[Senate Prints 111-10]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
111th Congress
1st Session COMMITTEE PRINT S. Prt.
111-10
_______________________________________________________________________
GLOBAL FOOD INSECURITY:
PERSPECTIVES FROM THE FIELD
__________
REPORT TO THE MEMBERS
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
UNITED STATES SENATE
One Hundred Eleventh Congress
First Session
February 6, 2009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TONGRESS.#13
Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Relations
Available on the Internet:
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/index.html
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
47-215 PDF WASHINGTON DC: 2009
---------------------------------------------------------------------
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts, Chairman
CHRISTOPHER J. DODD, Connecticut RICHARD G. LUGAR, Indiana
RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin Republican Leader designee
BARBARA BOXER, California BOB CORKER, Tennessee
ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia
BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho
ROBERT P. CASEY, Jr., Pennsylvania JIM DeMINT, South Carolina
JIM WEBB, Virginia JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi
EDWARD E. KAUFMAN, Delaware
KIRSTEN E. GILLIBRAND, New York
David McKean, Staff Director
Kenneth A. Myers, Jr., Republican Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Letter of Transmittal............................................ V
Introduction..................................................... 1
Purpose and Methodology.......................................... 2
Findings......................................................... 3
Recommendations.................................................. 5
The Nature of Hunger............................................. 7
Why the Need for Action.......................................... 9
Issues Affecting Food Security................................... 11
Agriculture and Rural Development Investments................ 15
Infrastructure Investments................................... 17
Education, Technology, Science, and Extension Investments.... 18
Sound Land Tenure Systems.................................... 22
Respect for Market Forces.................................... 22
Justification of Approaches...................................... 23
Focus on Small Holders....................................... 23
Embrace Technological Solutions.............................. 24
Empower Individuals Rather Than Enable Poverty............... 24
Raise Incomes................................................ 26
Support Markets, Reduce Price Volatility, & Increase Market
Information................................................ 26
Integrate Nutrition Into Food Security Programs.............. 27
Achieve Better Donor Coordination in the Field............... 28
Utilize Conservation Farming Techniques...................... 28
Integrate Approaches To Help Women in the Design of
Development Projects....................................... 29
Don't Allow Agriculture To Become an Extractive Industry..... 29
Regional and Country Reviews..................................... 30
Severe Food Insecurity....................................... 30
Ethiopia................................................. 31
Zambia................................................... 33
Laos..................................................... 35
Food Secure.................................................. 38
South Africa............................................. 39
Costa Rica............................................... 40
Moderately Food Insecure..................................... 42
Improving Countries...................................... 42
Indonesia............................................ 43
Vietnam.............................................. 45
Moderately Insecure...................................... 48
The Philippines...................................... 48
Guatemala............................................ 50
Uganda............................................... 54
Conclusion....................................................... 57
Appendices....................................................... 59
Additional Resources......................................... 59
Global Food Security Act..................................... 60
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
----------
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Foreign Relations,
Washington, DC, February 6, 2009.
Dear Colleagues: Roughly one billion people suffer from
food insecurity--they are unable to consume sufficient calories
for a healthy and active life. Chronic hunger has its most
pernicious effects on children, mothers, and the sick. Children
deprived of adequate nutrients suffer from lifelong stunting
and cognitive deficiencies. The children of women who are
pregnant or lactating also suffer physiological consequences of
a poor maternal diet. The sick, especially those infected with
HIV/AIDS, are unable to fight off the effects of disease. Those
that are well spend an inordinate amount of time and income
trying to provide food for their families.
The consequences of hunger are profound. Quality of life
for affected families deteriorates as access to food decreases,
affecting their productivity, and ultimately the economic
growth of nations. Hungry children are unable to learn, and
hungry adults are not productive. Hungry people are desperate
people, and their hunger can breed instability as evidenced by
riots in some 19 countries during the Spring and Summer of
2008. It is both a moral and a security imperative for the
United States and other wealthy nations to address the root
causes of hunger.
I recently directed minority staff of the Senate Committee
on Foreign Relations to assess the causes and consequences of
food insecurity in a number of countries, and to investigate
how best to alleviate it.
The steep spikes in food prices that occurred in 2007 and
2008 caused some discomfort for Americans and it put an
additional 75 million people worldwide into the category of
hungry. Faced with a lack of access to food, poor families
respond by cutting out more expensive, and often more
nutritious food, followed by cutting back to one meal a day.
With prolonged food insecurity, families often sell off farm
animals for income, which plunges them further into poverty.
Even a short episode of food unavailability can have very
lengthy effects on families struggling to pull themselves out
of poverty.
There is little reason for anyone to be hungry in a world
in which we have the knowledge and resources to ensure that
everyone has access to a nutritious range of food. Just as
technological advances of the Green Revolution spurred large
parts of Asia to increase farm yield, so too can technology
help to increase agricultural productivity in response to
growing populations. However, today's challenges are more than
increasing the availability of food. Those living in poverty
need enough income to ensure access to a varied diet necessary
for a productive life. Food insecurity is a problem of both
availability and access, and both aspects must be addressed if
we are to overcome hunger.
This report argues that both donors and developing
countries have neglected to make investments in agricultural
productivity and rural development. Just as agriculture formed
the basis for the economic development of the United States, it
can also be the basis for sustained economic growth and
prosperity elsewhere. Investments in farm yield, in technology
and its dissemination to farmers, and in education are vital.
Addressing hunger is the essence of development. Food security
both empowers individuals and has a multiplier effect
throughout society--raising incomes, improving nutrition and
productivity, spreading equality, and creating jobs through
related industries.
I hope you find this report helpful in understanding the
complex causes of food insecurity and the ways in which we as a
nation can provide the leadership to solve it.
Richard G. Lugar,
Ranking Minority Member.
GLOBAL FOOD INSECURITY:
PERSPECTIVES FROM THE FIELD
----------
Introduction
The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) estimates that
farmers will need to double current output by 2050 to satisfy
the demand for food due to population growth, urbanization, and
rising incomes.\1\ This is a daunting task, given that even
today, about 1 billion people, or \1/6\th of the world's
population, already suffer from food insecurity. That is, day
in and day out, 1 billion people are unable to secure a
nutritionally adequate diet to keep them healthy and active. Of
these 1 billion people, estimates put 100 million people in the
category of highly vulnerable to suffering from the physical
consequences of malnutrition. Childhood malnutrition claims the
lives of up to 5 million children each year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ FAO, ``The State of Food Insecurity in the World 2008.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The effects of decades of neglect by donor and host
governments of investments in agricultural productivity became
apparent as food prices climbed steeply beginning in the Fall
of 2007 and continuing into the Spring and Summer of 2008.
While the causes of food price increases were many and varied,
the consequences soon became clear as approximately 75 million
additional people joined the ranks of the hungry. Estimates of
the total number of people living in hunger are more than 900
million.\2\ The actions by governments around the world that
took seemingly rational steps to protect their own populations
through trade restrictions also had a deleterious effect on
food availability and food prices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The World Food Program identifies 923 million people as food
insecure, while the Economic Research Service of the U.S. Department of
Agriculture estimates 982 million.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Much of the cause of price hikes was due to the
unprecedented cost of petroleum that approached $150 a barrel
by the Summer of 2008. High fuel prices drove up the costs of
transportation and agricultural inputs such as fertilizer.
Because many small holder farmers do not produce a surplus for
the market, they were unable to benefit from higher commodity
prices. Since then, gasoline prices have decreased, but food
prices in some areas of the world remain high. More
importantly, the crisis of 2008 demonstrated the fragility of
global agriculture and how quickly disruptions in one area can
spread throughout the world.
To overcome hunger, donor and host governments should adopt
a long-term approach that puts agricultural productivity and
rural development at center stage. To make advances, special
attention should be given to harnessing the power of education
and science. Developing appropriate technologies is vital to
this effort, but using technology to solve problems will not
happen unless countries have the human capacity to exploit it.
Equally, the United States must urge other nations--both
wealthy and poor--to avoid resisting proven technologies that
promise remarkable farm productivity payoffs, while protecting
the environment. A rural focus will have positive effects
throughout economies, creating new businesses and jobs,
promoting equity, and raising incomes. Those who are poor are
also hungry; both problems must be addressed in tandem. The
Food and Agriculture Organization \3\ concluded, ``It is now
widely acknowledged by most stakeholders that the role of
agriculture and the rural economy is fundamental for securing
sustainable gains in the fight against poverty . . . A
productivity-induced agricultural expansion can ``pull'' other
sectors with it and increase economic activity and employment
opportunities in rural areas.'' This recognition must be
followed by action on the part of donors and host governments
working in partnership.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ FAO, Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific: ``The State of
Food and Agriculture in Asia and the Pacific Region, 2008.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Purpose and Methodology
At the direction of Ranking Member Richard G. Lugar, the
minority staff \4\ of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee
conducted a study of global food security as part of the
committee's oversight responsibilities. Ensuring that all
people are food secure is vital to U.S. national security in
promoting a more stable and productive world. This study is
similar in scope to previous staff reports, such as ``The
Petroleum and Poverty Paradox'' issued in October 2008,
``Embassies Grapple to Guide Foreign Aid'' issued in November
2007, and ``Embassies as Command Posts'' completed in December
2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ This Senate Foreign Relations Committee minority staff study
was coordinated by Connie Veillette with significant contributions from
Jay Branegan, Dan Diller, Keith Luse, Kezia McKeague, Carl Meacham,
Michael Phelan, and Aaron Whitesel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Staff visited ten countries to investigate the causes of
food insecurity. In each country, staff sought to identify the
conditions that produce food security or insecurity, and what
types of donor country engagements and host country policies
are necessary to improve food security. The countries visited
were chosen based on the Global Hunger Index (GHI) compiled by
the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) and
supplemented by other figures on the percentage of populations
suffering from malnutrition. Pairings of countries were chosen
in various regions--with one being more food secure than the
other. This produced a sample of countries demonstrating a full
range of conditions, from food secure to chronically insecure.
The ten countries visited were: Ethiopia, Uganda, Zambia, South
Africa, Indonesia, Laos, Vietnam, the Philippines, Costa Rica,
and Guatemala. Such a varied set of countries allowed a
comprehensive picture of what causes food insecurity, and what
government policies are conducive to development.
Of the sample of ten countries, Ethiopia fell into the
category of ``extremely alarming'' rates of hunger, according
to IFPRI, while Laos and Zambia are in the ``alarming''
category. Those with ``serious'' rates of hunger include
Uganda, Vietnam, Guatemala, Indonesia, and the Philippines.
South Africa suffers from ``moderate'' hunger, with much of
that localized among certain populations. Costa Rica has low
rates of hunger.
Staff met with government officials, non-governmental
organizations, universities and research institutes,
multilateral organizations, and international financial
institutions during their country visits. In Washington, D.C.,
staff met with officials from the United States Agency for
International Development, the United States Department of
Agriculture, the World Food Program, the International Fund for
Agricultural Development, and representatives from non-
governmental organizations, advocacy groups, and industry
organizations.
Findings
The spikes in food prices that occurred in late 2007 and
2008 were caused by a complex web of factors, some of which are
likely to continue. Record oil prices drove much of the food
price increases by raising the costs of transportation and
agricultural inputs. However, even after oil prices dropped,
food prices remained high in much of the developing world.
These price spikes were only the most recent and vivid signs of
a trend that has been growing. After decades of declining food
prices, FAO's real food price index started to increase in
2002. By 2008, food prices were 64% higher than in 2002. The
FAO reports rapid increases in chronic hunger during the 2003
to 2005 period in addition to that of 2007 to 2008. Last year,
some 75 million additional people became undernourished. FAO
estimates that there are 80 million more chronically hungry
people in the world today than in the early 1990s.
The world's population is expected to grow, largely in the
developing world, so that current food demand will double by
2050. An additional factor driving food demand and price
increases is the growing prosperity in such countries as China
and India that has resulted in greater consumption of food
containing more protein. Preferences for meat and dairy
products drive the demand for more commodities to feed
livestock.
This expected demand will necessitate much higher
agricultural productivity globally. Increasing farm yield is
vital, but not sufficient for alleviating hunger. Hunger and
poverty are two sides of the same coin. Addressing one can
improve the other. Hunger is a problem of both low farm yield
and lack of access to food. Rural land holders are not
producing sufficient quantities and variety of food to provide
for their families. They are also often unable to produce a
surplus that would provide them with the additional income to
access other foodstuffs in the marketplace, or to purchase
other life necessities such as medications, or to keep their
children in school. The urban poor and the rural landless
suffer from access problems, driven by low income and high food
prices. Both availability and access problems require sustained
investments in farm productivity to stabilize prices, and more
opportunities to raise incomes. A World Bank publication makes
the case that investments in agriculture are a necessary
component to addressing poverty: ``Agriculture alone will not
be enough to massively reduce poverty but poverty reduction
will not happen without agriculture.'' \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ ``Making Agriculture a Development Priority,'' Development
Outreach, World Bank, October 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The findings of this report include:
High food prices threaten to erase recent advances
in alleviating extreme poverty.
Demand from growing and wealthier populations will
continue to test the world's ability to feed itself.
The use of technology, education, research, and
extension are weak in chronically food insecure countries.
National agricultural research and extension services are
equally in poor shape and have not been able to contribute to
economic growth.
Some populations--children, women, and the ill--
are more vulnerable to undernourishment and are affected to a
greater degree by fluctuations in food prices and availability.
Wealthy countries have based their development on
a strong agricultural sector, and that sector has been the
foundation for industry and commerce.
Agriculture in poor nations can provide a
multiplier effect for development, spurring new business and
industry, building new markets, raising incomes, improving
nutrition and health, and ensuring that children stay in
school, among other benefits.
Some middle income countries have segments of
their populations that are food insecure, representing serious
equity problems that can have implications for political
stability.
Attention to small and medium holders can produce
high rates of return. Basic investments in better fertilizer,
seed, and irrigation can produce fast and high returns.
The burden of food insecurity falls hardest on
women who are often heads of households. Providing them
assistance has multiple benefits ranging from higher incomes,
better childhood nutrition, and reduced school drop-out rates.
Trying to support a growing population by
expanding land under cultivation would have drastic
environmental effects. Instead, policymakers should seek to get
more production from existing farmland in order to prevent
deforestation, soil erosion, and the adverse effects of climate
change, and to improve farm yield. Investments in science and
technology are necessary to overcome potential environmental
problems.
The United States has the opportunity to advance
its humanitarian goals by leading a global campaign to
eradicate hunger. It is in the U.S. national interest to
promote global food security.
Food secure countries have certain characteristics
that are not shared by moderately and very insecure countries.
The former have benefitted from government policies that are
conducive to agriculture and rural development, with a history
of investments in agriculture, infrastructure, education and
research, extension, and stable land tenure systems.
By contrast, very insecure countries are marked by
government policies that do not support agriculture, including
weak public investment in farming, poor infrastructure, weak
university and agricultural research systems, poor or
nonfunctioning extension services, and unstable land tenure and
farm size.
Moderately insecure countries share many of the
characteristics of the very insecure but have shown a higher
commitment to the rural sector.
Recommendations
Fighting hunger should be a centerpiece of U.S. foreign
assistance policy. The eradication of global hunger serves U.S.
national security interests and reflects the humanitarian
nature of the American people. Hunger and poverty are
destabilizing forces. Food riots that occurred in 2008
demonstrate the volatility of food insecure populations.
Investments in agriculture, education, and technology have a
multiplier effect, forming the basis of related development,
creating jobs and business opportunities, raising incomes of
those living in poverty, and improving health. The United
States, working with other wealthy nations, should lead this
effort.
The Committee staff developed specific recommendations that
should guide U.S. foreign assistance policy and approaches.
(1) Donor countries and host governments need to increase
resources for agricultural productivity and rural development.
(a) Foreign assistance programs and projects should be
responsive to national development plans, but should also
encourage governments of developing countries to make greater
investments in agriculture and rural development.
(b) Foreign assistance projects should be better
coordinated among donor agencies at the country level.
Coordination should encompass a set of development principles
that respond to the development needs of each host country, and
that include a division of labor among donors when appropriate.
(2) Strengthening national agriculture research and
extension services is key to increasing farm yield and raising
incomes.
(a) U.S. foreign assistance should seek to strengthen
extension services so that small and medium holders benefit
from learning more productive and sustainable farming
techniques. A special emphasis on reaching women, many of whom
are the sole income earner of the family, should be
incorporated into extension programs.
(b) U.S. foreign assistance should help improve
agricultural research programs, whether they are governmental,
private, or university-based. Research programs should include
a public outreach component so that information is available to
those who need it. In some situations, instructing researchers
in English would help integrate them into international
research exchange of information.
(c) U.S. policy should help countries understand the
benefits of biotechnology, including GM, and support the
development of regulatory frameworks that would facilitate its
adoption while responding to concerns about its application.
(3) Institutions of higher education can play a vital role
in increasing human capacity and disseminating knowledge.
(a) U.S. programs, such as the Collaborative Research
Support Program (CRSP), should be strengthened so that U.S.
universities can partner with foreign universities on specific
research agendas.
(b) A program should be established to assist foreign
universities to strengthen their agriculture departments,
including teaching and research capabilities. Such a program
should also engage with U.S. universities through faculty,
student, and administrator exchanges. U.S. assistance to
strategically located universities with capable facilities can
help them serve as regional hubs for a network of university
activity in the field of agriculture.
(c) Existing international research centers should
participate in the development of globally networked
agricultural universities in order to disseminate the benefits
of research and to build research capacity.
(4) The focus needs to be on small and medium land holders
to achieve near term agricultural productivity gains and to
address extreme poverty.
(a) Strengthened extension programs are vital to helping
small holders increase their yield and farm in ways that are
environmentally sustainable.
(b) Programs should empower individuals by giving them the
tools and incentives to produce surpluses and to participate
and help create vibrant rural economies. Emergency food
assistance should be designed so as to prevent dependency.
Rather, such programs should include components that
incentivize economic activity.
(5) Commercial agriculture should not be neglected.
Increasing its capacity and providing productive linkages with
small and medium holders should be an objective.
(a) In countries having food supply problems, relying on
commercial agriculture to achieve higher levels of food
production should be encouraged. Providing for an environment
that supports more investments is an important component.
Commercial operations that have related industries or business
activities provide opportunities for job creation for the rural
poor and landless.
(b) Programs that encourage small and medium holders to
increase their production for commercial sale or to produce
components needed by large enterprises promote important
horizontal linkages.
