realm of possible, and then helped them
develop slowly the infrastructure so they could do it
themselves.
Mr. Newhouse. I appreciate that.
Major General Owens, as a fellow ag economics major from
Washington State University, you are Texas A&M. I just wanted
to let you talk a little bit about the work that you have done
with land-grant universities and maybe give us some examples of
some of the things that you saw as important there.
Mr. Owens. Well thank you, Mr. Newhouse. What was important
is, as I mentioned earlier, we fielded 52 different
Agribusiness Development Teams from 17 different states, and
that didn't mean that only 17 states contributed. For instance,
Colonel Ahlness had a member, that was part of his team, was
from North Dakota. They trained with North Dakota State
University. The land-grant universities were essential to build
as partners with each of the Agribusiness Development Teams.
The land-grant universities provided the reach-back capability
to the right technical experts that could help. We didn't know
about pomegranates, we didn't know about grapes, but Fresno
State knew about it or UC Davis knew about it, or Purdue knew
about it, or University of Nebraska. Somebody knew.
Mr. Newhouse. Or Washington State, maybe.
Mr. Owens. Or Washington State knew. Washington State was
actually beneficial in a lot of the wheat work that we did with
their great wheat growing regions in Washington. But the land-
grant universities freely opened up and provided that reach-
back capability and a partnership. For instance, Texas
Extension Service put an Afghan county on their website that
allowed the Agribusiness Development Teams from Texas to have
the exact same reach-back as any extension agent anywhere. And
some of the states even offered us through VTC training for
Afghan ministers and extension agents by VTC, and to their
universities or local high schools. It was a great partnership
that we could reach back and forth between the land-grant
universities and the Agribusiness Development Teams.
Mr. Newhouse. I appreciate that a lot. Our land-grant
universities do so much for us here nationally, and it is good
to hear that they are working so hard internationally as well.
I appreciate your indulgence, Mr. Chairman, and I yield
back.
The Chairman. The gentleman yields back. Mr. Yoho, for 5
minutes.
Mr. Yoho. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Gentlemen, I appreciate
your being here, and again, I appreciate your service as
everybody else has said. What you are doing is so important,
and as one person said that you can't talk politics with
somebody that has an empty belly. And George Washington always
stated that to have national security, you have to have a
national food security, too. And so what you are doing is so
important.
Major General Sholar, you were talking about the GMOs. How
well are they received in other countries? I know you talked a
little bit about that, and then you quoted that article which
is so important that we and the USDA get out there as a policy,
a public awareness, and then there was the article that just
came out with the 100 Nobel laureates all in agreement on the
safety, the effectiveness of the GMOs. My question for you
would be what would you recommend on a policy to get the
benefit of these products out there, knowing the success of
them, the safety, the effectiveness, and the efficiency of
growing them?
Dr. Sholar. Well thank you for the question, Congressman. I
believe we just have to stay the course. This has not been an
easy road to get the adoption of GM crops or GE crops that we
have. There is still confusion out there in some parts of our
culture, but there is among certain elements of our society,
that will always be the case. There will be people who are
arguing against certain foods, even if they are not GE. So
there is something to overcome there.
It is important for us to have as unified a voice as we
possibly can, though. At the same time, we lament the fact that
they are unaware of where that steak on their plate or where
the food on their plate comes from, and yet, we have a part of
our society that is more linked to where that food is coming
from than ever before. We have to take advantage of that. We
have to educate one side and be sure that the side that is
engaged in understanding their food has the right information.
And so to put a bow on it, we have to have a unified voice.
Mr. Yoho. Okay, I appreciate that, and I agree 100 percent
with you. And that is one of my goals out of our office to go
ahead and do that.
Major General Owens, you were talking about the land-grant
universities, and I come from the University of Florida and I
have to give a shout out to them, so go Gators. They have done
so much work on those, extending the production of agriculture.
We have a great food animal production program that is going on
in northern Africa.
