This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-10-352 
entitled 'Global Food Security: U.S. Agencies Progressing on 
Governmentwide Strategy, but Approach Faces Several Vulnerabilities' 
which was released on March 11, 2010. 

This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as 
part of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. 
Every attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data 
integrity of the original printed product. Accessibility features, 
such as text descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes 
placed at the end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, 
are provided but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format 
of the printed version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an 
exact electronic replica of the printed version. We welcome your 
feedback. Please E-mail your comments regarding the contents or 
accessibility features of this document to Webmaster@gao.gov. 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright 
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed 
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work 
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the 
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this 
material separately. 

Report to Congressional Committees: 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
GAO: 

March 2010: 

Global Food Security: 

U.S. Agencies Progressing on Governmentwide Strategy, but Approach 
Faces Several Vulnerabilities: 

GAO-10-352: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-10-352, a report to congressional committees. 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

Global hunger continues to worsen despite world leaders’ 1996 pledge-—
reaffirmed in 2000 and 2009—-to halve hunger by 2015. To assist in 
reversing this trend, in July 2009, the Group of 8 agreed to a $22.7 
billion, 3-year commitment for agriculture and food security in 
developing countries—of which $3.5 billion is the U.S. share. Through 
analysis of agency document, interviews with agency officials and 
their development partners, and fieldwork in five recipient countries, 
GAO examined (1) the types and funding of food security programs and 
activities of relevant U.S. government agencies and (2) progress in 
developing an integrated U.S. governmentwide strategy to address 
global food insecurity as well as potential vulnerabilities of that 
strategy. 

What GAO Found: 

The U.S. government supports a wide variety of programs and activities 
for global food security, but lacks readily available comprehensive 
data on funding. In response to GAO’s data collection instrument to 10 
agencies, 7 agencies reported such funding for global food security in 
fiscal year 2008 (see figure below) based on the working definition we 
developed for this exercise with agency input. The U.S. Agency for 
International Development (USAID) and the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture (USDA) reported the broadest array of programs and 
activities. USAID, the Millennium Challenge Corporation, Treasury, 
USDA, and State provide the highest levels of funding for food 
security, while the U.S. Trade and Development Agency and the 
Department of Defense provide some assistance. These agencies 
allocated at least $5 billion in fiscal year 2008 for global food 
security, but the actual total is likely greater. GAO’s estimate does 
not account for all U.S. government funds targeting global food 
insecurity because the agencies lack (1) a commonly accepted 
governmentwide operational definition of what constitutes global food 
security and reporting requirements to routinely capture comprehensive 
data on all relevant funds being spent, and (2) data management 
systems that accurately track and report food security funding. 

Figure: Development of a U.S. Governmentwide Strategy for Global Food 
Security Is in Progress: 

Figure: Funding by agency, fiscal year 2008: 

[Refer to PDF for image: horizontal bar graph and accompanying data] 

Agency: USAID: 
Funding: $2,510 million. 

Agency: MCC: 
Funding: $912 million. 

Agency: Treasury: 
Funding: $817 million. 

Agency: USDA: 
Funding: $540 million. 

Agency: State: 
Funding: $168 million. 

Agency: USTDA: 
Funding: $9 million. 

Agency: DOD: 
Funding: $8 million. 

Agency: Peace Corps: 
Funding: None reported. 

Agency: USTR: 
Funding: None reported. 

Agency: OMB: 
Funding: None reported. 

Interagency coordination mechanisms have been established between 
National Security Council Interagency Policy Committee on Agriculture 
and Food Security and State-Led Global Hunger and Food Security 
Initiative Working Team. 

National Security Council Interagency Policy Committee on Agriculture 
and Food Security: 
* National Security Council; 
* Department of State; 
* U.S. Agency for International Development; 
* Central Intelligence Agency; 
* Department of Commerce; 
* Department of Defense; 
* Department of Labor; 
* Department of the Treasury; 
* Executive Office of the President; 
* Export-Import Bank; 
* Millennium Challenge Corporation; 
* National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; 
* Office of Management and Budget; 
* Office of the U.S. Trade Representative; 
* Office of the Vice President; 
* Overseas Private Investment Corporation; 
* Peace Corps; 
* U.S. Department of Agriculture; 
* U.S. Trade and Development Agency. 

State-Led Global Hunger and Food Security Initiative Working Team: 
* Department of State; 
* Department of the Treasury; 
* Millennium Challenge Corporation; 
* Office of the U.S. Trade Representative; 
* U.S. Agency for International Development; 
* U.S. Department of Agriculture. 

Source: GAO analysis of the agencies’ responses to the data collection 
instrument and program documents. 

[End of figure] 

The administration is making progress toward finalizing a 
governmentwide global food security strategy—-expected to be released 
shortly—-but its efforts are vulnerable to data weaknesses and risks 
associated with the host country-led approach that it calls for. The 
administration has established interagency coordination mechanisms at 
headquarters and is finalizing an implementation documentation and a 
results framework. However, the lack of comprehensive data on programs 
and funding levels may deprive decision makers of information on 
available resources, actual cost data, and a firm baseline against 
which to plan. Furthermore, the host country-led approach, although 
promising, is vulnerable to (1) the weak capacity of host governments, 
which can limit their ability to sustain donor-funded efforts; (2) a 
shortage of expertise in agriculture and food security at U.S. 
agencies that could constrain efforts to help strengthen host 
government capacity; and (3) policy differences between host 
governments and donors, including the United States, may further 
complicate efforts to align donor interventions with host government 
strategies. 

What GAO Recommends: 

To enhance U.S. efforts to address global food insecurity, GAO 
recommends that the Secretary of State (1) work to develop an 
operational definition of food security that is accepted by all U.S. 
agencies, establish a methodology for consistently reporting 
comprehensive data across agencies, and periodically inventory agencies’
food security-related programs and funding; and (2) collaborate with 
other agency heads to finalize a governmentwide strategy that 
delineates measures to mitigate the risks associated with the host 
country-led approach. State, Treasury, USAID, and USDA provided formal 
agency comments and generally concurred with our recommendations. They 
also provided some updates and clarifications relevant to data issues 
and the host country-led approach. 

View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-352] or key 
components. For more information, contact Thomas Melito at (202) 512-
9601 or melitot@gao.gov. 

[End of section] 

Contents: 

Letter: 

Results in Brief: 

Background: 

The U.S. Government Supports a Broad Array of Programs and Activities 
for Global Food Security, but Lacks Comprehensive Funding Data: 

The Administration Is Developing a Governmentwide Global Food Security 
Strategy, but Efforts Are Vulnerable to Data Weaknesses and Risks 
Associated with the Host Country-Led Approach: 

Conclusions: 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology: 

Appendix II: GAO's Data Collection Instrument: 

Appendix III: Summary Description of U.S. Agencies' Reported Food 
Security Activities and Funding: 

Appendix IV: GAO's Desirable Characteristics for a National Strategy: 

Appendix V: Comments from the Department of State: 

Appendix VI: Comments from the Department of the Treasury: 

Appendix VII: Comments from the U.S. Agency for International 
Development: 

Appendix VIII: Comments from the U.S. Department of Agriculture: 

Appendix IX: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

Related GAO Products: 

Tables: 

Table 1: Summary of Global Food Security Funding by Agency, Fiscal 
Year 2008: 

Table 2: List of 20 Countries Being Considered for GHFSI Assistance in 
Fiscal Year 2011: 

Table 3: Summary of USAID's Reported Funding for Global Food Security, 
Fiscal Year 2008A: 

Table 4: Summary of MCC's Reported Funding for Global Food Security, 
Fiscal Year 2008: 

Table 5: Summary of the Department of the Treasury's Reported Funding 
for Global Food Security, Fiscal Year 2008: 

Table 6: Summary of USDA's Reported Funding for Global Food Security, 
Fiscal Year 2008: 

Table 7: Summary of State's Reported Funding for Global Food Security, 
Fiscal Year 2008: 

Table 8: Summary of USTDA's Reported Funding for Global Food Security, 
Fiscal Year 2008: 

Table 9: Summary of DOD's Reported Funding for Global Food Security, 
Fiscal Year 2008: 

Table 10: Summary of the Peace Corps' Response on Global Food 
Security, Fiscal Year 2008: 

Table 11: Summary of USTR's Response on Global Food Security, Fiscal 
Year 2008: 

Table 12: Summary of OMB's Response on Global Food Security, Fiscal 
Year 2008: 

Table 13: GAO's Desirable Characteristics for a National Strategy: 

Figures: 

Figure 1: Prevalence of Undernourishment in Selected Countries: 

Figure 2: Selected Key Initiatives That Address Global Food 
Insecurity, 1996 to 2009: 

Figure 3: Summary of the 10 Agencies' Responses on the Types of 
Programs and Activities for Global Food Security, Fiscal Year 2008: 

Figure 4: Participants of the Interagency Coordination Mechanisms for 
Addressing Global Hunger and Food Security and Key Areas of Potential 
Investment and Cross-Cutting Priorities: 

Figure 5: Agricultural Expenditures as a Percentage of Government 
Spending in African Countries: 

Figure 6: Millennium Challenge Corporation Compact with Ghana: 

Figure 7: An Example of a Host Country-led Food Security Initiative: 
Malawi's Agricultural Input Subsidy Program: 

Abbreviations: 

CAADP: Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Program: 

DOD: Department of Defense: 

DSCA: Defense Security Cooperation Agency: 

FACTS: Foreign Assistance Coordination and Tracking System: 

FAO: Food and Agriculture Organization: 

Food Security: Food Security Sub-Policy Coordinating Committee on Food 
Price: 

Sub-PCC: Increases and Global Food Security: 

G8: Group of Eight: 

G20: Group of 20: 

GHFSI: Global Hunger and Food Security Initiative: 

IFAD: International Fund for Agricultural Development: 

IPC: Interagency Policy Committee: 

MCC: Millennium Challenge Corporation: 

MDB: multilateral development bank: 

NGO: nongovernmental organization: 

NSC: National Security Council: 

OMB: Office of Management and Budget: 

State: Department of State: 

State/F: Department of State's Office of the Director of U.S. Foreign 
Assistance: 

Treasury: Department of the Treasury: 

UN: United Nations: 

USAID: U.S. Agency for International Development: 

USDA: U.S. Department of Agriculture: 

USTDA: U.S. Trade and Development Agency: 

USTR: Office of the U.S. Trade Representative: 

WTO: World Trade Organization: 

[End of section] 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

March 11, 2010: 

The Honorable John F. Kerry:
Chairman:
The Honorable Richard G. Lugar:
Ranking Member:
Committee on Foreign Relations:
United States Senate: 

The Honorable Rosa L. DeLauro:
Chairwoman:
Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug 
Administration, and Related Agencies:
Committee on Appropriations:
House of Representatives: 

Global hunger continues to worsen despite world leaders' 1996 pledge-- 
reaffirmed in 2000 and 2009--to halve hunger by 2015.[Footnote 1] In 
2009, the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) reported that more 
than 1 billion people were undernourished worldwide. High food and 
energy prices in 2007-2008, and the global economic slowdown in 2009, 
exacerbated food insecurity in many developing countries and sparked 
food protests and riots in dozens of them. However, official 
development assistance for agriculture declined from the 1980s to 
2005. To assist in reversing this trend, in July 2009, the Group of 8 
(G8)[Footnote 2] agreed to a $20 billion, three-year commitment for 
agriculture and food security in developing countries. The U.S. share 
of this commitment--at least $3.5 billion--includes $1.2 billion 
towards the administration's Global Hunger and Food Security 
initiative in fiscal year 2010, representing more than double the 
fiscal year 2009 budget request.[Footnote 3] Various legislative 
proposals currently under consideration[Footnote 4] call for action to 
improve global food security.[Footnote 5] 

Although investments in agriculture are important in increasing food 
security, we found in our 2008 review of food insecurity in sub-
Saharan Africa that neither host governments nor donors, including the 
United States, have prioritized food security and agriculture as 
development goals.[Footnote 6] Agricultural development is widely 
recognized as a key driver for improving food security.[Footnote 7] In 
our report, we concluded that U.S. efforts to reduce hunger in sub-
Saharan Africa--where food insecurity is most prevalent--had been 
impaired by limited agricultural development resources, a fragmented 
approach, and an emphasis on emergency food aid. We recommended (1) 
the development of an integrated governmentwide strategy that defines 
each agency's actions and resource commitments to achieve food 
security, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa, including improving 
collaboration with host governments and other donors and developing 
improved measures to monitor and evaluate progress toward the 
implementation of this strategy and (2) annual reporting to Congress 
on progress toward the implementation of the first recommendation. 

Since assuming office in January 2009, the President and the Secretary 
of State have each stated on several occasions that improving global 
food security is a priority for this administration. Consistent with 
our first recommendation, U.S. agencies have launched a global hunger 
and food security initiative, and in April 2009 the administration 
renewed efforts to develop a governmentwide strategy. The National 
Security Council (NSC) Interagency Policy Committee on Agriculture and 
Food Security and a Department of State-led Global Hunger and Food 
Security Initiative (GHFSI) working team are responsible for these 
efforts. In September 2009, State issued a consultation document that 
delineated a comprehensive approach to food security based on host 
country-and community-led planning whereby recipient countries decide 
on their own needs, solutions, and development strategies on the 
grounds that the most effective food security strategies come from 
those closest to the problems. The consultation document states that 
supporting host country-led plans increases the long-term 
sustainability of investments in food security, strengthens 
coordination among stakeholders, and provides an important opportunity 
to learn from the experiences of others. Moreover, the consultation 
document states that the U.S. strategy will support commitments made 
through consultative and inclusive country-led processes by aligning 
U.S. resources behind these host country-led plans. According to 
members of the GHFSI working team, the comprehensive approach under 
development will also include an implementation document for the 
strategy. In prior reports, we have identified six desirable 
characteristics for national strategies--including the forthcoming 
food security strategy--which, in our view, enhance a strategy's 
usefulness in resource and policy decisions and better ensure 
accountability (see appendix IV).[Footnote 8] These characteristics 
are (1) purpose, scope, and methodology; (2) problem definition and 
risk assessment; (3) goals, subordinate objectives, activities, and 
performance measures; (4) resources, investments, and risk management; 
(5) organizational roles, responsibilities, and coordination; and (6) 
integration and implementation. 

To inform Congress in its deliberations, you asked us to review U.S. 
efforts to address global food insecurity. Specifically, we examined 
(1) the types and funding levels of food security programs and 
activities of relevant U.S. government agencies and (2) progress in 
developing an integrated U.S. governmentwide strategy to address 
global food insecurity, as well as potential vulnerabilities of that 
strategy. To address these objectives, we administered a data 
collection instrument to survey the 10 U.S. agencies that are engaged 
in food security activities[Footnote 9] and participated in the Food 
Security Sub-Policy Coordinating Committee on Food Price Increases and 
Global Food Security (Food Security Sub-PCC) of the NSC in 2008. (Our 
data collection instrument is shown in appendix II.) The 10 agencies 
are the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), Millennium 
Challenge Corporation (MCC), Department of the Treasury (Treasury), 
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Department of State (State), 
Department of Defense (DOD), U.S. Trade and Development Agency 
(USTDA), Peace Corps, Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR), 
and Office of Management and Budget (OMB). In addition, we conducted 
fieldwork in Bangladesh, Ethiopia, Ghana, Haiti, and Malawi on the 
basis of the presence of multiple active programs addressing food 
insecurity, the proportion of the chronically hungry in these 
countries, and geographic coverage of U.S. efforts in Africa, the 
Western Hemisphere, and Asia. In these countries, we met with U.S. 
mission staff and host government, donor, and nongovernmental 
organization (NGO) representatives. We also visited numerous project 
sites funded by the U.S. government and other donors. In addition, we 
attended the 2009 World Food Summit as an observer and met with Rome-
based United Nations (UN) food and agriculture agencies--namely FAO, 
the World Food Program, and the International Fund for Agricultural 
Development (IFAD), as well as the U.S. Mission to the United Nations 
and representatives of other donor countries. 

We conducted this performance audit from February 2009 to March 2010 
in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 
Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe 
that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our 
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. (Appendix I 
provides a detailed discussion of our scope and methodology.) 

