[House Hearing, 115 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
IMPLEMENTING THE GLOBAL FOOD
SECURITY ACT
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON AFRICA, GLOBAL HEALTH,
GLOBAL HUMAN RIGHTS, AND
INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JULY 18, 2017
__________
Serial No. 115-59
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/
or
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
26-309 PDF WASHINGTON : 2017
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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 FOREIGN AFFAIRS
EDWARD R. ROYCE, California, Chairman
CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida BRAD SHERMAN, California
DANA ROHRABACHER, California GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
JOE WILSON, South Carolina GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia
MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida
TED POE, Texas KAREN BASS, California
DARRELL E. ISSA, California WILLIAM R. KEATING, Massachusetts
TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania DAVID N. CICILLINE, Rhode Island
JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina AMI BERA, California
MO BROOKS, Alabama LOIS FRANKEL, Florida
PAUL COOK, California TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii
SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas
RON DeSANTIS, Florida ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois
MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina BRENDAN F. BOYLE, Pennsylvania
TED S. YOHO, Florida DINA TITUS, Nevada
ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois NORMA J. TORRES, California
LEE M. ZELDIN, New York BRADLEY SCOTT SCHNEIDER, Illinois
DANIEL M. DONOVAN, Jr., New York THOMAS R. SUOZZI, New York
F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr., ADRIANO ESPAILLAT, New York
Wisconsin TED LIEU, California
ANN WAGNER, Missouri
BRIAN J. MAST, Florida
FRANCIS ROONEY, Florida
BRIAN K. FITZPATRICK, Pennsylvania
THOMAS A. GARRETT, Jr., Virginia
Amy Porter, Chief of Staff Thomas Sheehy, Staff Director
Jason Steinbaum, Democratic Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health, Global Human Rights, and
International Organizations
CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey, Chairman
MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina KAREN BASS, California
DANIEL M. DONOVAN, Jr., New York AMI BERA, California
F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr., JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas
Wisconsin THOMAS R. SUOZZI, New York
THOMAS A. GARRETT, Jr., Virginia
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
WITNESSES
Mr. Theodore Lyng, acting special representative for Global Food
Security, U.S. Department of State............................. 4
Beth Dunford, Ph.D., assistant to the administrator, Bureau for
Food Security, U.S. Agency for International Development....... 11
Mr. C.D. Glin, president and chief executive officer, U.S.
African Development Foundation................................. 20
LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING
Mr. Theodore Lyng: Prepared statement............................ 7
Beth Dunford, Ph.D.: Prepared statement.......................... 13
Mr. C.D. Glin: Prepared statement................................ 22
APPENDIX
Hearing notice................................................... 48
Hearing minutes.................................................. 49
Questions submitted for the record by the Honorable Christopher
H. Smith, a Representative in Congress from the State of New
Jersey, and chairman, Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health,
Global Human Rights, and International Organizations, and
written responses from:
Beth Dunford, Ph.D............................................. 50
Mr. C.D. Glin.................................................. 52
IMPLEMENTING THE GLOBAL FOOD SECURITY ACT
----------
TUESDAY, JULY 18, 2017
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health,
Global Human Rights, and International Organizations,
Committee on Foreign Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:38 p.m., in
room 2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Christopher H.
Smith (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Mr. Smith. The subcommittee will come to order.
And let me first and foremost say to our distinguished
witnesses, I apologize for being late. We did have a series of
votes. But more importantly, and it goes for our ranking
member, Karen Bass will be here more momentarily, we deeply
appreciate your extraordinary work to bring food to those who
need it so desperately. So I want to thank you for that work.
We look forward to your comments. And so let me initiate the
hearing.
We are here today to assess the impact of the Global Food
Security Act and judge how well it is being implemented. We do
so with an eye toward reauthorization later on in this
Congress.
By way of background, as many of you know, the Global Food
Security Act was a standout piece of bipartisan legislation
that was passed in the last Congress. I was the author of the
House version of the bill, which had the support of Ms. Bass
and Mr. Meadows from our subcommittee, and Betty McCollum, who
was the principal Democratic cosponsor on our bill.
While the Global Food Security Act was only signed into law
in 2016, it codified a policy that has a far longer history.
Like the landmark PEPFAR program, it also bridges multiple
administrations.
By way of history, it was President Bush who, beginning in
2002, started to elevate the importance of food security in
U.S. foreign policy, especially in Africa, via the Initiative
to End Hunger in Africa, which was funded through development
assistance and implemented through USAID.
At the same time, the Millennium Challenge Corporation
began making substantial investments in agricultural-led
economic growth programs, particularly in Africa. It was from
this foundation that President Obama instituted the Feed the
Future Initiative launched at a G8 meeting in Italy in 2009. By
that time, food in security as a national security issue had
come to the fore. The years 2007 to 2008 saw a rise in food
prices across the world, and the ensuing political turmoil that
this caused led to a rise, for example, of the Muslim
Brotherhood in Egypt.
Today, we see President Trump and his administration
continuing to implement the Global Food Security Act. We are
also at a point where we can begin to assess the success of
implementation, underscoring an important point for
legislators: It is never sufficient simply to pass legislation,
but Congress has a constitutionally prescribed mandate to make
sure that the executive branch faithfully executes the laws
that it passes, and to find where there might be glitches,
gaps, and unmet needs that need to be remedied.
Among the things we look forward to hearing about are
results from our efforts collectively. Have we been successful,
for example, in reducing stunting, one of the key purposes of
the act and an outcome that is measurable?
We also want to know about the country selection process.
How are countries that we decide to partner with chosen? What
criteria do we use, and is the criteria measurable and
objective?
And how faithfully is the Global Food Security Act's
mandate to work with smallholder farmers being implemented? To
that end, we hope to hear from the President of the African
Development Foundation and what they are doing on that front.
As we look forward to reauthorization, we need to ask
ourselves what is working, what isn't working, and what we can
do a better job to maximize the effect of our investment.
Consider, for example, our nutrition programs aimed at
mother and children during the first 1,000 days of life window,
from conception to the second birthday. We know that this
period is absolutely critical for achieving healthy outcomes in
children and stays with them throughout their lives, helping to
boost their natural immunities, and to ward off diseases and
giving them a head start in life. We hope to hear from USAID on
the successes of our nutrition interventions, especially during
this critical first 1,000 days.
I would note parenthetically, in 2010, I was actually at
the United Nations when seven First Ladies of Africa launched
an effort to try to combat chronic malnutrition and especially
to reach those children during the first 1,000 days and their
mothers, because it does mitigate maternal mortality and makes
mothers that much healthier. And it was really something to
see. Lady Odinga of Kenya was the lead on that, and all the
other six First Ladies did a wonderful job talking about what
could be done and what the promise actually was.
We also need to ask ourselves, are we truly firing on all
cylinders? Are we achieving the best possible results in terms
of nutrition and stunting reduction, or are we failing to
maximize our investments?
Recently, I was, along with Karen Bass, in South Sudan and
Uganda. And when we were in Uganda, we met with President
Museveni, and I gave him not only background on what you are
doing, Ms. Dunford, on the first 1,000 days initiative, but
also a book, ``The First 1,000 Days,'' written by the award
winning journalist who used to write for The Wall Street
Journal. And he took it. And I said, Mr. President, you have
got to read this. Your country has signed up for it, but it is
all a matter of implementation. And if you need other
resources, let us know, and we could do our level best to try
to ensure that that happens.
USAID, for example, has a neglected tropical diseases
program that addresses intestinal worms, parasites that affects
close to 1 billion people. If this work, however, is siloed, if
worms are not addressed concomitantly with our nutrition
interventions, the question arises, are we maximizing our
nutrition interventions? In other words, are we feeding the
future or are we feeding the worms?
And we do have a bill that has passed out of committee,
which I have introduced, along with my friend and colleague,
Ms. Bass, on neglected tropical diseases. These all work
synergistically. Our hope is we can get that over the finish
line, but I know that you are doing wonderful work on that as
well.
It is relatively inexpensive to conduct deworming
interventions among affected populations. The gains, however,
can be enormous. One recent study on cost effectiveness
concluded that deworming's effect is robustly positive with a
weight gain per dollar spent more than 30 times greater than
those found in simple school feeding programs. So the empirical
data seems to point that every dollar invested goes a long way
to making our young people especially healthier.
Thus, we need to ask whether we are taking advantage of
those synergies and our nutrition efforts by not only including
deworming, but also following up on behavior changes, like WASH
or water, sanitation, and health instruction.
Sometimes the solution of how to keep reinfestation by
worms from happening can be as simple as providing children
with a pair of shoes, as worms often enter the body through a
foot that can come into contact with infected soil, or making
sure vegetables are washed thoroughly and peeled.
