Last week, I attended the Senate hearing for the Global Food Security Act (S-384) that was re-introduced in the Senate in February by Senators Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) and Robert Casey (D-Penn.). The bill is being co-sponsored by Senators Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Susan Collins (R-Maine), and Tom Harkin (D-Iowa).
The bill calls for $10 billion over five years for agricultural initiatives in the developing world. In particular, the bill focuses on rural agricultural programming, research and technological innovation, and contains some funding for emergency food assistance with the option of purchasing the food locally rather than shipping it from the U.S.
It was exciting to hear ONE’s themes resound at the hearing. This palpable support is essential as the developing world is facing high food prices, coupled with the global economic turndown. The World Bank estimates that the financial crisis could push 53 million more people into poverty this year, and already 963 million people are hungry worldwide – an increase of 40 million people between 2007 and 2008.
In his opening statement, Senator Kerry cautioned that the world has a long way to go before we reach the first Millennium Development Goal of halving hunger and poverty. Senator Lugar outlined four primary challenges effecting agriculture and food security in the developing world – population growth, rising energy costs, water scarcity, and climate change – noting that “Despite these alarming trends, investments in agriculture have tumbled in recent decades.”
Highlights from the testimonies included former Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman and former head of the UN World Food Program Catherine Bertini, who co-chaired the recently released Chicago Council task force report on global hunger and poverty, praising more assistance for programs that will increase food production in developing countries – like agricultural extension, research, and training – in complement to traditional food aid. Dr. Gebisa Ejeta, a plant geneticist working with sorghum, proposed that investments in people, local institutions, and policies that all support research and technology transfer could assist a future agricultural revolution in developing countries. Senator Kerry and David Beckmann of Bread for the World also both made references to the importance of pursuing a foreign assistance reform process that would ensure that the U.S. has an effective foreign aid system. A list of witnesses and their full statements can be found here.
The Global Food Security Act is an important step towards achieving the economic opportunity and food security so urgently needed in the developing world. Increased funding for agriculture could have a significant impact on sub-Saharan Africa in particular where the sector employs approximately two-thirds of the population and accounts for, on average, one-third of GDP. Hopefully the introduction of this legislation – and the support that it has clearly garnered in the legislative, academic, and NGO communities – signals a trend that the U.S. is putting agriculture in the developing world on the agenda.
The bill could be reviewed by the Committee as soon as this week; we will keep you updated about any developments.
-Beth Adler
March 31, 2009 at 12:24 am
It’s really encouraging to hear how this legislation will meet agricultural needs head-on, and supply just the right resources to promote rural development the most. This is precisely the basic agricultural aid that Sachs has called for to lift poor nations out of the “poverty trap” for good. Let’s make sure this bill goes forward!
March 31, 2009 at 2:19 pm
Today, the United States Senate Committee on Foreign Relations will vote on the Global Food Security Act of 2009, described in Beth Adler’s note of March 30th. The Alliance for Global Food Security, a group of 14 non-governmental organizations that are committed to addressing hunger, malnutrition and food insecurity and that operate programs in approximately 100 developing countries, is glad to see this legislation. We submitted testmony for the record of that hearing, which can be found at http://www.globalfoodsecurity.info.
The Alliance supports creating food security as one of the key themes of U.S. international assistance and seeks adequate resources for food security programs and the adoption of government policies that support multi-facted programs that address the underlying causes of hunger. Thus, the Alliance is most grateful for the leadership of Senators Lugar and Casey in developing this bill.
Among other things, this bill will authorizes higher funding for agriculture, rural development and nutrition programs and emphasizes the importance of investment in agriculture research, improved technologies and strengthening institutes of higher learning in developing countries. We urge congressional action, but believe several improvements are needed to cover current gaps in U.S. food security programming, particularly to ensure the engagement of the poor communities where the need is greatest.
For example, due to the way the U.S. Government provides funds for overseas agriculture programs, little is focused on improving the living conditions, productivity and livelihoods of small farmers, pastoralists and the rural poor. To address those needs, community-based, integrated food security programs are needed. However, U.S. agricultural development assistance funds are rarely available for NGOs that directly work with and mobilize chronically poor, rural households and communities on such things as the adoption of appropriate technologies; improving agricultural productivity; strengthening farmer organizations, agricultural enterprises and cooperatives; linking smallholder farmers to markets, inputs and financial services; improving rural infrastructure and natural resource management; and strengthening institutions to support the needy and to improve nutrition of vulnerable groups.
Thus, while we all need to seek shigher levels of funding, administrative issues are important to address in order to make sure sufficient assistance reaches and benefits the neediest.
–Ellen Levinson
April 22, 2009 at 2:24 pm
Any public money given for research should not enable the corp. to make income from patens.