Results in Brief: 

The U.S. government supports a wide variety of programs and activities 
for global food security, but lacks comprehensive data on funding. We 
found that it is difficult to readily determine the full extent of 
such programs and activities and to estimate precisely the total 
amount of funding that the U.S. government as a whole allocates to 
global food security. In response to our data collection instrument to 
the 10 agencies, 7 agencies reported providing monetary assistance for 
global food security programs and activities in fiscal year 2008, 
based on the working definition we developed for this exercise with 
agency input. USAID and USDA reported providing the broadest array of 
global food security programs and activities. USAID, MCC, Treasury 
through its participation in the multilateral development 
institutions, USDA, and State provide the highest levels of funding to 
address food insecurity in developing countries. In addition, USTDA 
and DOD provide some food security-related assistance. These 7 
agencies reported allocating at least $5 billion in fiscal year 2008 
for global food security, with food aid accounting for about a half of 
this funding. However, the actual total level of funding is likely 
greater. The agencies did not provide us with comprehensive funding 
data due to two key factors. First, a commonly accepted governmentwide 
operational definition of what constitutes global food security 
programs and activities has not been developed. An operational 
definition accepted by all U.S. agencies would enable them to apply it 
at the program level for planning and budgeting purposes. The agencies 
also lack reporting requirements to routinely capture comprehensive 
data on all relevant funds being spent. Second, some of the agencies' 
management systems are inadequate for tracking and reporting food 
security funding data consistently. For example, USAID and State, 
which use the same database for tracking foreign assistance data, 
failed to include a very large amount of food aid funding data in that 
database. 

The administration is making progress toward finalizing a 
governmentwide global food security strategy through improved 
interagency coordination at the headquarters level, but its efforts 
are vulnerable to weaknesses in data and risks associated with the 
host country-led approach called for in the strategy under 
development. Two interagency processes established in April 2009--the 
NSC Interagency Policy Committee on Agriculture and Food Security and 
the GHFSI working team--are improving headquarters coordination among 
numerous agencies. The strategy under development is embodied in the 
Consultation Document issued in September 2009, which is being 
expanded and as of February 2010 was expected to be released shortly, 
along with an implementation document and a results framework that 
will include a plan for monitoring and evaluation. The administration 
has identified a group of 20 countries around which to center GHFSI 
assistance in fiscal year 2011, including 12 countries in sub-Saharan 
Africa, 4 in Asia, and 4 in the Western Hemisphere. However, the 
administration's efforts are vulnerable to weaknesses in funding data; 
and the host country-led approach, although promising, poses some 
risks. Currently, no single information database compiles 
comprehensive data on the entire range of global food security 
programs and activities across the U.S. government. The lack of 
comprehensive data on current programs and funding levels may impair 
the success of the new strategy because it deprives decision makers of 
information on all available resources, actual cost data, and a firm 
baseline against which to plan. Furthermore, the host country-led 
approach has three key vulnerabilities. First, the weak capacity of 
host governments raises questions regarding their ability to absorb 
significant increases in donor funding for agriculture and food 
security and to sustain donor-funded projects on their own over time. 
Second, the shortage of expertise in agriculture and food security at 
relevant U.S. agencies can constrain efforts to help strengthen host 
government capacity, as well as review host government efforts and 
guide in-country activities. Third, policy differences between host 
governments and donors, including the United States, with regard to 
agricultural development and food security may further complicate 
efforts to align donor interventions with host government strategies. 

In this report, we are recommending that the Secretary of State (1) 
work with the existing NSC Interagency Policy Committee to develop an 
operational definition of food security that is accepted by all U.S. 
agencies; establish a methodology for consistently reporting 
comprehensive data across agencies; and periodically inventory the 
food security-related programs and associated costs for each of these 
agencies; and (2) work in collaboration with relevant agency heads to 
delineate measures to mitigate the risks associated with the host 
country-led approach on the successful implementation of the 
forthcoming governmentwide global food security strategy. 

We provided a draft of this report to the NSC and the 10 agencies that 
we surveyed. Four of these agencies--State, Treasury, USAID, and USDA--
provided formal agency comments and generally concurred with our 
recommendations. In addition, they provided updated information and 
clarifications concerning data issues and the host country-led 
approach. We have reprinted these agencies' comments in appendixes V, 
VI, VII, and VIII, respectively, along with our responses. Both State 
and USAID agreed that a common definition for food security would be 
useful, although State expressed some concern regarding the costs in 
doing so. In addition, USDA noted that the recommendation gives State 
the lead role, despite acknowledging that USAID and USDA offer the 
broadest array of food security programs and activities. We recognize 
the expertise that various agencies can contribute toward the effort 
and encourage fully leveraging their expertise. The four agencies all 
noted that the administration recognizes the risks associated with a 
country-led approach and are taking actions to mitigate these risks. 
State indicated that the implementation strategy for the GHFSI will 
incorporate mechanisms to manage these risks. USAID noted that the 
administration is planning to implement support to host governments in 
two phases in order to reduce the risks associated with limited 
country capacity and potential policy conflicts. Treasury noted that 
the interagency working group is proposing to increase the amount of 
technical assistance to recipient countries and that a new multidonor 
trust fund administered by the World Bank will complement our 
bilateral food security activities by leveraging the financial 
resources of other donors and utilizing the technical capacity of 
multilateral development banks. USDA pointed out the technical 
expertise that the department can offer, including its relationships 
with U.S. land grant colleges and universities and international 
science and technology fellowship programs to help build institutional 
and scientific capacity. In addition, DOD, MCC, NSC, OMB, State, 
Treasury, USAID, USDA, and USTDA provided technical comments on a 
draft of this report, which we have addressed or incorporated as 
appropriate. The Peace Corps and USTR did not provide comments. 

Background: 

Global Food Insecurity Persists, especially in Sub-Saharan Africa, 
South Asia, and Haiti: 

Currently, there are over 1 billion undernourished people worldwide, 
according to FAO. This number is greater than at any time since the 
1996 World Food Summit, when world leaders first pledged to halve the 
number of the world's hungry, and has been steadily increasing since 
the mid-1990s, even before the food and fuel crisis of 2006-2008 and 
the current economic downturn.[Footnote 10] Based on FAO's most recent 
data, Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia had the most severe and 
widespread food insecurity as of 2004-2006. Outside these two regions, 
Haiti, the least developed country in the Western Hemisphere and one 
of the poorest countries in the world, had extremely high levels of 
hunger and food insecurity, which have been further exacerbated by the 
January 2010 earthquake. 

Figure 1: Prevalence of Undernourishment in Selected Countries[A]: 

[Refer to PDF for image: maps of Africa, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, 
and Haiti and associated data] 

Country: Angola; 
Number of undernourished people: 7.1 million; 
Undernourished people as a percentage of populations: 44%. 

Country: Bangladesh; 
Number of undernourished people: 40.2 million; 
Undernourished people as a percentage of populations: 26%. 

Country: Burundi; 
Number of undernourished people: 3.7 million; 
Undernourished people as a percentage of populations: 40%. 

Country: Central African Republic; 
Number of undernourished people: 1.7 million; 
Undernourished people as a percentage of populations: 41%. 

Country: Chad; 
Number of undernourished people: 3.9 million; 
Undernourished people as a percentage of populations: 38%. 

Country: Democratic Republic of the Congo; 
Number of undernourished people: 43.9 million; 
Undernourished people as a percentage of populations: 75%. 

Country: Eritrea; 
Number of undernourished people: 3 million; 
Undernourished people as a percentage of populations: 66%. 

Country: Ethiopia; 
Number of undernourished people: 34.6 million; 
Undernourished people as a percentage of populations: 44%. 

Country: Ghana; 
Number of undernourished people: 1.7 million; 
Undernourished people as a percentage of populations: 8%. 

Country: Haiti; 
Number of undernourished people: 5.4 million; 
Undernourished people as a percentage of populations: 58%. 

Country: India; 
Number of undernourished people: 251.5 million; 
Undernourished people as a percentage of populations: 22%. 

Country: Liberia; 
Number of undernourished people: 1.3 million; 
Undernourished people as a percentage of populations: 38%. 

Country: Madagascar; 
Number of undernourished people: 6.6 million; 
Undernourished people as a percentage of populations: 35%. 

Country: Mali; 
Number of undernourished people: 1.2 million; 
Undernourished people as a percentage of populations: 10%. 

Country: Malawi; 
Number of undernourished people: 3.8 million; 
Undernourished people as a percentage of populations: 29%. 

Country: Mauritania; 
Number of undernourished people: 0.2 million; 
Undernourished people as a percentage of populations: 8%; 

Country: Mozambique; 
Number of undernourished people: 7.5 million; 
Undernourished people as a percentage of populations: 37%. 

Country: Niger; 
Number of undernourished people: 3.8 million; 
Undernourished people as a percentage of populations: 28%. 

Country: Nigeria; 
Number of undernourished people: 11.3 million; 
Undernourished people as a percentage of populations: 8%. 

Country: Pakistan; 
Number of undernourished people: 36.5 million; 
Undernourished people as a percentage of populations: 23%. 

Country: Rwanda; 
Number of undernourished people: 3.7 million; 
Undernourished people as a percentage of populations: 40%. 

Country: Senegal; 
Number of undernourished people: 2.9 million; 
Undernourished people as a percentage of populations: 25%. 

Country: Sierra Leone; 
Number of undernourished people: 2.5 million; 
Undernourished people as a percentage of populations: 46%. 

Country: Tanzania; 
Number of undernourished people: 13.6 million; 
Undernourished people as a percentage of populations: 35%. 

Country: Togo; 
Number of undernourished people: 2.3 million; 
Undernourished people as a percentage of populations: 37%. 

Country: Zambia; 
Number of undernourished people: 5.2 million; 
Undernourished people as a percentage of populations: 45%. 

Country: Zimbabwe; 
Number of undernourished people: 5.1 million; 
Undernourished people as a percentage of populations: 39%. 

Source: GAO analysis of FAO data; Map Resources (map). 

[A] The information on this map is based on FAO's 2004-2006 
undernourishment estimates. 

[End of figure] 

In absolute numbers, more hungry people lived in South Asia than in 
any other region, whereas the most concentrated hunger was found in 
sub-Saharan Africa, which had 16 of the world's 17 countries where the 
prevalence of hunger was 35 percent or higher. The seventeenth country 
was Haiti, where 58 percent of the population lived in chronic hunger. 
According to FAO's data for 2004-2006, since 1990, the proportion of 
undernourished people has declined from 34 to 30 percent in sub-
Saharan Africa, from 25 to 23 percent in South Asia, and from 63 to 58 
percent in Haiti. However, during this period, the actual number of 
undernourished people has increased: from 169 million to 212 million 
in sub-Saharan Africa, from 286 million to 337 million in South Asia, 
and from 4.5 million to 5.4 million in Haiti--a number that is likely 
to grow further due to the earthquake.[Footnote 11] 

The United States and Other World Leaders Have Made Longstanding 
Commitments to Address Global Food Insecurity: 

The United States and about 180 world leaders pledged to address 
global food insecurity, specifically making a commitment to halve 
hunger by 2015. In 2000 they reaffirmed this commitment with the 
establishment of the UN Millennium Development Goals and, more 
recently, at the World Summit on Food Security held in Rome in 
November 2009. As shown in figure 2, both the international donor 
community and the U.S. government have undertaken a number of key 
initiatives over the years in their efforts to address global food 
insecurity. The global food price crisis in 2007-2008 spurred new 
initiatives in recent years to address the growing prevalence of 
hunger. 

Figure 2: Selected Key Initiatives That Address Global Food 
Insecurity, 1996 to 2009: 

[Refer to PDF for image: timeline] 

Year: 1996; 
International Initiative: World Food Summit is held in Rome; 
U.S. Initiative: A high-level Interagency Working Group, co-chaired by 
State, USAID, and USDA is established. 

Year: 2000; 
International Initiative: UN Millennium Development Goals are 
established. 

Year: 2002; 
U.S. Initiative: Presidential Initiative to End Hunger in Africa is 
launched. 

Year: 2003, July; 
International Initiative: African Union endorses the implementation of 
the Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Program. 

Year: 2007; 
International Initiative: FAO launches an Initiative on Soaring Food 
Prices. 

Year: 2008; 
International Initiative: 
April: UN High-Level Task Force on the Global Food Security Crisis is 
established; 
May: World Bank’s Global Food Crisis Response Program is launched; 
December: The European Parliament and Council establish €1 billion 
Food Facility. 
U.S. Initiative: 
May: USAID establishes the Sub-Policy Coordinating Committee on Food 
Price Increase and Global Food Security (which is dissolved in January 
2009); 
June: Global Food Security Response is announced. 

Year: 2009; 
International Initiative: 
January: UN and the government of Spain convene the Madrid meeting to 
chart action on continuing global food crisis; 
July: African Union’s Sirte Declaration on Investing in Agriculture 
for Economic Growth and Food Security is adopted; 
July: G8 issues Joint Statement on Global Food Security in L’Aquila, 
Italy; 
November: World Summit on Food Security is held in Rome. 
U.S. Initiative: 
February: Global Food Security Act of 2009 is introduced in the U.S. 
Senate; 
April: Interagency Policy Committee at the National Security Council 
is established; 
April: State-led Interagency Global Hunger and Food Security 
Initiative working team is established; 
May: Global Health Initiative is launched; 
June: Global Food Security Act of 2009 and the Roadmap to End Global 
Hunger and Promote Food Security Act of 2009 are introduced in the 
U.S. House of Representatives; 
September: Consultation Document for the U.S. Global Hunger and Food 
Security Initiative is released by the State Department. 

Source: GAO analysis of literature review and structured discussions. 

[End of figure] 

U.S. Agencies Work with Numerous Development Partners to Advance 
Global Food Security: 

In their efforts to advance global food security, U.S. agencies work 
with numerous development partners. These include host governments, 
multilateral organizations, and bilateral donors, as well as other 
entities such as NGOs, philanthropic foundations, private sector 
organizations, and academic and research organizations. Their roles 
and types of activities include the following: 

* Host governments. At the country level, host governments generally 
lead the development of a strategy for the agricultural sector, the 
coordination of donor assistance, and the implementation of projects 
and programs, as appropriate. They typically issue a poverty reduction 
strategy paper that outlines their country development plans and a 
national action plan to alleviate poverty, both elements considered 
indicators of national ownership of the development approach. Donors 
are committed under the Paris Declaration to align their assistance 
with national development strategies of the host country. Host 
governments may also participate in efforts at the regional level. For 
example, in 2003, members of the African Union endorsed the 
implementation of the Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development 
Program (CAADP), a framework that is aimed to guide agricultural 
development efforts in African countries, and agreed to allocate at 
least 10 percent of government spending to agriculture by 2008. 
[Footnote 12] 

* Multilateral organizations. Several multilateral organizations and 
international financial institutions implement a variety of programs 
in the areas of agricultural development and food security.[Footnote 
13] IFAD and other international financial institutions play a large 
role in providing funding support for agriculture. Together, the World 
Bank, IFAD, and the African Development Bank accounted for about 73 
percent of multilateral official development assistance to agriculture 
from 1974 to 2006 in sub-Saharan Africa. In addition, the New York-
based UN Development Program is responsible for supporting the 
implementation of the UN Millennium Development Goals. In September 
2009, the Group of Twenty (G20) countries asked the World Bank to 
establish a multidonor trust fund to support the L'Aquila initiative 
to boost support for agriculture and food security. As of January 
2010, the World Bank put forward a framework document seeking approval 
from its executive directors to create the Global Agriculture and Food 
Security Program Trust Fund, for which the World Bank will serve as a 
trustee. According to Treasury officials, the fund will be operational 
by the middle of 2010. 

* Bilateral donors. The largest bilateral donors include Australia, 
Canada, France, Germany, Japan, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, 
and the United States, among others. At the first ever "Farm" Summit 
of G8 countries in L'Aquila, Italy, in July 2009, and the subsequent 
G20 Summit in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, in September 2009, major donor 
countries and the European Commission pledged to significantly 
increase aid to agriculture and food security.[Footnote 14] According 
to the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development, since the 
mid-1980s, aid to agriculture has fallen by half, but recent trends 
indicate a slowdown in the decline, and even the prospect of an upward 
trend. From 2002-2007, bilateral aid to agriculture increased at an 
average annual rate of 5 percent in real terms. Organization of 
Economic Cooperation and Development data show that in 2006-2007, 
development assistance countries' bilateral aid commitments to 
agriculture amounted to $3.8 billion, a little more than half of the 
L'Aquila commitment on an annual basis. 