Today, the question for USAID is whether we are fully
utilizing such synergies. Tomorrow, the question for us here in
Congress will be what can we do in our reauthorization
legislation to ensure the USAID is given the necessary
direction and tools to prioritize such synergies.
I would like to now introduce our distinguished panel,
beginning first with Mr. Theodore Lyng, who is currently
serving as Director and acting Special Representative of the
Secretary of State's Office of Global Food Security. He was
previously the director of the Office of International
Conferences in the Bureau of International Organization
Affairs. His most recent overseas assignment was political
consular at the U.S. Embassy in Jakarta, Indonesia. He also
served in China, Malaysia, as well as in Russia.
We will then hear from Dr. Beth Dunford, who is the
Assistant to the Administrator at USAID's Bureau for Food
Security, as well as the Deputy Coordinator for Development for
Feed the Future, the U.S. Government's global hunger and food
security initiative. In this dual role she coordinates
implementation of Feed the Future across the U.S. Government,
oversees in its execution, reports on results, and leads
engagement with the external community to ensure that food
security remains high on the developmental agenda.
She also oversees USAID's technical and regional expertise
focused on improving food security to sustainably reduce
hunger, poverty, and undernutrition. Dr. Dunford testified
before this subcommittee before appearing at our hearing in
June of last year entitled, ``Leveraging U.S. Funds: The
Stunning Global Impact of Nutrition and Supplements During the
First 1,000 Days,'' and gave a keynote address on the
importance of nutrition in areas of conflict as part of this
subcommittee's engagement with diplomats from African
countries. And we heard back from those ambassadors, and they
were deeply impressed with what you had to say that day and
your work.
We will then hear from Mr. C.D. Glin, President and CEO of
the U.S. African Development Foundation, a U.S. Government
agency dedicated to supporting African-led, African-driven
development solutions via financial investments in and local
technical assistance to African grassroots communities and
local enterprises. Prior to joining the organization, Mr. Glin
was based in Nairobi, Kenya, was the associate director for
Africa for the Rockefeller Foundation, and previously served as
a White House appointee at the U.S. Peace Corps and the first
Director of Intergovernmental Affairs and Global Partnerships.
Again, thank you for being here.
And, Mr. Lyng, the floor is yours.
STATEMENT OF MR. THEODORE LYNG, ACTING SPECIAL REPRESENTATIVE
FOR GLOBAL FOOD SECURITY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Mr. Lyng. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Smith, Ranking Member Bass, and members of the
subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to speak with you today
on the implementation of the Global Food Security Act. Your
passion and conviction in fighting hunger and malnutrition have
been crucial to our progress, and it is an honor to speak
before you.
As you know, the bipartisan Global Food Security Act gave
the President the tools to address food in security and the
suffering chaos and instability that it causes. Now more than
ever global food security is critical to the world's security,
and specifically the United States' security.
When global food prices spiked in 2008, civil unrest and
violence erupted in more than 60 countries worldwide. And, in
fact, a 2015 intelligence community assessment estimated that
the risk of food insecurity in countries of strategic
importance to the United States would increase through 2025. In
some countries declining food insecurity could spark large-
scale political instability.
Today, over 80 million people are facing extreme food
insecurity, and 20 million people face the threat of famine as
a result of manmade crises in Yemen, Nigeria, and South Sudan,
all of which are driven by violent conflict, and in Somalia
where conflict is aggravating the effects of a drought.
Further raising global levels of hunger are the more than
65 million people, more than any time since World War II, who
have been forcibly displaced from their homes and have lost
their livelihoods. So the stakes are high and the GFSA provides
the basis for U.S. action.
Much of this action involves on-the-ground interventions to
develop agricultural economies, and promote scientific
research. And my colleagues, Beth and C.D., will talk about a
lot of these on-the-ground interventions, among other things.
However, I wanted to set the stage by discussing how
diplomacy is an essential element of a solution and how the
State Department and other agencies are working in many
international institutions to mitigate conflicts, build
democracy and governance, and address the causes of prolonged
instability. That we are facing the threat of famine in four
countries highlights the need to address root causes and build
long-term resilience.
The Department of State engages foreign governments,
international organizations, and other partners diplomatically
through bilateral and multilateral channels to address the
causes of global food insecurity and famine. Multilaterally, we
are working through the U.N. system, the G7, the G20, APEC, and
other fora. For example, global food security and nutrition
featured prominently at the G7's Taormina summit that President
Trump attended in May.
In APEC, the Department is actively involved in the Policy
Partnership for Food Security, which supports the goals of the
GFSA by strengthening public-private cooperation to address
food security issues. Engaging the U.S. private sector in these
initiatives is a win-win; it addresses the problem of hunger,
while creating economic opportunities within our own country.
In addition to these diplomatic initiatives, the Department
is also engaging in global resilience programs focused on
vulnerable food sectors, such as fisheries. For example, the
Department is engaging on the Caribbean Oceans and Aquaculture
Sustainability Facility (COAST)--I take no responsibility for
that acronym, by the way--a program aimed at establishing
innovative insurance facilities for the fishery sector.
Innovation is a key element of our work on food security,
and programs like COAST have shown how the U.S. Government can
use new models to mobilize private and public resources to
address food insecurity.
Today, I will briefly mention two issues that I think are
of growing importance: Nutrition and urbanization. Under the
GFSA, improving nutrition, which has a major impact on economic
and human development, is a key objective. The State Department
supports GFSA objectives by fully engaging in forming global
policy on nutrition.
This helps create some of the synergies that the chairman
mentioned earlier. So in that sense, in that context, the
Department cofounded the 1,000 Days partnership and engages in
the Scaling Up Nutrition Movement, the U.N. Decade of Action on
Nutrition, and the Nutrition for Growth Summit to try to
mobilize countries, civil society, and the private sector to
support global nutrition.
And while the act quite properly focuses on the smallholder
farmer, I think urbanization is another important issue that is
emerging. By 2050, two-thirds of the global population will
live in cities, and 90 percent of this growth will occur in
Africa and Asia.
While urbanization is often associated with economic growth
and the rise of the middle class, many urban dwellers cannot
access or afford an adequate amount of nutritious food. In this
context, feeding rapidly urbanizing populations is becoming a
central concern for food security policy, an issue the
Department brought to the U.N.'s Habitat III summit last year.
So to conclude, addressing global food security is a
critical need, as reflected in the GFSA. The State Department
supports the GFSA objectives to help alleviate the suffering of
hunger, to help guarantee U.S. security, and to help create
opportunities for U.S. businesses.
We thank you for your support.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lyng follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
----------
Mr. Smith. Mr. Lyng, thank you very much for your
leadership. Thank you for your testimony.
I would like to now yield to Dr. Dunford.
STATEMENT OF BETH DUNFORD, PH.D., ASSISTANT TO THE
ADMINISTRATOR, BUREAU FOR FOOD SECURITY, U.S. AGENCY FOR
INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Ms. Dunford. Thank you very much.
Good afternoon, Chairman Smith, Ranking Member Bass, and
members of the subcommittee. Thank you for inviting me to speak
with you today, and thanks to the Congress for your continued
support in leadership on food security and nutrition.
I also want to thank my colleagues, C.D. Glin and Ted Lyng,
for being here today, as well as our interagency partners with
whom we collaborate closely under Feed the Future.
Mr. Chairman, today, there are nearly 800 million hungry
people in the world, and by 2050, there will be more than 9
billion mouths to feed. This is both a challenge and also an
opportunity for our country.
Feed the Future, guided by the Global Food Security
Strategy, is leveraging investment from partner countries and
the private sector to reduce reliance on humanitarian aid and
promote American prosperity, deliver results, and build
stability around the world.
While the world responds to the devastating situation of
near famines in Yemen, Somalia, South Sudan, and Nigeria, we
must bridge the gap between humanitarian and development
action, building resilience to address increasingly complex
risks and their impacts on vulnerable people, and lasting food
security for future generations.
Through Feed the Future, we are combating the root causes
of hunger and strengthening the resilience of communities and
countries by investing in agriculture. Today, 9 million more
people are living free from poverty, and 1.8 million more
children are living free from the devastating effects of
stunting, where Feed the Future works. And the old adage holds
true: An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
By investing in long-term solutions to food security today,
we can reduce the need for costly food aid in the future and
help entire countries move from food aid dependence to self-
sufficiency.
And while we have achieved impressive gains over the last 6
years, there is still more to be done. As populations soar,
lack of opportunities and food can push people to take
desperate measures. And far too many children in vulnerable
communities around the world still don't get enough nutritious
food to eat, robbing them of their future potential.
In response, over the last year alone, Feed the Future
efforts have reached nearly 27 million children with
interventions to improve their nutrition, particularly in the
critical 1,000-day window from pregnancy to a child's second
birthday.
Food security also affords opportunities for America's own
economy and prosperity. Feed the Future supports policies that
open trade in the agriculture sector, reduce corruption, help
U.S. businesses compete and expand into new markets, and
increase foreign demand for American products.
