US Assistance to International Agricultural Development and Food Security:

1. US Assistance to International Agricultural Development and Food Security: Some Trends and Reflections Christopher B. Barrett Cornell University Presentation at Congressional Research Service Washington, DC December 6, 2010

2. Historical and current leadership • The United States has historically played a key role in international agricultural dev’t and food assistance: • Twin track approach: • Longer-term horizon: • agricultural R&D (CGIAR, USAID CRSPs, etc.) • developing skilled human capital • champion of market-led, trade-based solutions • Shorter-term horizon: • global food aid to respond to disasters • A generation of inattention has led to a pronounced short-term bias in USG policy in this area. • Feed the Future and related recent initiatives look to rebalance and to push more country-led strategies.

3. Agricultural development: The key driver Why is this important? Two big reasons: Persistent poverty and food insecurity are closely tied to agricultural stagnation Cereals yields and extreme poverty move inversely due to both income effects for farmers/farm workers and price effects for poor consumers. South Asian progress Sub-Saharan African stasis Source: World Bank (2007)

4. Agricultural development: The key driver 2) Agriculture’s demands on strategically important renewable natural resources are huge and growing. • 70% of worldwide water use is for irrigation, (82% in LDCs), with 15-35% of withdrawals unsustainable (WBCSD). • Conversion into cropland is the main cause of deforestation worldwide; fuelwood use is second. Huge impact on climate and on biodiversity. • Advancing international agricultural development and food security is important in economic, environ-mental, humanitarian and national security terms.

5. Five main pillars • Emergency response to protect the lives and livelihoods of the poor and vulnerable US has always been the global leader in food aid. US food aid programs have improved markedly over past generation. But still too many constraints. Must use food aid for its best purpose: emergency response. Food aid is a clumsy tool for pursuing long-term development objectives.

6. Five main pillars 2) Improving Agricultural Productivity Bilateral aid to agriculture fell >70% early-1980s to early-2000s. US went from >1/3 of aid to agriculture in mid-late 1970s, to less than 10% in mid-late 1990s. Sharp recovery in recent years, back >25% and $1 bn. But still less than half as large as the food aid budget!

7. Five main pillars 2) Improving Agricultural Productivity (continued) CGIAR funding (esp. key unrestricted funding) also fell >50%(>75%). Starting to recover, but not fully. • Constant dollar USAID CRSP funding to US universities also fell to 2008. Slowly recovering (to ~$30 mn). • Essential research investments paltry compared to food aid. Productivity growth is slowing as a direct result.

8. Five main pillars 3) Skilled human capital formation As US relies increasingly on bilateral aid to developing country governments and on country-led programs, need a cadre of technically skilled advisers and decision-makers. Past neglect of these essential human capital investments will hamper country-led programs for a decade or more. And, with reduced R&D, has hurt productivity growth.

9. Five main pillars 4) Promoting pro-poor, market-led growth There is no feasible path out of extreme poverty without significant private sector investment. For example, • $2/day pc poverty gap in Sub-saharan Africa ~ $230 bn. • 2008 net ODA to region ~ $42 bn (~$7bn from US) Aid flows cannot come close to closing gap on their own. Must crowd-in private investment (value chains, etc.). Improved risk management is critical: innovative new tools may help crowd in credit and provide catastrophic insurance, even relieving need for food assistance. Access to global markets is essential: WTO Doha Round Access to domestic markets even more important!

10. Five main pillars 5) Country leadership in formulating good policy USAID technical capacity has declined sharply (~80% reduction in staff over past 35 years). No capacity to do it from Washington. Externally-led strategies of the 1980s/90s largely failed, both economically and politically. Therefore, must be country-led strategies … need full local ownership and plans appropriate to context. Must support technical capacity dev’t/maintenance in countries that rise to the challenge. Must support coherently from Washington (whole-of-government approach).

11. Conclusions International attention to, and USG leadership around, international agricultural development waned for about a generation. Now recovering. Still heavily dependent on food aid, an essential component of a twin-track strategy of ensuring security and fostering productivity growth. But need to: • continue to reform US food aid policies. • Restore CGIAR unrestricted and CRSP funding • Reinvest in skilled human capital formation • Resume WTO trade negotiations on agriculture

12. Thank you Thank you for your time, interest and comments!