* Other entities. Other entities such as NGOs, philanthropic 
foundations, private sector organizations, and academic and research 
organizations--often working in partnership--also play a significant 
role in supporting food security and agricultural development in 
developing countries. For example, the Alliance for a Green Revolution 
in Africa, which was established in 2006 with initial funding from the 
Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the Rockefeller Foundation, has 
entered into a partnership with the New Partnership for African 
Development to help link African government commitments to 
agricultural development with programs in seeds, soil health, market 
access, and policy.[Footnote 15] U.S. land-grant colleges and 
universities--institutions of higher education which receive federal 
support for integrated programs of agricultural teaching, research, 
and extension--sponsor fellowships for students from developing 
countries. Additionally, these colleges and universities often support 
the activities of some of the institutes that are part of the 
Consultative Group for International Agricultural Research, such as 
the International Food Policy Research Institute the International 
Institute for Tropical Agriculture, and the International Livestock 
Research Institute. 

The U.S. Government Supports a Broad Array of Programs and Activities 
for Global Food Security, but Lacks Comprehensive Funding Data: 

While the U.S. government supports a broad array of programs and 
activities for global food security, it lacks comprehensive funding 
data on these programs and activities. We found that it is difficult 
to readily determine the full extent of such programs and activities 
and to estimate precisely the total amount of funding that the U.S. 
government as a whole allocates to global food security. In response 
to our data collection instrument, 7 of the 10 agencies reported 
providing monetary assistance for global food security based on the 
working definition we developed for this exercise with agency input. 
USAID, MCC, Treasury, USDA, State, USTDA, and DOD allocated at least 
$5 billion in fiscal year 2008 for programs and activities that we 
define as addressing global food security, with food aid accounting 
for about a half of this funding. However, the actual total level of 
funding is likely greater. The agencies were unable to provide us with 
comprehensive funding data due to (1) a lack of a commonly accepted 
governmentwide operational definition of what constitutes global food 
security and reporting requirements to routinely capture comprehensive 
data on all relevant funds being spent, and (2) weaknesses in some of 
the agencies' management systems for tracking and reporting food 
security funding data consistently. 

USAID and USDA Reported Providing the Broadest Array of Global Food 
Security Programs and Activities, while USAID and MCC Reported 
Providing the Largest Amounts of Funding: 

Among agencies that support global food security programs and 
activities, USAID and USDA reported providing the broadest array of 
such programs and activities, while USAID and MCC reported providing 
the largest amount of funding in fiscal year 2008. To examine the 
types and funding levels of these programs and activities as 
comprehensively as possible, we sent a data collection instrument to 
the 10 agencies that participated in the 2008 Food Security Sub-PCC: 
DOD, MCC, State, OMB, the Peace Corps, Treasury, USAID, USDA, USTDA, 
and USTR. In this instrument, we asked the agencies to indicate what 
types of food security activities they performed in fiscal year 2008 
and the funding levels associated with them. We had to develop a 
working definition of food security because there is no commonly 
accepted governmentwide operational definition that specifies the 
programs and activities that are food security related.[Footnote 16] 
We developed our working definition based on a framework of food 
security-related activities that we established in a prior GAO 
report[Footnote 17] and a series of interactions with the relevant 
agencies over a period of several months. Our interactions with the 
agencies focused on refining the definition to ensure that it would be 
commonly understood and applicable to their programs and activities to 
the extent possible. The working definition that we developed included 
the following elements: food aid, nutrition, agricultural development, 
rural development, safety nets, policy reform, information and 
monitoring, and future challenges to food security. We asked the 
agencies to indicate which of these activities they performed and to 
provide funding data--when these data were available and reliable--on 
the appropriations, obligations, expenditures, and other allocations 
associated with these activities in fiscal year 2008. We pretested the 
instrument with officials at DOD, MCC, State, USAID, and USDA, and 
administered it in June and July 2009. All 10 agencies responded to 
our instrument, and 7 of them (DOD, MCC, State, Treasury, USAID, USDA, 
and USTDA) reported funding data. 

In addition, the instrument gave the agencies the option to indicate 
whether they were involved in other types of food security assistance 
and if so, to describe them. Figure 3 summarizes the agencies' 
responses on the types of global food security programs and activities 
and table 1 summarizes the funding levels. (The agencies are listed in 
order from highest to lowest amount of funding provided.) 

Figure 3: Summary of the 10 Agencies' Responses on the Types of 
Programs and Activities for Global Food Security, Fiscal Year 2008: 

[Refer to PDF for image: illustrated table] 

Types of activities: 

A. Food aid: Emergency food aid: 
USAID: [Check]; 
MCC: [Empty]; 
Treasury[A]: 
USDA: [Check]; 
State: [Check]; 
USTDA: [Empty]; 
DOD: [Check]; 
Peace Corps: [Empty]; 
USTR: [Empty]; 
OMB[B]: [Empty]. 

A. Food aid: Nonemergency food aid: 
USAID: [Check]; 
MCC: [Empty]; 
Treasury[A]: [Empty]; 
USDA: [Check]; 
State: [Check]; 
USTDA: [Empty]; 
DOD: [Empty]; 
Peace Corps: [Empty]; 
USTR: [Empty]; 
OMB[B]: [Empty]. 

B. Nutrition: Supplementary feeding and micronutrient supplementation: 
USAID: [Check]; 
MCC: [Empty]; 
Treasury[A]: [Empty]; 
USDA: [Empty]; 
State: [Empty]; 
USTDA: [Empty]; 
DOD: [Empty]; 
Peace Corps: [Empty]; 
USTR: [Empty]; 
OMB[B]: [Empty]. 

B. Nutrition: Nutritional education, counseling, and assessment: 
USAID: [Check]; 
MCC: [Empty]; 
Treasury[A]: [Empty]; 
USDA: [Check]; 
State: [Empty]; 
USTDA: [Empty]; 
DOD: [Empty]; 
Peace Corps: [Check]; 
USTR: [Empty]; 
OMB[B]: [Empty]. 

B. Nutrition: Assistance focusing on especially vulnerable groups: 
USAID: [Check]; 
MCC: [Empty]; 
Treasury[A]: [Empty]; 
USDA: [Check]; 
State: [Empty]; 
USTDA: [Empty]; 
DOD: [Empty]; 
Peace Corps: [Check]; 
USTR: [Empty]; 
OMB[B]: [Empty]. 

C. Agricultural development: Agricultural technologies: 
USAID: [Check]; 
MCC: [Check]; 
Treasury[A]: [Empty]; 
USDA: [Check]; 
State: [Empty]; 
USTDA: [Check]; 
DOD: [Empty]; 
Peace Corps: [Empty]; 
USTR: [Empty]; 
OMB[B]: [Empty]. 

C. Agricultural development: Farming techniques and agricultural 
inputs: 
USAID: [Check]; 
MCC: [Check]; 
Treasury[A]: [Empty]; 
USDA: [Check]; 
State: [Check]; 
USTDA: [Check]; 
DOD: [Empty]; 
Peace Corps: [Check]; 
USTR: [Empty]; 
OMB[B]: [Empty]. 

C. Agricultural development: Agricultural value chains, including 
investments in food processing and storage: 
USAID: [Check]; 
MCC: [Check]; 
Treasury[A]: [Empty]; 
USDA: [Check]; 
State: [Empty]; 
USTDA: [Check]; 
DOD: [Empty]; 
Peace Corps: [Empty]; 
USTR: [Empty]; 
OMB[B]: [Empty]. 

C. Agricultural development: Agricultural market development: 
USAID: [Check]; 
MCC: [Check]; 
Treasury[A]: [Empty]; 
USDA: [Check]; 
State: [Empty]; 
USTDA: [Check]; 
DOD: [Empty]; 
Peace Corps: [Empty]; 
USTR: [Empty]; 
OMB[B]: [Empty]. 

C. Agricultural development: Agricultural risk management: 
USAID: [Check]; 
MCC: [Check]; 
Treasury[A]: [Empty]; 
USDA: [Check]; 
State: [Check]; 
USTDA: [Check]; 
DOD: [Empty]; 
Peace Corps: [Empty]; 
USTR: [Empty]; 
OMB[B]: [Empty]. 

C. Agricultural development: Agricultural research and development, 
education, and training: 
USAID: [Check]; 
MCC: [Check]; 
Treasury[A]: [Empty]; 
USDA: [Check]; 
State: [Check]; 
USTDA: [Empty]; 
DOD: [Check]; 
Peace Corps: [Check]; 
USTR: [Empty]; 
OMB[B]: [Empty]. 

C. Agricultural development: Irrigation and watershed management: 
USAID: [Check]; 
MCC: [Check]; 
Treasury[A]: [Empty]; 
USDA: [Check]; 
State: [Empty]; 
USTDA: [Check]; 
DOD: [Check]; 
Peace Corps: [Check]; 
USTR: [Empty]; 
OMB[B]: [Empty]. 

C. Agricultural development: Maintaining the natural resource base: 
USAID: [Check]; 
MCC: [Check]; 
Treasury[A]: [Empty]; 
USDA: [Check]; 
State: [Check]; 
USTDA: [Check]; 
DOD: [Empty]; 
Peace Corps: [Check]; 
USTR: [Empty]; 
OMB[B]: [Empty]. 

D. Rural development: Land tenure reform: 
USAID: [Check]; 
MCC: [Check]; 
Treasury[A]: [Empty]; 
USDA: [Empty]; 
State: [Empty]; 
USTDA: [Empty]; 
DOD: [Empty]; 
Peace Corps: [Empty]; 
USTR: [Empty]; 
OMB[B]: [Empty]. 

D. Rural development: Rural infrastructure: 
USAID: [Check]; 
MCC: [Check]; 
Treasury[A]: [Empty]; 
USDA: [Check]; 
State: [Empty]; 
USTDA: [Check]; 
DOD: [Check]; 
Peace Corps: [Empty]; 
USTR: [Empty]; 
OMB[B]: [Empty]. 

D. Rural development: Microlending and access to other credit: 
USAID: [Check]; 
MCC: [Check]; 
Treasury[A]: [Empty]; 
USDA: [Check]; 
State: [Empty]; 
USTDA: [Check]; 
DOD: [Empty]; 
Peace Corps: [Empty]; 
USTR: [Empty]; 
OMB[B]: [Empty]. 

E. Safety nets: 
USAID: [Check]; 
MCC: [Empty]; 
Treasury[A]: [Empty]; 
USDA: [Empty]; 
State: [Check]; 
USTDA: [Empty]; 
DOD: [Empty]; 
Peace Corps: [Empty]; 
USTR: [Empty]; 
OMB[B]: [Empty]. 

F. Policy reform: Government food security-oriented policy reform: 
USAID: [Check]; 
MCC: [Empty]; 
Treasury[A]: [Check]; 
USDA: [Check]; 
State: [Check]; 
USTDA: [Check]; 
DOD: [Empty]; 
Peace Corps: [Empty]; 
USTR: [Empty]; 
OMB[B]: [Empty]. 

F. Policy reform: Encouraging private sector investment: 
USAID: [Check]; 
MCC: [Empty]; 
Treasury[A]: [Check]; 
USDA: [Check]; 
State: [Check]; 
USTDA: [Empty]; 
DOD: [Empty]; 
Peace Corps: [Empty]; 
USTR: [Check]; 
OMB[B]: [Empty]. 

F. Policy reform: Strengthening national and regional trade and 
transport corridors: 
USAID: [Check]; 
MCC: [Empty]; 
Treasury[A]: [Check]; 
USDA: [Check]; 
State: [Check]; 
USTDA: [Check]; 
DOD: [Empty]; 
Peace Corps: [Empty]; 
USTR: [Check]; 
OMB[B]: [Empty]. 

G. Information and monitoring: 
USAID: [Check]; 
MCC: [Empty]; 
Treasury[A]: [Empty]; 
USDA: [Check]; 
State: [Empty]; 
USTDA: [Empty]; 
DOD: [Check]; 
Peace Corps: [Empty]; 
USTR: [Empty]; 
OMB[B]: [Empty]. 

H. Other types of food security assistance: 
USAID: [Check]; 
MCC: [Empty]; 
Treasury[A]: [Empty]; 
USDA: [Check]; 
State: [Check]; 
USTDA: [Check]; 
DOD: [Empty]; 
Peace Corps: [Empty]; 
USTR: [Empty]; 
OMB[B]: [Empty]. 

I. Future challenges to food security: 
USAID: [Check]; 
MCC: [Check]; 
Treasury[A]: [Empty]; 
USDA: [Check]; 
State: [Check]; 
USTDA: [Empty]; 
DOD: [Check]; 
Peace Corps: [Empty]; 
USTR: [Empty]; 
OMB[B]: [Empty]. 

Source: GAO analysis of the agencies’ responses to the data collection 
instrument. 

[A] Treasury reported that its direct involvement in food security is 
in the area of policy reform and its indirect involvement is through 
its participation as the U.S. representative at the multilateral 
development institutions, which support a range of global food 
security activities, such as agricultural and rural development. 

[B] OMB is not an implementing agency for global food security 
activities and, as such, does not have programs and activities to 
report. 

[End of figure] 

Table 1: Summary of Global Food Security Funding by Agency, Fiscal 
Year 2008: 

Agency: USAID; 
Reported funding: $2,510 million. 

Agency: MCC; 
Reported funding: $912 million. 

Agency: Treasury[A]; 
Reported funding: $817 million. 

Agency: USDA; 
Reported funding: $540 million. 

Agency: State; 
Reported funding: $168 million. 

Agency: USTDA; 
Reported funding: $9 million. 

Agency: DOD; 
Reported funding: $8 million. 

Agency: Peace Corps; 
Reported funding: None reported. 

Agency: USTR; 
Reported funding: None reported. 

Agency: OMB; 
Reported funding: None reported. 

Agency: Approximate total[B]; 
Reported funding: $5 billion. 

Source: GAO analysis of the agencies' responses to the data collection 
instrument. 

[A] Treasury reported that it is directly involved in the area of food 
security-related policy reform and indirectly as conduit of U.S. 
contributions to multilateral development banks, which support a range 
of global food security activities, such as agricultural and rural 
development. 

[B] OMB is not an implementing agency for global food security 
activities and, as such, does not have programs and activities to 
report. 

[End of figure] 

Our analysis of the agencies' responses to the data collection 
instrument shows that USAID, MCC, Treasury, USDA, and State are the 
agencies providing the highest levels of funding in U.S. foreign 
assistance to address food insecurity in developing countries. These 
agencies' food security assistance, as reported in response to our 
instrument, can be summarized as follows: 

* USAID. In addition to providing the bulk of U.S. foreign assistance 
targeting global food insecurity, USAID supports more types of 
programs and activities in this area than any other agency. The two 
types of USAID assistance with the highest funding are the delivery of 
food aid as well as the promotion of food security by stimulating 
rural economies through broad-based agricultural growth. According to 
USAID's most recent International Food Assistance Report, the agency 
provided almost $2 billion for emergency food aid in fiscal year 2008. 
In addition, in response to our instrument, USAID reported about $500 
million in funding for agricultural development and other global food 
security-related programs and activities in that year. USAID's funding 
for agriculture would increase significantly under the 
administration's fiscal year 2010 budget request to double U.S. 
assistance for global food security and agricultural development from 
the fiscal year 2009 request level. 

* Millennium Challenge Corporation. MCC was established in 2004 and 
provides eligible developing countries with grants designed to support 
country-led solutions for reducing poverty through sustainable 
economic growth. MCC offers two kinds of monetary assistance: (1) 
compacts, which are large, multiyear grants to countries that meet 
MCC's eligibility criteria in the areas of good governance, economic 
freedom, education, health, and natural resource management; and (2) 
threshold programs, which are smaller grants awarded to countries that 
come close to meeting these criteria and are committed to improving 
their policy performance. According to MCC, as of March 2009, it had 
obligated nearly $3.2 billion to strengthen the agricultural and rural 
economies in poor countries to promote reliable access to sufficient, 
safe, and affordable food. For fiscal year 2008, MCC reported funding 
obligations of about $912 million for multiyear compacts. 

* Treasury. Treasury is the lead agency responsible for U.S. 
participation in the multilateral development banks. It provides 
funding for agricultural development through the leveraging of its 
contributions to the African Development Bank, Asian Development Bank, 
Inter-American Development Bank and Fund for Special Operations, 
European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, International Fund 
for Agricultural Development (IFAD), and World Bank. A representative 
from Treasury's Office of International Affairs serves in a leadership 
role as a member of IFAD's Board of Directors. Treasury reported that 
in fiscal year 2008 the total financing for public and private sector 
investments in agricultural development, including rural development 
and policy reform, from the multilateral development banks was $4.9 
billion. We estimate that the U.S. share of this financing is $817 
million, including $358 million in highly concessional loans[Footnote 
18] and grants to the world's poorest countries and $459 million in 
loans to middle-income and creditworthy low-income developing 
countries. 