And as diseases that threaten foreign crops and livestock
make their ways to our shores, American farmers and ranchers
benefit from the work that we are already doing to combat them
through 24 Feed the Future innovation labs, which are supported
by over 70 top U.S. universities and colleges.
I would like to conclude with an update on how Feed the
Future is evolving under the Global Food Security Act. We have
worked with the 11 Feed the Future partner agencies and
departments to develop a new whole-of-government Global Food
Security Strategy, along with department and agency-specific
implementation plans incorporating findings from evaluations
and consultations.
We are identifying target countries where U.S. Government
investments have the greatest potential to achieve sustainable
improvements in food security and nutrition. We have also begun
developing a process for creating country plans that outline an
evidence-based whole-of-government approach to achieve our
goals in each of the target countries.
To strengthen Feed the Future's existing accountability
mechanisms, we are upgrading the set of indicators that we use
for performance monitoring. And we are developing a new
research strategy that will help us improve food security and
nutrition in the face of complex and dynamic challenges.
Feed the Future has shown that progress is possible. By
bringing partners together, the U.S. Government has achieved a
great deal in lifting families around the world out of poverty
and hunger, and this is something every American can be proud
of.
When I was in Senegal last month, I saw how our
partnerships with the government and the private sector are
empowering rice millers, like Daba Fall. Daba Fall accessed
training through Feed the Future that equipped her with the
tools, the resources, and the confidence to become an
entrepreneur. She is now helping her community break from the
cycle of hunger and poverty and feed itself by creating more
local jobs.
We have an approach that works to break the cycle of hunger
and poverty, and we are refining our systems for continual
feedback and improvement. We cannot do this without the United
States Congress' support. And I want to thank you again for
your leadership and commitment on this issue.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Dunford follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
----------
Mr. Smith. Dr. Dunford, thank you very much.
Mr. Glin, if you can testify.
STATEMENT OF MR. C.D. GLIN, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE
OFFICER, U.S. AFRICAN DEVELOPMENT FOUNDATION
Mr. Glin. Chairman Smith, Ranking Member Bass, members of
the subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to speak with you
today. Thank you for your leadership and support as we
commemorate the 1-year anniversary of Congress passing the
Global Food Security Act. A special thanks for your passion,
conviction, and commitment to the fight to end global hunger.
I came to USADF, the African Development Foundation, less
than 1 year ago, having previously served as a Peace Corps
volunteer in South Africa during the Presidency of Mandela, so
it is a special privilege to testify today on this Mandela Day.
I went on to live and work in northern Nigeria and most
recently in Kenya with the Rockefeller Foundation. So I bring a
personal and professional commitment to this work. I can't be
more honored and more humbled to be leading USADF's efforts at
this time in the implementation of the Global Food Security
Act.
The U.S. African Development Foundation is an independent
agency that functions as an alternative to the traditional aid
that the United States regularly provides in Africa.
Established by Congress in 1980 to encourage self-sufficiency
and entrepreneurship amongst poor and vulnerable populations,
USADF is a model for doing development differently.
With the enactment of GFSA and its implementation over the
past year, USADF's catalytic grassroots level support has been
amplified through enhanced interagency coordination. Our
inclusive participatory and community-led efforts are linked to
and aligned with country and continental efforts to reduce
hunger and alleviate poverty.
Our foreign assistance provides underserved communities
across Africa a voice and a choice in their economic
development priorities. Our community-led work is critical, now
more than ever, as sub-Saharan Africa continues to struggle
with record levels of displacement and hunger as a result of
conflict and drought, as well as millions who are on the brink
of starvation in South Sudan, Somalia, and Nigeria, all
countries in which USADF is active.
We address hunger and insecurity at the root cause by
focusing at the grassroots. Through Feed the Future, as guided
by the Global Food Security Strategy, USADF has invested over
36 million in agriculture investments and nine Feed the Future-
focused countries in Africa. We have worked with over 180,000
farmers, over half of which who are women, and impacted nearly
1 million people who are living free from hunger.
Many entities talk about smallholder farmers. We talk to
them. Approximately 70 percent of our investments are focused
on supporting agricultural-led economic growth for smallholder
farmers who represent nearly 70 percent of Africa's labor force
and are the backbones of its economies.
Our grants assist hundreds of agricultural cooperatives to
develop better enterprise management skills, improve production
and distribution capabilities, and access larger markets. For
instance, in Turkana, northern Kenya, we have helped
communities move from being food-aid dependent to self-
sufficient food producers and entrepreneurs.
USADF's purpose, our programs, and our partnerships bring
the voices and the choices of smallholder farmers to GFSA
implementation. Our purpose is on creating pathways to
prosperity for underserved communities, those at the first
phase of development, the first mile of development.
At USADF we don't talk about the last mile starting with
program design here in Washington, DC, our programs start where
there are no paved roads. We respond to the needs of
communities and catalyze the first mile of development,
creating pathways to self-sufficiency and pathways to
prosperity.
We don't simply make grants. We make a difference and bring
about transformational change in the lives of poor and
vulnerable people. Our 20 country programs are managed by 100
percent African staff. Our agility, nimbleness enables us to
create catalytic demonstration projects, which serve as a model
for locally owned, impactful, and self-sustaining development
programs, which deliver results utilizing our in-country
management and Africa and technical partners, not expats nor
contractors.
We invest directly in early stage grassroots enterprises.
We provide seed capital up to $250,000 and local technical
assistance. Partnerships with communities, countries, and
corporations are important elements of USADF's value-add to
GFSA and broader foreign assistance as a whole.
In the last 10 years, USADF has leveraged approximately $25
million in host country government cofunding and deployed an
additional $5.1 million in funds from other U.S. Government
agencies. We maximize the impact of taxpayer dollars by
matching U.S. funds with leverage cofinancing from host country
African governments that invest their resources directly into
USADF programs.
In Uganda, the government recently recommitted an
additional $5 million over the next 5 years. U.S. corporations,
such as General Electric and Citigroup, also collaborate with
USADF to leverage our unique capabilities. Last year, with an
appropriation of $30 million and 20 country programs, we
impacted 250,000 jobs and improved the lives of 1.5 million
people.
In conclusion, USADF's enduring relationship with
communities in Africa provides a unique model for African
development, giving smallholder farmers a voice and a choice.
Our foreign assistance is not a donation but rather an
investment in local lives and local enterprise. We enable the
poor to participate in their own development, to enhance
opportunities for themselves, and to create pathways to self-
sufficiency and prosperity via local enterprise creation.
Through the Global Food Security Act, USADF transforms the
quality of life for millions of people and communities across
Africa and strengthens America's leadership in Africa and the
world.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Glin follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
----------
Mr. Smith. Thank you very much for your testimony and your
leadership.
Since we do have a number of members in the subcommittee
here, I will ask all of my questions at once just to expedite.
So first--and let me ask Mr. Lyng, if you could--Karen Bass
and I were actually in South Sudan and Uganda, as I referenced
in my opening comments, around the Memorial Day recess. And
frankly, we came away deeply concerned about the cuts in
funding for the individuals at Bidi Bidi camp, which is one of
the largest camps anywhere.
And what we learned was that they cut their food assistance
available by 50 percent. Corn and other foods were literally
cut in half. And I am not sure how they subsist on such meager
resources, because many of the people are already quite thin
from the devastating impact of the war and the famine.
I did note that you pointed out that in Italy, May 26
through 27, the G7 had a resolution about mobilizing assistance
to address the famine or near-famine in Nigeria, Somalia, South
Sudan, and Yemen, which is a great statement, again, the G7
stepping up. And perhaps it would be helpful if you could tell
us what that could mean in real terms for these folks that are
suffering.
I would point out that back in October 20, 2015, I actually
chaired a hearing and one of many on the refugees fleeing from
the Middle East mostly, but some from Africa, and even from
refugee camps run by the UNHCR and others. And the reason given
was very simply that for year over year, the UNHCR would put
out a call for funding. And the international community led by
the U.S.--but we would not make up the differences that the EU
and others failed to provide--would only come up to about 40
percent of what the appeal was, so in other words, unmet need
every year, every year for 5 years, 60 percent.
And that the proximate cause, according to the UNHCR's
representative at the hearing, was the one-third cut in the
World Food Programme. And they finally said we are out of here.
They upped. And once the exodus started, a trickle became a
mass exodus mostly into Europe. It seems to me that Europe and
all of us could have been much more proactive in making sure
that those food security needs were indeed met.
So my question would be again, G7, are we meeting it? As
you mentioned, Dr. Dunford, worldwide, 81 million people are
projected to need emergency food aid, and of course, 20 million
are at grave risk in these famine countries. So if you could
speak to that.