But you were talking about going into these countries. How
do you go into a country when you have the whole continent of
Africa has 1.11 billion people on the continent, 650 million
don't have electricity, to go in there and develop an
agricultural product or market or sector, and you are talking
about the corruption that is going on. We were in the Congo,
the President of the Congo and his twin sister are
billionaires, and we give millions of dollars, over the years
billions of dollars, when you have the corruption that is going
on in there. Do you work closely with MCC, the Millennium
Challenge Corporation, and do you put metrics in place that you
grade these countries, and if they don't meet those metrics on
corruption, on infrastructure, the rule of law, do you pull out
or are you guys willing to do that? Or are there waivers
through the military? I know you are trying to do other things
to get that assistance in there.
Mr. Owens. Well one of the things we learned by the work
that we have done in some of these other nations on ag
development is that large scale projects that spend a lot of
money, it is very hard to control and sustain those. We even
found that in small scale projects. For instance, some of the
Agribusiness Development Teams in the protection of watersheds
began to build check dams, the old-fashioned, just small check
dams, to preserve the watersheds and reduce erosion. What we
found is when you built something for individual people, then
they came back and expected you to pay to maintain, to pay to
continue and sustain it. We had to find innovative ways to
bring in some type of ownership.
Unfortunately, I would say in some of those projects, due
to corruption 40 or 50 percent sometimes of the money just gets
skimmed off somewhere in the process. And unfortunately, it is
very difficult to sustain. Our long-term development projects
sometimes turn into a series of 1 year projects rather than a
10 or 12 year program like the ADTs put in place to make things
happen.
Mr. Yoho. All right, thank you. My time has expired, but
again, I appreciate the work you guys do. Thank you.
The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired. Mr. Lucas,
for 5 minutes.
Mr. Lucas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I can't help but
think for a moment about the comments from my colleague in
Georgia, Mr. David Scott, about the unique and wondrous nature
of the land-grant system. And sometimes, we forget in this
country, and even occasionally in this Congress, how wondrous
it was that since the 1862 Morrill Act that a university
education has been available to virtually every American, and
prior to 1862 that was not the case. This was the first country
in the world to make that possible. And in the 1890s it came
into the system, in the 1994, the creation of the land-grant
system, followed by the Hatch Act and the Agricultural Research
Service and all of those things, and the Smith Lever Act in
1914. The ability to train professionals, scientists, and
actual technicians; the ability to research and to disseminate
that information.
I turn first to you, Major General Sholar. You commented
earlier about land ownership patterns in various countries, so
obviously in your career as an agronomist, in your 39 years as
a military officer, you spent a lot of time in and out of the
country. I will then ask the rest of the panel to follow on
this, if you would, but are there any other systems around the
world that are comparable to our land-grant, ARS extension
service model, and if so, since there is always room for
improvement everywhere, does anybody on the planet do it in a
way that maybe we should think about enhancing this combination
of resources that we have employed for a century plus?
The floor is yours, Major General.
Dr. Sholar. Thank you, Congressman, for the question.
Obviously, I am a strong, strong advocate of the land-grant
system, having spent more than 40 years of my life working in
it. Western Europe models our system some, but not the intense
local help that we provide with our extension system. One of
the major differences, and of course, it is a common issue with
our commodity groups in our country, is the incentives that
those countries provide directly to their producers.
But I recall, very briefly, during the floods in New
Orleans and discussions about how that could have happened, how
we let that infrastructure decline, degrade to where that could
happen, and they were talking to a gentleman from the
Netherlands, and he said we have a way of life that we like. We
are willing to invest in our infrastructure to live below sea
level. I am not suggesting that we attempt to live below sea
level, but to have this to continue the preeminence that we
have had, we have to continue to invest. And we have taken a
knee just a bit. We are not investing at the level we were,
either at the state or the Federal level. I know the fierce
competition for those dollars, but Congress and all of our
leaders in the country have a some tough decisions to make to
maintain where we are.
Mr. Lucas. It is still fair to say, General, that our land-
grant and Agricultural Research Service extension service model
is still the best in the world?
Dr. Sholar. Absolutely, absolutely. There is none that even
comes close, Congressman.