* USDA. USDA provides nonemergency food aid, as well as technical and 
nutritional assistance focusing on agricultural development and 
vulnerable groups. USDA reported $540 million in food security-related 
funding in fiscal year 2008, including $530.5 million dedicated to 
food aid programs--namely, Food for Progress and the McGovern-Dole 
International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program[Footnote 
19]--and the emergency food commodity reserve known as the Bill 
Emerson Humanitarian Trust. The remaining amount is used for various 
technical assistance programs, such as the Cochran and Borlaug 
fellowships supporting international exchanges to facilitate 
agricultural development. 

* State. State's primary role with regard to food security is to 
coordinate international communication, negotiations, and U.S. 
government policy formulation. State is currently leading the Global 
Hunger and Food Security Initiative and in 2008 it co-chaired, along 
with USAID and USDA, the Food Security Sub-PCC. A number of State's 
bureaus and offices perform duties specific to their expertise that 
help promote global food security. For example, State's Bureau of 
Economic, Energy, and Business Affairs, with assistance from the 
Office of Policy Planning and others, is involved in the effort to 
develop a whole-of-government strategy to promote global food 
security. The Bureau's Office of Multilateral Trade and Agriculture 
Affairs assists with food security policy coordination, works toward a 
successful conclusion of the Doha Round of trade talks in the World 
Trade Organization (WTO), and promotes the removal of export 
restrictions on agricultural products and the reduction in trade 
barriers to agricultural biotechnology. The Bureau of International 
Organizations coordinates U.S. policy towards and participation in FAO 
and the World Food Program. The Bureau for Population, Refugees, and 
Migration coordinates with the World Food Program and USAID regarding 
food assistance and food security for refugees and other populations 
of concern. The Bureau of Oceans, Environment, and Science works 
bilaterally and multilaterally to advance U.S. foreign policy 
objectives in such areas as the sustainable use of natural resources, 
protection of biodiversity and wildlife, adaptation to climate change, 
harnessing of science and technology, and improvements to human 
health. State's Office of the Director of U.S. Foreign Assistance 
(State/F) coordinates State and USAID budgets, while the Office of 
Conflict Prevention acts as the secretariat for the funding of 
reconstruction and stabilization projects through the use of DOD 
Section 1207 funds.[Footnote 20] State reported providing about $168 
million for food security programs and activities in fiscal year 2008. 

The other five agencies that responded to our data collection 
instrument are involved in supporting global food security initiatives 
in different ways. USTDA and DOD provide some food security-related 
monetary assistance. For fiscal year 2008, USTDA reported providing 
more than $9 million for agriculture, rural development, and other 
types of food security assistance, and DOD's Defense Security 
Cooperation Agency (DSCA) reported allocating more than $8 million for 
global food security-related activities that were part of disaster 
relief and humanitarian assistance efforts. The Peace Corps estimates 
that many of its volunteers serving in developing countries address 
the issues of hunger, malnutrition, and food insecurity, but did not 
report any funding data. While USTR does not support any food security 
programming, it is engaged in interagency consultations and has 
recently created an interagency subcommittee at the Trade Policy Staff 
Committee to coordinate trade policy elements of the administration's 
global food security initiative.[Footnote 21] The 10th agency, OMB, 
participates in the interagency process as part of its mission to help 
formulate the administration's budget and to advise the White House 
and other components of the Executive Office of the President on the 
resources available to support the development of new food security 
initiatives. (For a more extensive description of the 10 agencies' 
food security-related programs and activities, see appendix III.) 

The Agencies Did Not Report Comprehensive Funding Information Due to 
Incomplete Data as well as Inadequate Data Management Systems: 

Comprehensive data on the total amount of funding dedicated to global 
food security programs and activities by the whole of the U.S. 
government are not readily available. In response to our data 
collection instrument, the agencies providing monetary assistance for 
global food security reported directing at least $5 billion in fiscal 
year 2008 to programs and activities that we define as addressing 
global food security, with food aid accounting for about a half of 
this funding. However, the actual total level of funding is likely 
greater. We were only able to obtain these funding data and ascertain 
their reliability through repeated inquiries and discussions with the 
agencies over a six-month period. The estimate does not account for 
all the U.S. government's funds targeting global hunger and food 
insecurity because the agencies did not provide us with comprehensive 
funding data due to (1) lack of a commonly accepted governmentwide 
operational definition of what constitutes global food security and 
reporting requirements to routinely capture comprehensive data on all 
relevant funds being spent, and (2) weaknesses in some of the 
agencies' management systems for tracking and reporting food security 
funding data consistently, which we discuss below. For example, the 
estimate does not include funding for some of USAID's food security 
activities, some U.S. contributions to international food security 
organizations, or funding for relevant programs of agencies that did 
not participate in the Food Security Sub-PCC and were, therefore, 
outside the scope of our audit, such as nutritional assistance 
implemented as part of the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief. 
[Footnote 22] In addition, the agencies used different measures, such 
as planned appropriations, obligations, expenditures, and, in 
Treasury's case, U.S. contributions to multilateral development 
banks,[Footnote 23] which made it difficult to arrive at a precise 
estimate. 

Incomplete Funding Data Due to Lack of a Commonly Accepted 
Governmentwide Operational Definition and Reporting Requirements: 

The agencies reported incomplete funding data due to a lack of a 
commonly accepted governmentwide operational definition of what 
constitutes global food security programs and activities, as well as a 
lack of reporting requirements to routinely capture comprehensive data 
on all relevant funds being spent. An operational definition accepted 
by all U.S. agencies would enable them to apply it at the program 
level for planning and budgeting purposes. Because food security is an 
issue that cuts across multiple sectors, it can be difficult to define 
precisely what constitutes a food security-related program or 
activity, or to distinguish a food security activity from other 
development activities. Principal planning documents, even at the 
agencies with the highest levels of funding, may not prioritize food 
security or recognize it as a distinct program area. For example, as 
State noted in a written response to our data collection instrument, 
State's and USAID's Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years 2007 to 2012, the 
most recent guidance that sets these agencies' priorities, does not 
use the term "food security." 

FACTS uses the standardized program structure, which is based on the 
U.S. Foreign Assistance Framework and organized by objective, program 
area, element, and subelement. 

We also found that the Foreign Assistance Coordination and Tracking 
System (FACTS) database,[Footnote 24] which State and USAID use to 
collect and report data on the U.S. foreign assistance that they 
implement, provides limited guidance on designating food security a 
"key issue." The organization of the FACTS database reflects the four 
levels of the standardized program structure of U.S. foreign 
assistance: objectives, program areas, elements, and subelements. 
USAID could identify elements and subelements whose definitions 
included food security activities, but if these elements and 
subelements combined food security and non-food security activities, 
it could not always isolate the former from the latter. After 
extensive discussions with USAID, we identified 13 subelements as 
primarily containing food security programs and activities and added 
up funding levels associated with these subelements to estimate 
USAID's global food security assistance in fiscal year 2008.[Footnote 
25] However, we identified about $850 million in funding for 12 
additional subelements that include food security activities, and 
therefore some portion of this funding is dedicated to food security 
as well. For example, the subelement for livelihood support, 
infrastructure rehabilitation, and services, with $123 million in 
funding in fiscal year 2008, combines nonemergency food aid 
activities, such as food for work, with other activities, such as 
education and income generation, but FACTS is currently not designed 
to readily identify what portion of the $123 million is related to 
global food security. 

The lack of a commonly accepted governmentwide operational definition 
may also lead the agencies to either define food security very broadly 
or to not recognize food security-related activities as such. For 
example, in response to our instrument USDA reported some of the 
activities supported by USDA's Forest Service--such as the migratory 
bird and monarch butterfly habitat management--but did not explain how 
they were related to global food security.[Footnote 26] Conversely, 
DOD did not initially report any global food security-related programs 
and activities because food security is not recognized as part of 
DOD's officially defined mission. However, in subsequent inquiries we 
established that some of DOD's humanitarian assistance projects, such 
as those implemented by DSCA, have food security components. DOD 
officials acknowledged that the Combatant Commanders' Initiative Fund 
and the Commanders' Emergency Response Program likely support food 
security-related projects but did not provide us with relevant data. 
DOD's involvement could be significant--for example, the Center for 
Global Development estimates that in 2007 DOD implemented 16.5 percent 
of U.S. development assistance[Footnote 27]--and DSCA's $8.4 million 
for global food security-related projects likely represents only a 
portion of DOD's total spending on food security-related activities. 

Additionally, some agencies that support food security activities lack 
reporting requirements to routinely capture comprehensive data on all 
relevant funds being spent. For example, although the Peace Corps has 
adopted a Food Security Strategic Plan and estimates that about 40 
percent of its volunteers contribute in some capacity to food security 
work through projects in agriculture, health, and environment, the 
agency did not report any funding information. In an interview, senior 
Peace Corps officials noted that, given the circumstances under which 
Peace Corps volunteers work and live, it is impossible to isolate what 
portion of volunteers' time is spent on food security. Furthermore, 
according to these officials, the Peace Corps does not track what 
percentage of the organization's budget is spent on supporting 
volunteers' food security-related work. 

Data Management Systems Are Inadequate for Tracking and Reporting Food 
Security Funding Consistently: 

We found that some of the agencies' data management systems are 
inadequate for tracking and reporting food security funding 
consistently. Most notably, USAID and State/F--which both use FACTS-- 
failed to include a very large amount of food aid funding data in the 
FACTS database. In its initial response to our instrument, USAID, 
using FACTS, reported that in fiscal year 2008 the agency's planned 
appropriations for global food security included about $860 million 
for Food for Peace Title II emergency food aid. However, this 
indicated a very large discrepancy between the FACTS-generated $860 
million and (1) the $1.7 billion that USAID allocated to emergency 
food aid from the congressional appropriations for Title II food aid 
for fiscal year 2008,[Footnote 28] or (2) the $2 billion in emergency 
food aid funding reported by USAID in its International Food 
Assistance Report for fiscal year 2008. USAID and State/F were unaware 
of the discrepancy until we brought it to their attention. As of 
February 2010, USAID had not updated FACTS to incorporate the missing 
information and had not provided an explanation for the discrepancy. 
USAID and State officials ultimately reported that this discrepancy 
was due to the fact that no Title II food aid supplemental 
appropriations had been entered into FACTS because these were made 
fairly late in fiscal year 2008[Footnote 29]. While USAID officials 
reported that the agency has checks in place to ensure the accuracy of 
the regular appropriations data entered by its overseas missions and 
most headquarters bureaus, the omission of the supplemental 
appropriation information for USAID's global food security program 
with the highest funding level raises questions about the data 
management and verification procedures in FACTS, particularly with 
regards to the Food for Peace program, and seriously limits its 
capacity to track all food security funding. 

We also found that USDA does not have an established mechanism for 
collecting and reporting agencywide funding data on global food 
security programs and activities. In its initial response to our 
instrument, USDA provided us with several conflicting funding 
estimates for its food security programs, including for its two 
flagship food aid programs (Food for Progress and McGovern-Dole 
International Food for Education and Child Nutrition). Moreover, the 
funding data reported by USDA to us differed from those reported in 
the International Food Assistance Report for fiscal year 2008. USDA 
acknowledged and reconciled the conflicting estimates after repeated 
inquiries from us. 

The implications of these weaknesses in data will be discussed in the 
context of the development of a governmentwide global food security 
strategy in the next section of this report. 

The Administration Is Developing a Governmentwide Global Food Security 
Strategy, but Efforts Are Vulnerable to Data Weaknesses and Risks 
Associated with the Host Country-Led Approach: 

Consistent with our 2008 recommendation, the current administration 
has taken a number of steps toward developing a U.S. governmentwide 
strategy for global food security, including improving interagency 
coordination at the headquarters level in Washington, D.C.; finalizing 
the main elements of the strategy; and identifying potential priority 
countries for assistance. Two interagency processes established in 
April 2009--the National Security Council (NSC) Interagency Policy 
Committee (IPC) on Agriculture and Food Security and the Global Hunger 
and Food Security (GHFSI) working team--are improving coordination 
among numerous agencies, particularly at headquarters. The strategy 
under development is embodied in the GHFSI Consultation Document that 
State issued in September 2009, which is being expanded and is 
expected to be released shortly, along with an implementation document 
and a results framework that will include a plan for monitoring and 
evaluation.[Footnote 30] The administration has identified a group of 
20 countries around which to center GHFSI assistance in fiscal year 
2011, including 12 countries in sub-Saharan Africa, 4 in Asia, and 4 
in the Western Hemisphere. Going forward, however, the 
administration's efforts are vulnerable to weaknesses in funding data 
as well as risks associated with the country-led approach. Currently, 
no single information database compiles comprehensive data on the 
entire range of global food security programs and activities across 
the U.S. government.[Footnote 31] The lack of comprehensive data on 
current programs and funding levels may impair the success of the new 
strategy because it deprives decision makers of information on all 
available resources, actual cost data, and a firm baseline against 
which to plan. In addition, although the host country-led approach--a 
central feature of the forthcoming strategy--is promising, it is 
vulnerable to some risks. These include (1) the weak capacity of host 
governments; (2) limitations in the U.S. government's own capacity to 
provide needed assistance to strengthen host governments' capacity, as 
well as review host governments' efforts and guide in-country 
activities, due to a shortage of expertise in agriculture and food 
security; and (3) difficulties that recipient countries and donors 
face in aligning their policy priorities and interventions. 

The Administration Is Making Progress toward Finalizing a 
Governmentwide Global Food Security Strategy: 

The Administration Has Established Interagency Coordination Mechanisms 
at the Headquarters Level to Facilitate the Development of a 
Governmentwide Strategy: 

Since 2009, to facilitate the development of a governmentwide global 
food security strategy, the administration has been taking steps to 
enhance coordination among the relevant entities and to ensure 
communication between policymakers and program implementers, 
particularly at the headquarters level in Washington, D.C. Two 
interagency coordination mechanisms are currently under way. These 
interagency coordination mechanisms, established in April 2009, are 
(1) the NSC/IPC on Agriculture and Food Security and (2) the State-led 
GHFSI working team, which have identified key areas of potential 
investment and cross-cutting priorities. (See figure 4.) 

The IPC is led by the NSC's Special Assistant to the President and 
Senior Director for Relief, Stabilization, and Development and co- 
chaired by the Secretary of State and the Administrator of USAID. Ten 
agencies participated in the IPC when it was initially established: 
USAID, MCC, Treasury, USDA, State, DOD, Peace Corps, USTDA, USTR, and 
OMB. These agencies previously participated in the Food Security Sub- 
PCC, which was created in May 2008 and dissolved in January 2009. 
Other agencies have since joined the IPC, including the Departments of 
Commerce and Labor, the Export-Import Bank of the United States, the 
Overseas Private Investment Corporation, and the National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration. 

The primary agencies participating in the GHFSI working team are 
State, USAID, USDA, MCC, Treasury, and USTR. The Secretary of State's 
Chief of Staff has been convening weekly meetings with relevant GHFSI 
agency officials to inform the IPC process since April 2009. 

Figure 4: Participants of the Interagency Coordination Mechanisms for 
Addressing Global Hunger and Food Security and Key Areas of Potential 
Investment and Cross-Cutting Priorities: 

[Refer to PDF for image: illustration and 7 photographs] 

Interagency coordination mechanisms have been established between 
National Security Council Interagency Policy Committee on Agriculture 
and Food Security and State-Led Global Hunger and Food Security 
Initiative Working Team. 

National Security Council Interagency Policy Committee on Agriculture 
and Food Security: 
* National Security Council; 
* Department of State; 
* U.S. Agency for International Development; 
* Central Intelligence Agency; 
* Department of Commerce; 
* Department of Defense; 
* Department of Labor; 
* Department of the Treasury; 
* Executive Office of the President; 
* Export-Import Bank; 
* Millennium Challenge Corporation; 
* National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; 
* Office of Management and Budget; 
* Office of the U.S. Trade Representative; 
* Office of the Vice President; 
* Overseas Private Investment Corporation; 
* Peace Corps; 
* U.S. Department of Agriculture; 
* U.S. Trade and Development Agency. 

State-Led Global Hunger and Food Security Initiative Working Team: 
* Department of State; 
* Department of the Treasury; 
* Millennium Challenge Corporation; 
* Office of the U.S. Trade Representative; 
* U.S. Agency for International Development; 
* U.S. Department of Agriculture. 