Secondly, on the first 1,000 Days, Dr. Dunford--and again,
I salute you and for the work that you have done for several
years on this. It is an outstanding program. How many countries
have actually signed up for the program that you lead, and are
they being faithful in implementing it?
One thing that we said to President Museveni was, thank you
for signing up, but more needs to be done because, obviously,
the need is so incredible. And I do appreciate that you had
some of those figures for how the number of children with
stunting has gone down by 1.8 million.
You mentioned, Dr. Dunford, upgrading a set of indicators.
Either for now orally or perhaps for the record, if you could
give us a detailed list of those indicators. You said you are
developing a new strategy that supports the Global Food
Security Strategy. If you could provide us, you know, very,
very good details on that, that would be very helpful to the
committee. And then, again, if you could just speak to the
resilience issue, which I think is so extremely important.
We had a hearing in the full committee just the other day
on microcredit lending. And one of the biggest takeaways of
all--because I wrote two laws of microcredit lending. It used
to be all about donor support, and now it is a matter of money
coming in from deposits from people who now have bank accounts.
The donor support from the governments has greatly been
reduced, which means it is becoming self-sustaining, which is a
great news story. So if you could speak to that. And how many
target countries, if you could just be specific, under the
first 1,000 Days.
I have other questions, but, again, out of deference to my
colleagues, I will ask you those first.
Mr. Lyng. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I will have to take the
question on the specific level of cuts in the camp, which I
agree is extremely concerning, as generally displaced people do
not have that margin of flexibility in their diet to absorb
that kind of change. But I don't know the details right now.
As far as mobilizing the G7 and what it means in real
terms, well, the United States has stepped up with an
additional contribution in the last few weeks. That will
definitely mean much more food on its way to these camps.
The G7 declaration, quite frankly, is a good way to get
other nations to step up and also match the commitment to the
United States, which remains the largest donor in emergency
food assistance.
Ms. Dunford. Great. Thank you very much for your questions.
I would like to start with talking about microcredit. I
think that is a really interesting and important question, as
access to finance is one of the critical obstacles to families
gaining self-sufficiency and improving their livelihoods.
I was just meeting with some of our colleagues in Ghana and
seeing a real effort to get more lending into the agriculture
sector to farmers who really need it to improve their yields on
their farms. And a bank in Ghana was really searching to do
that and was very unsuccessful, even though they had loan
guarantees helping to defray the increased difficulty of
getting loans out to farmers.
And what we saw was providing these banks with technical
assistance really enabled them to better understand farming and
what kinds of loans that, actually, farmers needed in order to
take these loans, helped this bank go from $4 million to $54
million in loans in just 1 year in the agriculture sector.
So I think that is the kind of targeted technical
assistance that we are talking about. It is not necessarily our
funds being loaned but us making sure that financial
institutions have the capabilities and the wherewithal to get
money out to farmers. So we are seeing a lot of success in that
front.
On resilience, I think this is an area where we have really
elevated resilience in the new Global Food Security Strategy to
a strategic objective. And in the strategy that we submitted to
Congress on October 1, you can see more details.
Ethiopia is an area where we have really seen our
resilience strategy play out. We recognize that the situation
is deteriorating in Ethiopia, but in 2016, we saw that a very,
very devastating drought was hitting the lowlands of Ethiopia.
Communities and families that had been receiving comprehensive
resilience and food security assistance over a number of years
provided by USAID were able to maintain their food security
status with only a 4 percent drop in that status; whereas,
families outside of those areas without that assistance had a
precipitous 30 percent decline.
And so I think that is the type of investment that we would
like to see more of over the long term in order to really
mitigate against these recurrent shocks.
Mr. Smith. If you could for the record, if not now, the
number of countries, how well they are doing in terms of
response.
Ms. Dunford. Right. Okay. So I think we have--in the first
phase of Feed the Future, we had 19 focus countries. Right now,
we are undergoing in the final stages of doing country
selection for the target countries under the Global Food
Security Act.
We used six criteria in order to identify those countries.
One of them is country commitment, really demonstrating that
countries are invested in food security and nutrition, that
they are committed to putting the right types of policies in
place in order to really be true partners and leaders on taking
our efforts in food security and nutrition going forward.
Mr. Smith. Thank you.
Ms. Bass.
Ms. Bass. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate it. I don't
know if in your opening comments you mentioned the Washington
Post today, but they have an editorial talking about the
famines.
A question for Dr. Dunford and Mr. Lyng. I wanted to ask
you about Somaliland. Actually, representatives from Somaliland
came and met with me a couple of weeks ago and were concerned
that, with the attention on Somalia, that Somaliland is not--
the issue there is not being addressed. And they have said that
80 percent of their livestock has been wiped out.
Also in Ethiopia, there was a presentation yesterday at the
council on foreign affairs about Ethiopia. And I wanted to know
if any of our assistance--and it is not targeted to those
countries, but I wanted to know if you could comment about
that, either one of you.
Ms. Dunford. So on emergency food assistance, I have other
colleagues at USAID that manage those programs and will get
back to you with more specifics on where our assistance is
going, our emergency assistance.
I can talk about our longer-term development assistance in
agriculture and nutrition. We have an extensive program in
Ethiopia, and I think I put on the table some of the results we
are seeing in terms of the ability of families to mitigate and
manage through these shocks when they have had comprehensive
resilience interventions.
In Somalia, Somaliland, we are seeing that we are able to
also invest in longer-term development issues and seeing good
results with our value chain projects, focusing mainly on
livestock and horticulture. And I can get you more information
on that as well.
Ms. Bass. Thank you. Thank you. I appreciate that.
Mr. Lyng, did you want to comment?
Mr. Lyng. No, other than to reiterate it is just breaking
out of this cycle of emergency and response that these long-
term investments in resilience and food security will--if only
to help us stop breaking the budget with this enormous
humanitarian assistance----
Ms. Bass. Right. Right, right. And, you know, when I think
of resilience, I think of the ADF and the work that you have
done over the decades. And, of course, I am very concerned,
because in the President's budget it calls for the elimination,
if I am not mistaken. Although, I am not sure what kind of
support that is going to get up on the Hill.
But given your long track record of focusing slowly on
smallholder farmers in Africa and giving them voice and choice
in the process of development, how does this make the GFSA more
effective?
Mr. Glin. Thank you, Ranking Member. The Foundation feels
that GFSA has really been able to amplify our impact. The focus
on agriculture-led growth, on increasing smallholder farmer
incomes, on being inclusive of smallholders has really been
able to not only link our efforts--which have, as you said,
have been going on for the past 30 years, where we have been
working and having impact at the community level to link back
with broader U.S. Government efforts.
So we have created somewhat of a conveyer belt where we
focus exclusively at the grassroots, what we call community-led
development. And our work carries over into the work of USAID
and OPIC and other development partners that may be at the
country level. So we feel like GFSA has really been able to put
a spotlight on the unique contribution that we bring to the
Global Food Security Act.
And I wanted to comment on your point around Somalia.
Somalia is a country that, since 2011, we have concentrated a
lot of our programming on, especially as it relates not only to
smallholder agriculture, but to youth employment.
Ms. Bass. In Somalia or Somaliland or both?
Mr. Glin. Both. We are operating in five regions of
Somalia, Somaliland, Puntland, and the other territories. And
we have been able to focus exclusively on looking at youth
engagement not only in agriculture, but in job creation and job
placement.
And so youth unemployment is also a challenge that Somalia
and Somaliland faces, and we have been at the forefront of
ensuring that they are included in the growth and opportunities
and the peace and stability of Somalia.
Ms. Bass. You know, I really think that there needs to be
more attention to ADF. Because, to me, the way we go about
foreign aid a lot of times, where we are providing services
versus trying to build up the capacity of people on the ground,
you know, the essence of Feed the Future, to me, and Power
Africa is really the work that you do. And I think it needs to
be lifted up, you know, and illustrated more so that it is not
just about us--and I am saying this to my colleagues on both
sides of the aisle.
But, you know, when we look at sustainability and all of
that, it is not just about us giving away money or programs,
but it is really about raising the capacity so our dollars
aren't needed in the long run. Of course, they are certainly
needed right now. But I don't think that a lot of people are
fully aware of the type of programming that you do.
I wanted to know, in that regard, how do you measure the
success of your programs, and how do you ensure sustainability
of the efforts after funding? So if you give a grant somewhere,
you know, how long does that last, and how do you make the
strategic decision as to where you go next?
Mr. Glin. Thank you for the question, Ranking Member. We
select our grantees and our groups that we provide grant
financing to based upon a success metric. We actually designed
the program with success in mind, and we also measure for
success. We try to be efficient, effective, and have a serious
return.
So with our grants, we focus on capacity-building grants as
well as growth-oriented grants, building the capacity of
grassroots community organizations to be able to have
organizational capacity strengthened, and to be able to really
be an operating, small enterprise. And then we also fund at the
level of expanding their enterprise, giving them market access
and greater market linkages.