Mr. Lucas. My other two friends on the panel, any
observations from your experiences in other countries or in
other parts of the United States along this line?
Mr. Ahlness. Yes, Congressman, I don't have experience in
other parts of the world, but I can say that as I was training
up for the mission and during the mission, any state that I
reached back to, they freely gave the information. And when we
had issues, the network of the different state extension
services, they would talk to one another to get us the answers
we needed. It was a tremendous resource that was much
appreciated and made a huge difference.
Mr. Lucas. As this Committee went through the last farm
bill process, I was amazed occasionally by the observations of
some people about why do we spend the money on our land-grant
colleges? Why do we spend money on research? Why do we do
extension? An occasional refrain from some of my idealistic
colleagues was let corporate America do it. But the fact of the
matter is, the land-grants train the scientists, you gentlemen,
provide the basic skills, create the pool then that the rest of
the market economy uses to perfection, and in all fairness, the
Agricultural Research Service provides a balance with corporate
America to make sure that we all have access to technology in
affordable ways, and in the extension service, disseminating
that information. I mean, just disseminating that information
so critically important.
Again, sometimes we in this Congress and in this country
overlook what works so well, so efficiently, to our detriment,
and I hope that is never the case, and I appreciate the efforts
that you all have provided with all of the systems we have, and
why it is important to keep it.
And with that, I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. The gentleman yields back. Mr. LaMalfa, for 5
minutes.
Mr. LaMalfa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Major General, Major
General, Colonel, welcome. Thank you for serving.
Following back up on the GE crops and such, Mr. Davis
talked about that and Mr. Yoho and others, I am sure, before I
was able to arrive. Again, in a growing population, it is
expected to hit nine billion by 2050, that it would be a very
strong tool to have available. Food insecurity, a possibility
to increase production. We control better nutritional aspects
of the food itself. But again, there is skepticism. We talked
about it here domestically. What level do you find that
skepticism in other countries and other continents? Is it a big
deal like it can be here so much? Is it something that we need
to work and develop more confidence in this as a tool on that,
especially if the alternative is going to be malnutrition? All
three of you on the panel, please, if you wish to.
Mr. Ahlness. Congressman, I will just start first. Sorry,
Major Generals. I only have Afghanistan to look at, and we
distributed Ug99 rust resistant and drought resistant wheat to
the farmers, and that is what they relied on for their
subsistence. The other crops tend to be test crops that they
sold for profit. They had no issue. In fact, the grain they saw
was Ug99, they were relieved because they knew that they would
be able to plant more and harvest more for their families, and
there would be less food insecurity. I saw absolutely no
problem with using that type of genetically modified seed for
their crops.
Mr. LaMalfa. Was that more third world or westernized?
Mr. Ahlness. Again, that is my experience in Afghanistan
only. That is all I can speak to.
Mr. Owens. I would say in our developing countries there
was not the resistance to the GMOs. The biggest problems we had
with GMOs was the affordability of the technical fees and
affordability of those crops, and being able to sustain any
utilization of the technology.
The other thing I will say is that when you have people
that are malnourished and there is food insecurity, they don't
seem to worry about a lot of those other issues.
Dr. Sholar. And I would just add, one of the things we have
not mentioned this morning is stress tolerant crops. We have
talked about disease resistant, insect resistant, but the
tolerance to stress, and part of the reason for that is it is
so difficult to get at. We have had work on drought stress on
crops forever, or for a long time, but we have not made the
progress we have in other areas. But that is an unfulfilled
dream or wish. We will not get more water. Water tables are
declining precipitously here in our country and around the
world. I read where the water table in one area is dropping by
25 per year. That is mind boggling. We are going to have to
have more progress with drought or stress tolerant crops.
Mr. LaMalfa. What more should the United States, either in
the private-sector or the Federal Government, be doing to help
with promoting this GE science, or do you think we are doing
enough? What do you think on that?
Dr. Sholar. Well, Congressman, one of the things that is
really interesting to me, the ag research leader of Bayer
Company recently had an article in Seed World Magazine, and the
gist of it was how we as a people should be investing more
heavily into public research. Now this is one of the largest
companies in the world not exactly clobbering us.