(6) Host government capacity to design and implement sound
policies needs to be strengthened.
(a) U.S. assistance should incorporate good governance,
anti-corruption, and strengthening of civil society.
(b) Government policies to improve productivity should work
with and complement free market principles rather than
distorting markets.
(c) In many cases, assistance to government ministries that
oversee agriculture, science and research, and education is
necessary.
(7) Investments in infrastructure are necessary--better
roads, markets, irrigation systems.
(a) U.S. foreign assistance programs should coordinate with
other donors on transportation infrastructure projects to
economize resources.
(b) The Millennium Challenge Corporation should continue to
finance infrastructure.
(c) Complementary development projects should be designed
around major infrastructure works.
(d) Irrigation, of all types and sizes, is necessary to
increase agriculture productivity.
(8) The design of agriculture programs and projects should
pay special attention to issues of land tenure. Without
ownership, farmers are often unable to access capital and do
not have the incentives to make improvements to their farming
operations.
(9) U.S. assistance programs and projects should
incorporate assistance to women who often bear an inordinate
burden in caring for their families and in earning an income.
(a) The special needs of female head-of-household farmers
should be addressed in the design of projects.
(b) Training in childhood nutrition should be incorporated
into the design of agriculture projects for women.
(10) In responding to changing climatic conditions in many
parts of the world, sustainable agriculture or conservation
farming techniques should be employed to conserve water and
prevent soil degradation and deforestation.
(11) Free markets should be allowed to work, but price
stability should be the goal so that wild price fluctuations
are avoided.
(12) Small farmers must have access to credit in order to
purchase inputs and make investments in their farming
operations.
(13) Governments of developing countries should show
caution in response to proposals by foreign governments and
corporations to farm vast tracks of land for export. These
types of operations, if not designed with transparency, run the
risk of becoming an extractive industry, with the attendant
vulnerabilities to corruption and lack of benefits to the home
country.
(14) The international donor community must come together
at the country level to better coordinate aid activities,
starting with agreements on development principles and working
with host governments to adhere to national development plans.
The Nature of Hunger
According to the World Food Program, there are
approximately 923 million people who suffer from chronic food
insecurity. Day in and day out, nearly 1 billion people, or
about \1/6\th of the world's population, struggle to secure
enough food to eat. Chronic hunger is a structural problem.
Either the system of food production is not adequate to meet
the needs of everyone, or the means of accessing food is not
sufficient. Chronic hunger can be exacerbated by man-made and
natural disasters and can turn a chronically food insecure
situation into famine.
Zimbabwe was once considered a breadbasket for southern
Africa, but now 60% of its population subsists on one meal a
day, according to the World Food Program. A cholera outbreak
there makes the hungry even more vulnerable to death.
Zimbabwe's situation is due to government policies that
politicized land tenure and the agriculture sector, and were
exacerbated by natural disasters. Civil war in Darfur has
produced 3 million refugees and prevents farmers from working
their fields.
Sub-Saharan Africa \6\ suffers from higher rates of hunger
than any other region. Its hunger index \7\ (GHI), as
calculated by the International Food Policy Research Institute,
averages nearly 25, just slightly ahead of South Asia. By
comparison, the world average is 15 points, with Southeast
Asia, the Near East and North Africa, and Latin America all
below 10 points. Since 1990, many countries have seen improved
hunger indices, while others have fallen further behind. Of the
countries studied in this report, Vietnam has experienced a 47%
improvement in its GHI, while Zambia has slightly worsened. It
is clear that some regions of the world, particularly Africa,
are worse off than in previous decades, as evidenced by
changing levels of food aid. Africa's share of all food aid
donated globally has increased from one third in the late 1990s
to one half today.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Throughout the report, Africa and Sub-Saharan Africa are used
interchangeably.
\7\ IFPRI's Global Hunger Index calculates food insecurity based on
three factors: the under-five mortality rate, the prevalence of
underweight children, and the proportion of the population considered
undernourished. Its latest figures reflect data as of 2006. Because the
figures are based on data obtained prior to the food price hikes in
2007 and 2008, it is probable that hunger has worsened in many
countries.
\8\ U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service,
``Food Security Assessment, 2007.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chronic hunger is strongly correlated with poverty.
Populations living in extreme poverty--those eking out an
existence on less than 50 cents a day--are the same who suffer
from the worst food insecurity. Often living in remote rural
areas with few assets and little access to fertilizer, better
seed varieties, and modern farming implements, they are unable
to feed themselves or produce enough income to access food. A
chronic state of hunger further diminishes their productivity.
IFPRI estimates that worldwide some 162 million people live in
extreme poverty. Another 323 million live on 50 to 75 cents a
day. About 485 million people exist on 75 cents to $1.00 each
day.
Increases in food prices have exacerbated poverty rates as
the poor spend more of their resources and energy to feed
themselves. While the world saw steady declines in food prices
since 1974, according to the International Monetary Fund,
prices have increased steeply since 2005. The FAO's food price
index showed an increase of 9% in 2006, 23% in 2007, and 50%
between May 2007 and May 2008. Wheat and poultry prices doubled
since 2003, maize tripled, and rice more than quadrupled. Those
who suffer from chronic food insecurity are in especially
precarious positions when prices increase.
The poorest of the poor can spend up to 70% of their
incomes on food. When prices increase, their access to food is
affected, leading them to restrict consumption. Long-term
hunger has pernicious and lasting physical effects that are
particularly hard on children. Children, especially those under
two years of age, who are deprived of adequate nutrition suffer
permanent effects, such as stunting, cognitive deficiencies,
and increased vulnerability to disease that results in higher
mortality rates. These conditions are often not reversible and
have potentially enduring effects on their future productivity
and that of their communities. It is often the case, as well,
that families who need to spend inordinate amounts of time and
funds securing food are unable to afford to send their children
to school. Their lack of education will perpetuate poverty.
The economic growth of nations can be affected by long-term
hunger as the productivity of food insecure people is affected.
Those in extreme poverty often must resort to selling off their
assets. In rural communities, this means selling farm animals,
which limits resilience to future crises and reduces access to
milk. Higher prices also reduce the amount of food that can be
distributed by feeding programs.
Why the Need for Action
Global food production is not keeping pace with population
growth. By 2050 it is projected that population growth will
require a doubling in farm output, yet growth rates in food
production in some regions have stagnated. Worldwide, grain
yield has been growing by about 2.5% a year. Africa's grain
yield growth has been only about 1%. Meanwhile, its annual
population growth rate in 2007 was 2.4%.\9\ FAO reports that
per capita production of Africa's most important staple crop--
maize--has decreased by 14% since 1980, reflecting both
population growth and low productivity. The World Resources
Institute reports that Africa's total agriculture production on
a per capita basis in 2005 was 19% less than in 1970.\10\ Much
of Africa is now chronically dependent on donor food aid
shipments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ World Development Indicators 2007, World Bank.
\10\ Paarlberg, Robert, Starved for Science, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Population growth will put increasing stress on land,
water, and energy supplies, and will exacerbate the effects of
climate change. Increasing acreage under cultivation will not
facilitate the necessary doubling of farm output. Although
planted acreage can be increased productively in some areas, an
overreliance on this step will cause widespread deforestation
and put significant stress on local ecologies and water
supplies. As poor populations become wealthier, diets diversify
to incorporate more protein sources causing a growing
proportion of food production to go toward livestock feed. As
traditional energy sources are depleted, higher fuel prices
will continue to put pressure on the development of biofuels.
These factors demonstrate that the focus of efforts to
increase agricultural productivity must center on empowering
people with the tools and information necessary to raise
production on currently cultivated land. They also demonstrate
that humanitarian efforts should place more emphasis on a long-
term solution rather than depending on short-term provision of
food aid. In fiscal year 2007, the United States provided
$1.665 billion in P.L. 480 food shipments, but only $433
million in agriculture assistance. In Africa, the U.S. provided
$1.22 billion in food aid compared to just $121 million to help
farmer productivity.
In the days of Malthus, people also worried that food
production would not keep pace with a growing population. But
Malthus and his contemporaries did not see the role that
technology and innovation would play to forestall his dire
predictions. They did not foresee the Green Revolution that was
spurred by the work of Nobel Laureate Norman Borlaug and
others. Today we must not allow an aversion to modern
agricultural technology to doom a part of the world's
population to chronic hunger and poverty, and to threaten the
developed world with higher food prices. We can either succumb
to Malthusian pessimism, or embrace the Borlaugian faith in
overcoming challenges through science and technology.
Negative trends in food security are projected to continue
in many parts of the world. The U.S. Department of
Agriculture's Economic Research Service projects that the
number of undernourished people in Africa alone will increase
by 10% over the next 10 years, possibly even reaching 645
million by 2017. In addition, gains that had been made in Asia
are stalling. The situation will be exacerbated by slowing
economic growth in response to the current financial crisis,
continued volatility in food and fuel prices, high rates of
population growth in already poor parts of the world, and the
effects of climate change. While it is estimated that food
security in Latin America and the Caribbean will remain stable
or improve, certain low income countries will not see
improvements. Food insecurity in Haiti and Guatemala is
projected to increase, and others such as Honduras and El
Salvador will have to rely on increased grain imports.\11\ The
environmental impact of climate change is being felt in many
parts of the world with an increase in volatile fluctuations
between drought and rainfall, further affecting farm output.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ USDA, Economic Research Service, ``Food Security Assessment,
2007''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The steep price increase that occurred in 2007 and 2008
laid bare some of the underlying structural factors that are
cause for concern. While low food prices had been the norm for
many decades, prices began to increase in 2002, and grain
prices spiked by about 50% from 2005 to 2007, according to the
U.S. Department of Agriculture. It is projected that 90% of
this price increase will persist during the next decade. In the
2002 to 2006 period, price increases for those staples that
constitute more than 60% of diets in developing countries were
steep enough to bring about changes in consumption patterns.
Corn prices increased by nearly 30%, wheat by 20%, soybean oil
by 18%, and sugar by more than 80%.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Ibid. ERS estimates that grains constitute 63% of diets in
low-income Asian countries, and nearly half of those in Africa.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 2007 and 2008 price hikes further worsened an already
precarious situation. The International Monetary Fund estimated
that from January 2007 to January 2008, aggregate food prices
increased by 33%. Many countries are net importers of food.
Higher international commodity prices limit their capacity to
maintain sufficient levels of food imports. Eleven countries in
Africa rely on imports for more than 50% of grain supplies. The
increase in oil prices exerted upward pressure on food prices
as transportation costs were driven higher.
The need for action seems self-evident on moral, economic,
and security grounds. Drawing on the humanitarian nature of the
American public, there is a clear moral imperative to help
families overcome hunger, and recent public opinion polls show
that Americans believe the country should do more to address
global hunger.\13\ Advances that have been made in recent years
to alleviate poverty and improve health are threatened by
worsening food access and availability. This reversal is
already evident by measuring the number of malnourished that
increased from 2006 to 2008. Previous gains achieved in
promoting health could be threatened by the physiological
effects of malnourishment that diminish the body's ability to
fight disease and fend off infection. Even common diseases that
are easily overcome will be the source of increased mortality
in a chronically malnourished body.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ The Chicago Council on Global Affairs conducted a survey on
American public opinion in 2008. It showed that support for addressing
hunger, health, and agricultural productivity was stronger than for
poverty or development.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Global economic growth is considered to benefit all
nations. It increases customers for U.S. products and provides
less expensive products for American consumers. From a
budgetary perspective, the past investments in the form of U.S.
development assistance may be erased by the consequences of
high food prices in the developing world. As economic growth
stalls in developing nations, they will be less able to
purchase U.S. goods and services. Conversely, as incomes rise
in the developing world, nations will be less dependent on U.S.
foreign assistance.
Finally, global food security can produce a more peaceful
and stable world. According to IFPRI, violent food protests
took place in 19 countries from January 2007 to June 2008. Six
of those countries are considered to be moderately food
insecure, 7 are seriously food insecure, and 6 have alarming
rates of hunger. Of the countries studied in this report,
Indonesia had violent food riots, while non-violent protests
occurred in South Africa, Guatemala, the Philippines, and
Ethiopia.
Issues Affecting Food Security
Staff identified several factors that contribute to food
security. When these factors are present, staff found that
hunger and poverty rates were lower than in countries where the
factors were absent. Pivotal factors include: investments in
agriculture and rural development; investments in
infrastructure; investments in education, technology, science,
and extension; sound land tenure systems; and a healthy respect
for market forces. All of these factors require the sustained
engagement of governments in developing public policies that
promote equitable economic growth.
Table 1 indicates the countries under study and the main
variables used to assess them. IFPRI's Global Hunger Index
(GHI) and the proportion of the population reported to be
malnourished were used to categorize countries as either: food
secure; moderately insecure; or very insecure. Food secure
countries have very low GHIs, although they may have sizeable
populations that are considered malnourished. The very insecure
are countries that have chronic hunger problems, very high
hunger indices, and require significant food donations. The
moderately insecure are those that have middle-range hunger
indices, but are not chronically reliant on food aid. Sometimes
these countries can even be net exporters of food.
This study attempts to make some generalizations based on
the data collected for these ten countries. It should be noted,
however, that the small number of countries in this sample is
inadequate for robust conclusions per the standards of social
scientific inquiry. Yet, some initial conclusions can be drawn,
and those conclusions can be further tested with the addition
of more case studies. None of the conclusions presented here
sharply contradict those of other studies. However, whereas
other studies have looked at one or two causal factors, this
study has attempted to examine a larger number.
Those conclusions are listed here, and a more expansive
discussion of each then follows.
Food secure countries all have certain
characteristics that are not necessarily shared by moderately
and very insecure countries. The differences between food
secure and very food insecure are quite stark. The two food
secure countries in the study have benefitted from government
policies that are conducive to agriculture and rural
development; a good natural resource base; investments in
agriculture; good infrastructure; strong universities and
research centers supporting agriculture; either good or
previously good extension services; sound and stable land
tenure including adequate farm size; peace and stability; and
policies that are not hostile to genetically modified (GM)
technology.
By contrast, the very insecure are marked by
government policies that do not support agriculture; little
government investment in agriculture; poor infrastructure; weak
university and agriculture research systems; very poor or non-
existent extension services; and very poor land tenure and farm
size. One of the three is hostile to GM technology (Zambia),
while the other two have neither rejected nor embraced it.
The moderately insecure share many characteristics
with the very insecure. In these countries, government policies
are weak in supporting agriculture, and government investments
in agriculture have been anemic. Infrastructure is undeveloped;
extension services are poor or non-functional; and land tenure
and farm size are poor to moderately poor. But like secure
countries, every country in this category is not hostile to GM
technology, with two out of the five embracing its use (Vietnam
and the Philippines). Governments in this category appear to be
making greater investments in agriculture than those of the
very insecure.
It is clear that when governments implement
transparent policies that provide support for rural development
and agricultural markets, food security improves. This includes
policies that attempt to work with, rather than distorting,
market forces, and where policies are driven more by need than
by cronyism or other political factors.
It is less clear the degree to which having a good
natural resource base is important. Some countries are just too
poor to be able to exploit their resource base. Others, with
resource deficits, may be able to overcome them. The components
studied by staff included: the percentage of arable land;
access to water; the effects of climate change; and
deforestation rates. Two very insecure countries (Ethiopia and
Zambia) were judged to have good or adequate resources.
Where governments have invested budgetary
resources into long term agricultural development, food
security improves. Staff distinguished between rhetorical and
real support, and excluded funding from the donor community.
Infrastructure was judged to be poor in all
countries but the food secure. Lack of roads and irrigation
systems is a factor that limits food security regardless of the
presence or absence of other characteristics.
Extension services are very poor in all countries
except the food secure. Poor countries suffer from many factors
that contribute to a lack of effective extension, but nearly
all officials meeting with staff expressed very strongly the
need to increase the number of agents and their effectiveness.
Farmers who hold stable title to their land, can
use it for collateral, and have access to enough land on which
to make a living, all live in countries that are food secure.
Very insecure countries score very low on this characteristic,
while the moderately insecure score marginally better.
The presence of peace and stability shows that
this is a necessary, but not sufficient condition. Food secure
countries are peaceful and stable; those with instability and
conflict tend to be less food secure. But countries with peace
and stability can still be very food insecure. Peace and
stability do not cause food security, but they are beneficial
to it.
Most countries studied here do not reject GM
technology; only one is hostile to it. Most others do not
prohibit it, but neither do they embrace it. In many cases,
this is due to a lack of resources to study or implement
regulatory frameworks to guide its adoption. This is an area
where U.S. support could have positive benefits.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7215A.001
Discussion
Agriculture and Rural Development Investments. Staff found
that countries with long histories of investing in agriculture
and rural development are generally food secure. While Costa
Rica and South Africa have some segments of their populations
that suffer from malnourishment, both have pursued policies
that support agriculture. This is consistent with the
development trajectories of most developed countries. Countries
that are struggling with food insecurity are also those that
neglected agriculture.
Developing countries are dependent on agriculture for much
of their GDP yet investments in rural areas have fallen
precipitously as nations have put resources into other sectors.
As a result, agricultural productivity has also fallen. Nations
have been lulled into complacency by decades of low food
prices. As long as the growth in global food production was
greater than population growth, the situation was sustainable.
But demands on the world's farmers have increased, from
population growth and demand for non-food crops, at the same
time that agricultural productivity has stagnated.
Africa has been particularly affected, with grain yield
increasing by only 1% annually compared to 2.5% in the rest of
the world. In 2006, yield in Africa was just 40% of that in
other developing nations.\14\ The FAO reports that per capita
production of Africa's most important staple crop--maize--has
decreased by 14% since 1980. As suggested by a Chicago Council
on Global Affairs report, the degradation in agricultural
productivity coupled with population growth has doubled the
number of people in Africa living in extreme poverty, from 150
million in 1980 to 300 million today.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Government Accountability Organization: ``International Food
Security: Insufficient Efforts by Host Governments and Donors Threaten
Progress to Halve Hunger in Sub-Saharan Africa by 2015,'' May 2008.
\15\ The Chicago Initiative on Global Agricultural Development,
``Renewing American Leadership in the Fight Against Global Hunger and
Poverty,'' Chicago Council on Global Affairs, December 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Donor governments have also neglected agriculture with
official development assistance (ODA) allocated for agriculture
falling to just 4% of total ODA in 2007. In Africa, with very
high rates of poverty and low productivity, total agriculture
ODA in 1989 was $4.1 billion compared to $1.9 billion in 2006.