Ultimate success for us, as you articulate, is that our
funding is catalytic. It is a jump start. But those groups are
on a pathway to self-sufficiency, so that we have played an
important part in starting them or establishing them or giving
them a helping hand, but it is a handoff, because they go on to
get follow-on financing from others.
That is essential to our development model. And I can say
over three-fourths of our grants that are designed for growth
are sustainable after our funding, and we have intentionality
to link them to follow-on funding.
We talk about it as where do our graduates go. Every
college or university knows where their graduates went and how
much they made. So when we invest in community enterprises,
where do our enterprises go, and who else is providing follow-
on funding to them after we have invested?
Ms. Bass. Do you have funding outside of government
funding? In other words, you mentioned a couple of foundations
that you worked for before. Do you have funding? Does ADF has
funding there?
Mr. Glin. Thank you, Ranking Member Bass. USADF has the
unique capability to receive direct funding, not only from our,
obviously, the appropriation that we get from Congress, but
also from African governments. So African governments believe
in this model of grassroots enterprise development of self-
sustainability for the community enterprises, and they invest
along with USADF.
Uganda is a perfect example of a country that wherein we
invest $5 million and they coinvest that, that amount. So we
actually program $10 million. So countries cofund in the past
10 years. We have had $25 million of cofunding directly to U.S.
Treasury account from African governments that want to advance
their own poor and vulnerable rural populations.
We also have corporations that say--under Power Africa and
other U.S. Government initiatives, that say USADF is able to
reach groups and communities, off-grid energy challenge, those
at the rural areas in ways that we can't. And so they coinvest
in ADF and leverage our unique capabilities to amplify their
own impact. So countries as well as companies coinvest and
leverage U.S. Government-appropriated dollars.
Ms. Bass. Thank you. Thank you very much.
I yield back my time.
Mr. Smith. I would like to yield to Mr. Donovan.
Mr. Donovan. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I will take your
lead and ask my two questions at the same time to save some
time for answers of our panel.
One is, I suspect you found better success in some nations
than others throughout your efforts. Could you explain to us
why you think that is, and can we take those efforts that are
more successful and implement them in the areas where we are
less successful?
And the other thing I want to know is, aside from
authorization and appropriation of financial resources, what do
you believe that this larger Committee of Foreign Affairs, that
this Congress can do to help your efforts?
Ms. Dunford. Thank you very much for your question.
Regarding success, we have a very, well-developed monitoring
and evaluation system where we collect data and indicators
across the whole range of our strategy. That would be on
agricultural development, on resilience, and nutrition to see
where we are achieving success.
I think in countries where we have seen great success there
are a multitude of factors involved. One of the key ones that I
think we are very focused on going forward is host country
government commitment to food security.
We saw last year that we were able to work with governments
to put in place 100 policies that really set the stage for
success in agriculture and nutrition. It could be around
facilitating the groundwork for private sector investment or
host country commitment and engagement in areas like nutrition.
And I think looking at those policies that really unlock
and flourish success are what we are trying to put forward in
the next phase of Feed the Future going forward. And, again, it
is a key criterion in how we are selecting the countries that
we will continue with as target countries going forward.
Mr. Lyng. Well, Beth took the words right out of my mouth
about government commitment, and I won't reiterate that. I
would also say a serious attitude toward corruption, especially
official corruption, certainly correlates with success very
strongly.
As far as the second part of your question, I think we have
really profited from the consultation, especially at the staff
level with your committee, and continuing that dialogue will be
very helpful to our efforts.
Mr. Glin. I would echo what Dr. Dunford has mentioned, the
country commitment and, for us, the alignment of our engagement
with the government strategy so it is not only community led
but country led where we are a catalyst and an input to a
broader development effort of a country. And Uganda is a
perfect example of that, wherein our investments are leveraged
by the Government of Uganda who adds to the funding that the
U.S. Government gives USADF in a country such as that.
And I think the coordination, increased coordination that
we have and that comes through GFSA to be able to link and to
distinguish the complementary effects that ADF gives to foreign
assistance by having 11 agencies working together but for a
common cause has been really essential. And we applaud you for
that function within GFSA.
Mr. Donovan. Thank you.
Just a followup and then I will yield the remainder of my
time. Are State Department using any leverage for those
countries whose governments are corrupt, aren't cooperating
with your efforts?
Mr. Lyng. Certainly, corruption has been a focus of the
State Department for some time now. It does enter into all this
planning, and under the leadership of the Chief of Mission as
part of a whole-of-government effort, is certainly considered.
It has been a factor in the discussions we have of the target
countries as well.
Mr. Donovan. I thank you all.
Chairman, I yield the remainder of my time.
Mr. Smith. Thank you very much, Mr. Donovan.
Mr. Castro.
Mr. Castro. Thank you, Chairman.
Thank you all for your testimony today.
It looks as though the fiscal year 2018 budget proposal, at
least the President's proposal, has deep cuts for global food
security. And I know, at least at USAID and the State
Department, you have to work with what the Congress approves
and the President signs off on. But it is deeply disturbing.
And I want to ask you, quite honestly, how many people do
you think are going to starve around the world because of these
cuts?
Ms. Dunford. Thank you for your question. I think that
USAID is committed to continuing our efforts in food security.
And I think, as development practitioners, we are constantly
forced to make difficult decisions, difficult tradeoffs with
resources that are available.
The problem is immense, as you say. We are really committed
to using every dollar that Congress provides to achieve maximum
impact, and really working with our partners, donor partners,
also leveraging funds from governments and from private sector
to address this monumental challenge.
Mr. Lyng. Yeah, I agree with Beth. Our task is to maximize
the effectiveness of the money that we have to work with, and
we will do that with our greatest effort.
The administration is committed to addressing global food
security. We saw it at the G20, saw it at the G7, and we have
seen in recent work in the famine. So within the level of
budget set by the Congress and the President, we will do
everything we can.
Mr. Glin. So as my colleague said, USADF will be efficient
and effective with whatever budget we are allocated and
appropriated by Congress and the President. In fiscal year
2016, we were appropriated $30 million. We impacted 250,000
lives and 1.5 million people. With less, there will be impacts
on lives in the communities and the countries that we operate.
Mr. Castro. Thank you.
And previously, Secretary of Defense Mattis stated that,
``Climate change is impacting stability in areas of the world
where our troops are operating today.''
As climate change leads to increasing droughts, famines,
and natural disasters, how will the Global Food Security Act
supported efforts address these concerns? How does a lowered
budget request align with the realities of climate change?
Ms. Dunford. Thank you very much for that question. Looking
at weather and how it impacts food security, we invest a lot in
research to come up with new technologies that really are
adapted to weather patterns and pests.
We have, through sustained investment over many years,
helped come up with a drought-tolerant maize, which is now
being used among 6 million farmers in sub-Saharan Africa,
mostly in southern Africa.
In 2016, when they experienced a significant drought, you
saw that yields could be up to 40 percent higher for those
farmers that were using this drought-tolerant maize. That is
the kind of investment that we have been making that is very,
very important for weather-related events and that we will
continue to make as we go forward.
Mr. Lyng. Secretary Tillerson has said that the Department
remains involved in the issue of climate change and believes
that it continues to be important, and we will continue to
remain engaged on this issue. As Beth said, changing weather
patterns around the world do have an effect on food production.
We are doing a small project in Central America with corn and
bean cultivation in arid conditions. It is the type of thing we
are working on.
It is also important to us to make sure that American
industry, American corporations remain at the table as we
develop climate-smart techniques and this sort of thing. Part
of the way we do that is engagement with the Global Alliance on
Climate-Smart Agriculture, which is based in Rome.
Mr. Castro. And then one final comment, Chairman, before I
yield back. With this severity of cuts--in the Foreign Affairs
Committee, which is a fairly bipartisan committee, we talk
about concern for people around the world. I believe that these
deep cuts will make for more desperate people around the world,
people who are more apt because of their desperation to engage
in illicit activity, like human trafficking, sex trafficking,
drug running, anything they can do to survive, crossing
borders. It very much goes against all of the work that we have
put into helping build what I call an infrastructure of
opportunity for people around the world. And so I want to
express my deep, deep concern with this proposal.
I realize it is not the final budget. I realize that a
President's budget hardly ever becomes the budget, but it is a
disturbing trend if this is what we are going to see when the
final product comes to us.
I yield back.
Mr. Smith. Mr. Garrett.
Mr. Garrett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would acknowledge and add my voice to the comments of my
colleague from across the aisle as it relates to the negative
ramifications of ignoring the problems that exist. And I do
that because he acknowledges that this budget is probably not
the final budget, but I think he is correct.
And there are some points I want to hit on because it is
neat for us to have three people of such influence in this
particular important realm in our purview, and that is that you
all have the interesting distinction of all working for
programs that, if they are done well, in 100 years shouldn't
exist, which flies in the face of the idea that the closest
thing to eternal life on this planet is a government program.