GHFSI Strategy: Whole-of-Government Approach to Food Security: 

Cross-cutting priorities: 
* Gender equality; 
* Environmentally sustainable and climate resilient agricultural 
development; 
* Economic growth for the vulnerable and very poor; 
* Global innovation and research. 

Areas of potential investment: 
* Advancing agricultural-led growth; 
* Reducing undernutrition; 
* Increasing the impact of humanitarian food assistance. 

Sources: GAO presentation based on State data; and GAO (photos). 

Note: According to the GHFSI strategy, investments will emphasize the 
four cross-cutting priorities and potential investments will be made 
in the three overarching areas shown above. 

[End of figure] 

In addition, several agencies at headquarters, such as USAID and USDA, 
have established task forces or working groups with staff from 
different entities within the agency to coordinate their food security 
activities. USDA has recently named a coordinator for the global food 
security initiative in the Office of Secretary of Agriculture. 
Furthermore, the administration is considering appointing a high-level 
U.S. food security coordinator to help clarify roles and 
responsibilities and facilitate improved coordination among the 
multiple agencies. Finally, a number of U.S. missions--including 
several in countries we visited during fieldwork--are organizing an 
interagency task force or working group to help coordinate efforts at 
the mission level, and some missions are considering designating a 
country coordinator position for GHFSI activities. In Bangladesh, for 
example, an active interagency food security task force meets at least 
biweekly and includes staff from USAID, State, and USDA,[Footnote 32] 
according to the USAID Mission Director, and the post is considering 
creating a GHFSI country coordinator position to coordinate the 
initiative's activities in-country. Similarly, in Ethiopia, the USAID 
Mission Global Food Security Response Team[Footnote 33] was expanded 
to include DOD, the Peace Corps, the President's Emergency Plan for 
AIDS Relief, State, various USAID units, and USDA, and the post is 
considering an initiative facilitator position. Concurrent with these 
efforts, the administration continues to define the organizational 
structure within the executive branch to effectively manage U.S. 
support for the development and implementation of host country-led 
plans, links to regional activities, and GHFSI leadership and 
oversight. 

The Administration Is Finalizing an Implementation Document and a 
Results Framework, and Moving Forward with Country Selection: 

Since April 2009, consistent with our recommendation in a 2008 report, 
[Footnote 34] the administration has taken a number of steps to 
develop the elements of a U.S. governmentwide strategy to reduce 
global food insecurity--including an implementation document and a 
results framework--and is moving forward with selection of countries 
where GHFSI assistance will be focused and concentrated. The 
administration's actions reflect the President's commitment, made in 
January 2009, to make the alleviation of hunger worldwide a top 
priority of this administration. In remarks to participants at a UN 
High-level Meeting on Food Security for All in Madrid, Spain, later 
that month, the Secretary of State reaffirmed the administration's 
commitment to build a new partnership among donors, host governments 
in developing countries, UN agencies, NGOs, the private sector, and 
others to better coordinate policies to achieve the UN Millennium 
Development Goals adopted in 2000. However, as U.S. agencies working 
on the strategy recognize, translating these intentions into well-
coordinated and integrated action to address global food insecurity is 
a difficult task, given the magnitude and complexity of the problem, 
the multitude of stakeholders involved, and long-standing problems in 
areas such as coordination, resources, and in-country capacity. 

The strategy is expected to be released shortly, according to the co- 
chairs of the NSC/IPC. In September 2009, the IPC and GHFSI working 
team issued an initial draft of the strategy, known as the 
Consultation Document. The Consultation Document delineates a proposed 
approach to food security based on five principles for advancing a 
global food security: 

(1) Comprehensively address the underlying causes of hunger and 
undernutrition. 

(2) Invest in country-led plans. 

(3) Strengthen strategic coordination. 

(4) Leverage the benefits of multilateral mechanisms to expand impacts. 

(5) Deliver on sustained and accountable commitments.[Footnote 35] 

These principles reflect the approach endorsed in several recent 
multilateral venues, including the G8 L'Aquila joint statement, the UN 
Comprehensive Framework for Action, and the World Summit on Food 
Security declaration. To create the Consultation Document, the 
administration engaged in a consultative process within the U.S. 
government and with the global community and other stakeholders 
through the NSC/IPC and the State-led GHFSI. The Consultation Document 
was posted on State's Web site for input from a broad range of 
relevant entities.[Footnote 36] According to State, to date, the 
document has also been shared with about 130 entities for input, 
including host governments, bilateral and multilateral donors, NGOs, 
universities, philanthropic foundations, and private sector entities. 
Based on the input provided, the GHFSI working team is expanding the 
initial Consultation Document and expects to release it to the public 
shortly. 

Furthermore, the GHFSI working team is developing an implementation 
strategy and a results framework for this initiative under 
development. According to the GHFSI working team, the effort to 
develop an implementation strategy has involved intensive interagency 
discussions and meetings with donors, such as FAO, the World Bank, and 
the United Kingdom's Department for International Development, to 
gather implementation "best practices," including an effort to 
coordinate the development of common, global guidance on the 
development process, presentation of content, and review of country-
led investment plans. Additionally, a number of U.S. missions overseas 
have submitted draft implementation plans for fiscal year 2010 that 
include staffing and budget resources required to achieve planned 
objectives in core investment areas. Absent a finalized governmentwide 
strategy, however, it is difficult to evaluate the subordinate 
implementation plans that field missions are submitting to ensure 
sufficient resource and funding levels. The GHFSI working team is also 
developing a whole-of-government results framework, which articulates 
specific objectives of the initiative as well as causal linkages 
between certain objectives, their intended results, and contribution 
to the overall goal. The results framework will be accompanied by a 
monitoring and evaluation plan, which identifies indicators to be used 
to report progress against planned outputs and outcomes. The framework 
has been externally reviewed by 10 experts, is now under review by 
U.S. government representatives in the field, and will be made 
available for public comment shortly, according to State and other 
members of the GHFSI working team.[Footnote 37] 

The administration is moving forward with plans to select about 20 
countries where GHFSI assistance efforts and concentrated. State's 
Fiscal Year 2011 Congressional Budget Justification for the GHFSI 
identified 12 countries in sub-Saharan Africa, 4 countries in Asia, 
and 4 countries in the Western Hemisphere on the basis of four 
criteria, as follows: 

(1) prevalence of chronic hunger and poverty in rural communities; 

(2) potential for rapid and sustainable agricultural-led growth; 

(3) host government commitment, leadership, governance, and political 
will; and: 

(4) opportunities for regional synergies through trade and other 
mechanisms. 

According to the Consultation Document, the GHFSI focus countries will 
fall into two general categories: preinvestment plan countries in the 
first phase that would benefit from technical assistance and capacity 
building to fully develop investment plans, and investment plan 
countries in the second phase with advanced national food security 
plans and already-established public and private capacities to enable 
successful plan implementation. Preinvestment plan countries will 
receive targeted assistance to generate a comprehensive national food 
security investment plan, including assistance to increase technical 
expertise, improve natural resource management, prepare inventories 
and assessments of the agricultural sector, conduct reform of trade 
and agricultural policies, and meet critical infrastructure needs. 
Investment plan countries are designated for significant resources and 
have to demonstrate sufficient capacity, have an enabling environment 
for sustainable agricultural-led growth, and have a completed country 
plan. According to State's Fiscal Year 2011 CBJ for GHFSI, the 
administration will develop a set of objective indicators that measure 
both the progress toward reforms that a country has committed to in 
its internal consultative processes and a minimum set of 
internationally recognized cross-country policy indicators. As of 
February 2010, GHFSI has identified 15 preinvestment plan countries (7 
in sub-Saharan Africa, 4 in Asia, 4 in the Western Hemisphere) and 5 
investment plan countries (all in sub-Saharan Africa) that are being 
considered for assistance in fiscal year 2011. (See table 2.) GHFSI 
proposed budgets for preinvestment plan countries range from $11.56 
million to $36.75 million for a total of $352 million in fiscal year 
2011. For investment plan countries, the proposed budgets range from 
$42 million to $63 million for a total of $246 million in fiscal year 
2011.[Footnote 38] 

Table 2: List of 20 Countries Being Considered for GHFSI Assistance in 
Fiscal Year 2011: 

Phase I: Preinvestment plan countries: 

Sub-Saharan Africa: 
Ethiopia; 
Kenya; 
Liberia; 
Malawi; 
Mozambique; 
Uganda; 
Zambia. 

Asia: 
Bangladesh; 
Cambodia; 
Nepal; 
Tajikistan. 

Western Hemisphere: 
Guatemala; 
Haiti; 
Honduras; 
Nicaragua. 

Phase II: Investment plan countries: 

Sub-Saharan Africa: 
Ghana; 
Mali; 
Rwanda; 
Senegal; 
Tanzania. 

Source: State Department. 

Note: According to State, depending on progress at the country level, 
it is possible that one or more of the countries notionally identified 
for Phase II may not be prepared to move forward with higher U.S. 
investment levels; or alternatively, one or two Phase I countries may 
move forward more rapidly than expected and be ready for higher levels 
of investment earlier. 

[End of table] 

The Strategy under Development May Be Vulnerable to Weaknesses in 
Funding Data and Risks associated with the Host Country-Led Approach: 

Comprehensive Data on Global Food Security Are Not Collected in a 
Governmentwide Information Database: 

Comprehensive data on the entire range of global food security 
programs and activities across the U.S. government are not collected 
in a single information database. As we discussed earlier in this 
report, the agencies we surveyed do not routinely collect and report 
such information using comparable measures. As a result, it is 
extremely difficult to capture the full extent of the U.S. 
government's ongoing efforts to promote global food security as well 
as the sources and levels of funding supporting these efforts. Current 
planning efforts are not considering these data, officials reported, 
but are relying instead on budget projections for the programs they 
identified. However, the lack of comprehensive data on current 
programs and funding levels deprives decision makers of information on 
all available resources, actual cost data, and a firm baseline against 
which to plan. Such information would be critical for determining the 
costs of implementing new global food security initiatives, and its 
absence may therefore impair the development of a well-informed and 
well-planned governmentwide strategy. 

Currently, FACTS is the only information system with the potential to 
collect and report comprehensive data using comparable measures across 
the U.S. government on a range of issues, including food security, but 
it has serious limitations in implementation and risk management. 
FACTS was initially designed to be a comprehensive repository of 
program and funding data on the U.S. government's foreign assistance, 
and State expected the system to eventually include data from the more 
than 25 other U.S. entities involved in providing foreign assistance, 
including MCC and Treasury. However, it is currently used only by 
State and USAID to collect, track, and report standardized data for 
all U.S. foreign assistance that they implement. Expanding the use of 
FACTS to other agencies has proven to be difficult, in part because 
agencies use different data management systems and procedures to 
allocate resources and measure results.[Footnote 39] Even different 
units within an agency may use different data management systems. 
[Footnote 40] In addition, as we were told in Ethiopia, information 
sharing has been hindered by a perception among officials from at 
least one agency providing foreign assistance that supporting the 
coordination effort through the State/F process created an additional 
layer of work that was not regarded as a priority within their own 
agencies. As we discuss earlier in this report, FACTS currently has 
limited capacity to track data for global food security programs and 
activities. We highlight FACTS because, despite its limitations, it is 
the only existing system that was designed to compile and report 
comprehensive and comparable funding data on assistance programs 
implemented by multiple agencies of the U.S. government, and the 
limitations we note are ones that State/F and USAID could address by 
changing their operating procedures rather than by redesigning the 
system itself. 

Host Country-led Approach Could Be Central to the Success of the 
Forthcoming Strategy but Has Key Vulnerabilities: 

The administration has embraced the host country-led approach as 
central to the success of the new strategy, reflecting a consensus 
among policymakers and experts that development efforts will not 
succeed without host country ownership of donor-supported 
interventions. At the same time, as our current and prior work shows, 
the host country-led approach, although promising, is vulnerable to a 
number of risks. These include (1) the weak capacity of host 
governments, which can limit their ability to absorb increased donor 
funding and sustain these levels of assistance; (2) a shortage of 
expertise in agriculture and food security at relevant U.S. agencies 
that could constrain efforts to help strengthen host governments' 
capacity as well as review host governments' efforts and guide in- 
country activities; and (3) difficulties that recipient countries face 
in aligning their policy priorities and interventions with those of 
donors, including the United States.[Footnote 41] 

Weak Capacity of Host Governments Can Limit Sustainability of Donor 
Assistance: 

The weak capacity of host governments--a systemic problem in many 
developing countries, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa--could limit 
their ability to (1) meet their own funding commitments for 
agriculture, (2) absorb significant increases in donor funding for 
agriculture and food security, and (3) sustain these donor-funded 
projects over time. In addition, host governments often lack 
sufficient local staff with the technical skills and expertise 
required to implement donor-initiated agriculture and food security 
projects. 

First, while donors are poised to substantially increase funding for 
agriculture and food security, many African countries have yet to meet 
their own pledges to increase government spending for agriculture. At 
the G8 and G20 summits in 2009, major donors pledged to direct more 
than $22 billion for agriculture and food security to developing 
countries between 2010 and 2012.[Footnote 42] In 2003 African 
countries adopted the Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development 
Program (CAADP) and pledged to commit 10 percent of government 
spending to agriculture by 2008.[Footnote 43] However, in December 
2009, the International Food Policy Research Institute reported that 
only 8 out of 38 countries had met this pledge as of 2007, namely 
Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, Ghana, Guinea, Malawi, Mali, Niger, and 
Senegal (see figure 5). 

Figure 5: Agricultural Expenditures as a Percentage of Government 
Spending in African Countries: 

[Refer to PDF for image: vertical bar graph] 

Countries below 10% CAADP pledge level: 
Guinea-Bissau; 
Gabon; 
Côte d’Ivoire; 
Democratic Republic; 
of the Congo; 
Morocco; 
Central African; 
Mauritius; 
Lesotho; 
Rwanda; 
Cameroon; 
Egypt; 
Botswana; 
Burundi; 
Kenya; 
Uganda; 
Sudan; 
Swaziland; 
Namibia; 
Tanzania; 
Benin; 
Mauritania; 
Tunisia; 
Nigeria; 
Zimbabwe; 
Zambia; 
Togo; 
Gambia; 
Madagascar; 
Mozambique. 

Countries at or above 10% CAADP pledge level: 
Chad; 
Ghana; 
Malawi; 
Ethiopia; 
Mali; 
Niger; 
Guinea; 
Burkina Faso; 
Senegal. 

Source: GAO presentation of International Food Policy Research 
Institute data. 

Note: Data are based on the most recent available data that the 
International Food Policy Research Institute was able to report as of 
December 2009. Although most of these data were for 2007, in some 
cases the most recent data reported were for 2004, 2005, 2006, or 2008. 

[End of figure] 

Despite stakeholders' endorsement of progress Rwanda has made toward 
addressing agriculture and food security at the first CAADP post- 
compact high-level stakeholder meeting in December 2009, expert 
technical reviews of Rwanda's investment plan raised some concerns 
regarding the government's capacity to achieve the desired results of 
the plan. For example, an analysis by the International Food Policy 
Research Institute found that (1) recent agricultural sector growth is 
higher than precompact levels but remains below the sustained rates 
necessary to achieve CAADP (about 6 percent) and Millennium 
Development Goal targets (about 9 percent) and (2) even a fully-funded 
investment plan would only bring about the long-term growth required 
to realize the poverty Millennium Development Goal by 2020, rather 
than by 2015. 

Second, the weak capacity of host governments raises questions about 
their ability to absorb significant increases in donor funding for 
agriculture and food security. Prior GAO analysis shows that, as of 
the end of the first quarter of fiscal year 2009, MCC had disbursed 
$437 million in compact assistance--32 percent of initially planned 
disbursements--for the 16 compacts that had entered into force. The 16 
compacts have a total value of approximately $5.7 billion.[Footnote 
44] According to a senior technical financial advisor to the 
government of Ghana, a number of donor-funded projects have often not 
been able to spend their full funding and delays in project 
implementation are not uncommon. For example, as shown in figure 6, 
MCC's $547 million compact with Ghana, which was signed in August 2006 
and entered into force February 2007, had contract commitments 
totaling $342 million but had disbursed only about $89.9 million as of 
December 2009, more than halfway through the 5-year compact that ends 
in January 2012. 

Figure 6: Millennium Challenge Corporation Compact with Ghana: 

[Refer to PDF for image: illustration containing 2 photographs and 1 
pie-chart] 

Ghana’s compact with MCC seeks to increase farmer incomes through 
private sector-led agribusiness development to make the country's 
agricultural products more competitive in regional and global markets 
(above). The compact also aims to improve credit services to farmers 
and agribusinesses, with 33,000 farmers trained in 2009 (below)
and a loan guarantee facility. 