U.S. assistance for agriculture declined from more than $1
billion annually in the 1980s to as little as $200 million in
2003, when figured in constant 2006 dollars. (See Table 2.)
Despite the commitments made by developed countries in the 1996
Rome Declaration on World Food Security, greater investments in
agriculture have not occurred.
Of the countries studied here, large portions of their
populations are employed in agriculture, ranging from 69% in
Uganda, 60% in Vietnam, 45% in Indonesia, and 39% in Guatemala,
according to the World Bank. Most of the developing world's
population live in rural areas, including 88% in Uganda, 84% in
Ethiopia, 80% in Laos, and 74% in Vietnam. Agriculture accounts
for 47% of Laos' GDP, 44% of Ethiopia's GDP, and 43% Uganda's
GDP.
Countries that have continued to make investments in
agriculture are more food secure. Costa Rica and South Africa
are examples of countries with high farm productivity and low
rates of hunger. Both have seen their agricultural productivity
increase from 1990, as calculated by the World Bank. According
to IFPRI's Global Hunger Index, South Africa achieved a 33%
improvement from 1990 to 2007 and Costa Rica gained by 36%.
Other countries, while still considered food insecure, have
made great strides, such as Vietnam with a 47% improvement, and
Indonesia with a 29% improvement in their hunger indices.
Despite the importance of agriculture to their economies,
many developing countries devote scant resources to it. The
World Bank reports that for most agriculture-based countries,
public investment in agriculture approximated just 4% of
agriculture GDP in 2004. By comparison, Asian countries
invested some 10% during the 1980s when the region experienced
rapid increases in agricultural growth.\16\ Efforts such as the
Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP)
that call for member countries to allocate at least 10% of
their budgets for agriculture are encouraging. However, most
countries that have committed to this target have not reached
it,\17\ and staff found that much of the support for
agriculture is more rhetorical than real. Zambia, for example,
had increased its agriculture budget in recent years to around
8%, but that level has now fallen to a little over 5%.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ ``A Window of Opportunity for Poor Farmers: Investing for
Long-Term Food Supply,'' Development Outreach, World Bank, October
2008.
\17\ According to IFPRI and GAO, only four countries have met the
10% target: Malawi, Ethiopia, Mali, and Burkina Faso.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, judging a country's commitment to agriculture by
its budget support is problematic. Not all budget resources
actually contribute to agricultural productivity and long-term
development. This is particularly the case in countries that
spend significant resources on fertilizer support programs and
grain reserves. Staff found that such programs were often
mismanaged and politically driven. For example, 37% of Zambia's
budget for agriculture is devoted to the Fertilizer Support
Program, while less than 5% is devoted to infrastructure and
irrigation development. Investments in extension services are
very deficient. Staff found that most countries had poor to
non-existent extension, and very few had plans to put more
resources there.
Farmers generally lack access to agricultural inputs that
can increase their yield. This is particularly true in Africa
where both fertilizer and pesticide use is only 5% of the world
average, according to the FAO. Farmers rely on sowing their
fields by hand or with the help of draft animals. In Africa,
there are just 1.1 tractors per 1,000 hectares, compared to
19.1 worldwide. Mechanized farming in Africa is a distant
dream. Improved seeds could also increase yield, and their
adoption in Asia has been widely accepted since the Green
Revolution. In Asia, at least 80% of crops are planted with
improved varieties of rice, maize, sorghum, and potatoes. This
contrasts with only 20%-40% of crop area in Africa.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7215A.002
Infrastructure Investments. Staff found that food secure
countries benefit from having a transportation network that
includes primary, secondary, and tertiary road systems that
facilitate the movement of crops from farms to developed
markets. Only Costa Rica and South Africa fit this category.
All other countries visited had serious deficiencies in their
transportation networks. Irrigation systems and access to clean
water were also found more frequently in food secure countries.
Significant populations are excluded from participating in
markets because of the lack of infrastructure. Those in rural
areas must transport their crops, often on foot, to markets
miles away from their farms. The World Bank reports that less
than 50% of the rural population in Africa lives close to a
usable road. Only 32% of Ethiopians and a little over half of
Guatemalans live within 2 km of an all season road. Staff
visited sites in most of the countries under study where
farmers were forced to walk many miles on dirt tracks to access
markets for their produce. In the case of dairy farmers, they
must get their milk to a collection facility within one hour to
prevent spoilage.
While good roads are vital to improving infrastructure,
investments in irrigation systems are also important to raising
productivity, particularly in areas prone to droughts. In some
countries, water resources are sufficient, but farmers do not
have access. Solutions as simple as treadle pumps have been
able to improve the productivity of some farmers, but the need
far outpaces the resources that have been devoted to small-
scale irrigation. The World Bank reported that many food
insecure countries have very little irrigated land, as low as
0.1% in Uganda, 2.6% in Ethiopia, 2.8% in Zambia, and 6.4% in
Guatemala. The FAO reports that the percentage of irrigated
land in Africa is less than 1% compared to 5.4% worldwide.
Irrigation can double farm yield over that of rainfed crops,
and investments in irrigation have been shown to have rates of
return approximating 15% to 20% in Asia and Africa.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ ``A Window of Opportunity for Poor Farmers: Investing for
Long-Term Food Supply,'' Development Outreach, World Bank, October
2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Both--roads and irrigation--are necessary if rural areas
are to be revitalized and agricultural productivity increased.
Many donor countries, including the United States, have
refrained from doing large infrastructure projects in recent
years, leaving that function to the World Bank. It was only
with the sizeable compacts of the Millennium Challenge
Corporation that the value of building infrastructure was
highlighted again. In many countries, MCC, working to support
the host countries' development plans, has built roads linking
farms to markets, and markets to export facilities.
Education, Technology, Science, and Extension Investments.
Staff found that food secure countries have made investments in
the teaching of agricultural sciences, the dissemination of
technology through extension services, and an agricultural
research capacity. Schools and research institutes in Costa
Rica and South Africa are robust. The very food insecure--Laos,
Zambia, and Ethiopia--have failed to develop institutions that
can effectively develop and disseminate agriculture technology.
The moderately food insecure have some capacity that needs
enhancement. The extent of extension services was found to be
weak or nonfunctional in most countries. South Africa's
extension network is considered to have atrophied in recent
years, but its history of being stronger most likely
contributed to the country's food security.
The world's major agricultural producing nations have long
made significant investments in education, extension, and
research. U.S. agriculture has benefitted immensely from the
land-grant college system that improved farm technology and
disseminated information to farmers. Investments in research
have been made by both public and private entities. By
comparison, public and private investment in agricultural
research and development in developing countries is just \1/
9\th that of developed countries.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In developing countries, this aspect of agriculture has
been seriously neglected. Higher education budgets are anemic,
university laboratories are in disrepair if they exist at all,
and a general brain drain persists as students flock to other
countries for education and then often do not return home.
Staff found that most countries have at least one university
with an agricultural science department, but that they are
lacking in staff holding advanced degrees and have insufficient
teaching capacities. Little research is conducted there and
they rarely participate in any extension activities. Students
who graduate with agricultural science degrees have
traditionally gone into government service, but with cutbacks
in budget resources for agriculture, this avenue has been
limited in many countries. Schools are not teaching the
entrepreneurial skills necessary for graduates to create
productive ventures. Agriculture is a business, but
agricultural schools are not teaching business skills.
Two types of donor engagement are necessary--collaborative
research and institutional capacity building. The USAID-funded
Collaborative Research Support Program (CRSP) links U.S. land
grant and other colleges with foreign universities on shared
research agendas. In existence since passage of the Famine
Prevention and Freedom from Hunger Act in 1975 (PL94-161), CRSP
has involved dozens of U.S. universities and foreign
universities in fields such as pest management, sustainable
agriculture, and research on specific crops such as sorghum and
peanuts. USAID has also supported international research
centers, such as the Consultative Group on International
Agriculture Research (CGIAR) with 15 research centers around
the world. As leading proponents of agriculture technology, the
CGIAR centers are contributing to global food production in
regions in which they are located.
Programs to help build teaching and research capacity at
universities have not been robustly funded by donors.
Universities are not able to contribute to economic growth in
their current state, but they have the potential to become
engines of development with the proper engagement. Well-
qualified graduates can create their own opportunities and add
to commercial development. University-based research can
develop solutions to localized agricultural conditions.
Increasing human capacity, which comes through education, is as
important as improving institutional capacity. A program to
address these development needs should be an important
component of U.S. assistance.
Staff found that the two food secure countries studied--
Costa Rica and South Africa--both had numerous universities
with advanced research facilities, competent staffs, and
diverse curriculum. Their graduates have many opportunities in
agriculture-related industries and their agriculture
departments are thriving. Staff concluded that some of these
schools can serve as regional hubs to assist other schools
improve their agriculture programs. Staff also found that some
schools in food insecure countries are poised to benefit from
assistance, and that such investments could provide long-term
and sustainable vibrancy to weak agriculture systems and
promote needed economic growth.
Staff visited one or more universities in each country.
Three universities, two in South Africa and one in Costa Rica,
were observed to be in positions to assist other countries in
their regions to develop improved teaching and research
capabilities. Staff did not attempt to catalogue all schools
that could fill this leadership role. The following schools
were among those staff visited and judged to be in a position
to serve as regional hubs for agricultural education:
University of Pretoria, South Africa. UP has a
variety of agricultural science programs and degrees offered
and has excellent research facilities that attract students and
researchers from other parts of the continent. Staff visited
first-class laboratories where faculty and students were
actively engaged in advanced research projects. The school has
sophisticated laboratories with \3/4\ of its graduate students
from other countries, largely African. The school is committed
to working with other universities on the continent on
agriculture programs, and reports being limited only by
staffing demands.
University of Kwazulu-Natal, South Africa. K-Natal
is South Africa's largest university with 43,000 students and
has various agriculture programs, including an inter-
disciplinary Food Security Program begun eight years ago. The
school is involved in advising CAADP on its policy framework
for food security promoting the following objectives: to
improve resilience of the food insecure; to increase
agricultural productivity; to provide economic opportunity for
the vulnerable, and to improve nutrition. K-Natal is working
with other universities and governments on food security. It
currently has cooperative programs with four African
universities.
EARTH University, Costa Rica. EARTH University
(Escuela de Agricultura de la Region Tropical Humeda) is a
private, international institution that was established thanks
to a group of Costa Rican leaders from government, agro-
industry, and academia, with significant financial support from
USAID and the W.K. Kellogg Foundation. It was inspired by the
need for entirely new approaches in higher education in
agriculture. The University is an international learning
community, with students from 24 countries, primarily Latin
American and Caribbean, but including 4 African nations.
The mission of EARTH is to prepare leaders with ethical
values to contribute to the sustainable development of the
humid tropics and to construct a prosperous and just society.
Higher education in agriculture in many parts of the world has
typically focused on the training of public sector employees.
In an age of shrinking public sector expenditures and growing
interest in the role of the private sector in revitalizing
rural economies, this emphasis is increasingly being
questioned. EARTH was created with an eye towards preparing
graduates for the private sector, and particularly for careers
as agricultural and rural entrepreneurs. In terms of
curriculum, this approach emphasizes the importance of
entrepreneurial skills, including practical experience in
planning and operating a productive enterprise. Business
administration, accounting, finance, management, and
communication skills are important aspects of the plan of
study.
Based on a visit to EARTH University, staff believes that
establishing similar universities in strategic areas would be
highly beneficial to global food production and rural
development. Elements of the program should be promoted by
USAID, especially in its work related to agricultural higher
education in the following areas:
Encourage faculties of agriculture to consider
reviewing the focus of their curricula and educational
methodologies in order to graduate professionals with the range
of skills, abilities, and attitudes required to stimulate the
agricultural and rural economy. While there is clearly a need
to produce a new generation of researchers, teachers, and
government employees, many universities in developing countries
have been unsuccessful in preparing professionals willing and
capable of leading change in the rural environment. EARTH
University officials communicated that an emerging consensus in
the agricultural field points to the need for agricultural
graduates capable of integrating technical and scientific
knowledge with practical and applied skills, environmental and
social awareness, and entrepreneurial preparation and
leadership skills.
In addition to promoting transformation of
existing models for undergraduate education, develop new models
for technical and diploma level programs aimed at graduating
community-based practitioners also capable of integrating
technical and scientific knowledge with practical and applied
skills, environmental and social awareness, entrepreneurial
preparation, and leadership skills.
USAID should also consider the establishment of
regional hub institutions for entrepreneurship education, which
could serve to catalyze change in business and entrepreneurship
education at all levels--from graduate and undergraduate
university education, to diploma and technical education, and
including community-based education with farmers and small and
medium sized producers.
EARTH University can also serve as a model for
integrated sustainable farming techniques that are scalable in
agriculturally challenging topographies and also minimize
energy and environmental impacts.
Staff identified universities in food insecure countries
that have sufficient capacity that they could benefit from
assistance. Many of these schools existed in countries that
have demonstrated some commitment to improving higher education
and investing in agriculture. It was determined that making
investments in countries without this commitment would most
likely not have high rates of return. It was not the objective
of the staff report to catalogue meritorious schools that are
in need of assistance. The following schools were either
visited by staff, or were schools on which staff collected
information, and represent those where some investments in
foreign assistance could achieve lasting benefits.
Makerere University, Uganda. Makerere University
has previously received significant U.S. support. USAID's
support in the 1980s and 1990s paid off according to current
Dean of Agriculture at Makerere as the ``best investment ever''
in Uganda. Policy has shifted emphasis since then away from the
public sector, and associations among academia, manpower, and
research have been unable to maintain their purpose. In a
country like Uganda, investment in the public sector is
considered a primary investment of value. Re-establishing U.S.
support would be a return to an important relationship valued
by Ugandans.
University of Philippines Los Banos. The
Philippines has an unusually high literacy rate for a
developing country, 93%, and an extensive university system.
While there are a number of researchers at UP-Los Banos,
agriculture has fallen out of fashion with students in favor of
high tech, computers, engineering, etc. There has been a 50%
decline in enrollment in agriculture courses at UPLB since the
1980s, and its agriculture economics department will see half
the senior staff retiring in the near future. Many students
find it difficult to get work in the field, said the dean,
Liborio Cabanilla: ``Our agriculture graduates go to work in
call centers.'' UPLB would be an ideal candidate for
assistance, with its English-fluent faculty and students, and
its research infrastructure, which needs upgrading. The
university does not participate in extension, but university
officials expressed an interest in strengthening the moribund
government system.
Southeast Asian Food and Agricultural Science and
Technology Center (SEAFAST), Bogor University, Indonesia. The
center is designed to develop a national and regional system of
partnerships with governmental, donor, and business sectors in
the areas of food and agricultural science and technology
development. It is dedicated to being a regional center
focusing on improving food quality, nutrition, and food safety
through science and technology. It is actively seeking mutual
partnerships and cooperation with national, regional, and
international institutions. One such partnership has been
established with Texas A&M University.
Sound land tenure systems. Staff found that stable land
tenure systems, defined as having stable land title and
sufficient farm size to be productive, contribute to food
security. The very food insecure countries all have unstable
land tenure and small average farm size. In many countries,
farmers hold no or unstable title to the land they farm. In
Uganda, women are unable to own land despite comprising 49% of
the agricultural labor force. Having unclear land titles means
that they cannot access credit and have little incentive to
make investments in their farms.
Many farmers do not have enough land to produce sufficient
crops to enter the marketplace. Of the countries studied by
staff, the average hectare per capita of the rural populations
ranged from 0.2 in Laos, Ethiopia, and Vietnam, 0.3 in Uganda,
0.4 in the Philippines, Indonesia, and Guatemala, and 0.7 in
Zambia. In Africa, 80% of farms are less than 2 hectares.\20\
Small plot size is often the result of successive generational
subdivisions, a trend that shows no sign of abating but
suggests the need for diversifying the rural economy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ Paarlberg 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Land reform programs in many countries are more concerned
with breaking up large and productive farms to redistribute to
the landless, but with little support in maintaining their
productive capacity. These programs are focused on political
objectives rather than farm yield. Zimbabwe is the extreme
example of land being taken out of production for political
purposes with catastrophic consequences of agricultural
productivity. Staff found land reform programs in South Africa,
the Philippines, and Uganda, and reported problems with their
implementation and their deleterious effects on productivity.
One exception was Ethiopia where a land registration program
has seen some positive results for resolving land disputes,
creating credit opportunities, enhancing land use, and
improving gender equality.
Respect for Market Forces. Staff found that free market
policies--those that try to work with market forces--are more
conducive to agricultural development. The most food insecure
countries suffer from government policies that are not market-
friendly and that interfere in the workings of local and
national economies.
Creating a conducive business environment calls for
policies that incentivize greater investments on the part of
private sector business and the leveraging of those resources
to promote equitable growth. Business will make investments
where there are public policy commitments to improve
infrastructure, build markets, and provide for transparent and
fair regulations of business activities. At the other extreme,
governments that choose to rely entirely on market forces,
rather than public investments, risk development patterns that
are not equitable for large segments of the population and not
reflective of societal needs or objectives.
Government policies that seek to create markets rather than
distort them provide more benefits to farmers and consumers.
Staff found that most fertilizer support programs were being
used for political purposes and were often inaccessible to
those most in need. These programs had severe negative effects
on the private fertilizer market, and where they did reach
needy farmers, they were not accompanied by extension services.
In one country visited prior to a presidential election, a
prominent campaign theme by the incumbent president promised to
expand the fertilizer program to various segments of the
population, such as the military and civil servants. Of equal
concern is that such programs are prone to corruption in both
design and implementation, which further undermines markets.
Moreover, budget resources for subsidies take away funds from
rural development.
Justification of Approaches
Based on these findings, staff made recommendations on
development approaches with the potential to have the greatest
impact on alleviating hunger.
Focus on Small Holders. There are a number of reasons why
there should be special focus on small holders. First, they
comprise the majority of the poor and hungry. Seventy-five
percent of people in developing countries live in rural areas,
and about half are small holder farmers. Africa's small farmers
comprise about 80% of the extremely poor.
Second, they are largely cut off from the local economy
because they are not producing a surplus for the market.
Raising their productivity can have a powerful multiplier
effect as they are able to enter the market, not just as
producers, but also as consumers. Both roles will spur
increased economic activity.
Third, investments to assist small and medium land holders,
such as improved seed and fertilizer, and better farming
techniques can have very large and immediate returns.