Mr. LaMalfa. U.S. investment or international?
Dr. Sholar. U.S. investment, because we have let that
decline some, and we are not going to maintain our position----
Mr. LaMalfa. Do you see international investment as being a
part of that, too?
Dr. Sholar. Absolutely, and of course, part of the problem
is the consolidation of the big players. That is going to be an
issue, what will they be interested in? The public-sector has
to maintain the role that they have, because the private-sector
will be interested in some things, and not everything.
Mr. LaMalfa. What can the developing countries be doing
more so?
Dr. Sholar. Pardon me?
Mr. LaMalfa. What can developing countries be doing more
so, either in that directly, or what would you say in general?
Dr. Sholar. Well, I would just say that this engagement
that we have at all levels, both at the government level, at
the education level, what these gentlemen's areas of expertise,
because there is so much bureaucracy, so much corruption. Some
of the support is going to drift away, and so it is just such a
complex unsophisticated world in some ways, but we have to
remain engaged.
Mr. LaMalfa. Maybe us as an outside source might be better
to help protect that until it is more ready for----
Dr. Sholar. Absolutely.
Mr. LaMalfa. Okay, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired. Mr. Allen,
do you have questions? Go ahead and start the clock. No, I was
teasing. Reset it. I was teasing.
Mr. Allen. No, go ahead.
The Chairman. Mr. Allen is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Allen. I apologize. There is a lot going on this
morning here in this town, but my main reason for getting back
here is I wanted to thank you for your service. I am from
Augusta, home of the Cyber Center of Excellence at Fort Gordon,
and I do appreciate your service, not only to this country, of
course, agriculture is the largest industry in our district,
largest industry in our state. I am a farm boy, and so it is
very dear to my heart.
What I wanted to do, Colonel Ahlness, you had mentioned in
your testimony due to the 30 years of ongoing war, much of the
agriculture practices that would normally have been passed down
generation by generation were lost because of family members
being away at war. My dad was actually drafted in 1942 and
served to 1945. You also said that 30 years of war had changed
the alfalfa crop, among others, and can you expand on how a
prolonged war in the region affected their ability to grow a
sufficient food supply?
Mr. Ahlness. Yes, Congressman. It is very simple that a lot
of people with the knowledge were killed because of the war, or
taken away from the business of growing crops. We would see
that we could increase production of almond trees by up to 30
percent by just teaching them again how to properly prune the
tree. Now that is real basic stuff, what is a proper way to use
an integrated pest management plan to help make sure that they
reduce the pest impact on their grape crop, and by doing that,
it could increase the production by ten percent. Replacement of
root stock, they were so concerned about losing the production
capability that they would not remove old trees from their
orchards, they would welcome us giving them new trees, but they
wouldn't take the other ones out, and we are trying to help
them understand that you have to remove those things to move
forward. Things that they had understood in the past, but they
just forgot that because they are fighting. How can I make sure
me and my family survive? We are going to hold on to what we
have and not try to do the right type of practices to advance
their needs.
Mr. Allen. Well, that is the biggest responsibility I see
of this Committee, because our farmers are aging out, like many
of our skilled workforce, and so we need to get young people
engaged. Any ideas that you may have talked about this morning,
when our veterans who come back and they are looking for
something to do? And I will tell you, there is nothing better
for the mind than nature and the farm, in my opinion. In fact,
my dad used to have to take long walks when things weren't
going just right, but he would come back from that long walk
and he would have a new idea, and he would be invigorated,
being out there on that farm. But is there any idea out there
about how we can get our veterans coming back home that maybe
have not had farm experience that are looking for a great
industry to get involved in that we can promote here on this
Committee as far as our veterans are concerned? I will leave
that to any of you to answer that question.
Mr. Ahlness. All right, Congressman, I will give it a
start.
Mr. Allen. Okay.
Mr. Ahlness. Since I am working in the corporate world now
and one of my missions is to help bring veterans on board, we
are looking out there and we see a lot of good things out
there.