Disbursements as of December 2009: 

Total: $547 million; 
Disbursements to date: $123 million; 
Contract commitments: $340 million; 
Funds remaining: $84 million. 

Sources: GAO analysis of Millennium Challenge Corporation data; GAO 
(photos). 

[End of figure] 

In the case of Rwanda, when asked about the host government's capacity 
to absorb aid at national, local, and community levels if the 
investment plan is fully funded, FAO had not yet received access to 
the models and data at the time of the CAADP post-compact meeting that 
informed the costing of the various programs identified in the plan 
and was therefore unable to undertake a cost-benefit analysis of the 
proposed investments. These data have since been provided, enabling 
FAO to complete its analysis. FAO concluded that despite various 
inconsistencies, overestimations, underestimations and misalignments, 
Rwanda's costing for its strategic plan for agriculture[Footnote 45] 
provided a reasonable basis for the government and development 
partners to commit funds to the sector from 2010 through 2012. 

Third, the weak capacity of host governments may also limit their 
ability to eventually take ownership of development projects at the 
conclusion of donor assistance and sustain these projects over time. 
Moreover, according to several host government officials we met with, 
high population growth rates, erratic weather patterns that could 
worsen with climate change, and natural disasters further strain the 
capacity of their governments to respond to numerous needs on limited 
resources. The multilateral development banks--including the World 
Bank and IFAD, which both work primarily with host governments--
reported relatively low ratings for sustainability of agriculture-
related projects in the past. In a 2007 review of World Bank 
assistance to the agricultural sector in Africa, the World Bank 
Independent Evaluation Group reported that only 40 percent of the 
bank's agriculture-related projects in sub-Saharan Africa had been 
sustainable. Similarly, an annual report issued by IFAD's independent 
Office of Evaluation on the results and impact of IFAD operations 
between 2002 and 2006 rated 45 percent of its agricultural development 
projects satisfactory for sustainability.[Footnote 46] Sub-Saharan 
Africa, where food insecurity is most concentrated and where 
agricultural investments are greatly needed, lags behind other regions 
in terms of the sustainability of development projects there. In its 
2008 annual review of development effectiveness, the World Bank 
reported that Africa ranked the lowest in sustainability of the bank's 
projects among all regions and agriculture and rural development 
ranked among the lowest of the sectors. According to the World Bank 
review of its projects for fiscal years 1998 to 2007, 47 percent of 
projects rated satisfactory in Africa versus 64 percent worldwide, and 
54 percent of agriculture and rural development projects were rated 54 
percent for sustainability versus 64 percent for all sectors.[Footnote 
47] In light of these experiences, U.S. agency officials expressed 
concerns regarding the ability of host governments to sustain donor-
initiated projects over time. One example of the weak institutional 
capacity of host governments to sustain donor assistance was a project 
in Ghana. USAID's Office of Food for Peace (FFP) made a decision to 
phase out its food aid programs in Ghana in March 2006 when the new 
Food for Peace strategy sought to focus its resources available to the 
most vulnerable priority countries. According to USAID officials, the 
Office of Food for Peace made arrangements with the Ghana School 
Feeding Program to absorb additional schools to be part of the school 
feeding program, but the government was not able to do so quickly 
enough. As a result, the World Food Program found itself filling a gap 
to provide food aid to some 300,000 people in the northern part of the 
country where, World Food Program officials note, anemia is about 80 
percent. 

Host government capacity is further constrained by the lack of 
sufficient local staff with the technical skills and expertise 
required to implement agriculture and food security projects funded by 
various donors. According to a World Bank review of assistance to 
agricultural development in Africa, in some countries, scientific and 
technically proficient staff are in short supply, in part due to the 
quality of education in universities. In its technical review of 
Rwanda's investment plan, FAO noted the need to build human and social 
capacity before implementing certain aspects of the plan. In Malawi, 
the technical secretariat responsible for measuring the outcomes of 
the government's agricultural input subsidy program and providing 
policy analysis for the Ministry of Agriculture, where it is located, 
and other government entities are staffed largely with expatriates 
because local staff lack necessary skills. In addition, many of the 
African agricultural scientists trained in the United States and at 
Western universities are close to retirement age, which could increase 
the shortage of qualified staff in the years ahead. Similarly, many 
officials we met in Haiti cited a lack of local staff with necessary 
training as a particular problem, as many of Haiti's trained 
professionals emigrate to the United States and Canada. 

Shortage of Expertise in Agriculture and Food Security at U.S. 
Agencies May Constrain Efforts to Strengthen Host Government' Capacity: 

The shortage of technical expertise in agriculture and food security 
at relevant U.S. agencies--in particular, USAID and USDA, which have 
the broadest array of food security-related programs and activities--
can constrain their efforts to help strengthen the capacity of host 
governments in recipient countries, as well as review host 
governments' efforts and guide in-country activities. The Chicago 
Council on Global Affairs noted that whereas USAID previously had a 
significant in-house staff capacity in agriculture, it has lost that 
capacity over the years and is only now beginning to restore it. 
[Footnote 48] The loss has been attributed to the overall declining 
trend in U.S. assistance for agriculture since the 1990s. In 2008 
three former USAID administrators reported that "the agency now has 
only six engineers and 16 agriculture experts."[Footnote 49] USAID 
officials told us that the agency's current workforce plan calls for 
adding 95 to 114 new Foreign Service officers with technical expertise 
in agriculture by the end of fiscal year 2012. Over the past year, 
according to USAID officials, the agency has been aggressively 
recruiting and hiring additional staff to support this effort. USAID 
officials told us the agency now has 10 new Foreign Service 
agriculture officers on board with an additional 35 selected and in 
the hiring pipeline. In determining overseas assignments for these new 
officers, priority is being given to the priority countries under 
GHFSI. Thus far, new officers have been assigned to El Salvador, 
Ethiopia, Ghana, Guatemala, India, Kenya, Malawi, Mali, and Nepal. 

USDA also has limited in-country presence, generally providing 
oversight for its food aid programs in recipient countries from its 
headquarters in Washington, D.C., and its Foreign Agricultural Service 
(FAS) regional offices. According to FAS attachés we met with 
overseas, their field visits to recipient countries are too few--not 
enough to be able to monitor and evaluate food security projects 
effectively and provide guidance to their implementing partners--due 
to limited travel funds and the scope of their responsibilities, which 
include market development and trade promotion. For example, USDA has 
no presence in Ethiopia although one of its largest programs provided 
$76.9 million in food aid funding to that country in fiscal year 2008. 
Ethiopia is covered by the FAS office in Kenya, which also covers the 
countries of Malawi, Tanzania, Uganda, and Zambia. The office is 
staffed by an agricultural counselor and an agricultural attaché, with 
additional support from locally-hired staff. A global review of FAS 
positions in fiscal year 2009 determined that USDA would need to 
increase its worldwide presence to support expanded programs for 
agriculture and food security in accordance with the G8 and G20 
increased commitments. USDA estimates that 65 positions are required, 
primarily for Africa, the Middle East, and South Asia, between fiscal 
years 2010 and 2012. 

Recipient Countries' and Donors' Policy Priorities May Diverge, Making 
It Difficult to Align Their Strategies, Plans, and Interventions: 

Recipient countries and donors, including the United States, may have 
difficulties in agreeing on their policy priorities and, therefore, in 
aligning donor interventions with host government strategies for 
reducing food insecurity. Under a country-led approach, host 
governments take the lead in setting development priorities and 
deciding on their own needs, solutions, and development strategies. 
Malawi--one of the eight African countries that has met its CAADP 
pledge to direct at least 10 percent of government spending toward 
agriculture--provides an instructive example of policy differences 
between the host government and donors and the difficulties of 
aligning donor interventions with host government strategies. (See 
figure 7.) 

Figure 7: An Example of a Host Country-led Food Security Initiative: 
Malawi's Agricultural Input Subsidy Program: 

[Refer to PDF for image: 2 photographs] 

The government of Malawi provides vouchers for subsidized fertilizer 
(left) and seeds to poor rural households, and credits these subsidies 
for significantly increasing the production of white maize (right), 
Malawi’s main food crop. 

Source: GAO. 

[End of figure] 

To increase agricultural production and reduce poverty among 
subsistence farmers, who represent 80 percent of the country's 
population, the government of Malawi has chosen to provide subsidies 
to offset the costs of major agricultural inputs, such as fertilizer, 
seeds, and pesticides. Since 2005-2006, the government of Malawi has 
implemented a large-scale national program that distributes vouchers 
to about 50 percent of the country's farmers so that they can purchase 
agricultural inputs at highly discounted prices.[Footnote 50] The 
program has grown over the years from representing about 6 percent of 
the national budget in 2005/2006 to nearly 14 percent in 2008/2009. 
However, USAID has long objected to any use of targeted subsidies, and 
the U.S. food security strategy in sub-Saharan Africa has focused on 
linking farmers to the market so that they can increase their incomes 
by relying on the market rather than by receiving subsidized 
agricultural inputs. According to a USAID official, the provision of 
cheaper fertilizer and seeds does not address the fundamental problem--
that poor farmers cannot afford fertilizer on their own--and, 
furthermore, without improvements in irrigation, investments in 
fertilizer would not pay off in drought years in a country like 
Malawi, whose agriculture is mainly rain-fed. Whether the Malawi 
program offers a model for a new generation of large-scale "smart 
subsidies" to boost Africa's agricultural production after years of 
stagnation is of great interest to host governments and the 
development community. 

Conclusions: 

In the face of growing malnutrition worldwide, the international 
community has established ambitious goals toward halving global 
hunger, including significant financial commitments to increase aid 
for agriculture and food security. Given the size of the problem and 
how difficult it has historically been to address it, this effort will 
require a long-term, sustained commitment on the part of the 
international donor community, including the United States. As part of 
this initiative, and consistent with a prior GAO recommendation, the 
United States has committed to marshaling the efforts of all relevant 
U.S. agencies in a coordinated governmentwide approach. The 
administration has made important progress toward realizing this 
commitment, including providing high-level support across multiple 
government agencies. However, the administration's efforts to develop 
an integrated U.S. governmentwide strategy for global food security 
have two key vulnerabilities: (1) the lack of readily available 
comprehensive data across agencies and (2) the risks associated with 
the host country-led approach. Given the complexity and long-standing 
nature of these concerns, there should be no expectation of quick and 
easy solutions. Only long-term, sustained efforts by all relevant 
entities to mitigate these concerns will greatly enhance the prospects 
of fulfilling the international commitment to halve global hunger. 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

To enhance U.S. efforts to address global food insecurity, we 
recommend that the Secretary of State take the following two actions: 

1. work with the existing NSC/IPC to develop an operational definition 
of food security that is accepted by all U.S. agencies; establish a 
methodology for consistently reporting comprehensive data across 
agencies; and periodically inventory the food security-related 
programs and associated costs for each of these agencies; and: 

2. work in collaboration with the USAID Administrator, the Secretary 
of Agriculture, the Chief Executive Officer of the Millennium 
Challenge Corporation, the Secretary of the Treasury, and other agency 
heads, as appropriate, to delineate measures to mitigate the risks 
associated with the host country-led approach on the successful 
implementation of the forthcoming governmentwide global food security 
strategy. 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

We provided a draft of this report to the NSC and the 10 agencies that 
we surveyed. Four of these agencies--State, Treasury, USAID, and USDA--
provided formal agency comments and generally concurred with our 
recommendations. In addition, they provided updated information and 
clarifications concerning data issues and the host country-led 
approach. We have reprinted these agencies' comments in appendixes V, 
VI, VII, and VIII, respectively, along with our responses. 

Both State and USAID agreed that a common definition for food security 
would be useful, although State expressed some concern regarding the 
costs in doing so. However, the limitations we found in FACTS could be 
addressed by improving operating procedures and therefore need not be 
costly. Moreover, technical comments from OMB suggest that its budget 
database may be able to address our recommendation to establish a 
methodology for consistently reporting comprehensive data across 
agencies and periodically inventory agencies' food security-related 
programs and funding. State's and USAID's comments confirm our finding 
that FACTS is limited in its capacity to track all food security 
funding as it lacks complete data for supplemental appropriations. 
This is a serious limitation given the size of these appropriations 
(e.g., the largest food security program received a supplemental 
appropriation of $850 million in fiscal year 2008). In addition, USDA 
noted that the recommendation gives State the lead role, despite 
acknowledging that USAID and USDA offer the broadest array of food 
security programs and activities. We recognize the important roles 
that all the relevant agencies play in the Global Hunger and Food 
Security Initiative (GHFSI) currently led by State as a whole-of-
government effort. We also recognize the expertise that various 
agencies can contribute toward the effort and encourage fully 
leveraging their expertise. 

The four agencies all noted that the administration recognizes the 
risks associated with a country-led approach and are taking actions to 
mitigate these risks. State indicated that the implementation strategy 
for GHFSI will incorporate mechanisms to manage these risks. USAID 
noted that the administration is planning to implement support to host 
governments in two phases in order to reduce the risks associated with 
limited country capacity and potential policy conflicts. Treasury 
noted that the interagency working group is proposing to increase the 
amount of technical assistance to recipient countries and that a new 
multidonor trust fund administered by the World Bank will complement 
our bilateral food security activities by leveraging the financial 
resources of other donors and utilizing the technical capacity of 
multilateral development banks. USDA pointed out the technical 
expertise that the department can offer, including its relationships 
with U.S. land grant colleges and universities and international 
science and technology fellowship programs to help build institutional 
and scientific capacity. 

In addition, DOD, MCC, NSC, OMB, State, Treasury, USAID, USDA, and 
USTDA provided technical comments on a draft of this report, which we 
have addressed or incorporated as appropriate. The Peace Corps and 
USTR did not provide comments. 

We are sending copies of this report to interested members of 
Congress; the Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director 
for Relief, Stabilization, and Development; the Secretary of State; 
and the Administrator of USAID as co-chairs of the NSC/IPC on 
Agriculture and Food Security; and relevant agency heads. The report 
is also available at no charge on the GAO Web site at [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov]. 

If you or your staffs have any questions about this report, please 
contact me at (202) 512-9601 or melitot@gao.gov. Contact points for 
our Office of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found 
on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made major 
contributions to this report are listed in appendix VI. 

Signed by: 

Thomas Melito: 
Director, International Affairs and Trade: 

[End of section] 

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology: 

We examined (1) the types and funding levels of food security programs 
and activities of relevant U.S. government agencies and (2) progress 
in developing an integrated U.S. governmentwide strategy to address 
global food insecurity, as well as potential vulnerabilities of that 
strategy. 

To examine the types and funding levels of food security programs and 
activities of relevant U.S. government agencies, we administered a 
data collection instrument to survey the ten U.S. agencies that are 
engaged in food security activities and participated in the Food 
Security Sub-Policy Coordinating Committee on Food Price Increases and 
Global Food Security (Food Security Sub-PCC). These agencies included 
the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), Millennium 
Challenge Corporation (MCC), Department of the Treasury (Treasury), 
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Department of State (State), 
Department of Defense (DOD), U.S. Trade and Development Agency 
(USTDA), Peace Corps, Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, and 
Office of Management and Budget.[Footnote 51] We had to develop a 
working definition of food security because there is no commonly 
accepted governmentwide operational definition that specifies the 
programs and activities that are food-security related.[Footnote 52] 
We developed our working definition based on a framework of food 
security-related activities that we established in prior work on 
international food assistance, including our 2008 report,[Footnote 53] 
and a series of interactions with the relevant agencies over a period 
of several months. Our interactions with the agencies focused on 
refining the definition to ensure that it would be commonly understood 
and applicable to their programs and activities to the extent 
possible. The working definition that we developed included the 
following elements: food aid, nutrition, agricultural development, 
rural development, safety nets, policy reform, information and 
monitoring, and future challenges to food security. We asked the 
agencies to indicate which of these activities they performed and to 
provide funding data--when these data were available and reliable--on 
the appropriations, obligations, expenditures, and other allocations 
associated with these activities in fiscal year 2008. We pretested the 
instrument with officials at DOD, MCC, State, USAID, and USDA, and 
administered it in June and July 2009. All 10 agencies responded to 
our instrument, and 7 of them (DOD, MCC, State, Treasury, USAID, USDA, 
and USTDA) reported funding data. 