Fourth, improving the productivity and incomes of the
extreme poor will reduce the need for food aid, as they become
self-sufficient in food production. The emphasis on small
holders holds special promise for countries with large segments
of their populations depending on farming for a living.
A focus on small holders should not signal that commercial
farming can be neglected. Rather, the eventual development of
more widespread commercial-scale farming is a goal. Many
medium-sized farmers have the potential to become commercial in
scope and produce for a national or international market. For
net food importing countries, raising productivity through a
larger and more diverse commercial sector is a reasonable
approach. The commercial sector also benefits small holders and
rural landless. The latter depend on these larger operations
for jobs, and small holder farmers are often able to both sell
to, and buy from, commercial farms.
Embrace Technological Solutions. The World Bank estimates
that the average rate of return on investments in agricultural
research and extension ranges from 35% in Africa to 50% in
Asia. Their evaluation of 700 research and development projects
in developing countries showed an average rate of return of
43%.\21\ Despite the high payoff from such investments, budget
allocations that would advance technology and its dissemination
to farmers are anemic. Improved seed, either from traditional
cross-breeding or from transgenic technology, is not available
to most of the developing world even though these varieties
have been shown to significantly improve yield and decrease the
need for pesticides and water. As Robert Paarlberg notes in his
book Starved for Science, when industrial countries adopted
technology, their agricultural sectors saw significant gains in
productivity and income. Yet, the same has not happened in
developing countries. The CGIAR research centers are doing
important research. New efforts, such as the Alliance for a
Green Revolution in Africa, funded by the Gates Foundation and
the Rockefeller Foundation, hold great promise. But, the
development of improved seed and other inputs must be
accompanied by the means to disseminate information to small
holders and programs that make improved inputs accessible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ ``A Window of Opportunity for Poor Farmers: Investing for
Long-Term Food Supply,'' Development Outreach, World Bank, October
2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The resistance to genetically modified (GM) technology is
particularly glaring when considering its history of safety and
its benefits to farmers. In 2006, only 22 countries were using
transgenic seeds on about 100 million hectares, equivalent to
about 8% of all cultivated land. The only GM seed that is
widely used by small holders has been Bt cotton, which is used
for insect resistance, mainly by farmers in India and China.
Its use has been shown to increase incomes and provide
significant environmental and health benefits from reduced
pesticide use.\22\ The development of GM varieties that respond
to the needs and environmental conditions of small holders in
developing countries could provide a quantum leap in terms of
income and benefits. This will not happen without public
support or through public-private partnerships.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ ``Capturing the Benefits of Genetically Modified Organisms for
the Poor,'' Development Outreach, World Bank, October 2008.
Empower Individuals rather than Enable Poverty. The
objective of development projects should be sustainability.
That is, will the intervention promote and support an activity
that will be able to thrive on its own if donor support is
eventually withdrawn? This most often happens when the design
is to empower individuals and create an incentive structure for
sustained economic activity. Programs that provide assistance
without also providing opportunities may be responding to a
short-term need at the expense of perpetuating long-term
poverty.
Staff had the chance to visit dozens of projects supported
by USAID and managed by a number of private voluntary
organizations. Several are highlighted here to demonstrate the
dynamic of empowerment and the possibility of having a powerful
multiplier effect.
MRI Seed, PROFIT (PROduction, Finance, and
Improved Technology) in Monze, Zambia. With USAID support, the
PROFIT program is working with MRI Seed, a major Zambian seed
company, to extend its retail operations to rural areas,
helping to overcome small holders' lack of access to inputs and
technology. The company hires ``in-community agents,'' who work
on commission, and trains them in sales and knowledge
dissemination. The model increases profits for MRI at little
cost, while increasing the accessibility of seed and
information to farmers. The model has been adopted by other
retail firms, with 13 major commercial input companies having
now trained more than 800 agents, and having generated $1
million in new sales over 18 months. USAID and PROFIT report a
50% increase in yield among farmers adopting new input and
service technologies, a general upgrading of farming practices
with tens of thousands of hectares now using modern farming
management practices, and a shift in small holders now viewing
their agent as the main source of agricultural information,
demonstrating the emergence of a private sector extension
service.
Mercy Corps/Wal-Mart/Fundacion Agil in
Chimaltenango, Guatemala. USAID partnered with Mercy Corps,
Wal-Mart, and Fundacion Agil to support development of a small-
scale producer value chain for farmers from the Samajela Taq
Winaq Group. The group, nearly 40 men and women from six
families, traditionally grew strawberries, corn, and beans but
could not directly access markets and had not employed modern
productive agricultural practices and harvest techniques. The
consortium worked with the producers to develop the ability to
produce high value market-oriented vegetable crops and directly
access both domestic and international markets, including Wal-
Mart. Producers adhere to strict sanitation rules and rigorous
record keeping. In addition to increased agricultural
abilities, members of the group are also expanding their
knowledge base through accounting and business studies to
improve the group's profitability. The project has not only
improved the profitability and education of the six families
involved, but will now serve as a model for similarly situated
farming groups that have to date lacked direct access to
markets and the implementation of strict production standards.
AGEXPORT, Santiago Sacatepequez, Guatemala. Staff
visited Cuatro Pinos, an agricultural cooperative founded in
1979. It is a sophisticated operation designed to coordinate
the growing of fruits and vegetables on small farms which are
then moved to a central location for processing, packaging, and
shipping to U.S. and European markets. The cooperative
distributes productive seeds and fertilizer to small farmers
and advises them on food safety standards. Staff believes that
these efforts have been effective in increasing income for
small farmers while still allowing them to grow some
traditional corn and beans and providing employment for an
additional 1,200 people in the processing facility. This value
chain model appeared to be very successful with ample ability
to continue growth.
Productive Safety Net Programs, Ethiopia. When a
systemic shock occurs--a natural disaster or price inflation--
the extremely poor often cope by selling off their assets. This
response further decreases their resiliency to future shocks
and their ability to break out of a poverty trap. Productive
safety net programs (PSNP) depart from the practice of costly
and slow emergency food aid delivery and commit donors to
multi-year targeted community investment. Such safety nets seek
to help those in most dire need to weather these shocks without
having to divest assets. The most productive programs require
certain actions to receive benefits, such as keeping children
in school or bringing them to clinics on a regular schedule.
Some also require community work in exchange for support.
Ethiopia's program, with support from the United States, seems
to have already reduced the vulnerability of the current
beneficiaries by strengthening their community assets value.
Evidence suggests that since its inception in 2005, it has
improved household security and community assets for its 7.2
million recipients in some of the country's most food insecure
regions. Measurable progress has been reported in asset
protection, adequate food for consumption, and increased
availability of credit, which has also decreased labor
migration and increased school attendance. During food price
inflation in 2008, PSNP demonstrated that it had built
substantial resiliency among its beneficiaries.
Raise Incomes. Hunger is strongly correlated with poverty.
Poverty prevents both rural and urban populations from
accessing a nutritional diet. Not all rural dwellers will be
able to farm. This is self-evident given the already small
plots of land that continue to be sub-divided among
generations. The rural landless and the urban poor need jobs
and incomes to escape both poverty and hunger. Promoting growth
in rural areas is important in this respect. Agriculture-
related industries are sources of jobs and drive the demand for
locally produced goods and services leading to greater socio-
economic growth. Increased incomes in rural areas stem the flow
of economic refugees to cities, where they often join the ranks
of the urban unemployed. This multiplier effect is one of the
reasons why the World Bank claims that GDP growth originating
in agriculture is at least twice as effective in reducing
poverty as GDP growth originating outside of agriculture.\23\
Because agriculture is the main source of income for so many
poor people living in developing countries, activities that
raise their incomes will have rapid effects on poverty.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ World Bank, World Development Report 2008, Agriculture for
Development, 2007.
Support Markets, Reduce Price Volatility, and Increase
Market Information. Government policies to improve productivity
should work with market forces rather than distorting markets.
Market-distorting policies are not sustainable over the long
run and do not include the incentives necessary to spur
production and greater economic activity. Countries benefit
when the market environment is conducive to private investment.
Factors that contribute to such an environment include
transparency in transactions, a reliable and fair regulatory
framework, and investments in infrastructure--roads,
irrigation, markets, to name just a few.
Making farming profitable while keeping food accessible
through low prices is a tricky proposition. Volatile price
fluctuations in necessities like food and fuel introduce
unpredictability into the already tenuous environment of living
in or near poverty. Small-scale farmers, who are unable to
produce a surplus, do not benefit from higher commodity prices,
but they are hit with increased costs of agricultural inputs
for such basics as seed and fertilizer. What planning they are
able to do for the next growing season can be upended by a
price fluctuation of an input or commodity.
Nations should pursue price stability \24\ while not
falling prey to price stabilization policies that do more harm
than good. The latter approach often involves drastic
interventions in the economy with price floors, ceilings, or
subsidies that end up distorting the market and thereby
disrupting economic growth. Instead, supporting a more robust
national food production system that produces consistent annual
yields will help to stabilize supply and prices and makes sense
if, as most economists argue, steep price increases signal
supply problems. That stability will help farmers to plan and
invest in future production. Natural disasters will disrupt
production, and climate change effects in some areas will
present challenges. But notably, countries that were not
dependent on imports of staple crops were better able to
weather last year's price increases.\25\ That is, national food
production served as a buffer to price fluctuations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ C. Peter Timmer and David Dawe in ``Managing Food Price
Instability in Asia: A Macro Food Security Perspective,'' in Asian
Economic Journal, Vol 21, No. 1, 2007 urge that food price stability
become a focus of research and policy.
\25\ USDA, Economic Research Service: ``Food Security Assessment,
2007,'' 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Price stability can also be enhanced by improving farmers'
ability to participate in the market. Small holders have
inadequate access to information that would help them make
buying, selling, and investment decisions. Often located far
from markets, they are disadvantaged compared to those who have
market information. Programs that have made cell phones
available to farmers have had major impact on markets. A recent
study by the Center for Global Development found that once cell
phones were introduced in Niger, the variance in grain prices
across markets was narrowed by 20%, and the variance of grain
prices during a 12-month period narrowed by 12%.\26\ Their
access to timely information helps them decide where and when
to sell their product and purchase inputs with beneficial
effects on raising incomes and productivity and providing some
semblance of price stability.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ Center for Global Development, CGD Notes: `` `Can You Hear Me
Now?' How Cell Phones are Transforming Markets in Sub-Saharan Africa,''
Jenny C. Aker, October 2008.
Integrate Nutrition into Food Security Programs. As food
prices increase or food becomes less available, the poor must
cut back on consumption, or cut out sources of important
nutrients such as protein. The FAO reports that diets in low-
income countries comprise mostly cereals, roots, and tubers,
but minimal amounts of meat and dairy products, oil and fats,
and fruits and vegetables. A diverse and nutritional diet is
largely unaffordable to the poor. Even in countries with
moderate food insecurity, staff found alarming rates of
malnutrition due largely to dietary reliance on a limited range
of staple foods. Rice can comprise about half of daily diets in
Asia.
The issue of child nutrition is particularly compelling as
evidence shows that sustained lack of nutrition can have
lifelong consequences for productivity and quality of life. The
FAO estimates that just 40% to 50% of children under the age of
two in Africa have a sufficiently nutritious diet. During the
first two years of life, children need a sustained and high
nutrient diet in order to develop physically and
intellectually. Without such a diet, children can suffer the
permanent consequences of stunting, cognitive deficiencies, and
increased vulnerability to disease and mortality. The World
Bank reports that 42% of children in Laos are stunted despite
the country's progress in reducing maternal and childhood
mortality. Indonesia, which has improved its overall hunger
index, shows a negative trend in child malnourishment,
increasing from 24% in 2000 to 28% in 2005, according to
UNICEF. Vietnam, another country that has improved its hunger
index, still has very high rates of child malnutrition with
some estimates as high as 4 million children under the age of
five.\27\ The development of improved crops that are
nutritionally fortified with beta carotene or omega-3 holds
great promise in overcoming nutritional deficiencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ Counterpart International, ``Vietnam's Investment in
Agriculture and Higher Education in Agricultural Sciences, Agricultural
Extension,'' December 9, 2008.
Achieve Better Donor Coordination in the Field. In many
developing countries, it is common to have dozens of donor
agencies and even hundreds of implementers managing programs
across all sectors. It is also common that very little
consultation among the main donors takes place with much
frequency, and rarely is there any semblance of coordination.
This lack of coordination can have two negative consequences.
First, programs can actually work at cross purposes, with one
donor urging policies and designing programs that undermine
other approaches. Second, donor agencies that follow disparate
projects and agendas are unable to achieve greater
efficiencies. Working in coordination can have a greater
development impact, for example, designing projects
complementary to a large infrastructure project. In the current
environment of fiscal pressures, donors should work together to
optimize their investments.
Experiences in Zambia demonstrated that with the host
government's encouragement, donor groups can coordinate their
activities effectively. The donor community has created sub-
groups by sector to share information on approaches and
activities. The agriculture group, led by the United States,
the World Bank, and Sweden's Sida, has developed a set of
principles for all donor agencies working in agriculture. The
common principles are to ensure that all programs are working
under the same rules of engagement. Staff did not find this
same level of coordination in other countries under study.
Utilize Conservation Farming Techniques. With predicted
population growth causing increased food demand, it is certain
that higher levels of agricultural production will put
pressures on the environment. Soil degradation, deforestation,
and depleted water resources will cause farmers to open up new
land to farming, which will reinforce further environmental
damage. Conservation farming techniques that are locally
appropriate must be employed alongside modern technology to
ensure sustainable productivity increases.
The use of technology to improve yields without greatly
increasing land under cultivation will be essential. Improved
seeds created through modern plant breeding techniques,
including biotechnology, promise drought resistance, improved
yields, and efficient use of fertilizer. Where conservation
farming has been adopted, farmers are seeing increased yields.
The challenge of disseminating information on conservation
practices and modern farming technologies to smallholders
suggests the need, as argued elsewhere in this report, for a
revitalization of extension services, teaching, and research.
Integrate Approaches to Help Women in the Design of
Development Programs. Women bear the burden of food production
in many parts of the world in addition to their traditional
roles of running a household and raising children, yet they are
the most difficult to reach with assistance programs. The
Chicago Council on Global Affairs reports that women and girls
provide 80% of farm labor in Africa, and 40% in South Asia. In
Africa, where the HIV/AIDS pandemic has left many women as
heads of households, they receive less than 10% of small farm
credit and own just 1% of the land according to a 2007 World
Bank study.
Experience has also shown that when women are the focus,
development payoffs are greater. A 2000 IFPRI study found that
when women in Africa were given the same level of training,
experience, and farm inputs as men, their agricultural yields
increased by 22%. Other studies have found that women are more
likely to reinvest their incomes for the benefit of their
families. Women who have access to education have children who
enjoy higher levels of nutrition and decreased mortality rates.
According to a recent Organization on Economic Cooperation and
Development report, national per capita income increases as
women are educated.
Staff found that women in many countries, particularly in
Africa, are largely responsible for food production. It is
often the case that the husband has succumbed to AIDS or moved
to a nearby city in search of income. The wife must try to eke
out a living off a plot of land that is often too small to
produce a surplus and for which she has tenuous title. She does
so while having to tend to a number of children, some of whom
are orphans of other family members. To reach a market, she or
her children must walk several miles on dirt paths or poor
roads. Transporting produce to a market can often take up most
of the day. It is little wonder that women do not have
discretionary time to attend meetings with a periodically
visiting extension agent.
Because of the many and varied demands made on women's time
and the potential development benefits that accrue from raising
their incomes, U.S. development programs and projects should
integrate a women's focus into their design and implementation.
Don't Allow Agriculture to Become an Extractive Industry.
During the data collection process of this study, staff
encountered reports \28\ of foreign companies and governments
that were responding to increased food prices by accessing
large tracts of land in developing countries. In most cases,
the developed country is wealthy, but does not have a
sufficient natural resource base to ensure its food security.
For example, reports surfaced in November that Daewoo Logistics
of South Korea was negotiating with Madagascar for a 99-year
lease of an extensive tract of the country's arable land for
corn production. Persian Gulf states are also making similar
forays into other African countries. According to the reports,
the food would be exported home. In such cases, farming may
come to resemble an extractive industry in which the host
country sees very little benefits. Extractive industries are
often vulnerable to corruption if the agreements between
governments and foreign companies lack transparency.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ ``Daewoo to Cultivate Madagascar Land for Free,'' Financial
Times, November 19, 2008; ``The Breadbasket of South Korea:
Madagascar,'' Time.com, November 23, 2008; ``Land Leased to Secure
Crops for South Korea,'' Financial Times, November 18, 2008; ``World
News: U.N. Food Chief Warns on Buying Farms,'' Wall Street Journal,
September 10, 2008; ``Foreigners Snap Up African Farmland,'' The
Vancouver Sun, November 3, 2008.
\29\ Senate Foreign Relations Committee minority staff report,
``The Petroleum and Poverty Paradox: Assessing U.S. and International
Community Efforts to Fight the Resource Curse,'' October 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In some reported cases, the developing country is providing
land for free or at little cost with the hope that the foreign
operation will make improvements in infrastructure and
technology transfer. However, there was little indication that
such provisions were being written into agreements and that
host countries were relying on hope and good faith. Other
reports indicated that local workers would not be used; the
exporter company would bring in its own labor, thereby removing
employment as a potential benefit to the host country. Further,
having all commodities exported to the home country does little
to improve food security in the host country, and depending on
the type of operation, could have negative environmental
consequences.
Foreign direct investment (FDI) has long been a feature of
international commerce. When managed well, it can provide
powerful benefits for economic growth. This is as true of the
agriculture sector as other parts of the economy. In fact, such
operations could increase global food production thereby
exerting downward pressure on high prices. However, host
countries must exhibit great caution in entertaining these
proposals. Negotiated agreements should provide benefits to
both parties. They should ensure that operations are
environmentally sound and do not result in massive
deforestation. They must ensure transparency so that benefits
accrue to the society at large and not just to the elite.
Regional and Country Reviews
The following discussion categorizes countries by the level
of their food security, from countries that are considered
chronically insecure and regularly require international food
aid to those that are net exporters of food and have relatively
small proportions of their populations that are considered
hungry. A third category represents those with moderate to
serious food insecurity and those that have witnessed a change
in their condition over the past two decades.