But really important work, and I think underscored by the fact
that we place preeminent importance in funding our military and
aggressively prosecuting radicalism and extremism across the
planet, which I would argue is--pardon the bad metaphor--fed by
malnourishment in developing nations. In other words, if you
hand a 12-year-old who hasn't had a meal a rifle and tell him
to go kill someone, it might be that he has a greater
proclivity to do that by virtue of the fact that he thinks
there is food at the end of it.
And so to that end, I want to touch on a program that I
think that McGovern-Dole delves into, and that is school
feeding programs. The reason I want to do that is because I
think they are of incredible importance, not just in ensuring
that 1,000-day window and the nourishment and sustenance that
young people need in order to mentally and physically develop
to be productive adults, but also in empowering communities by
virtue of extending education to often heretofore underserved
populaces.
As you all probably know better than others, or I would
hope know better than others, in the developing world the
percentage of individuals who work in agriculture is far, far
greater than it is here. In fact, the size of the American
family has shrunken immensely, as we have not needed young
people to be at work on the farm. And we have arguments these
days over things like what the school calendar should look like
as we have now been decades from an agrarian society.
But whether cultural or religious or based on the work
needs of the family in order to provide food for the children,
what we see are birth rates in a place like Ethiopia that in
2014 was 4.4 per woman, which is compared to the United States,
we are at 1.9, and Russia where we are at 1.7.
And I want to magnify that by some facts that blew my mind
when they came to my attention, and that is, if you compare the
population of Russia--this is the first I have heard anybody
talk about Russia in this building that didn't have to do with
allegations against the administration. If you compare the
population of Ethiopia to Russia, you find that the population
density of--or the population of Ethiopia is 102 million; in
Russia, minus the east Ukraine and Crimea, is 145 million. It
is mind blowing.
The population density in Russia is about 22 per square
mile. The population density in Ethiopia is 222 per square
mile. And if you know anything about geography, it really ought
to be about 444 per square mile because about half the nation
is not effectively arable land.
And the birth rate in Ethiopia is, again, 4.4 per woman.
Now, how do you change that? The most effective way to change
that is to ensure that the young women of Ethiopia receive an
education. The ancillary benefit is that when these young women
receive an education and we extend microloans and opportunities
to them, we see more businesses start up. As we see more
businesses start up, we see a smaller percentage of the
population relying on the agrarian lifestyle. As we see a
smaller percentage of the population relying on an agrarian
lifestyle, we tend to see strives forward in quality of life.
And as we see striving forward in the quality of life, we see
what I think is fundamental to our job here, and that is
opportunity, right, and the ability to define success within
sort of in a Jeffersonian construct, what you wish to do, so
long as it doesn't harm another.
So are you looking--long buildup for a short question. Are
we looking at programs that work, and are we thinking in the
macro, in the long term, rather than the micro? To be very
cliche, are we teaching folks to fish as opposed to giving them
fish?
And further, to follow up, is there any discussion, and I
hope there is, as to the long-term benefits, aside from simply
tackling malnutrition problems and getting young ladies, young
women into schools in areas where heretofore they hadn't been?
But beyond that to the stemming, I would argue, of the tendency
to be radicalized, how many dollars we spend today to help
people have opportunity and eat versus how many dollars we
spend tomorrow to build bombs and bullets that we would rather
not use. Are those sorts of the conversations being had?
And I will open the floor. We will just go in order from my
left to right. That is you, sir.
Mr. Lyng. So those conversations are being had. And this
obviously is not a simple topic. I don't think you can draw a
straight line equation that vulnerable communities equal
radicalization, but there is no doubt that freedom from want is
one of our best tools against radicalization.
Mr. Garrett. And I am going to interrupt for a second. And,
Dr. Dunford and Mr. Lyng, I am going to get to you guys. I
mean, the really basic argument that somebody--you know, public
school kid like me would make is you very rarely see someone
who is looking forward to going to med school in 2 years strap
a suicide bomb to themselves. Right?
Mr. Lyng. Right.
Mr. Garrett. Hope and opportunity.
Mr. Lyng. Right.
Mr. Garrett. And the aspirational reality that you might
achieve a goal removes desperation. And where your next meal is
coming from is--that is real desperation. Right? I am on a
diet, all right, but I know at some point I am going to eat.
So--anyway, go ahead.
Mr. Lyng. And those are baked into our projects now. And I
think--you know, I think it is important that--although we hear
a lot of grim statistics, and we face a very important task,
there is hope.
I have been lucky enough to spend 9 years of my career in
Indonesia. Indonesia is a country that with a noncoercive
family planning program was able to bring--and issues that
don't involve contraception, but education and cultural
acclimation, was able to reduce its birth rate, increase the
education level of its women, and essentially, increase its
prosperity over time.
So a lot of that was done at the USAID and MCC assistance.
So we do have the tools, and we are trying to implement them in
a way. We sometimes face very hard, objective practical
problems, but there is hope, and we can do it.
I am sure Beth has more.
Ms. Dunford. Thank you very much for your question. It is a
very important one. A recent study from northeastern Nigeria
done by Mercy Corps found that the number one recruitment tool
by Boko Haram was providing access to financial services to
youth in northeastern Nigeria. And so I think that the kinds of
programs that we have that are offering livelihood
opportunities for these youth are critically important. And we
are moving our programs into the areas on the fringes of Boko
Haram, moving in to provide that livelihood opportunity that
people crave.
Mr. Glin. Thank you for your question, sir. And as Beth
said, we have examples of ADF's work in northern Nigeria,
combating the threat of Boko Haram through economic
empowerment. But let me give you an example from the other side
of the continent, from the Horn of Africa.
In Somalia, there is information and data that says al-
Shabaab is able to recruit a young person into al-Shabaab with
a promise of $50 a month and a cellular phone. Fifty dollars a
month and a cellular phone. USADF's programs over the past 5
years have impacted and been focused on job creation and job
placement and have impacted over 6,000 youths.
The average income of the youth in our economic development
programs is $300 a month. So they have a choice now, an
opportunity now, an alternative now, because we are saying to
those who are giving them $50 a month and a cellular phone,
there is a job that you can create that can give you $300, and
they are making positive choices. But as you said, this is hard
work.
Mr. Garrett. Mr. Chairman, briefly.
And the other thing is, what you do, Mr. Glin,
specifically, in leveraging the local nations to take
ownership, right, is great. And I don't want to in any way,
shape, or form disparage it, but there is so much to be tapped
into here in the private sector.
For example, I think a resident in my district recently
donated $12.7 million to create a squash facility at the
University of Virginia. Uganda chipped in $5 million over 5
years to augment these programs in the United States. So I
guess what I am driving at is not in any way, shape, or form
criticism; in fact, I don't mean that to any of you. But if
information is disseminated, if we solicit the private
community, and--I have talked to people about school feeding
programs, and I am on the right side of the right side, right,
politically. And when they understand it, they go, wow, yeah,
it all makes sense.
So I hope that this committee, perhaps, can help, and that,
you know, you all in your capacities can help in sort of
telling the American citizen, who is an amazing resource of
charity, just how much good we can do.
And the problem--and I sympathize with all three of you. I
was a prosecutor and we did a lot of computer crimes, people
that would pursue children using the Internet. And whenever you
caught one of those guys, they usually were--you don't know--
you know, you don't know how many kids you saved. And whenever
you divert a young person from Boko Haram into a productive
member of society, you don't know how many people you have
saved directly, and tangentially, today, and to come, right?
But we know the work is worthwhile.
I just hope that we can get the word out to the private
sector that any individual generous enough--and I in no way,
shape, or form criticizing this individual either, to
generate--to donate $13 million for a squash facility, might
think it is worthwhile to put a couple million dollars in the
school feeding program.
So thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you all.
Mr. Smith. Mr. Garrett, thank you very much.
I would like to yield the floor to Mr. Suozzi.
Mr. Suozzi. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you to each of the witnesses for the great work that
you do and for your testimony here today. I want to compliment
my colleagues, both those that are here and that have left
already for their insightful comments and responsible comments
that they have made here today.
I just want to point out, and I don't know if this has been
put on the record, but for the agricultural development and
food security program, the fiscal year 2017 appropriation was
$1 billion. The budget request from the President is $500
million. The international disaster assistance program, the
fiscal year 2017 appropriation was $4.4 billion. The
administration request is $2.5 billion. The 480 Title II
program, Food for Peace, the fiscal year 2017 appropriation was
$1.4 billion. The administration request is zero. The McGovern-
Dole Food for Education Program was $201 million for fiscal
year 2017 appropriation, and zero in the administration's
request. And the Global Agriculture and Food Security fund, $23
million in fiscal year 2017, and zero in the administration
request.