We conducted extensive follow-up with the agencies to determine the 
completeness, accuracy, and reliability of the data provided. While 
the agencies provided us with data about their food security programs 
and activities, we noted limitations in terms of establishing a 
complete and consistent U.S. governmentwide total. Specifically, some 
agencies could not report funding information for all or some of their 
food security activities because their databases did not track those 
specific activities. In some cases, agencies could provide funding 
information for their major food security programs, such as USDA's 
Food for Progress and Food for Education programs administered by the 
Foreign Agriculture Service, but were limited in their ability to 
provide this information for food security activities that spanned 
several units within agencies. The agencies that were able to report 
funding information did so using different measures: USAID reported 
data on planned appropriations (plans for implementing current-year 
appropriated budgets); State provided appropriations, obligations, and 
expenditures data for different programs; and DOD, MCC, USDA, and 
USTDA[Footnote 54] reported obligations data. Treasury's funding 
figure is a GAO estimate based on (1) agricultural sector lending 
commitments made in fiscal year 2008 by the multilateral development 
banks, (2) the U.S. share of capital in the banks which lend to middle-
income and creditworthy low-income countries, and/or (3) the U.S. 
share of total resources provided to the multilateral development bank 
concessional windows from donor contributions for the replenishment 
active in fiscal year 2008. As a result, the data reported by the 
agencies are not directly comparable and may not be directly 
comparable to their budget or accounting data. 

Where possible, we performed some cross-checks of the data we received 
in response to our instrument with data from published sources. During 
this review, we compared USAID's planned appropriations for emergency 
food aid submitted in response to the instrument to the funding 
information reported in USAID's International Food Assistance Report 
for fiscal year 2008 and found a difference of more than a $1 billion. 
USAID officials were unable to explain why this amount had not been 
entered into the Foreign Assistance Coordination and Tracking System 
(FACTS). In this instance, we relied on the International Food 
Assistance Report data instead of the FACTS data. Based on discussions 
with USAID officials about their procedures for entering data into 
FACTS, we determined that, once we had made the correction for 
emergency food aid, the data we received were sufficiently reliable to 
indicate a minimum amount that USAID had appropriated to food security 
programs and activities. However, this total does not include funding 
for some USAID programs and activities that have a food security 
component, but also have other goals and purposes. In addition, we 
determined that it likely does not include all supplemental 
appropriations for the agricultural and other programs and activities 
reported. Hence, the total actual level of funding is likely greater. 

Overall, based on our follow-up discussions with the agencies, we 
determined that their responses to the data collection instrument had 
covered their major food security programs, but that there were 
weaknesses in their reporting on other programs that addressed aspects 
of food security. In addition, the agencies reported the funding data 
using different measures, such as planned appropriations, obligations, 
and expenditures. We determined that the reported funding data were 
sufficiently reliable to indicate the relative size of the major 
agencies' efforts in terms of approximate orders of magnitude, and 
included the funding information provided by the agencies--as amended 
during the course of our follow-up inquiries--in appendix III. 
However, due to the limitations in the funding data reported by the 
agencies, we cannot make precise comparisons of the agencies' funds 
for food security in fiscal year 2008, nor can we provide a precise 
total. As a result, we present rounded totals for funding in our 
discussion of our findings. 

To assess progress in developing an integrated governmentwide strategy 
to address global food insecurity--as well as potential 
vulnerabilities of that strategy--we reviewed selected reports, 
studies, and papers issued by U.S. agencies, multilateral 
organizations, and bilateral donors. These resources were chosen 
because they represent a wide range of perspectives on the issue of 
food insecurity in a number of countries in the world and a process of 
developing a governmentwide strategy and were written by leading 
authorities and institutions in the field. 

In Washington, D.C., we interviewed officials from the National 
Security Council Interagency Policy Committee on Agriculture and Food 
Security to discuss the interagency process to develop a 
governmentwide food security strategy. We reviewed the initial 
Consultation Document that State issued in September 2009, which is 
regarded as the strategy under development. Similarly, we discussed 
the forthcoming U.S. global food security strategy with the officials 
in the agencies that are developing it, but were not able to fully 
consider the final draft for this review. At the time of our review, 
the Global Hunger and Food Security Initiative working team was in the 
process of finalizing the strategy, along with an implementation 
document and a results framework that will provide a foundation for 
country selection, funding, and mechanisms to monitor and evaluate the 
strategy. 

Although the governmentwide food security strategy is still under 
development, we identified six desirable characteristics of an 
effective national strategy (see appendix IV) in our prior work, 
which, in our view, would help shape the policies, programs, 
priorities, and resource allocations that would enable federal 
agencies and other stakeholders to make sound decisions and ensure 
accountability. We have previously developed and used these criteria 
in other contexts, such as assessments of the administration's 
strategies for combating terrorism, rebuilding Iraq, protecting 
intellectual property rights, and guiding U.S. activities related to 
Somalia. 

We conducted fieldwork in Bangladesh, Ethiopia, Ghana, Haiti, and 
Malawi. We selected these countries for fieldwork because the United 
States has multiple active programs addressing food insecurity there. 
The proportion of the chronically hungry in these countries--based on 
the Food and Agriculture Organization's most recent estimates--ranged 
from 9 percent of the population in Ghana to 58 percent in Haiti. In 
addition, we also selected these countries to ensure geographic 
coverage of U.S. global efforts in Africa, Asia, and the Western 
Hemisphere. While this selection is not representative, it ensured 
that we had variation in the key factors we considered. We do not 
generalize the results of our fieldwork beyond our selection, and we 
use fieldwork examples to demonstrate state of food insecurity in the 
countries we visited and U.S. efforts to date. In the countries that 
we selected for fieldwork, we met with U.S. mission staff and host 
government, donor, and NGO representatives. We also visited numerous 
project sites, smallholder farmer groups, and distribution sites 
funded by the U.S. government and other donors. In addition, we 
attended the 2009 World Food Summit as an observer and met with the 
Rome-based UN food and agriculture agencies--namely, the Food and 
Agriculture Organization, World Food Program, and the International 
Fund for Agricultural Development, as well as the U.S. Mission to the 
United Nations and representatives of other donor countries such as 
United Kingdom's Department for International Development, among 
others. 

We conducted this performance audit from February 2009 to March 2010 
in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 
Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe 
that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our 
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. 

[End of section] 

Appendix II: GAO's Data Collection Instrument: 

The following is the data collection instrument that we administered 
in July 2009 to the 10 agencies that participated in the Food Security 
Sub-Policy Coordinating Committee on Food Price Increases and Global 
Food Security. 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

GAO Information Request: U.S. Global Food Security Strategy: 

Agency Listing of Global Food Security-Related Programs and Activities: 

The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) is conducting a review 
of the U.S. government's global food security strategy. A key 
component of our review is to prepare a comprehensive inventory of 
programs and activities that address global food insecurity in 
developing countries.[Footnote 55] Respondents are requested to 
identify both programs and activities that directly address global 
food insecurity (for example, food aid or assistance for agricultural 
development), as well as programs and activities that are maintained 
for other purposes but that contribute to global food security efforts 
(for example, humanitarian assistance or health assistance with 
nutritional components). 

In this data collection instrument, we ask you to respond to the 
questions listed below to identify the relevant activities at your 
agency. Please provide information on all programs and efforts within 
your agency focused on global food security-related operations for 
fiscal year 2008. Feel free to add additional lines or sheets of paper 
if necessary. 

Scope of Information Request: 

"Food security exists when all people, at all times, have physical and 
economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food that meets 
their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy 
life" (World Food Summit, 1996). This widely accepted definition of 
food security encompasses several dimensions: 

Food availability: Food is available in a country or local market from 
domestic production or imports, including food aid. 

Food access: People have access to food either by producing it 
themselves, earning income to acquire it, or receiving assistance 
through safety nets. 

Utilization: People are able to process and prepare food and utilize 
its essential nutrients through adequate diet, clean water, 
sanitation, and health care. 

We are seeking high-level information on your agency's food security 
programs and activities. 

We recognize that your agency may not have a formal and explicit food 
security policy or strategy, or that food security may be a component 
of a more broadly defined strategy. Our primary interest is to 
understand the place of food security in your agency's mission and to 
capture programs and activities that your agency views as food 
security-related. Consequently, this instrument consists of two parts. 
In Part I, we ask you to describe your agency's approach to food 
security; in Pan 11, we ask for more specific information by type of 
assistance or activity. Note that we are interested in efforts that 
may have the status of a program as well as activities that may not 
have this status. 

Part I: Agency Views on Global Food Security: 

1) How, if at all, is food security referred to in your agency's 
overall mission statement? 

2) Does your agency have an official definition of global food 
security? If so, what is it? 

3)1f you have any other comments about your agency's food security 
programs or activities or your agency's role in coordinating these 
programs and activities, please provide them here. 

Part II: Food Security-Related Programs and Activities: 

Section 1: Does your agency have any units or entities that provide 
any of the following types of assistance to developing countries? 

A. Food aid, including:
Al. Emergency food aid: Yes/No; 
A2. Non-emergency food aid: Yes/No. 

B. Nutritional assistance, including: 
B1. Supplementary feeding and micronutrient supplementation: Yes/No; 
B2. Nutritional education, counseling, and assessment: Yes/No; 
B3. Assistance focusing on especially vulnerable groups (such as 
pregnant and lactating women and children): Yes/No. 

C. Assistance for agricultural development, including assistance for: 
C1. Agricultural technologies (such as biotechnology or 
nanotechnology): Yes/No; 
C2. Fanning techniques (such as no-till farming or integrated pest 
management) and agricultural inputs (seeds and fertilizer): Yes/No; 
C3. Agricultural value chains, including investments in food 
processing and storage: Yes/No; 
C4. Agricultural market development: Yes/No; 
C5. Agricultural risk management (such as crop insurance, post-harvest 
conservation): Yes/No; 
C6. Agricultural R&D, education or training (including farmer-to-
farmer programs): Yes/No; 
C7. Irrigation and watershed management: Yes/No; 
C8. Maintaining the natural resource base (such as soil and 
biodiversity conservation, adaptation to climate change): Yes/No. 

D. Assistance for rural development, including assistance for:	
D1. Land tenure reform (such as women's land ownership rights): Yes/No; 
D2. Rural infrastructure (roads, energy production, etc.): Yes/No; 
D3. Access to micro-loans or other forms of credit: Yes/No. 

E. Support for safety nets (broadly defined as policies to protect 
basic livelihoods) that have a food security component: Yes/No. 

F. Encouraging policy reform, including: 
F1. Government food security-oriented policy reform: Yes/No; 
F2. Encouraging private sector investment: Yes/No; 
F3. Strengthening national and regional trade and transport corridors: 
Yes/No. 

G. Information on and monitoring of the global food security 
situation: Yes/No. 

H. Any other type of food security assistance (please describe on a 
separate sheet of paper): Yes/No. 

I. Future challenges to food security that your agency is considering: 
Yes/No. 

If you answered "yes" to any of these items, please provide the names 
of the units or entities and a brief description of the programs or 
activities on the following pages. 

Section 2: Programs or Activities: 

1a) Program type: (Please report using the letter associated with the 
program/activity in the table above, for example "A" for Food Aid, "B" 
for Nutritional Assistance, etc.) 

1b) Responsible unit: (Please give us the name of the unit in your 
agency, e.g., division, office, branch, bureau, that is responsible 
for this program/activity, etc.) 

1c) Brief description of the program/activity: 

1d) Brief description of any funding data available on the 
program/activity (for example, are reliable--that is, complete, 
consistent and accurate--data available on appropriations. obligations 
and expenditures for the program or activity? If so, what is the 
source and lor what lime periods are they available?) 

1e) Funding data for this program for FY 2008 (If you have reliable 
funding data for FE 2008, please provide them. If reliable data on 
appropriations, obligations, expenditures are oat available, please 
indicate that is the case. If your agency has any other type of 
reliable funding data, we would also like to know about them. We would 
like you to report all reliable types offending data on these programs 
or activities that your agency may have for FY 2008.) 
i. Appropriations:
ii. Obligations:
iii. Expenditures:
iv. Other: 

1f) Brief description of any monitoring and/or evaluation your agency 
conducts of this program/activity: 

[End of section] 

Appendix III: Summary Description of U.S. Agencies' Reported Food 
Security Activities and Funding: 

The following tables summarize the responses of 10 U.S. agencies to 
our data collection instrument regarding their global food security 
programs and activities and associated funding levels in fiscal year 
2008. The summaries are listed by agency in order from highest to 
lowest amount of funding reported. The totals in each summary table 
may not match the sum of individual rows due to rounding. 

U.S. Agency for International Development: 

Table 3 summarizes the U.S. Agency for International Development's 
(USAID) funding for global food security in fiscal year 2008. USAID 
reported providing the broadest array of programs and activities and 
the largest amount of funding. 

Table 3: Summary of USAID's Reported Funding for Global Food Security, 
Fiscal Year 2008A: 

Types of activities: A. Food aid: Emergency food aid; 
Foreign Assistance Standardized Program Subelement[B,C]: 5.1.2.3. 
Health, Food and Nutrition Commodities and Services; 
Description of the program subelement: Procure goods and services; 
distribute food; and support food-based market assistance, nutrition 
surveillance, primary health care, reproductive health, health 
surveillance, mobile clinics, supplementary feeding, community-and 
center-based therapeutic care, and educational services; 
Reported funding[D]: $1,980,740,840[E]. 

Types of activities: B. Nutrition: Assistance focusing on especially 
vulnerable groups; 
Foreign Assistance Standardized Program Subelement[B,C]: 3.1.6.6. 
Maternal and Young Child Nutrition, Including Micronutrients; 
Description of the program subelement: Deliver maternal and child 
iron, zinc, vitamin A, iodine, and other key micronutrients through 
supplementation, fortification, and other delivery approaches. Support 
breastfeeding promotion, infant and young child feeding, community-
based growth promotion, activities to increase partners'/fathers' 
knowledge and support, management of acute and severe child 
malnutrition, nutrition of pregnant and lactating mothers and 
adolescent girls, monitoring the nutrition status of maternal and 
child populations, and targeted supplemental feeding; 
Reported funding[D]: $134,121,318. 

Types of activities: C. Agricultural development: 
* Agricultural technologies; 
* Farming techniques; 
* Agricultural research and development, education, and training; 
Foreign Assistance Standardized Program Subelement[B,C]: 4.5.1.3. 
Agricultural Market Standards and Regulations; 
Description of the program subelement: Improve laws, institutions, and 
policies that impact market transactions of agricultural goods, 
inputs, practices, and services. This includes international policies 
such as agriculture-related agreements of the WTO; domestic science-
based regulation to ensure food, feed, and environmental safety; and 
market-based or industry-led quality grades, standards, and 
certification; 
Reported funding[D]: $12,176,622. 

Types of activities: C. Agricultural development: 
* Agricultural technologies; 
* Farming techniques; 
* Agricultural research and development, education, and training; 
Foreign Assistance Standardized Program Subelement[B,C]: 4.5.2.1. 
Research and Technology Dissemination; 
Description of the program subelement: Support scientific research and 
technology, including biotechnology that generates improvements in 
production systems (crop, livestock, farm, forest, and fisheries), 
value-added products, and management practices leading to sustainable 
productivity gains, mitigation of risk, and income growth. It also 
supports dissemination and adoption of productivity-enhancing and post 
harvest technologies, value-added products, and management practices 
in these areas by reducing the barriers that may constrain male or 
female producers, processors, and manufacturers; 
Reported funding[D]: $67,825,273. 

Types of activities: C. Agricultural development: 
* Irrigation and watershed management; 
* Maintaining the natural resource base; 
Foreign Assistance Standardized Program Subelement[B,C]: 4.5.2.2. Land 
and Water Management; 
Description of the program subelement: Develop and invest in the 
quantity and quality of land and water resources, including irrigation 
and soil fertility, riparian and range management, and water resources 
to improve and sustainably increase agricultural productivity and 
incomes. This includes related land and water administration systems; 
Reported funding[D]: $35,296,141. 

Types of activities: C. Agricultural development: Agricultural risk 
management; 
Foreign Assistance Standardized Program Subelement[B,C]: 4.5.2.3. 
Rural and Agricultural Finance; 
Description of the program subelement: Increase equitable access to 
financial services by male and female farmers in rural areas and for 
agricultural enterprises to purchase necessary inputs; introduce new 
technologies; expand productive capacity; and finance storage, 
transport, and marketing costs. Also includes access to mechanisms and 
products that reduce seasonal income and consumption variability, 
protect and build assets, and mitigate price and weather risk; 
Reported funding[D]: $13,193,910. 