SEVERE FOOD INSECURITY
Those countries that find themselves unable to feed their
people generally are low-income countries that have not had the
resources to invest in agriculture. Infrastructure and
education systems are poor, and government policy has not
helped to establish an environment conducive to agriculture or
private sector development. Extension and research services are
poor or non-functioning. Ironically, having a good natural
resource base does not guarantee food security if farmers are
unable to exploit it. Histories of civil conflict prevent
farmers from producing and are exacerbated by periodic natural
disasters such as droughts and flooding. Of the countries
studied by staff, three fall into the category of food insecure
with significant portions of their populations suffering from
chronic hunger: Ethiopia, Zambia, and Laos.
Ethiopia
The food security status of Ethiopia could be characterized
as chronically food insecure with unpredictable but regular
crises. Generalized poverty across Ethiopia ranks this country
as low as 8th poorest in the world. Despite significant
resources, 80% of Ethiopians, some 61.6 million people, exist
on less than $2 dollars a day. Food insecurity is especially
critical in rural areas where 86% of the population resides.
Economic insecurity dominates the urban centers where
unemployment, inflation, and a lack of social safety nets put
residents at risk. HIV/AIDS, malaria, tuberculosis, and a lack
of clean water are constant threats to life.
Due to its chronic conditions, Ethiopia has been the
subject of multiple studies of the agriculture sector and food
security of its population. One such study, the 2004 USAID
report entitled Breaking the Cycle of Food Crises: Famine
Prevention in Ethiopia, stated that Ethiopia's economic
conditions are not primarily the result of drought but rather
``the weak economic policies of the country over a sustained
period--characterized by low rates of investment in economic
growth and agriculture by both government and the commercial
private sector.''
The dominant national source of income is coffee exports.
Additional efforts to secure niche commercial crops, such as
flowers (roses) have been successful due to a free-trade
environment surrounding the investment and trade of this
product. The agricultural sector in Ethiopia accounts for 85%
of total employment, 46% of GDP, and 92% of total export
earnings. The vast majority of employment is on small-holder
subsistence farms that generate insufficient income to feed a
family.
According to a report by Save the Children, the current
food crisis has been brought about, in large part, by rising
food prices--Ethiopia's food consumer price index was 91.7%
higher in July 2008 compared to July 2007. In some parts of
Ethiopia, maize prices have increased 266% since 2005 with a
177% increase from February to April 2008. Neighboring Kenya
saw prices rise by only 44%.
Ethiopia is chronically food insecure primarily because of
poor government policy and extremely limited capacity. The 2008
Global Hunger Index ranks Ethiopia near the bottom of the scale
at 31, significantly worse than most other countries in sub-
Saharan Africa. Because the 2008 food crisis was not reflected
in this ranking, Ethiopia's food situation is likely worse than
its score indicates. Nearly 10 million people of a population
of 77 million are at risk of starvation every year. In 2005
(the latest national measure) 46% of the population were
considered malnourished (down from 63% in 1995). Malnutrition
is a chronic problem with more than half of children under five
years stunted, while 47% are underweight (UNICEF, 2004). The
minimum caloric intake cost is more than the income of nearly
50% of Ethiopians.
A critical policy deficit is land tenure/land use policy,
which currently precludes any ownership while maintaining
unverifiable and undocumented leasing arrangements. There are a
host of specific additional causes of food insecurity that
result from the policy and incapacity, including: the lack of
national, regional, or local infrastructure--from roads to
electrification to storage and transfer, to education and
training. There are also obvious proximate environmental or
climatic impediments to improved agricultural outputs and
nourishment of the population in many regions of the country,
primarily recurrent and more frequent drought conditions as
well as untimely and unpredictable rainfall, deforestation, and
land degradation. The lack of attention to infrastructure and
meager resources devoted to the sector have resulted in an
over-tasked and overcrowded university system and limited
development of effective agriculture research centers,
extension services, and even competent seed multiplication
facilities. Compounding these factors is an ongoing turbulence
in the political realm with internal conflict across the
political spectrum, and persistent, perceived external threats
from north, west, and south that absorb inordinate human and
economic resources.
Additional critical elements of the Ethiopian situation
include dramatic land and soil degradation; pastoralist
livelihood challenges due to land policy, climatic conditions,
and conflict; an under-resourced and underutilized livestock
industry that leads the continent in size despite poor
infrastructure and support; a significant unrealized dairy
potential; and an unexploited fertilizer industry. Finance for
rural enterprise, especially agriculture, is hampered by
limited resources and high risk due to climatic conditions and
poor agriculture inputs. Subsistence farmers and wage labor
households depend on self-finance and community-based/
cooperative resources. This population has limited if any
collateral due to ill-defined property and land use rights.
Faced with high cost inputs and uncertainty over the harvest,
most farmers opt for low-cost inputs that produce lower yields.
Ethiopia is not food insecure because it is short of
natural resources but because of a common array of persistent
human inhibitors compounding natural challenges. Pro-
agricultural development and rural growth rhetoric abound but
are insufficient to reverse the negative impact of bad policy
and the lack of political will by the government to
fundamentally restructure problematic economic development
plans.
Ethiopia and its nearly 80 million people are confronted
with profound risk and the donor community is itself confronted
with a profound dilemma--aid or strong medicine? Should chronic
Ethiopian under-development be addressed by transformative
policy or should the status quo of the last 30 years be
sustained by continued alignment of humanitarian and
development assistance with ad hoc incrementalism preferred by
the regime?
There is substantial agreement that the existing
landholding system is the prime obstacle to effective
agricultural sector development and thus Ethiopia's economic
growth. Granted there are many visible deficiencies in one of
the poorest countries on earth, beginning with a dearth of
financial resources for infrastructure, education, science,
extension services, markets, and so on. But, the landholding
rules, norms, and associated policy are so uncertain for the
farmer, the trader, the banker, the marketer, the exporter, or
even the government, that credit is a rare and risky venture
that stands between chronic hunger and any growth. A recently
completed pilot project sponsored by USAID--ELTAP--has shown
that credible land registration can and does dramatically
improve farmer and agriculture sector opportunities for growth.
Despite such promise the program, like many before it, is
struggling for national and donor resources to continue while
also at risk of political ambivalence given other perceived
priorities.
The confluence of chronic factors noted above, compounded
by the global food crisis and mounting internal political and
external tensions, suggests that sustaining current development
approaches will only prolong the inevitable and growing
humanitarian catastrophe. Broadening poverty, competition for
resources among the growing population, and chronic food
insecurity due to erratic natural and man-made influences
portend a troubling outcome. Ethiopian history has shown that
policies that do not adequately address the most basic needs of
the people will eventually lead to a new government much as it
did under the Emperor and Marxist Dergue regimes. Donor country
humanitarian and development response has been consistent in
meeting most of Ethiopia's hunger through massive food aid,
even in good harvest years, however it has been at the expense
of broad, coherent development based on effective principles
such as land use policy that recognizes and releases the value
of land. Donors in Ethiopia accept this as the price for
working there; as they have accepted the government's
insistence, on pain of expulsion, that cholera, which is quite
common in Ethiopia, not be called by its name but by the
euphemism Acute Watery Diarrhea (AWD) in order to avoid
embarrassment.
On the other hand, the government of Ethiopia could seize
the initiative of this looming catastrophe and join its many
international donors as partners in a broad review of policy
from which to establish a fundamentally new national approach
to achieve agricultural sector and general economic
development. The principles have been well studied, both in
Ethiopia and in much of the developing world. Though not all
lessons are relevant, such principles could transform long-term
development policy that would allow Ethiopians to realize the
vast potential of existing natural resources that could set
their country on a path to broad economic growth and food
security. There are reasons for setbacks but there is no
rationale for failure to capitalize on available resources and
means. Recommendations for specific actions include: reforms to
ensure the security of land tenure; a dual approach of
strengthening both small-scale and commercial farmers; address
regulatory and tax environments for agriculture; improve
infrastructure, including roads, irrigation, storage, and
markets; strengthen research and extension services; and build
national fertilizer production.
Zambia
When considering Zambia's natural resource base, there is
no reason why the country should be food insecure. It has ample
arable land and a relatively small population. Roughly 40% of
southern Africa's water resources flow through its territory.
Yet, large areas of Zambia are chronically food insecure.
Zambia has the potential to produce food surpluses, but it is
hampered by: poor infrastructure; inadequate and/or expensive
inputs; poor access to markets; lack of crop and livelihood
diversification; poor research and extension services;
government policies that distort the market; inadequate
investments in agriculture by the Zambian government and
international donors; and, a distrust of both science and free
markets. An increase in droughts and flooding can tip the scale
from moderate levels of food insecurity to a more severe
situation requiring international food aid.
Zambia is a lower income country of approximately 12
million people with one of the world's highest adult HIV/AIDS
prevalence rates (17%). The country is the most urbanized in
Sub-Saharan Africa, with 40%-50% living in cities and towns.
About 80% of the rural population and 34% of the urban
population live in poverty. Historically, copper mining has
been the driving force of economic development, which has
contributed to the high urbanization rate. When copper prices
are high, government policies focus on the mining sector and
agriculture is short-changed. However, 80% of the population is
dependent on agriculture, which provides 70% of the labor
force, and comprises 22% of GDP, according to the FAO.
According to IFPRI's 2008 Global Hunger Index, Zambia
scores 29.2--hungrier than Sub-Sahara Africa's average of 23.
This score represents a significant number of undernourished
people: 46% of the population during 2002 to 2004. The under-
five mortality rate is 18%, with 23% of children under five
underweight. Zambia shows no progress from its score of 29.1 in
1990. Hunger in Zambia is due to both food deficits and high
poverty rates that prevent the poor from having access to food,
or to a diversified diet.
According to various sources, at least 10% of Zambian
households have no productive assets or income. Many of these
are female-headed households affected by the AIDS epidemic. It
is estimated that at least 445,000 people will need food aid
prior to the March 2009 harvest. With a high poverty rate,
especially in rural areas where most households are small-scale
farmers, many more are vulnerable to low productivity and
disruptions in output from flooding and droughts.
An estimated 600,000 small holders farm between \1/2\
hectare and 20 hectares of land; about 100,000 medium-scale
holders farm between 20 and 60 hectares; and some 1500
commercial enterprises farm more than 60 hectares. Michigan
State University (MSU) estimates that the mean farm size is
3.27 hectares. While the commercial sector is considered
productive, small and medium holders produce significantly less
per hectare even though these households produce the majority
of the country's staple crop of maize. Small holders suffer
from a lack of access to inputs, such as fertilizer, seed, and
irrigation systems. They often employ farming techniques that
are ill-suited to their soil type or climatic conditions. A
lack of secondary and tertiary roads makes it difficult to
fully participate in farm markets. The World Food Program
reported that while higher income Zambian families spend about
40% of their incomes on food, the poor can spend up to 80%.
The high HIV/AIDS prevalence rate of 17% contributes to
food insecurity because of its impact in rural areas. There are
reportedly about one million orphans \30\ in Zambia, often
living in households that have no breadwinner. Women are
particularly burdened with caring for children and trying to
eke out a living. Women farmers access extension services far
less than men, largely because of their lack of discretionary
time. A recent MSU study found that female-headed households
have between 0.7 and 0.5 less hectares than male-headed
households.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ According to UNICEF, there were a total of 1.2 million orphans
in Zambia in 2005, of which 710,000 resulted from HIV/AIDS deaths.
UNAIDS reports about 600,000 orphans are due to HIV/AIDS in 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Extension services are government run and are considered
ineffective. Extension agents are not fully engaged in the
field, and agriculture school graduates prefer other lines of
work. The university system does not emphasize extension
services. The NGO community is providing these types of
services in projects that advocate conservation farming and
other techniques, but this does little to strengthen extension
services in general, and may in fact be diverting extension
agents to their employ. It was generally conceded that NGOs pay
better than government positions. An innovative USAID-supported
program works with a private seed company to serve small
holders by using agents to sell their products and to provide
information on higher yield farming techniques.
Approximately 94% of land is held in a customary tenure
system in which land is occupied by some 73 tribes, and land is
distributed according to the dicta of tribal chiefs, senior
chiefs, and paramount chiefs. Six percent of land is
statutorily held by the government. Gaining access to the use
of tribal land does not seem to be difficult, whether the
request is from a small holder or relocating commercial farmers
from Zimbabwe. However, the lack of real title may hinder
improvements necessary for transitioning from subsistence to
commercial output, or to the access of financing for those
improvements.
Zambia is food insecure not because of its natural resource
base or climatic conditions--even though it has been hit with
recent droughts and floods in some regions--but because of a
lack of investment in agriculture productivity and
infrastructure, and because of policies that distort the
market. All of these conditions are fixable, and Zambia could
become a major exporter and food source for southern Africa.
Laos
The Lao People's Democratic Republic, as it is formally
known, is a poor, landlocked, mountainous, sparsely populated
(pop: six million), agricultural Communist country that,
perhaps surprisingly, is self-sufficient in rice and most other
foods. The least advanced of the three countries that once made
up French Indochina, the average per capita income is about $2
a day. Ethnic Lao, Buddhists who make up about half the
population, live mostly in the lowland areas and dominate
culture and politics. They fare better than minority groups,
including Hmong and others, who live in tribal villages in the
mountains under primitive conditions, many still practicing
slash-and-burn agriculture (called in development circles
shifting cultivation or swidden agriculture). The number of
ethnic groups ranges, depending on who is counting, from 49 to
200. Hydroelectric power exported from dams on tributaries to
the Mekong River, tourism (especially to the old royal capital
Luang Prabang, an unspoiled gem), and mining are major sources
of foreign exchange. There is little manufacturing or other
industry: agriculture, dominated by subsistence rice farming,
accounts for 41% of the economy and 78% of the workforce.
Laos scores 20.6 on the Global Health Index, virtually the
same as Sudan (20.5). In the World Development Report, it is
classified as an ``agriculture-based'' country along with much
of sub-Saharan Africa, rather than ``transforming'' like most
other East Asian countries. According to a WFP assessment in
2006, ``Every second child below 5 years in the rural areas is
chronically malnourished [and is stunted as a result]. This is
alarmingly high and remains as high as it was ten years ago,''
despite steady growth in the economy and agricultural output
over that period. ``Two-thirds of the rural households have a
livelihood portfolio that puts them at risk of becoming food
insecure.'' The food insecure tend to be unskilled laborers or
farmers who seldom fish and hunt. They are poor, isolated,
illiterate minorities who suffer from bad sanitary conditions.
Thus, though Laos is self-sufficient in rice production overall
(a few deficits persist in some areas, especially the north),
and the government says rice production has increased 75% since
the introduction of Chinese-style market economic reforms in
1986, food security in Laos is better viewed through the prism
of nutrition than through agricultural production.
Aside from asset wealth (the well-off are more secure than
the poor), occupation seems to be an important determinant:
non-farmers who engage in petty trading, skilled labor, or
salaried jobs do best. Farmers and unskilled workers do worst.
Farmers who supplement their crops with fishing and hunting
often fare better, because lack of fat, oils, and
micronutrients is a major cause of malnutrition, according to
the WFP. Sanitation and health care are also important for the
many people who live in minority villages that may be a day's
walk or more from a road, and from there another day's journey
to a town with a clinic. The government has tried to cluster
villages near roads in order to deliver services and provide
market access, with mixed success. Many upland residents rely
heavily on so-called non-timber forest products (NTFP) to
supplement their diet (eg., mushrooms, ferns, game) and their
incomes (rattan, agarwood). However, overpopulation, access
restrictions to protect watershed, mining, and commercial
clearing for rubber plantations are limiting these traditional
resources. The WFP study also found that a successful
government anti-opium drive had cut the income from many
farmers who grew the crop, and that tons of unexploded ordnance
(UXO) left over from the Indochina War renders much potential
farm and forage land inaccessible. In addition, malnutrition is
affected by ignorance of good nutrition practices by upland
dwellers, and by some traditional practices followed by nursing
mothers.
Lowland farmers have small plots (1.8 hectares) in
traditional rice paddy areas, while the upland minorities rely
on less productive upland or dry rice production from similarly
sized plots (1.4). Likewise, a majority of lowland farmers have
effective title to their land, but few of the mountain people
do. An Asian Development Bank (ADB) study says ``access to rice
is the single most important factor'' for the welfare of rural
Laotians, and that the most severe deficiencies occur in the
mountainous northern and eastern regions.
According to the WFP, only 4% of total land area is
cultivated. Rice covers more than 80% of the farmed area, and
nearly all of it (90%) is rainfed. The government \31\ says the
current 100,000 hectares of irrigated land could be expanded to
up to 300,000, but it is too costly. Upland rice (grown in dry
fields, not in flooded paddies) accounts for 15% of total rice
area. Irrigated fields account for about 14% of total
production, and have the highest yield, 4.4 tons per hectare,
compared to 3.4 tons for rainfed lowland rice and 1.8 tons for
upland rice. The government is trying to end the practice of
shifting agriculture in the mountains (bans began in the 1980s,
but a target of total elimination by 2000 was not met; new
targets are in place), and total land area used for shifting
cultivation dropped from 119,000 hectares in 2001 to 29,400
hectares in 2005. An Asian Development Bank survey of 95
villages in the poorest districts found that resettlement
programs connected with anti-swidden efforts often led to lower
rice production and population pressure on scarce resources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ Staff was told by respected international organizations active
in Laos that all agricultural data must be considered provisional
because no reliable agricultural census had been conducted in many
years. One is now underway.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another unusual problem for Laos is the vast amount of
unexploded ordnance that limits access to land. In part because
the Ho Chi Minh trail ran along eastern Laos, an estimated two
million tons of bombs were dropped on the country. Many of
these were `cluster munitions,' and an estimated 30% of the
bomblets failed to explode. This renders much of the land in
Laos dangerous or impossible for farming or foraging. There is
so much metal that a cottage industry in scrap collection has
arisen, and there are at least 16 registered smelters that turn
the metal into construction re-bars. The metal collection
process contributes to a persistently high casualty rate. The
UN says UXO in Laos still claims about 300 casualties a year.
UXO clearance is expensive ($2,000-$3,000 per hectare) and very
time-consuming. Construction companies that want to build a dam
pay private firms millions to clear the area. Figures on how
much arable or forest land is off limits as a result were hard
to pin down, but many of those interviewed said it was a
significant amount. A World Bank report mentions in passing
that UXO is one of the major causes of poverty ``still
affecting half the country's territory.''