So we have heard, and you all know, that there is
tremendous suffering going on in the world right now. We know
about the costs. You have spoken about the costs of doing
emergency feeding of people. We have heard testimony about the
impact on terrorism and how people are recruited because of
food insecurity in terrorist organizations.
And I was with the former Governor of South Carolina the
other day, Governor David Beasley, who is the Executive
Director of the U.N. World Food Programme, who talked about how
his work that he is doing with $6 billion to $9 billion a year
in food distribution is the frontline against terrorism. And he
is a very conservative Republican. And some of his colleagues
were saying to him, well, it is the U.N. He says, well, I don't
know about the whole U.N., but this program is essential for
the world.
So there is a battle in the world going on these days, not
between ideologies, but between stability versus instability.
We have gone from 35 million refugees 10 years ago to 65
million refugees today. And there are people that are trying to
exacerbate that instability. We have instability due to climate
change. We have instability due to corruption, to incompetence
and lack of resources, but there are other governments and
organizations that are trying to promote instability in the
world.
And the work that you are doing is to try and bring
stability. You are in the frontline of that battle between
stability and instability. And I just would like each of you to
please tell me one example of what you think is an example--and
you have to put it in plain English terms for all of us--a
great example of success, of something that you have been
involved with. It doesn't have to be, you know, in the past
year. Past year would be great, but a great example of what you
see as being a success, where, you know, you put in this much
money, this is the program that you did, you provided this, and
this is the result today. Especially something as far as, not
as emergency feeding, but as far as building capacity and long-
term sustainability.
Mr. Lyng.
Mr. Lyng. So I will give you a very small example, because
I think it is very striking and emblematic in a lot of ways. As
we engaged a Silicon Valley firm in a partnership to help
provide better data on metrics of food security, and they were
able to apply a lot of innovative techniques that someone my
age cannot understand at all, and we were able to bring to bear
a lot of the data that previously was untapped for food
security and specifically, sustainable development goal number
two. That project has now taken on a life of its own. The U.N.,
in May, in fact, engaged this Silicon Valley firm to do the
monitoring and evaluation for all of the sustainable
development goals. I think that was a great success.
Mr. Suozzi. Okay. But I know that that is a great important
work, and I know that, and it is very essential. But I want you
to try and tell me things that--each of you, to tell me things
that are examples of something on the ground that happened that
resulted in a now sustainable community.
So I heard a lot of talk about policy--policy positions put
in place and metrics that are put in place and different ideas
of programs. I want to hear in real life, like we invested this
much money and now they are growing this crop, or put in this
much money and now they are doing this livestock, or this is
how it has impacted this particular community.
You can go to the next person, if you want, and----
Ms. Dunford. Thank you, sir, for your question. I would
like to talk about Malawi in 2016, which was suffering a
terrible drought, and compare two villages. One village needed
food assistance in 2016, and the World Food Programme spent
over 10 months $390 per family to feed that family to make it
through the year. And it was very clear from visiting this
village that this village will need food assistance, if not
this year, then the next year and the year after that.
Compare that to another village that received less money,
or just over $370 over a period of 5 years, from 2009 to 2014,
for development, food security, resilience interventions that
helped with things like irrigation, market access, farming
techniques. This 5-year investment that, in total, cost less
per family than to feed families in this other village for 10
months over 5 years investment, they then, in 2014, the program
ended, come back at 2016 when there is a drought, and the
village is flourishing. They don't need food assistance. People
are self-sufficient, have strong livelihoods, and it is a happy
place to be.
For me, that is the ultimate success of our programs. You
go back 3 years later, and they are very successful in the face
of what is a historic drought in Malawi.
Mr. Suozzi. So that is a great example. And thank you so
much, Doctor.
So you are saying the money was invested in irrigation. It
was invested in market access. So what do you mean by market
access?
Ms. Dunford. Irrigation, also crop production, market
access, helping farmers aggregate their products and link them
to markets so they can sell their products that they grow.
Mr. Suozzi. So you show them how they would sell--where
they would sell it and how they would sell their crop?
Ms. Dunford. Yes, and helping to form farmers organizations
that can get decent prices on the market.
Mr. Suozzi. Okay. Thank you very much.
Mr. Glin. Thank you, sir, for your question. And your
interest is exactly why USADF exists, for direct grassroots
investments into local enterprise not only to help them
increase their sustainability, but for them to grow.
A perfect example of that is a cooperative in Liberia, a
women's cooperative, Gbelaygeh. These are a group of women who
were forced to leave their country during civil war in Liberia,
returned back as widows. They formed themselves into
cooperatives, more so from a social reason. You know, women and
the rice were sort of what they had in common. They applied for
a grant to USADF funding, a grant of under $250,000. We gave
them a grant to increase their farming practices, to upgrade
their farming practice, to become more registered, and to be a
viable business unit, a farmer--as I said, a farmer producer
organization, and then also to be able to have processing
equipment. They were growing and then milling rice and selling
that rice.
Then Ebola hits. The resilience that they got from having
the operational assistance and support through the USADF grant
and their ability to not only survive, but to withstand the
shock that came through Ebola, and then to thrive after. In
Ebola, this group actually still turned a profit. Today, sir,
that group is selling to the World Food Programme, which you
referenced. They are selling rice, and they are also buying and
processing palm oil.
This is a women's widowed cooperative that now is a viable
business unit, and they have survived and adapted and thrived
in the face of stresses that they could perceive and some they
would have never been able to perceive. But that is an example
of what USADF does all over the continent in 20 countries,
cooperative after cooperative.
Last year, we invested in over 500, so I can give you 500
individual resilience and enterprise development stories. And
that is what our appropriation from Congress does. It impacts
people directly.
Mr. Suozzi. So in that particular instance of Liberia, the
money was invested in buying the milling equipment as well as--
--
Mr. Glin. As well as the training and technical assistance
they needed to increase their agricultural practices. So they
got equipment. They got training. They had some level of market
access in the market was--World Food Programme, they have
specific quality, quantity, and--specific standards that they
needed to be trained on.
Mr. Suozzi. So an example of a training would be they used
that grant money, and they hire somebody to come in and show
them how to run a cooperative?
Mr. Glin. Correct, sir. And that person is going to be--in
our grant funding is going to be a local Liberian technical
assistance training provider. So the money is also still
generated in the country.
Mr. Suozzi. Okay. I am in no position to give you advice,
but I wanted--I think it is very important, when telling people
your wonderful stories and important stories, to tell specific
examples of putting a human face on things: We took this money,
we bought this piece of equipment, we hired this person to
train them, we helped them form this organization, we
introduced them to the marketplace, specific examples of
things, because it puts a human face on these very desperate
circumstances.
So thank you so much for your life's work, and we are very
grateful to you. We will do everything we can to help you.
Thank you.
Mr. Glin. Thank you.
Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Suozzi.
Just a couple of final questions. And, again, thank you for
your patience with the delay we had at the outset of the
hearing because of votes.
The Appropriations subcommittee lead by Hal Rogers last
week marked up the subcommittee draft, and tomorrow will be the
full committee. And I think it should not go unnoticed that of
the funds appropriated under Title II of this act, not less
than $1.6 billion should be made available to carry out the
provisions of the Global Food Security Act of 2016, Public Law
114-195, of which not less than $60 million shall be made
available to Feed the Future innovation labs. That is the exact
amount authorized by the Global Food Security Act.
And I have to say, I have been here for 37 years,
authorization levels are almost never met on their--and to say
not less than shows, I think, on the part of our friends on the
Appropriations Committee led by Hal Rogers, a very deep
commitment to this initiative. So I think I should--so what was
sent up originally--I have never seen a budget that was not
radically altered, starting with Ronald Reagan.
I would note that even under President Obama--and I
remember because I raised it here in this subcommittee. Despite
the fact that I am taking a lead on the neglected tropical
diseases, I believe passionately in trying to expand our
resources, President Obama sent up a 20 percent cut in
neglected tropical diseases. He did the same thing for TB. And
we know we have had multiple hearings in this subcommittee on
that as well. Mark, I believe, testified, you know, as did
others on--from the Global Fund on the importance of staying
focused on tuberculosis, particularly multidrug resistance;
that too had a 20 percent cut.
Congress took the recommendation that came from the Obama
administration as it did--and is doing right now from the Trump
administration, that said, thank you, we will try to meet some
of these goals in a different way with more resources.
So I am happy to say, and I want to express my gratitude to
Hal Rogers for being so responsive and his staff and his
subcommittee to this.
And we have a ways to go, obviously. The bill hasn't passed
the House yet, hasn't passed the Senate, but I think it is a
good marker that there is a deep commitment to global food
security in general and to the act and its provisions in
particular.
Let me also just point out and ask you, if I could, Dr.
Dunford, on page--whatever page this was, you said, first, we
further elevated nutrition and are seeking to better integrate
water, sanitation, and hygiene into our efforts to better
nourish women and children, continuing our focus on the first
1,000 days.
