Policy Brief January 2011

Development for Reducing

Hunger and Rural Poverty
Problem Recommendations & Actions
Chronic poverty and Policy guidance and program frameworks should prioritize stabilizing agriculture against the
hunger remain an threat posed by climate change and environmental degradation. The Feed the Future Initia-
everyday threat for tive is guided by a promising, integrated strategy, but will need to be authorized and funded
at least 900 million at the requested levels in order to affect the necessary changes at a meaningful scale.
people around the • Fully fund the Administration’s $3.5 billion commitment to the L’Aquila Global Food
world, including about Security agreement, including bilateral support for the Feed the Future Initiative and mul-
one-third of the world’s tilateral support for the Global Agriculture and Food Security Program.
children. Volatile • Ensure that improved emergency response and management, sustainable agricultural
food prices and price development, nutrition and safety net programs are integrated components of U.S. food
increases since 2007 security assistance.
have pushed many • Explicitly link U.S. food security and agricultural assistance to Millennium Development
millions more people Goal 1, which seeks to halve poverty and hunger by 2015.
into the ranks of the • Elevate environmental sustainability and adaptation to climate change to the level of
food insecure, putting objectives in legislation and policies shaping food security programs.
at risk the achievement • Ensure that food security programs prioritize responses to the social, political and eco-
of Millennium nomic challenges women face in developing countries.
Development Goal 1. • Prioritize passage of authorizing legislation for the Feed the Future Initiative that estab-
High unemployment, low lishes the position of a Feed the Future Coordinator. Include comprehensive global food
agricultural productivity, security solutions as part of the U.S. Global Development Strategy to ensure support
biases against women beyond the current Administration.
and environmental • Support a balanced approach to the Paris Declaration Aid Effectiveness principles,
degradation constrain including a broad definition of country ownership. Ensure a broad range of stakeholders,
efforts to accelerate including civil society, is involved in identifying development priorities, designing and
rural development. implementing programs, and assessing results.
The pledges to • Engage U.S. NGOs with extensive food security related technical experience, field infra-
increase development structure and private resources in Feed the Future programs. Map and align other govern-
investments in food ment assistance and relevant private investments and capacity in Feed the Future countries.
security and agriculture • Address the root causes of food price volatility to encourage greater investment in agri-
made by the G8 culture and to consolidate food security gains.
countries during their • Strengthen coordination and alignment of efforts across U.S. Government agencies involved
2009 Summit in L’Aquila in food security and improved nutrition programs through whole of government mecha-
have not been fully met. nisms, locating overall leadership on food security strategy and programs within USAID.

www.InterAction.org
1400 16th Street, NW
Suite 210
Washington, DC 20036
202-667-8227
Results
Broader engagement with development stakeholders, increased investments
and longer duration of programs will result in greatly enhanced impacts and
more efficient use of development resources.
Background
Persistent high food prices, malnutrition and poverty in
vulnerable developing countries threaten the well-being
of hundreds of millions of people. High food prices have
also destabilized governments and created political unrest.
After years of declining investment in agriculture and poor
policy choices by governments, market systems in many
developing countries lack the ability to respond to higher
food prices with increased production. Yet U.S. domes-
tic policies in the areas of international trade, agricultural
subsidies and biofuels continue to put upward pressure on
global food prices. Domestic agricultural subsidies place
farmers in poor countries at a competitive disadvantage,
while the economic losses that poor countries experience
because of U.S. trade tariffs exceed the total value of U.S.
development assistance.
A comprehensive approach to reduce poverty, improve
nutrition and emergency interventions for vulnerable pop-
ulations is essential. Traditional program stovepipes that
separate agricultural development, nutrition and social
protection have constrained responses to the linked vul-
nerabilities of poverty and inadequate diet. Adequate nutri-
tion—particularly for vulnerable women and children under
two years of age—must be a central objective of programs
for economic growth and agricultural development. U.S.
development policies still do not adequately reflect the
interconnected nature of these challenges or the most
effective and efficient strategies to address them. Food
security programs need to address the livelihood needs
of poor households and women, the nutritional needs of
vulnerable mothers and children, and the risks that eco-
nomic shocks and climate variability impose on marginal
households, small-scale farmers and rural communities.
Focused assistance of various sorts, including safety net
systems, nutrition and improved emergency management
and response must complement longer-term agricultural
development programs. Together, these interventions
provide a continuum of assistance that addresses the full
spectrum of hunger—urban and rural, chronic and acute—
while ensuring that the nutritional needs of children in the
critical period from conception to two years of age are met.
Over the past three decades, the U.S. decreased its sup-
port for agricultural development to only 2 percent of U.S.
foreign assistance. Steps to reinvest in agriculture and food
security reflected in the L’Aquila Food Security Agreement
and the Administration’s Feed the Future Initiative (FTF) sig-
nal important changes, but U.S. funding commitments to
these initiatives have not yet been fully met. Ramping up
these investments will be critical to decreasing the need for
humanitarian relief and assistance in the future by enhanc-
ing local capacity.
U.S. implementation of agricultural development and food
security programs has been marked by fragmented respon-
sibilities and inconsistent or conflicting policies. Three
U.S. Government departments (State, USAID and Agricul-
ture) play prominent roles, while others have more limited
responsibilities. Taken together, this pattern makes coordi-
nation within the U.S. Government difficult, and with other
donors and host country governments, extremely challeng-
ing. Consolidation of lead responsibilities for food security
and the appointment of a food security coordinator within
USAID would facilitate management of the multi-agency
effort, resulting in fewer overlaps and greater consistency.
The “Aid Effectiveness” agenda that has emerged from
the Paris Declaration promises to reshape roles and rela-
tionships in international development. Yet effective imple-
mentation of these principles has been constrained by an
interpretation of “country ownership” that lacks consistent
standards. Country-led development will be most effective
when it mobilizes all sectors of society to participate in sus-
tained development activities. The U.S. should ensure that
its support for country-owned development means that
the private sector, civil society and local communities are
involved not just in initial consultations, but also in imple-
menting and monitoring ongoing development programs.
The principles that inform the Aid Effectiveness agenda
in developing countries could also improve efficiency and
effectiveness among U.S. stakeholders in international
development. Improved coordination between the U.S.
Government and civil society would also yield important
benefits. While private sector investment, remittances,
foundation support and private individual donations have all
been rising, these vital resource flows have not been coor-
dinated with—and so do not leverage—government devel-
opment assistance. Current U.S. Government approaches
to formulating development policy do not systematically
incorporate the valuable but largely untapped resource of
the NGO community’s 40-plus years of experience in pro-
moting international agricultural development and boosting
the production of small-scale farmers.
Environmental protection is another domain in which pol-
icies promoting food production and intensive resource use
have not been reconciled. The close links between rural
ecosystems and agricultural production systems mean
that the resilience and stability of each can only be ensured
by addressing both. Continued reliance on conventional,
high-external input approaches to agricultural production,
rather than on less resource demanding regenerative sys-
tems continues to foreclose effective options in sustainable
rural development. As climate change reduces yields and
water availability in many developing countries, this area
will assume increasingly urgent importance for agricultural
policy makers and program managers.