The most food insecure people in Laos are the remote hill
people who live lifestyles not far removed from hunter-gatherer
societies of the 19th century. The second most vulnerable are
the many subsistence farmers who do not have enough cash to buy
the extra food they need. But for all vulnerable groups, the
quality of the diet, and other food habits, contribute at least
as much as food quantity to their poor nutrition. Rural
Laotians are not in the habit of eating meat, and their diet is
very low in vegetable fats and oils. Many rely on wild fish for
their protein. Lack of micronutrients is a problem. Breast-
feeding/weaning practices and food taboos for nursing mothers
are also a concern: many women believe they should not eat
after giving birth--sometime for as long as three months. Pre-
natal and maternal care is also virtually non-existent for hill
people: staff was told of a big need for de-worming of mothers
and infants. Simply increasing consumption will not be enough
to solve the malnutrition problem. By the same token, much can
be done to reduce malnutrition rates regardless of the food
supply.
What is needed, according to the consensus of those
interviewed, is a comprehensive nutrition strategy that would
cover health care and counseling, nutrition education to effect
long-term changes in eating habits and food choices, food
supplements, crop diversification into more nutritive food like
peanuts (for oil) and ``kitchen garden'' vegetables, rural
development, and better rural livelihoods through access to
markets. Improving crop productivity through better varieties,
more inputs, and better technology to close what one expert
called ``a big productivity gap'' would be complementary. The
problem is that until now the Lao government's capacity to
carry out such a strategy is negligible. ``Most of the staff in
health care have very little training, and there is no training
in nutrition,'' said one international expert. Getting the
proper interventions out to dispersed and remote mountain
villages would be a challenge even for a government far more
competent than that of Laos.
The government of Laos, prodded by the WFP's alarming
malnutrition revelations, on Dec. 1, 2008, issued a National
Nutrition Policy 2008-2020, prepared in consultation with the
FAO and others, and is now developing a strategy and action
plan to implement it. The U.S. could support elements of the
plan, the first ever by the Lao government to combat high
malnutrition rates, either with specific programs and inputs,
or simply by improving government capacity through training of
nurses, nutrition counselors, etc. The U.S. could also invest
directly in agriculture and food distribution, either through
specific projects on plant and livestock breeding, irrigation
and fertilizer, pest and disease control, rural development,
training and deployment of extension agents, etc., or by
increasing the government's capacity to do so. The World Bank
and other donors often seek to improve capacity through budget
support, which is not U.S. policy; the U.S. could do it in
other ways to signal approval of the Lao government's important
decision to make nutrition a keystone of its development
policies.
FOOD SECURE
Several characteristics distinguish food secure countries.
They have a long history of investing in the agricultural
sector and have sound extension services. They have solid
education systems and good research facilities. Perhaps most
significantly, they have been able to join the ranks of middle-
income countries. Even so, some can also have significant
portions of their populations that are insecure. Of the
countries visited by staff, both South Africa and Costa Rica
have achieved impressive hunger index scores on a par with
other major food producing countries. Both have democratic
governments with active civil society.
South Africa
South Africa is an upper middle income country with highly
developed infrastructure, trade relations, university system,
and research facilities. Its market economy is based on
services, manufacturing, and mining; agriculture comprises just
8% of the workforce and contributes 3.8% to GDP. Despite having
first-world characteristics, nearly half of its 49 million
citizens live in conditions more common in developing
countries. Of these nearly 25 million people, \3/4\ of
households lack access to electricity and running water. Half
do not receive a primary school education, and more than a
third of children suffer from chronic malnutrition, according
to the World Bank.
According to IFPRI's 2008 Global Hunger Index, South Africa
scores an impressive 6.9, much better than the Sub-Saharan
African average of 23 points (with some individual countries
topping 40). The score reflects the impact of the first-world
half of South Africa's dual nature. The country is considered
food secure even with significant portions of the population
suffering from hunger and malnutrition. It obtains its food
secure status because it does not have a food deficit,
producing a surplus and exporting food products to the African
continent and Europe. This is largely due to the legacy of a
robust commercial farming sector, from which few black South
Africans benefitted--particularly during the apartheid regime.
Rising food prices are considered one of the primary
drivers of South Africa's rising inflation rate. The country is
experiencing the highest food inflation rate in five years--
from July 2007 to July 2008 the increase in the Consumer Price
Index for Food was 17.8%.
According to the South Africa Department of Agriculture, at
least 2 million households (or approximately 12 million people)
are vulnerable and the number may be higher as a result of the
food price spikes that occurred in late 2007 and 2008. Other
reliable sources in the country estimate that half the
country's population is food insecure. In a 2005 report, the
FAO estimated that 14 million, or one-third of the total
population, is vulnerable to food shortages. Most of the hungry
live in rural areas, although urban poverty has been a
persistent problem. The rural hungry are generally small land
holders (approximately 3 million subsistence farmers, according
to the Department of Agriculture) with insufficient land and
little access to capital, technology, and agriculture inputs
necessary to raise farm yield. It is estimated that, on
average, poor South Africans spend more than 30% of their
incomes on food, according to the South African National
Agricultural Marketing Council. With a high HIV/AIDS prevalence
rate ranging between 16% and 18%, women become head of
households, often caring for a number of orphaned children. In
good times, women carry a heavy burden; in bad times, women and
their dependents can be pushed from poor but resilient into
extreme poverty.
Despite not having huge tracts of highly arable land and
ample water resources, South Africa produces a food surplus
that allows it to both export and donate food. There are many
factors that have contributed to this situation. An investment
in commercial farming combined with the adoption of technology
to overcome productivity issues, strong infrastructure, robust
research and extension, and fully developed markets demonstrate
that deficits in a natural resource base can be overcome
through knowledge transfer, scientific research, and government
policies that do not distort market forces.
The South African government has shown a commitment to
development in general--building 3 million houses, and
increasing water and electricity coverage to 80% of the
country, with the size of the black middle class tripling. The
FAO attributes food insecurity to the level of poverty in the
country and the lack of infrastructure in deep rural areas.
Those who suffer from food insecurity are at risk because they
lack income to access food.
Costa Rica
Costa Rica is a middle-income country with a strong
democratic history. Compared with its Central American
neighbors, Costa Rica has achieved a high standard of living
and has not yet faced serious food security problems.
The percentage of undernourished Costa Ricans was
approximately 5% in 2002-2004, compared to 19% for all of
Central America, according to FAO data. Costa Rica has seen a
steady decrease in the percentage of undernourished people from
8% in 1980 to its current level of approximately 5%.
Costa Rica imports all its wheat, yellow corn, and
soybeans, primarily from the United States. Imports of rice and
beans, two important staples in the diet of the Costa Rican
population, have increased over time, as local production has
declined. However, Costa Rica is an exporter of a wide variety
of food products, including fresh fruits, coffee, sugar, beef,
and dairy products.
The agricultural sector is a mixture of large commercial
farming operations (bananas and pineapples, for instance, where
large multinational companies play a leading role) and a robust
small-scale farming sector (the coffee and dairy sectors, for
example, are made up of thousands of small producers). Small-
scale farmers in different sectors are able to benefit from
domestic and international trade. There are several
organizations established by law that regulate the relationship
between the producers, processors, and exporters. Instituto del
Cafe de Costa Rica (ICAFE) in the coffee sector, Liga Agricola
Industrial de la Cana de Azucar (LAICA) in sugar, Corporacion
Arrocera Nacional (CONARROZ) in rice, Corporacion Bananera
Nacional (CORBANA) in bananas, are examples of those
organizations which, according to producers, are beneficial to
the various sectors involved.
The government is promoting commercial liberalization and
food security at the same time. It has been working on the
process of commercial openness for 20 years. At the same time,
starting this year, the government has the National Plan for
Food Production encompassing a number of investments in the
sector. Commercial liberalization and food security are not
regarded as opposing goals.
Costa Rica has the largest volume of investment in science
and technology compared with the rest of Central America.
However, the amount of money invested as a percentage of GDP is
still low. Moreover, most of the research is not integrated
into a coordinated plan with an underlying strategic vision. It
is scattered in a number of institutions without coordination.
GM crops are not explicitly prohibited but the matter is still
being debated. Officials from the Ministry of Agriculture told
staff that they personally supported biotechnology, but many in
the government oppose their position.
For a couple of years now the agricultural extension
service has been using an agro-alimentary food chain approach.
It is organized from a national directorate at the Ministry of
Agriculture with a network of regional offices and extension
services for free to small and medium-size agricultural
producers. Compared with the rest of Central America, Costa
Rica is the country with the most public resources allocated to
agricultural extension programs.
The government's development plans are not biased
necessarily toward urban or rural areas. The Government has
strong, traditional ties to agriculture and celebrates farming
as symbolic of Costa Rican provincial life. Just as Costa Rica
is interested in maintaining rice production through government
support and promotes agricultural exports, it also promotes
free trade zones for business growth in professional services,
added value industrial production (from car parts to
microchips), and medical supplies. This type of commercial
activity tends to be located in urbanized San Jose. Thus, Costa
Rican economic policy addresses both urban and rural areas.
Costa Rica did not impose restrictions on the import or
export of food at the height of the food crisis in mid-2008.
Although domestic food security concerns are gaining strength,
most recommendations focus on increasing domestic production
and productivity. A National Food Plan, proposed by the
government on May 7, 2008, aims to increase local grains
production and provide direct cash transfers to the most
vulnerable members of Costa Rican society. There have been
virtually no calls for export restrictions as a means of
dealing with rising food prices. The Minister of Agriculture
expressed strong support for imports to meet Costa Rica's food
security needs, although he plans to promote efforts to
increase local production of rice and beans.
In order to protect local producers, Costa Rica does
maintain long-standing import restrictions (in the form of
higher import tariffs) on meats, rice, potatoes, and onions.
Tariff restrictions on meats will be eliminated for the most
part upon CAFTA's entry into force, although some tariffs will
be eliminated gradually. Until the recent world food price
crisis, the Costa Rican rice sector was generally assumed to be
a candidate for downsizing; now the Costa Rican government is
actively looking for ways to stimulate the sector and ensure
its survival under more open market conditions.
Although farmers usually complain about the lack of
adequate infrastructure, especially in the rural areas, the
existing infrastructure has allowed the country to become a
diversified agricultural products exporter. Fresh produce and
other basic foodstuffs are available year round throughout the
country. Farmers markets operate in most of the larger towns of
the country.
Costa Rica farms roughly 10% of its land area. The Country
has made an effort to increase irrigation available to farmers
primarily in the province of Guanacaste, a particularly dry
area during the dry season, which extends from December to May,
and sometimes into June or July in this area of the country.
Many producers now enjoy the ability to plant crops during the
dry season in this region as a result of the irrigation
projects. The rest of the country is not as affected by reduced
water availability during the dry season. However, as the
population grows, especially in the central valley and in the
coastal regions, water scarcity and pollution are becoming very
important issues. The government of Costa Rica is increasingly
concerned about increased competition for water resources
between urban users and the agricultural sector.
Costa Rica and other parts of the Central America and the
Caribbean region could see a change in rainfall patterns and
growing seasons arising from climate change. For example,
researchers from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) and the University of Massachusetts
Amherst Climate System Research Center estimate that many areas
of Costa Rica will become warmer and drier as a result of
climate change, particularly in high elevation Pacific slopes
and the Caribbean lowlands. Elsewhere in the Caribbean region,
the Caribbean Community Climate Change Centre (CCCCC) estimates
that a 2+ Centigrade rise in temperature would result in a 10-
14% reduction in the region's yield of rice, a 14-19% drop in
beans, and up to a 22% drop in maize production.
Officials of the Inter-American Institute for Cooperation
on Agriculture (IICA) told staff that they expect to see an
increase in support subsidies for poor farmers as a response to
the recent spike in food prices, with the aim of building
infrastructure and capacity. IICA proposed increased efforts to
train farmers, give them credit, and improve agricultural
infrastructure. Likewise, the Minister of Agriculture said that
the credit crisis is preventing farmers from obtaining small
loans.
Farmers can readily obtain seeds, fertilizers, and other
agricultural inputs in Costa Rica, either locally produced or
imported, depending on the product. The commercial sector is
fairly developed and there are different suppliers of
agricultural inputs throughout the country.
Adoption of new varieties is fairly rapid in the country
once a new variety is approved. However, this varies by sector,
as some sectors are more traditional than others. Also, some
sectors are primarily export oriented (pineapples for instance)
and respond faster to international market requirements.
MODERATELY FOOD INSECURE
Within this category are countries that are improving their
food security status, and those that are stagnating or are
likely to see degraded food security in the future unless
interventions are made.
Improving Countries. Some countries have made great strides
in the past two decades to improve their food security. IFPRI
identified ten countries that have improved their hunger index
since 1990, some by significant measures--Kuwait, Peru, Syria,
Turkey, Mexico, Egypt, Vietnam, Thailand, Brazil, and Iran.
Staff confirmed the improvements made by Vietnam, and
identified Indonesia as also having improved its agricultural
productivity.
Indonesia
Indonesia's Global Hunger Index moved from 16 in 1990 to
11.3 in 2008.\32\ The food security situation in Indonesia is
volatile with respect to the global increases in agricultural
commodity prices. Food is largely available to all Indonesians
throughout the 17000-plus, island archipelaego. Lack of access
is the main problem contributing to food insecurity in some
poor areas. Root causes are the lack of productive assets, poor
natural resources, underdevelopment of the local economy, and a
fragile environment. Many rural areas throughout the
archipelago, especially those outside of the Bali-Java region,
are food insecure largely due to the lack of roads and related
infrastructure.\33\ Rural communities in eastern Indonesia
suffer from food insecurity because of a series of challenges
including chronic drought, limited access to financial capital
and markets, public policies that discourage production,
farmers' limited technical skills, and poor storage. In
addition, farmers are unable to obtain information on farming
techniques, and households have very limited knowledge of sound
nutritional practices. Extension services have faltered over
the years, but strengthening them is a government objective.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ IFPRI 2008 Global Hunger Index.
\33\ Indonesia Economic Program Assessment (IEPA), 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Indonesia is among those countries where protests over
higher food prices have erupted. According to the FAO, ``even
small fluctuations in the price of food can tip the balance
between poverty and grinding hunger.'' The urban and landless
poor are affected by price increases. In addition to the urban
poor, large numbers of rice farmers have small plots that are
insufficient to produce a surplus. These farmers are net buyers
of rice. Not only do they not benefit from high rice prices,
but more of their incomes are consumed in purchasing the
staple.
Rice is the main staple for Indonesians and its production
is a politically sensitive issue. Increases in the price of
rice have significantly affected about half of the population
with food taking up about 30% of the household budget. The
country is still struggling to cope with the aftermath of the
December 2004 tsunami that killed more than 150,000 people,
displaced more than half a million people, and destroyed
schools, roads, and water and sanitation systems. Those areas
are considered to be in ``acute food and livelihood crisis.''
Indonesia is located at the center of the volatile geographic
region known as the Ring of Fire. Earthquakes, volcanoes,
typhoons, tsunamis, and other natural disasters devastate
communities frequently, requiring significant and costly
recovery.
Self-sufficiency in food production is a top national
security priority of Indonesian leaders, developed with a
domestic political emphasis. The government has privileged rice
production over the rest of agriculture in its growth programs.
Large levels of soybean imports, for example, are a point of
``lost face'' given the rising nationalism and maturing of
democracy in the country. Indonesian leaders have not yet
reconciled the political importance of food self-sufficiency
with the economic benefits to the population of relying on free
market principles.
In November 2008, President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono said,
``Indonesia must struggle to reach food self-sufficiency . .
. we have our own good resources with which to develop the
agriculture sector. Fortunately, this year we have reached
self-sufficiency in rice and corn. This year's increase in rice
production is the greatest during the last 12 years.'' The
President added that Indonesia's rice production was expected
to reach 60 million tons this year, up 5.46%, from 57 tons last
year.\34\ Indonesia imports significant amounts of soybeans,
wheat, and corn, and is a major exporter of palm oil.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ The Jakarta Post, ``Food self-reliance national priority:
SBY'', November 13, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2008, a group of experts met in Jakarta to discuss the
causes of the price hikes and proposed action steps that
Indonesia should implement to provide affordable food supplies
for its citizens. Entitled ``Food Inflation: Challenges and
Policy Prescriptions,'' the experts predicted that high food
prices were here to stay in the foreseeable future. Rice
distribution schemes were seen to provide relief to the poor in
the short term; however, the experts agreed there were other,
better solutions to control high food prices going forward.
These involved incentives to increase the quality and quantity
of supply, including improvements to irrigation infrastructure
and farming technologies and schemes to help farmers meet
international standards for food exports. If farmers directly
benefited from high rice prices and were given incentives to
increase production, this extra supply would put the brakes on
higher prices, the experts said. It was notable, the experts
warned, that increased production was not occurring in
countries that imposed export restrictions to keep domestic
food supplies low.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ Van Zorge Report, ``Food inflation: Challenges and policy
prescriptions'', Vol. X, No. 10-11, June 17, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
``Reused rice,'' that is rice scavenged from restaurant and
street side stalls, rinsed off and sold at a discount, is a
feature of some poor people's diets. There is also an active
market for used cooking oil, which is filtered and bleached and
resold. While local rice prices have yet to hit the record
levels seen in the world market, they are still high enough to
support significant switching from rice to wheat-based noodles
as local flour millers report a steady demand for noodles.
Fortified wheat noodles are sold in individual serving packages
with seasonings, and are a common substitute for protein, often
eaten at breakfast instead of rice. High wheat prices are also
encouraging producers to look at technology to fortify noodles
and to reduce production costs.
The Indonesian government is emphasizing an increase in
national production capacity for rice, maize, soybeans, sugar
cane, and beef. The main agenda for revitalizing agriculture is
redesigning the agricultural marketing system, developing
farmer's cooperatives, developing infrastructure, enhancing
agricultural science and technology implementation, and
facilitating loan access for farmers.\36\ While government
officials attempt to develop policies conducive to a healthy
agriculture sector, many challenges exist, bureaucracy and
corruption among them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ Agriculture Statistics, Ministry of Agriculture, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although Indonesia imports transgenic goods, advances in
Indonesian approval, use, or regulation of biotech products are
not a priority for the government. The government issued a
regulation for Biosafety of Transgenic Products, but
implementation is not a priority. Given the global price runs
for a number of commodities, however, Indonesia appears to be
at the point where serious consideration of biotechnology could
begin. This is especially true within the research community,
though less clear within government regulatory bodies.