Perhaps you could elaborate on how you are doing that. I
think it is tremendous and it shows, you know, integrating is
important. They are all interrelated, and you are doing it, so
thank you for that.
I would ask, Mr. Glin, if you could, you talk about in
South Sudan you have four USADF sustainable agricultural
programs worth a total of $670,000, and that they are
mitigating the effects of famine.
When Karen Bass and I met with Salva Kiir for the better
part of 2 hours in Juba during the Memorial Day recess, we
focused, I think like a laser beam, to quote somebody else
years ago, on the idea that conflict is driving this famine. We
also pointed out repeatedly the 84 humanitarian aide workers,
many of them indigenous South Sudanese, have been killed, and
that is worse than the ISIS atrocities in terms of humanitarian
workers. It is the worst in the world. And that is since
December 2013.
So perhaps, Mr. Glin, you can tell us about your personnel,
how well have they faired, and maybe elaborate on that program,
if you would, those four programs, those four initiatives.
Because we kept stressing with Salva Kiir and his staff:
Lay off the humanitarian aide workers. Stop interdicting
convoys of food and humanitarian assistance, fleecing the truck
drivers, taking the product intended for hungry, hungry people
and sick people, and then distributing them on the black
market. It is your military. Yeah, there are some militias, but
it is your military.
And what happened in Terrain Hotel compound a year ago July
is testimony to how quickly a military can careen out of order.
You also said, Mr. Glin, that you are very involved with
the strategy of the Global Food Security Strategy and actively
participating in the target country selection process. If you
could elaborate on that process. And, again, what are the
criteria for selecting a country when you sit and, you know,
decide country X, Y, or Z will be a part of it? If you could,
it would be very helpful to the committee and to me and I think
all of us.
And if you could also perhaps, Mr. Lyng, informally; you
know, not going through OMB, I know it all has to be vetted,
but ideas for reauthorization. You know, unmet needs, your
walking point, we need to know from you to get it right. And we
did have--we had great input from the previous administration,
starting with Dr. Shah, on what the bill ought to look like,
and of course, Dr. Dunford, you provided expert testimony as
well. So we got it right. I think we did at the end of the day.
So any thoughts you might have on that now or perhaps for the
record, so as we go through the process----
The best reauthorizations I believe are those that take a
year or more, because you just keep vetting every provision,
testing it with the stakeholders or the administration to try
to get it right. And so I want to, you know, ask you for that.
And, of course, Dr. Dunford, you as well, if you could
answer that.
I do have a few other questions, but I will submit it for
the record.
I do have one more for Dr. Lyng. Food on the water on its
way. The most efficient way to deliver emergency aid. Is there
an analysis about how best to get the delivery of those
foodstuffs to the people, like how much more it costs to take
it over longer distances? And, of course, that reduces the
impact of every dollar. So if you could.
Mr. Glin, if you could begin.
Mr. Glin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the questions.
As it relates to South Sudan, it is an important country
that we have been operating in since 2011. Our operating model
being, as we sort of say, African-led and -managed, meaning
that our program team on the ground are South Sudanese. Our
team is very inclusive of a multitude of ethnicities and
different people representing different tribes, so we have been
able to continue operations throughout the crisis that
currently exists. We work at that community level, so we think
it is important to include all voices.
Our focus on enterprise creation to lead to poverty
alleviation has been critical in that we are supporting
agricultural enterprises that are actually growing food in the
midst of the famine.
One example is an initiative that we have, one of our
grants where 60 lead farmers are now training 4,000 smallholder
farmer families, and they are in the maize value chain. They
are growing and processing maize, and now have used their own
profits, in the midst of the famine, sir, to sell to and to
create a local bakery that is able to provide bread for those
with need, if you will.
So South Sudan is an important country for us, and our
focus around the enterprise creation during the midst of the
famine is leading to food security and moving groups from food
aid dependency to self-sufficiency.
As it relates to the Global Food Security Strategy, we
are--you know, we are proud to be one of the 11 implementing
agencies. I can say on a personal note, Dr. Dunford, as a
friend, her whole style, sir, is inclusive and has been able to
allow USADF to have a seat at the table, not only here in
Washington but, most importantly, in the countries where we
operate as we develop the country's strategies. And USADF looks
at our investments, the regions in which we operate, the levels
and the groups that we are going to support, how do those roll
up to broader global food security strategy objectives.
So this has been very a inclusive process, and we have been
able to have a seat at the table.
Mr. Smith. If I could, on the strategy criteria, could you
elaborate on each of those points? I think there is six of
them. Dr. Dunford or----
Mr. Glin. Yes. I defer to Dr. Dunford.
Mr. Smith. Okay.
Ms. Dunford. Thank you, sir, for your question on country
selection. Our six criteria that we submitted with the Global
Food Security Strategy on selecting target countries would be
need, opportunity for ag-led growth, opportunities for regional
synergies, opportunities for partnerships, host country
government commitment to food security nutrition, and U.S.
Government resource availability. So those six criteria are
what we are using to finalize our country selection going
forward.
Mr. Smith. And that other question, if you would.
Ms. Dunford. Yes. And I wanted to talk about linkages.
Thank you so much for raising that question. It is a very, very
important one.
We are working so that our food security efforts are linked
to other efforts in the broader development work of USAID.
For PEPFAR, it really doesn't do any good to give someone
antiretroviral drugs if they don't have food to eat, if they
don't have nutritious food to eat, and then, again, if they are
drinking dirty water. We want to make sure that we are feeding
the people and not the worms. I think deworming is very, very
important to couple with all of this to be sure that the people
that we are working with are well nourished.
And locating those activities in the same communities and
targeting the same people is one of the ways in which we do
that. We have a lot of overlap in countries that we work with
and really work to further synergize those efforts in regional
areas.
Mr. Glin. Mr. Chairman, if I may. I wanted to complement
that response. Our work with the Global Food Security Act 100
percent complements our work with Electrify Africa and links to
our work with AGOA. As we look at a smallholder agricultural
cooperative that now has access to off-grid energy, whether it
be solar irrigation or whether it be solar-powered maize mills,
that increases their level of productivity and leads to
agricultural-led growth. That, coupled with their ability to
find markets, enables them to then feed into the African Growth
and Opportunity Act.
So we look at the synergies between GFSA, Electrify Africa,
and AGOA in almost all of our investments where possible.
Mr. Lyng. I apologize that saying ``food on the water'' was
metaphorical. Certainly, our colleagues at USAID do work on
disaster assistance. They look at a wide variety of local
procurement as well as U.S. shipments from the United States.
I will say, they are the among the hardest working of all
of us. You can call their office almost any time night or day
and they are working, because they understand the
responsibility they have to keep people from starving.
Mr. Smith. One last point. I do hope, especially with the
G7 statement, that if there needs to be a bridge for food
security to those who are suffering--it was really difficult
to--and I know Karen had the same takeaway--to see so many
people who were famished and emaciated being told that they--
and they didn't complain, because they were happy that they
were in a camp--this is Bidi Bidi I am talking about--but they
were having their foodstuffs cut in half.
And, again, I know we are the leading donor, and it is
great that, you know, we are trying to get others to provide
significantly more, but whatever can be done on the shorter
term, I hope would be that that would be--that would be done on
an emergency level.
Anything else you would like to add before we close? Any
ideas for legislation? Of course, you can convey that to us for
the record or privately. But I think we need to know what we
missed, what you have found that needs to be incorporated, and
we will have additional hearings going--in the future on that
as well so we get it right.
And it shows authorizing levels do matter. Some people--you
know, we just passed a reauthorization of the Trafficking
Victims Protection Act, and there were some people who thought
why put an authorizing number in there that is above the
appropriated level. Because we do believe, based on input and
years of experience, that that number is justified. But if my
reading of the plain text from Hal Rogers is correct, he hit it
right on the nose with the authorized level and said not less
than, which is cause for additional hope and expectation that
if it is needed, more money will be provided or allocated here.
So, yes, back to you.
Ms. Dunford. Mr. Chairman, we greatly appreciate the
bicameral and bipartisan support for the Global Food Security
Act, and we look forward to continuing to work in partnership
and close collaboration with Congress as we implement the act
going forward.
The increased accountability and oversight that is in the
act enables a more in-depth dialogue on specific results, and I
think we welcome that conversation.
Mr. Smith. Thank you.
I want to thank you--oh, yes.
Mr. Glin. No. Mr. Chairman, just the inclusion and the
emphasis on smallholder farmers as it relates to global food
security is something that is appreciated by USADF, but that is
something that is so important for Africa and its development.
So that is something that we wanted to continue to champion.
Mr. Smith. Well, thank you.
Thank you so much for your leadership and for being here
today. The hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:07 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Material Submitted for the Record
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]