First of all, there are 45,000 nonprofits that are oriented
on veterans, and a number of those nonprofits, I got that from
the U.S. Army Soldier for Life Program. There are a lot of good
nonprofit groups out there that are helping veterans say how
can I make this transition into something that I like? And
there are a number of those focused on agriculture. Now what I
would say is how can we help them find their footing and get
the word out to the veterans or to the transition posts, the
transition programs, so that people can learn about that?
As I stated earlier in my testimony, I didn't know all that
was available in the agribusiness realm, so I went in the Army,
but if I would have known about some of those other
opportunities, it would be a great opportunity for a lot of
these veterans to find their new passion once they leave their
service.
Mr. Allen. Any other comments on that as far as engaging
our vets in this industry?
Dr. Sholar. Well, I am aware, Congressman, that this
Committee has engaged the veterans and heard from the veterans
and it is about engagement. These things aren't going to solve
themselves, and I would applaud the work that this Committee
and others in Congress are doing. These individuals deserve
everything we can do for them.
Mr. Allen. You better believe it. Yes, sir.
Mr. Owens. Yes, sir, engagement and education and the
ability to find a financial means to get into agriculture, any
of those areas would be beneficial for our returning veterans.
Mr. Allen. Well, you have my support. Thank you very much,
and I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired.
Well, gentlemen, thank you very much for the testimony this
morning and answering our questions. This hearing on the
interconnectedness between national security and agriculture is
one of a series we have done. This has been really terrific
information this morning to see your firsthand experience in
other parts of the world where it is clearer the connectedness
between feeding folks, hunger, and the agriculture industry,
the impact it has in the economy and their own national
security.
We have taken our advantages for granted for way too long,
and part of our role on this Committee is to try to help point
out to everyday Americans that having not only the most
abundant and safest but affordable food and fiber supply is not
accidental, and they have a vested interest in maintaining a
strong, vibrant production agriculture industry and the impact
that has on rural America couldn't be more important, and then
the link to national security, of course.
I was privileged to spend one Sunday afternoon in Jalalabad
before the Agribusiness Development Teams came into existence,
and I was with a group of 101st Airborne warriors sitting
around a table, basically having a Chamber of Commerce meeting
because they were trying to figure out how to use the
agriculture assets there in and around Jalalabad. You mentioned
pomegranates. That was one of their products as well. How they
could get it to Kuwait, because they thought they had some
contracts in Kuwait to export this stuff, but they need
electricity and they need refrigeration, and these are
warriors. They didn't know ``come here'' from ``sic `em'' about
any of this stuff, but they were fully engaged trying to figure
it out on behalf of the Afghans.
The day before, the Saturday before, they had been in an 8
hour running gunfight with bad guys. They took that hat off,
and put the Chamber of Commerce hat on. They were really
excited about a group of National Guardsmen who were also
warriors but were farmers from Missouri that were coming in a
couple of months, because they were exited about some real-life
agricultural experts who made a living doing it were on the way
to help them with that. This was maybe the forerunner to the
Agribusiness Development Teams, and I got to see that for
myself, and I was really impressed.
You all served for a long, long time. We ask our military
to do a lot of things. Many times, we ask them to do stuff they
are not qualified to do. That never stops them, never hinders
them. They just go get the job done, so thank you for your long
service. I appreciate that.
As our nation sets priorities for resources, against a
backdrop of $19 trillion in debt and growing, I guess all the
competing issues that are out there, this hearing and your
testimony will help us convince our colleagues on both sides of
the aisle how important the resource allocation that we do wind
up with that goes to ag education and ag research and the
safety net that underpins the production agriculture system in
this country that it is one of those priorities that we need to
work on and protect as we try to cope with both the struggle of
limited resources and continued challenge we have, moving
forward.
Under the rules of the Committee, the record of today's
hearing will remain open for 10 calendar days to receive
additional material and supplemental written responses from the
witnesses to any questions posed by a Member.
This hearing of the Committee on Agriculture is adjourned.
Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 11:55 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
[all]