The country has seen large-scale growth in higher
education, now operating 89 public institutions serving more
than 2 million students. There is a wide variety of vocational
and specialty programs. Several universities have agricultural
science programs at the equivalent of the Master's level in the
U.S. system. More common are vocational programs that focus on
agricultural practice and technology. Government financing for
higher education was 2.4% of GDP in 2007. Beginning in 2009,
the plan is to allocate at least 20% of the country's budget to
education.
Despite the number of schools offering vocational or other
agricultural science degrees, staff found that problems exist
with the quality of faculty, availability of essential
laboratories and equipment, and funding for research. The
faculty is insular with little engagement in research and
scholarship being conducted elsewhere. It was suggested to
staff that post-doctoral education is needed to reverse this
trend.
According to some estimates, deforestation has contributed
to Indonesia being the third largest emitter of greenhouse
gases after the United States and China.\37\ Forty precent of
the forests that existed in 1950 were cleared in the following
50 years, with forest cover falling from 162 million hectares
to 98 million. Since 1996, deforestation appears to have
increased to an average of 2 million hectares per year. Climate
change may also pose challenges to Indonesia's agricultural
productivity. A 2007 World Bank report projected that global
warming could increase temperatures, shorten the rainy season,
intensify rainfall, and reduce soil fertility by 2% to 8%.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ Kyodo News, ``Deforestation Puts Indonesia as 3rd Largest
Greenhouse Gas Emitter,'' March 24, 2008.
\38\ The World Bank, ``Climate Change Threatens Food Security,
Health and Coastal Communities in Indonesia,'' June 4, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Outside of the Bali-Java region, the lack of adequate
infrastructure among the archipelago poses hurdles to
development. Much of the population has no access to roads,
electricity, or adequate health infrastructure.
Vietnam
Vietnam is a country of contradictions on the issue of food
security. It is the world's second largest exporter of rice;
however, large segments of the population do not have access to
food of nutritional substance. Vietnam made an impressive shift
in its Global Hunger Index from 23.9 in 1990 to 12.6 in
2008,\39\ but the proportion of malnourished is 35.5%,
according to IFPRI. The nutritional status of Vietnam's
population has improved significantly during the last two
decades, and severe child malnutrition has been reduced.
However, challenges remain and the malnutrition rate of
children is still very high. According to data from the
national survey conducted in 2004, one-third of Vietnamese
children were moderately or severely underweight. More than 4
million children under age five were malnourished at the end of
2007.\40\ While food is available in Vietnam, it is not
affordable to many, nor is food of sufficient nutritional value
available to all of the population. A reduction in the
purchasing power of many Vietnamese households, especially
poorer ones, presents a substantial risk that households that
had risen above the poverty line will fall back below it. In
this context, poorer women and children are particularly at
risk since higher food prices can worsen their already
precarious nutrition status.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ IFPRI 2008 Global Hunger Index.
\40\ Counterpart International, ``Vietnam's Investment in
Agriculture and Higher Education in Agricultural Sciences, Agricultural
Extension,'' December 9, 2008.
\41\ United Nations, ``Food Prices, Vulnerability and Food Security
in Vietnam,'' Hanoi, October 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The government's focus on raising rice yield neglects
support for a more diversified range of crops that could
significantly affect malnutrition. In October of 2008, Deputy
Prime Minister Nguyen Sinh Hung told a working session on food
security of concerned government agencies that to ensure food
security, the main targets are rice quality and yield, rather
than expanding rice acreage. Despite progress made, the
government acknowledges existing challenges. In May of 2008,
Vietnam's Communist Party Executive Committee issued a
resolution and an action plan on agriculture and rural
development that identified several shortcomings. Those
deficits include problems in sustaining agricultural growth,
mobilizing resources, and transferring of science and
technology. The government noted the slow process of
restructuring the rural economy and labor structure.
During 2006-2007, it is estimated that agriculture,
including forestry and fishing, contributed about 3.7% to the
country's GDP growth rate. The rural population accounts for
73% of the total population. The rural workforce directly
involved in agriculture, forestry, and fishing accounts for 54%
of the total workforce nationwide. However, the movement of the
rural workforce to urban areas is accelerating, and the rural
workforce is consequently aging.
Most of the country's commercial rice production occurs in
the Mekong Delta, but climate change threatens to remove this
area as a center of productivity.\42\ Farmers in the Mekong
Delta grow three rice crops a year and produce more than half
of Vietnam's paddy output, in addition to supplying more than
90% of the grain for trading.\43\ Drying and storage
deficiencies have negative effects on quality and
profitability. Vietnam is the second among the top five nations
in the world facing dangers caused by climate change and rising
sea water. The Red River and Mekong Deltas are projected to
suffer the heaviest consequences. Presently, unexpected storms,
floods, and droughts have become fiercer, while coastal low
land areas are on the verge of being submerged, and the Mekong
Delta, the country's rice granary, is being intruded by water.
Vietnam's Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment is
devising a national program to cope with climate change and
rising sea water in Vietnam, to be submitted to the National
Assembly for action.\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ The Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development reports that
the portions of commercial rice in different regions varies, about 25-
30% in the Red River delta, 8-10% in the northern mountainous area, 15-
20% in the central and central highland areas, 55-60% in the southeast
region and 70-75% in the Mekong Delta.
\43\ Reuters, ``Vietnam's Rice Exports Total 4.1 Million Tons.''
September 22, 2008.
\44\ ``Natural Disaster Mitigation Newsletter,'' Vol. 6, June 2008,
Ministry of Culture and Information, Hanoi.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vietnam has turned to technology to help it cope with
changing climatic conditions and to improve yield. It is
putting a major emphasis on biotechnological research including
GM, education and training, new crop development, food safety,
and processing. The government of Vietnam spends up to $10
million annually on biotechnology-related research.
Preparations are underway for biotech field trials involving
corn, soybeans, and cotton.\45\ Moving from a centrally planned
to a market economy, Vietnam is rushing to absorb as much
education and training as possible. The lack of proficiency in
English by a majority of the population, including high school
and college-age students, is an overwhelming challenge.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\45\ SFRC staff interview with Dr. Nguyen Quoc Vong, Director,
Center for International Development, Hanoi University of Agriculture.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
New seed varieties are developed by government institutes,
and are distributed through the agricultural extension network.
The Agricultural Extension Center at the national level covers
40% of the seed cost for a farmer's first planting with new
seed. In the late 1980s, the Vietnamese government reversed its
disastrous collectivization system, allocating land to farmers
on long leases. There are now ten million small farm households
averaging 0.6 hectares, and 100,000 larger farms averaging six
hectares. With the majority of households having only 0.6
hectares, Vietnam's land tenure may limit productivity.
The university system is weak. A shortage of professors
means that universities function at only 60% of capacity and
the quality of education is affected. With two-thirds of the
nation's population under the age of 20, Vietnam is struggling
to cope with the growing demand for higher education. There are
eight agricultural colleges, four managed by the Ministry of
Education and four by the Ministry of Agriculture. University
education is heavily theoretical and not practically oriented.
Extension agents are not well-trained in coaching,
facilitation, communication, or market perspectives. The U.S.
National Academies, in conjunction with The Vietnam Education
Foundation, recently completed a review of education in the
agricultural sciences and recommended that reforms be
implemented to address teaching methods, and curriculum,
increase funding, integrate research and extension with
teaching, and encourage greater cooperation between
universities and government agricultural institutions.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\ The National Academies, ``Observations on the Current Status
of Education in the Agricultural Sciences in Vietnam,'' January 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One of the best ways for the U.S. to promote food security
in Vietnam would be to emphasize programs to provide English
instruction and English curriculum development within the
country. Vietnamese government and agriculture officials, as
well as leaders in higher education are ravenous for an
elevated level of higher education projects between the two
countries, including Vietnamese students studying in the U.S.,
American universities setting up operations in Vietnam, and
other projects.
Moderately Food Insecure. Three countries--The Philippines,
Guatemala, and Uganda--were found to be moderately food secure,
with many of the characteristics of the severely insecure, but
with global hunger indices that indicate less severe rates of
malnutrition. Some of the three show evidence of making the
necessary investments in agriculture.
The Philippines
The Philippines is a lower middle-income country with
abundant natural resources and a well-educated population, but
with a history of poor governance and political instability
that has left the economy far below its potential. ``The
Philippines is a rich country with a poor population,'' one
U.S. embassy official said. Although the Philippines is a major
producer and exporter of bananas, pineapple, and coconut (the
former two from large commercial plantations, the latter from
smallholders), it is the world's largest importer of rice, the
main staple food. Imports meet 10% of domestic rice demand.
Philippine panic buying is cited by many sources as the major
driver in the unprecedented spike in rice prices, which more
than doubled the cost of rice between January and May 2008, to
$923 per ton. Agriculture accounts for more than one-third of
employment, but less than 20% of GDP. The industrial (15% of
the economy) and service (50%) sectors are concentrated largely
in Manila and a few other big cities, with little spillover to
rural areas; mining and fishing are also important sectors.
The Philippines scores 14 on the Global Hunger Index, a
figure that puts it well behind many of its East Asian
neighbors, including China, Thailand, Malaysia, and Indonesia
(but far better than Africa or South Asia). This year it was
passed by Vietnam (12.6), an historically poorer country that
is developing far faster. Poverty, population, and policy are
among the keys to understanding the Philippines' food security
situation. Despite pockets of prosperity in places like Manila
and Cebu, 42% of the population lives on less than $2 a day,
and remittances by overseas workers provide key support to the
economy. The Philippines' population of 90 million is growing
at 2.01% annually (down from a recent 2.36% rate), one of the
fastest in Asia, adding another two million mouths to feed each
year. Economists say the government's over-emphasis on
promoting rice production inhibits agricultural diversification
into more profitable crops where the Philippines may enjoy a
relative advantage, and its policy of requiring that all rice
be imported by the National Food Authority helps keep domestic
rice prices well above world prices and raises the cost of food
for the poor.
According to the latest comprehensive survey from the
Philippine National Nutrition Council, seven out of 10
households are food insecure, more than a quarter of pre-
schoolers were underweight, 4.3 million families were living
below the poverty line, and more than half of those were below
subsistence level. An estimated 70% of the country's poor live
in rural areas, with a particularly acute situation on the
Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao, the large southern island
that has been wracked for years by conflict and is home to a
third of the total rural poor. Most of the provinces on
Mindanao are listed as vulnerable, very vulnerable, or very,
very vulnerable to food insecurity by the government.
Nationwide, many of the food insecure are landless rural
workers, others are small holder farmers and fishermen. (Along
the coasts, 80% of fishermen's households are below the poverty
line.) As part of a long-standing land reform program, plots
are limited to five hectares, and the average farm is only 1.2
hectares. Property rights are a problem. The urban poor are
primarily slum dwellers and low-skill workers in Manila (pop:
12 million) and a few other cities. Because the poor spend such
a large proportion of their money on food, they are
particularly vulnerable to rising food prices. A recent
analysis by the Asian Development Bank projected that a 10%
rise in food costs in the Philippines would increase the number
of ``absolutely poor'' by 2.7 million persons.
Arable farmland comprises 40% of the land area. However,
its high population means the country has only a quarter of the
arable land per capita of nearby Thailand. Of the cropped land,
about 32% is for rice, or about four million hectares (vs. 9.8
million hectares in Thailand). Officially, a bit less than half
of the irrigable land is irrigated, but Department of
Agriculture officials said many of the irrigation systems are
in disrepair. Despite having rich soil, the Philippine
archipelago suffers several disadvantages which make it
difficult to produce bumper crops of rice. One, many of the
islands are mountainous, particularly on the eastern side. Two,
the country sits squarely in the Pacific typhoon belt, and gets
hit by 15-20 typhoons a year. Three, it lacks large rivers with
deltas suitable for large-scale rice production, as in
Thailand, Vietnam, or Burma.
Fertilizer is subsidized by the government, but critics say
the program benefits mostly larger farmers and is an unwise use
of scarce funds. It is also subject to abuse: during the staff
visit, the headlines and TV news were dominated by revelations
of an alleged $15 million ``fertilizer scam'' in which
government officials are accused of funneling money to
political cronies, charging 1000% over market rates, and
general mismanagement (eg, delivering orchid fertilizer to rice
farms). The government also offers advanced-variety seeds at
half price to farmers (including hybrid seeds). Again,
economists say this is wasteful because farmers have an
economic incentive on their own to buy better seeds that would
produce better yields, and many in fact do so on their own. One
study suggests targeting the subsidies to areas where farmers
are not widely using advanced varieties. The government,
through the NFA, sets a floor price for rice, and also markets
some rice to consumers at subsidized prices.
Philippine farmers took good advantage of initial Green
Revolution varieties and techniques, and they benefit from one
of the largest agricultural research systems in Asia. GMO
technology is well-regulated and more or less accepted. The
government is promoting more use of hybrid seeds, which can
dramatically increase yields (but have to be repurchased every
year): the barrier appears to be difficulty in finding the
right hybrids to match up with different regional conditions
rather than cost or institutional resistance by farmers. The
International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) is located 40
miles south of Manila, on the campus of the University of the
Philippines Los Baos (UPLB), the nation's premier agricultural
research university. However, government officials and outside
experts agreed that extension services are weak because, under
a 1990s decentralization program, responsibility was devolved
to the provincial level. The federal Department of Agriculture
used to have 50,000 extension workers. Now it has none, and is
estimated that the provincial total may not be half that.
Since the period immediately after World War II, when it
was the second richest country in Asia (after Japan), the
Philippines has been plagued by a dysfunctional governing
system, largely dominated by land-holding elites and
traditional political families (the current president, Gloria
Macapagal-Arroyo, is the daughter of a former president), that
is prone to corruption, cronyism, populism, and political
gamesmanship (during the staff visit, lawmakers launched their
fourth annual impeachment motion against the president). While
other East Asian countries were experiencing economic takeoff
in the last part of the 20th century, the Philippine scene was
characterized by the 21-year reign of the kleptocratic dictator
Marcos and the perennially coup-threatened Cory Aquino
presidency. Despite widespread English fluency, an affinity for
Americans and American culture, and lavish attention by U.S.
administrations over the years, the Philippines has managed to
squander one of its most important assets, its human capital:
nearly 10% of its citizens live and work abroad because they
are unable to find meaningful employment at home.
Governance, corruption, too-slow economic growth, and too-
fast population growth are the backdrop for the Philippines'
food security problems, which are directly related to income
inequality, poverty, and particularly, persistent rural
poverty. Clearly, major reforms are needed in the rice import
policy, but donor attempts to effect policy reform have a
notoriously unhappy history. Equally clearly, some targeted
interventions could help: support to strengthen the research
base to help achieve the needed productivity gains as well as
strategies to rebuild extension services; infrastructure
assistance aimed at small scale irrigation that will help
smaller farmers and promote crop diversification and rural road
improvement; other rural development efforts to tackle directly
the rural poverty issue and increased fisheries productivity to
address the acute poverty of that population. USAID points out
that promoting good governance in implementing such
interventions should also be a priority.
Guatemala
Guatemala is a country of adequate arable land mass and
other necessary attributes to prosper agriculturally.
Agricultural industries associated with the production of
products such as sugar, coffee, bananas, and latex, among
others, are highly organized and largely employ modern
technology on large land holdings. However, Guatemala
increasingly must rely on imports for staple food crops such as
maize and beans which, in the event of global food shortages,
could expose a country where a majority of the rural population
is considered malnourished, to economic and political turmoil.
Agricultural growth in Guatemala is stagnant. There are a
number of factors that contribute to this condition. Guatemala
is a country affected by social tension among its population,
with an urban population base that largely traces its roots to
European settlement and an indigenous populations that is
rural-based. These tensions were manifest in armed conflicts as
late as 1996 when peace agreements were signed.
The current government under President Alvaro Colom, the
first to be elected by carrying the rural vote, has instituted
a number of well intentioned programs to improve the well being
of rural residents. Included in the programs are direct cash
transfers and food donations to citizens of the poorest
communities, as well as rural development and extension
initiatives under the newly created ProRural, an effort
established by President Colom and directly managed by his
wife, first lady Sandra Torres, to oversee food security and
rural development issues. Because these are executive branch
initiatives, there is concern about their continuity and
funding especially if the next president does not enjoy strong
rural support. It is also unclear how these programs will mesh
with legislatively created bodies such as the Ministry of
Agriculture, Livestock and Food (MAGA). A civil service in the
Guatemalan government is virtually non-existent, further
hampering long-term development and continuity.
Guatemala ranks first in Latin America and sixth worldwide
in chronic malnutrition. Malnutrition affects 36% of women of
child-bearing age and newborns and nearly 50% of children under
five are chronically malnourished. The pattern of overall
malnutrition is one of social and economic inequality and
follows that of extreme poverty with rates higher among
indigenous populations and those in rural areas. The most
important crops, in regard to food security, are corn, beans,
and rice. According to the FAO, 75% of Guatemalan households
only consume five products: corn tortillas, beans, eggs,
tomatoes, and sweet bread. The Agriculture, Resources, and
Environmental Institute of the Unisersidad de Rafael Landivar
(IARNA) established that the contribution of basic grains to
per capita intake of energy and protein is quite high: 37.7%
and 36.5% for corn, 9.5% and 22.9% for beans.
The basic grain market is not sufficiently developed;
significant gaps exist such as inadequate networks for storage,
drying, sale, and distribution. Specifically, small-scale
producers do not fully participate in the market. Their
participation is limited to selling products during the
harvest. These producers tend to sell their crops to
intermediaries who pay low prices, particularly when products
are available, like at harvest time. Gaps in the market can be
defined as the conditions that hamper adequate competition.
Some of the deficiencies identified by staff include: the lack
of adequate market information for farmers; unequal access to
capital; and the inability of small farmers to influence
prices.
There are areas of the country that are more food insecure
than others. The departments of Totonicapan, San Marcos, Alta
Verapaz, Quiche, Huehuetenango, and Peten have the highest risk
indices and food and nutrition insecurity rates, according to
SESAN, the Food and Nutritional Security Secretariat. One of
the main reasons for the difference in food insecurity is the
high level of poverty that characterizes these departments.
Thirty-nine (39) of the 41 municipalities classified by
SEGEPLAN, Executive Secretariat for Planning and Programs, as
having indices that surpass 90% poverty are located in these
six departments. It is also worth noting that of the 30
municipalities that SEGEPLAN identifies as having the highest
rates of exclusion or marginalization from full participation
in society, 24 are located in these six departments.
There are regions in Guatemala in which the incidence of
overall malnutrition is higher, such as the northwestern
region, in which 31% of children under five weigh less than
normal, while in the Metropolitan region, the percentage goes
down to 15%. Additionally, the mother's level of education is a
determining factor in reducing overall malnutrition. The
prevalence of malnutrition in children whose mothers have had
no schooling is 30% compared to about 9% in children whose
mothers have had at least secondary education.
According to the views of the Inter-American Institute for
Cooperation on Agriculture, the most critical aspect of the
issue of food security in Guatemala is the lack of food that is
sufficiently nutritious, potable water, and adequate
sanitation. Food access and availability are also problems.
Excess or insufficient rain, damage to infrastructure, and crop
losses from pests and diseases are factors that also contribute
to food insecurity in certain sectors of the population.
About 25% of Guatemala's land is suitable for agriculture.
Forest cover, which constitutes 43% of the national territory,
is rapidly disappearing. The FAO estimates that the country has
lost 50% of the forests that existed in 1950. According to
estimates from the National Forest Institute (INAB), Guatemala
loses about 73,000 hectares per year to deforestation, of which
nearly 29,000 hectares are found within protected areas. The
annual deforestation rate is estimated to be 1.71%.
Under the structural adjustment policy applied in the
1980s, the government sold off or leased part of the
infrastructure of the National Agricultural Marketing Institute
(INDECA), which had the capacity to store 54,841 MT. As a
result, the country has no capacity to store surpluses or
strategic reserves. The country needs to restore this lost
capacity. The Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock (MAGA) is
currently executing the Post-harvest Program, which focuses on
promoting the use of and constructing metal silos. National
demand for silos exceeds 1.1 million units; to date, only 10%
have been built.
In addition to storage capacity, other critical needs are
road construction, and road improvements for the movement of
food into food deficient areas and agricultural inputs to
increase food production. Guatemala does not maintain railroad
capacity, and it is estimated that 1700 km of roads must be
paved and 300 km of new roads must be built in order to
optimize existing potential. Passable all-weather roads are
important to link production to markets.
The pattern of land holding also poses problems. In
Guatemala 2% of the population owns 72% of all the agricultural
land. According to the 2004 agricultural/livestock census, 45%
of farms measures less than 0.7 hectares, and constituted 3.2%
of the national territory; 46.8% were farms measuring between
0.7 and 7 hectares, and occupied 18.6% of the national
territory, while 8% of total farms that had areas larger than 7
hectares covered 78.2% of the national territory.
Government plans and projects focus mainly on rural areas,
especially the 45 municipalities with the highest levels of
poverty and food insecurity. The MAGA and the ProRural are
responsible for implementing actions aimed at boosting
agricultural production as a means of improving food security
and generating surpluses for the market. To do this, it
provides small producers with fertilizers, seeds, tools, and
some infrastructure, such as mini-irrigation systems and
greenhouses. This is complemented with credit to lease land
through FONTIERRA (Fondo de Tierras), Guatemala's land
registration office, which in turn provides technical
assistance. Implementation of the government's food security
policy is supported by the Ministry of Public Health and Social
Welfare (MSPAS). The measures adopted by the government to
address the rise in prices and the problem of food insecurity
can be summed up as the reduction of tariffs on food imports,
subsidies on agricultural inputs, distribution of agricultural
inputs, agreements on intergovernmental cooperation in the
production of staple grains, and food distribution programs.
In recent years, budget resources for agriculture have
averaged about 3% of the total budget. It should be pointed
out, however, that rural areas benefit from additional
resources provided by other agencies for specific projects
aimed at helping populations highly vulnerable to malnutrition
or those that live in territories subject to environmental
disasters.
At present, the public sector does not have a well-defined
strategy for research and extension services. Some non-
governmental organizations and specific projects have technical
assistance and training components, but the limited scale has
not caused any visible effect on productivity. Current
Guatemalan extension services are under the authority of MAGA,
although the government has begun to put in place extension
capacity through the newly established ProRural. ProRural plans
to implement a version of development models published in
studies sponsored by the Universidad Rafael Landviar's IARNA.
Those studies suggest that an agricultural growth rate of 5%
per year in the highlands would have significant effects on
poverty reduction, and that the production of horticultural
crops would be best to achieve these growth rates. ProRural has
added a number of food crop foci and plans to maintain
extension services in 125 prioritized municipalities. As
ProRural is funded by residual resources from the annual
budget, it is unclear if long-term sustainability of these
services will be ensured through actual budget authority.
Agricultural research conducted by the Guatemalan
government is done through the Institute of Agricultural
Science and Technology (ICTA), but it has been downsized in
recent years. Ninety precent of its budget is used to pay for
salaries and basic services. Assistance to organized producer
groups and individual farmers has been drastically reduced.
Technical training is practically non-existent in most
production areas.
Though some research activities are being conducted by
private agricultural entities, the technical and professional
service sector for agriculture is not well developed. There are
very few firms that offer technical consulting services and
diagnostic laboratories, due in part, to underdeveloped
markets, and substandard business and agriculture education
provided by technological schools. This is beginning to change
as private agricultural enterprises are increasing their demand
for specialized services.
Guatemala has four agricultural science schools including
the Universidad de San Carlos, the Universidad de Rafael
Landivar, the Universidad del Valle de Guatemala, and the
Universidad Rural. The Universidad de San Carlos is public and
offers free education, while the others are private. The first
three universities have research institutes with modern
laboratories and agricultural land, though funding is severely
limited.
The capacity of Guatemala to take advantage of
technological advances such as genetically modified seed is
limited. The Law for Environmental Protection and Improvement
and the Law to Establish the Ministry of the Environment and
Natural Resources broadly govern and regulate transgenic
products. Additionally, under the National Food and Nutritional
Security Policy, a central principle is that of precaution.
Under this principle, an importer of food products must prove
and guarantee its safety. Guatemala is a signatory party to the
Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, a supplement to the Convention
on Biological Diversity that aims to regulate the handling of
live modified organisms and stipulates a nation's ability to
limit importation of these products.
Uganda
The overall food security picture in Uganda is good and
improving but persistent poor policy and incoherent planning
could reverse this trend. Nature has afforded Uganda a buffer
that is not sustainable over the long-term given a 3.3%
population growth rate and continued reliance on small-scale
farming with limited modern farm inputs. Although there is
additional arable land to be cultivated, it is insufficient to
meet future requirements if current policies and practices
continue. Traditional inheritance of land primarily to men, and
by generations of subdivision, combined with poor farming
methods will quickly dissipate the advantage through soil
degradation and decreasing yield. Uganda's per capita
productivity in agriculture has already been trending
negatively and has returned Uganda to being a net importer of
food. Hunger in Uganda is due to marginalized and conflict
areas afflicted with natural disasters but is also beginning to
show the shortcomings of government policy and priorities given
a burgeoning population and unpredictable commodities and
financial markets.
About 80% of the workforce is employed by agriculture, of
which some 20% work in commercial agriculture. While Uganda has
fertile land, vast water resources, and a diversity of
agriculture, livestock, and fishery resources, nearly 10% of
its population suffers from extreme and chronic food
insecurity, according to U.S. government sources. The
International Food Policy Research Institute estimates that
nearly 19% of the population is undernourished.
Uganda scores 17.1 on the Global Hunger Index, a figure far
better than the 23 point average for sub-Saharan Africa, but
one more difficult to interpret correctly given the sharp
disparity between the north and south of the country. In the
north, 61% live below the poverty line, while only 16% do in
the south. The dichotomy between the two parts of the country
is mainly due to conflict in the north, but is exacerbated by
government policies that treat each region differently. The
southern half of the country, which has been conflict free for
over 20 years, is able to produce sufficiently to assure food
security. Though the agriculture sector is primarily small-
scale and in need of reforms, there is a vibrant commercial
sector as well. The central and southern population is far
better off and more resilient to shocks from price fluctuations
or environmental conditions than their counterparts in the
north and northeast. Ugandan government policy still requires
considerable improvement for maximizing growth, but the
opportunity exists if the government does not continue to
neglect rural development and the agriculture sector. There is
a clear policy of dependence on donors, and an almost single-
minded reliance on the private sector and market forces to
drive agricultural development.
The north, on the other hand, has been viewed as an area of
opposition to the government of President Museveni and has
suffered from years of marginalization and neglect, as well as
an ongoing guerilla type conflict with the Lord's Resistance
Army (LRA). Only recently has the nearly 20-year conflict with
the LRA abated. The LRA has been driven from the country,
albeit not very far away, and hundreds of thousands of
internally displaced are emptying from IDP camps to return
home. The situation has improved markedly in the past two
years. Nonetheless, though there is now government rhetoric
toward development of this region, policy remains negligent of
the need in the north. It is in fact the donor community and
some private sector investors that are the main agents for
growth in this region. The government remains aloof to the
challenge and the opportunities to translate this recent peace
into a national leap toward middle income status. Only through
a political and budgetary commitment will the north contribute
to the continued economic growth of Uganda. A chronic conflict
zone due to high criminality still exists in the northeast
Karamoja region--a pastoral and agro-pastoral mixed farming
area with difficult climatic conditions. It is caught in a
cycle of natural disasters (3 failed harvests in a row),
conflict, and limited investment, all of which have perpetuated
underdevelopment and chronic hunger for the million or so
inhabitants.
Uganda's growing population will put pressure on the gains
made in the last few years with regard to food security. At
current rates of growth, its population will double by 2040
despite its low life expectancy rate of below 50 years.
Relatively poor productivity and the rate of productivity per
capita in agriculture are declining. There is significant
potential for increased productivity given the natural
advantages nature has provided Uganda. Staff was told that if
farmers were to introduce one of several inputs such as
irrigation, better fertilizer, or improved seeds, the country
could easily quadruple current yield. According to the FAO,
about 30% of Uganda is cultivable, but less than half is under
cultivation, and only 0.1% of cultivated land is irrigated.
Deforestation poses a serious problem. From 1990 to 2005,
Uganda lost 25% of its woodland areas, largely from illegal
logging and charcoal manufacturing. Currently, only 18.4% of
the country is forested.
The agriculture sector is largely dependent on small- and
medium-sized farmers with average national land holdings of 2.5
hectares per farmer. Land tenure is stable, and while the
average holding is larger than in most of the rest of Africa,
continual subdivision with each generation will significantly
affect the situation. Principal food crops are bananas,
cereals, root crops, pulses, oil seeds, and fruits and
vegetables. Fertilizer and seed are imported at great expense,
thereby limiting their use by smallholder farmers. Livestock
comprises 14% of agricultural GDP or 5% of total GDP, mostly
owned by smallholders, but there has been no significant
increase since 1990 in the population or productivity of the
livestock sector. Road infrastructure is uneven throughout the
country and limits the mobility of crops. In addition, as a
land-locked country, Uganda has had to rely on Kenya and
Tanzania for a seaward outlet.
Poverty eradication is a fundamental objective of Uganda's
development strategy, in which the government has resolved to
reduce the proportion of the population living in absolute
poverty to 10% by 2017. The government has chosen to allow the
market to drive the development of the agricultural sector, and
it lags in necessary investments in the support structure, such
as research and extension. The emphasis of the government's
Poverty Eradication Action Plan (PEAP) of 1997 and the ensuing
Plan for Modernization of Agriculture (PMA) of 2000 pursued the
goal of ``eradicating poverty by transforming subsistence
agriculture to commercial agriculture. Improving the welfare of
poor subsistence farmers will require that they re-orient their
production towards the market.'' Government policy to rely
almost exclusively on the private sector to drive development
does not give it much leverage to direct how and where that
development occurs. Government investments in agricultural
inputs, such as irrigation, are designed to help the commercial
sector produce high value crops for export. However, the
government is taking actions in tax and incentives to promote a
better environment for farm investment and productivity
improvements. In addition, the government has tripled micro-
finance and provided a recent massive injection of resources
for transportation infrastructure, primarily road-building,
that has an important positive effect on rural development.
The emphasis on the market and on reducing public sector
activities is most evident in the realm of academia, research,
and extension. The dilapidated nature of these three areas has
led to a very low agriculture sector output growth of 0.4% in
2008 and years of declining per capita agricultural output.
Existing government programs to disseminate better farming
practices are under-resourced in both funding and personnel.
The National Agriculture Research Organization (NARO) is
tasked with research on better crop and animal breeds so as to
increase food and animal production in the country aimed at
eradicating poverty. There are six National Agriculture
Research Institutes and nine Zonal Research Facilities. The
head of NARO recently appealed to the government to increase
funding of the organization so as to enable researchers to come
up with viable projects which will help improve household
incomes. He has pointed out that the organization lacks enough
staff and equipment to carry out effective research. Many
donors and observers criticize the government for ignoring the
agriculture sector, while other government sectors, like
security and administration, receive far more funding than the
agriculture sector. With regard to genetically modified
technology, Uganda's cabinet approved its first National
Biotechnology and Biosafety Policy in April 2008, after eight
years of deliberation. The policy provides objectives and
guidelines for the promotion and regulation of biotechnology
use in the country. But for the policy to be implemented,
Parliament must pass a law to that effect.
The relatively new National Agricultural Advisory Services
(NAADS) program of Uganda is an innovative public-private
extension service delivery approach, with the goal of
increasing market oriented agricultural production by
empowering farmers to demand and control agricultural advisory
services. It appears that the NAADS program is having
substantial positive impacts, in areas where it is working, on
the availability and quality of advisory services provided to
farmers, promoting adoption of new crop and livestock
enterprises as well as improving adoption and use of modern
agricultural production technologies and practices. NAADS also
appears to have promoted greater use of post-harvest
technologies and commercial marketing of commodities,
consistent with its mission to promote more commercially-
oriented agriculture. Despite positive effects of NAADS on
selected areas and agricultural products, wider adoption of
improved production technologies and practices is still
difficult.
The university system, led by Makerere University in
Kampala, is limited by the lack of sufficient government
resources to adequately address baccalaureate and post-graduate
education and research to effectively produce increased numbers
of graduates in academia and sciences. Uganda is able to retain
its graduates due to the economic growth rate in the country.
The universities do have agriculture science departments but
are underfunded. One official pointed out the deficiencies by
showing a university laboratory funded by outside donors and
another completely in disrepair funded by the government.
Conclusion
The steep food price increases of the last two years have
abated for the time being, but prices remain high in many parts
of the world. The crisis that reached its zenith in 2008
demonstrated the fragility of global agriculture, and how
quickly disruptions in one region can spread to other regions.
The international community has failed to understand the
necessity of maintaining investments in agriculture for both
food production and poverty alleviation. People have been
lulled into complacency by decades of low food prices without
looking ahead to expected increases in population growth,
urbanization, environmental degradation, energy supply
disruptions, and demand for non-food crops. Farmers around the
world will be asked to meet the demands created by these
factors, even as they may be contending with a degrading
agricultural environment that significantly depresses yields in
some regions. Unless much greater effort is devoted to this
problem, the world is likely to experience more frequent and
intense food crises that increase migration, stimulate
conflicts, intensify pandemics, and exacerbate poverty.
Solving hunger is both a moral and national security
imperative. The United States should assume a leadership role
in addressing hunger, poverty, and increasing global food
production. To do so requires increased investments in
agriculture and rural development, education, research,
science, technology, and extension. As Senator Lugar has
stated, ``The United States cannot feed every person, lift
every person out of poverty, cure every disease, or stop every
conflict. But our power and status have conferred upon us a
tremendous responsibility to humanity.''
Senators Lugar and Casey have introduced legislation, the
Global Food Security Act of 2009 that promotes these policy
initiatives as centerpieces of U.S. foreign assistance policy.
The bill is included as an appendix in this report.
APPENDICES
----------
Appendix A.--Additional Resources
Asian Development Bank: Soaring Food Prices: Response to
the Crisis, May 2008.
Chicago Council on Global Affairs: ``Renewing American
Leadership in the Fight Against Global Hunger and Poverty''
White Paper, December 2008.
Food and Agriculture Organization: The State of Food
Insecurity in the World 2008.
Food and Agriculture Organization: The State of Food
Insecurity in Asia and the Pacific Region 2008.
Government Accountability Office: International Food
Security: Insufficient Efforts by Host Governments and Donors
Threaten Progress to Halve Hunger in Sub-Saharan Africa by
2015, May 2008.
International Food Policy Research Institute: Global Hunger
Index, The Challenge of Hunger 2008, October 2008.
International Food Policy Research Institute: ``Investing
in Agriculture to Overcome the World Food Crisis and Reduce
Poverty and Hunger,'' by Shenggen Fan and Mark W. Rosegrant,
June 2008.
International Food Policy Research Institute:
``International Agricultural Research for Food Security,
Poverty Reduction, and the Environment: What to Expect from
Scaling Up CGIAR Investments and `Best Bet' Programs,'' by
Joachim von Braun, Shennggen Fan, Ruth Meinzen-Dick, Mark W.
Rosegrant, and Alejandro Nin Pratt, 2008.
International Food Policy Research Institute: Agricultural
Science and Technology Indicators, Country Briefs.
Juma, Calestous, ``Agricultural Innovation and Economic
Growth in Africa: Renewing International Cooperation,''
International Journal of Technology and Globalisation, Vol. 4.,
No. 3, 2008.
Natsios, Andrew S. and Kelly W. Doley, ``The Coming Food
Crisis,'' The Washington Quarterly, Vol. 32, No. 1, January
2009.
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development:
Policy Brief, Agriculture: Improving Policy Coherence for
Development.
Paarlberg, Robert, Starved for Science: How Biotechnology
is Being Kept Out of Africa, Cambridge: Harvard University
Press, 2008.
Timmer, Peter C. and David Dawe, ``Managing Food Price
Instability in Asia: A Macro Food Security Perspective,'' East
Asian Economic Association, Vol. 21, No. 1, 2007.
United States Agency for International Development:
Securing the Future: A Strategy for Economic Growth, April
2008.
United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research
Service: Food Security Assessment, 2007, July 2008.
World Bank: World Development Report 2008: Agriculture for
Development, 2007.
World Bank: Development Outreach, October 2008.
----------
Appendix B.--Global Food Security Act of 2009
S. 384 The Global Food Security Act of 2009. To authorize
appropriations for fiscal years 2010 through 2014 to provide
assistance to foreign countries to promote food security, to
stimulate rural economies, and to improve emergency response to
food crises, to amend the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, and
for other purposes.
For the entire bill, see: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/
cgi-bin/
getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:s384is.txt.pdf