Types of activities: C. Agricultural development: Agricultural value 
chains, including investments in food processing and storage; 
Foreign Assistance Standardized Program Subelement[B,C]: 4.5.2.4. 
Agribusiness and Producer Organizations; 
Description of the program subelement: Support the growth of small and 
medium agro-enterprises, including producer 
organizations/associations, which are engaged in producing, marketing, 
or adding value (e.g. processing and quality enhancement) to crop, 
livestock, forestry, and fishery products. Support addresses the needs 
and capacities of both men and women producers and includes such areas 
as adoption of technology and technical processes, businesses and 
human resources management, environmental regulatory compliance, and 
organizational governance; 
Reported funding[D]: $99,066,521. 

Types of activities: C. Agricultural development: 
* Agricultural market development; 
* Strengthening national and regional trade and transport corridors; 
Foreign Assistance Standardized Program Subelement[B,C]: 4.5.2.5. 
Markets and Trade Capacity; 
Description of the program subelement: Build capacity to link small-
scale producers (men and women), pastoralists, and small to medium 
enterprises to the economic opportunities of commercial markets. This 
includes both input and output markets at the local, regional, and 
international levels. Interventions include areas such as the 
development of risk management strategies; warehouse receipt, 
agricultural commodity trading and accessible market information 
systems; meeting market standards; 
and public and private investments that support efficient agricultural 
marketing such as storage facilities, cold storage, packaging 
facilities, and agricultural processing facilities; 
Reported funding[D]: $41,124,976. 

Types of activities: D. Rural development: 
Foreign Assistance Standardized Program Subelement[B,C]: [Empty]; 
Description of the program subelement: [Empty]; 
Reported funding[D]: [Empty]. 

Types of activities: E. Safety nets: Support for safety nets that have 
a food security component; 
Foreign Assistance Standardized Program Subelement[B,C]: 4.5.2.7. 
Agricultural Safety Nets and Livelihood Services; 
Description of the program subelement: Support risk management and 
economic diversification, transfer and adaptation of proven 
technologies and human organization innovations to increase market 
access, food or cash transfers in exchange for public works; and 
resource transfers and/or agricultural inputs (e.g. seeds, tools, and 
livestock) which enable male and female producers to try new 
technologies and production methods that would otherwise not be 
available to them; 
Reported funding[D]: $100,472,483. 

Types of activities: F. Policy reform: Government food security-
oriented policy reform; 
Foreign Assistance Standardized Program Subelement[B,C]: 4.5.1.1. 
Agricultural Resource Policy; 
Description of the program subelement: Support institutions and 
equitable policies that foster sustainable utilization of land, water, 
plant, and animal resources to enhance agricultural productivity and 
incomes, increase resource quality and quantity, and decrease 
degradation of productive resources. This includes access to and 
securing property rights over agricultural resources, including by 
female headed households and returning internally displaced persons 
and refugees, and it includes increasing returns of agricultural labor; 
Reported funding[D]: $10,797,010. 

Types of activities: F. Policy reform: Government food security-
oriented policy reform; 
Foreign Assistance Standardized Program Subelement[B,C]: 4.5.1.2. Food 
Policy; 
Description of the program subelement: Support institutions, policies 
and incentives aimed at ensuring that adequate, safe, and nutritious 
food is available; 
markets function efficiently; 
and that low-income groups and those vulnerable to food insecurity 
(e.g., female farmers with small land holdings, female-headed 
households, children, and HIV affected) are able to access and 
appropriately utilize that food; 
Reported funding[D]: $5,097,725. 

Types of activities: F. Policy reform: Government food security-
oriented policy reform; 
Foreign Assistance Standardized Program Subelement[B,C]: 4.5.1.4. 
Public Investment Policy; 
Description of the program subelement: Improve institutions and 
policies that encourage increased and more effective public and 
private investments in agricultural institutions and infrastructure to 
provide the basis for expanded productivity in the agricultural 
sector. This includes support for (1) scientific and technological 
advances through research and development, (2) governmental actions 
that provide a positive climate for innovation and investment, and (3) 
efforts to comply with international treaties and encourage 
international cooperation and public-private partnerships; 
Reported funding[D]: $7,353,401. 

Types of activities: G. Information on and monitoring of the global 
food security situation: Information on and monitoring of the global 
food security situation; 
Foreign Assistance Standardized Program Subelement[B,C]: 4.5.2.6. 
Emerging Agricultural Threats; 
Description of the program subelement: Strengthen plant and animal 
disease surveillance and the control of emerging agricultural pests 
and diseases (e.g. Wheat Stem Rust) to mitigate productivity losses, 
allow access to international markets, reduce risks to human health, 
improve food safety, and reduce the risk of introduction of diseases 
into the United States; 
Reported funding[D]: $2,373,746. 

Types of activities: H. Other types of food security assistance: 
Foreign Assistance Standardized Program Subelement[B,C]: [Empty]; 
Description of the program subelement: [Empty]; 
Reported funding[D]: [Empty]. 

Types of activities: I. Future challenges to food security: 
Foreign Assistance Standardized Program Subelement[B,C]: [Empty]; 
Description of the program subelement: [Empty]; 
Reported funding[D]: [Empty]. 

Types of activities: Total: 
Reported funding[D]: $2,510,000,000. 

Source: GAO presentation of agency response to the data collection 
instrument. 

Notes: 

[A] USAID relied on the Foreign Assistance Coordination and Tracking 
System (FACTS) database to provide funding data in response to our 
data collection instrument. FACTS is used by State and USAID to 
record, on an annual basis, all planned appropriations for foreign 
assistance funding that these agencies implement. FACTS uses the 
standardized program structure, which is based on the U.S. Foreign 
Assistance Framework and organized by objective, program area, 
element, and subelement. Using the database, USAID identified 
subelements that corresponded with the activities described in our 
instrument (see appendix II). We reviewed descriptions of the 
subelements and discussed the ones selected by USAID in subsequent 
interviews with USAID officials. Based on these discussions, we and 
USAID identified the 13 subelements listed in the table as being 
primarily for global food security. A subelement may contain different 
types of food security activities: for example, subelement 4.5.2.5 for 
Markets and Trade capacity supports food security-related agricultural 
development as well as policy reforms in countries receiving U.S. 
assistance. We also discussed with USAID officials the procedures for 
entering FACTS data. We determined that FACTS data were not accurate 
for the subelement covering emergency food aid and relied instead on 
another USAID source for the emergency food aid funding. 

[B] Subelement information and descriptions come from the Foreign 
Assistance Standardized Program Structure and Definitions. 

[C] In addition to the 13 subelements that we have determined as 
primarily containing food security programs and activities, we also 
identified 12 other subelements, which include some food security 
activities (4.2.2.1, 4.2.2.3, 4.4.1.8, 4.4.3.3, 4.7.1.2, 4.7.4.1, 
4.8.1.2, 4.8.1.4, 4.8.2.4, 5.1.2.1, 5.1.2.5, and 5.2.1.1) and whose 
combined planned appropriations exceeded $850 million in fiscal year 
2008. However, the FACTS database does not allow us to determine what 
proportion of the reported funding for these 12 subelements supported 
food security activities. This table does not include Food for Peace 
Title II nonemergency food aid funding for programs and activities, 
such as basic education and social assistance, that fall outside the 
13 subelements listed in the table. 

[D] Planned appropriations obtained from FACTS, including supplemental 
appropriations, for fiscal year 2008 as of February 2010, unless noted 
otherwise. 

[E] This number is for emergency food aid only and comes from USAID's 
International Food Assistance Report for fiscal year 2008. This amount 
does not include funding for some other USAID programs and activities--
such as disaster relief or nutritional assistance that may have some 
food security components--that fall under program subelement 5.1.2.3. 
According to FACTS, planned appropriations for those programs and 
activities in fiscal year 2008 were about $180 million. 

[End of table] 

Millennium Challenge Corporation: 

Table 4 summarizes the Millennium Challenge Corporation's (MCC) 
funding obligations for agricultural and rural development in fiscal 
year 2008. 

Table 4: Summary of MCC's Reported Funding for Global Food Security, 
Fiscal Year 2008: 

Types of activities: A. Food aid: 
Description: [Empty]; 
Reported funding[A]: [Empty]. 

Types of activities: B. Nutrition: 
Description: [Empty]; 
Reported funding[A]: [Empty]. 

Types of activities: C. Agricultural development; 
Description: MCC invests in agricultural technology transfer, 
irrigation and water management, and agricultural research. Examples 
of MCC-supported agricultural development activities include: 
construction and rehabilitation of irrigation systems; horticulture, 
crop, and livestock productive capacity; post-harvest facilities, farm 
service centers, and warehouses; training farmers and organizing 
farmer associations; business development services, market 
information, and training to farmers and entrepreneurs on improved 
production and higher-profit agriculture enterprises; and capacity-
building of agriculture ministries; 
Reported funding[A]: $329,190,000. 

Types of activities: D. Rural development; 
Description: MCC invests in land tenure and property rights, transport 
infrastructure, and access to credit. Examples of MCC-supported rural 
development activities include: land titling and administration and 
management, formalizing property rights; port modernization and ferry 
services; fish landing sites and fishers' facilities; construction and 
rehabilitation of primary and rural road segments and bridges to 
increase commerce and connect communities to markets; access to rural 
finance by building banking and financial service capacities and 
offering line of credit to farmers and agribusinesses; capital 
investment and crop insurance to small producers; and creation of 
investment fund for agribusiness small and medium enterprises; 
Reported funding[A]: $582,530,000. 

E. Safety nets: 
Description: [Empty]; 
Reported funding[A]: [Empty]. 

F. Policy reform: 
Description: [Empty]; 
Reported funding[A]: [Empty]. 

G. Information on and monitoring of the global food security situation: 
Description: [Empty]; 
Reported funding[A]: [Empty]. 

H. Other types of food security assistance: 
Description: [Empty]; 
Reported funding[A]: [Empty]. 

I. Future challenges to food security: 
Description: [Empty]; 
Reported funding[A]: [Empty]. 

Types of activities: Total: 
Reported funding[A]: $912,000,000. 

Source: GAO presentation of agency response to the data collection 
instrument. 

[A] MCC obligates funding for multiple years (usually five) at the 
time when MCC's compact with a recipient country enters into force. 
MCC's total obligations for fiscal years 2005-2009 were approximately 
$1.1 billion for agricultural development and $2.2 billion for rural 
development. 

[End of table] 

Department of the Treasury: 

Table 5 presents GAO's estimate of U.S. contributions made by the 
Department of the Treasury (Treasury) to multilateral development 
banks for agricultural development, rural development, and policy 
reform in fiscal year 2008. 

Table 5: Summary of the Department of the Treasury's Reported Funding 
for Global Food Security, Fiscal Year 2008: 

Types of activities: A. Food aid: 
Description: [Empty]; 
Reported funding: [Empty]. 

Types of activities: B. Nutrition: 
Description: [Empty]; 
Reported funding: [Empty]. 

Types of activities: C. Agricultural development: 
Types of activities: D. Rural development; 
Description: Treasury participates in the multilateral development 
banks--such as the World Bank, African Development Bank, Asian 
Development Bank, Inter-American Development Bank, and International 
Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD)--which provide grants and 
loans for agricultural and rural development. In the case of IFAD, a 
representative of Treasury's Office of International Affairs serves in 
a leadership role as a member of the Board of Directors. 
Total fiscal year 2008 financing for public and private sector 
investments in agricultural development, including rural development 
and policy reform, from the MDBs was $4.9 billion, including the 
estimated U.S. contribution of $817 million. The U.S. contribution 
includes $358 million in highly concessional loans[B] and grants to 
the world's poorest countries and $459 million in loans middle-income 
and creditworthy low-income developing countries.; 
Reported funding: $817,000,000[A]. 

Types of activities: E. Safety nets: 
Description: [Empty]; 
Reported funding: [Empty]. 

Types of activities: F. Policy reform; 
Description: Treasury reported that it is involved in the area of food 
security-related policy reform and the estimated U.S. contribution of 
$817 million supports this involvement as well; 
[Empty]. 

Types of activities: G. Information on and monitoring of the global 
food security situation: 
Description: [Empty]; 
Reported funding: [Empty]. 

Types of activities: H. Other types of food security assistance: 
Description: [Empty]; 
Reported funding: [Empty]. 

Types of activities: I. Future challenges to food security: 
Description: [Empty]; 
Reported funding: [Empty]. 

Types of activities: Total: 
Reported funding: $817,000,000. 

Source: GAO presentation of agency response to the data collection 
instrument. 

[A] The funding amount is a GAO estimate, confirmed by Treasury. The 
total of $817 million is based on (1) agricultural sector lending 
commitments made in fiscal year 2008 by the multilateral development 
banks (World Bank Group, African Development Bank and Fund, Asian 
Development Bank and Fund, Inter-American Bank and Fund for Special 
Operations, European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, and the 
International Fund for Agricultural Development); (2) the U.S. share 
of capital in the banks which lend to middle-income and creditworthy 
low-income countries; and/or (3) the U.S. share of total resources 
provided to the multilateral development banks' concessional windows 
from donor contributions for the replenishment active in fiscal year 
2008; and (4) distinguishing between support to the poorest countries 
($358 million) and to middle-income and creditworthy low-income 
developing countries ($459 million). 

[B] The multilateral development banks' concessional lending windows 
require donor contributions periodically to replenish resources to 
provide assistance to the poorest countries. The replenishment share 
measures the share of each donor's contribution to the total of all 
donor contributions to a particular replenishment. The U.S. share for 
this analysis is derived from the multilateral development banks' 
concessional window replenishment active in fiscal year 2008. 

[End of table] 

U.S. Department of Agriculture: 

Table 6 summarizes the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) funding 
obligations for global food security programs and activities in fiscal 
year 2008. 

Table 6: Summary of USDA's Reported Funding for Global Food Security, 
Fiscal Year 2008: 

Types of activities; A. Food aid: Emergency food aid; 
Description; The Bill Emerson Humanitarian Trust is a food commodity 
reserve for emergency humanitarian needs in developing countries.; 
Reported funding: $256,000,000. 

Types of activities; A. Food aid: Nonemergency food aid for 
development; 
Description; The Food for Progress program, implemented in 41 
developing countries by the Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS), 
supports the expansion of private enterprise and agricultural sector 
in developing countries. Under this program, U.S. commodities are sold 
in recipient countries and the proceeds are used to fund projects in 
agriculture, infrastructure, or economic development; 
Reported funding: $175,200,000. 

Types of activities; A. Food aid: Nonemergency food aid for 
development; 
Description; The McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and 
Child Nutrition program, implemented in 28 developing countries by 
FAS, supports education and child development through school lunches, 
food for work, and take-home rations; 
Reported funding: $99,300,000. 

Types of activities; B. Nutrition: 

Types of activities; C. Agricultural development: 
* Agricultural research and development, education, and training; 
* Agricultural market development; 
Description; FAS runs several technical assistance and faculty 
exchange programs (the Borlaug Fellowship Program, Cochran Fellowship 
Program, Faculty Exchange Program, Scientific Cooperation Research 
Program, and Emerging Markets Program) to facilitate agricultural 
development in many countries around the world; 
Reported funding: $6,684,155. 

Types of activities; C. Agricultural development: 
* Agricultural research and development, education, and training; 
* Agricultural market development; 
Description; The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service supports 
training activities for capacity building training in disease and 
animal health inspection in agriculture, and the Food Safety and 
Inspection Service funds meat and poultry inspection seminars for 
foreign agricultural officials. 
A significant portion of USDA's nonemergency food aid funding is used 
to support agricultural development activities in developing countries; 
Reported funding: $1,735,000. 

Types of activities; D. Rural development: 
Description: [Empty]; 
Reported funding: [Empty]. 

Types of activities; E. Safety nets: 
Description: [Empty]; 
Reported funding: [Empty]. 

Types of activities; F. Policy reform: 
Description: [Empty]; 
Reported funding: [Empty]. 

Types of activities; G. Information on and monitoring of the global 
food security situation; 
Description; The Economic Research Service (ERS) carries out food 
security country assessments and analysis of global food supply, 
demand, and price conditions. In addition, in 2008 ERS analyzed the 
impact of increased biofuels production on food security in sub-
Saharan Africa; 
Reported funding: $554,326. 

Types of activities; Total: 
Reported funding: $540,000,000. 

Source: GAO presentation of agency response to the data collection 
instrument. 

[End of table] 

Department of State: 

Table 7 summarizes the Department of State's (State) funding for 
global food security programs and activities in fiscal year 2008. 

Table 7: Summary of State's Reported Funding for Global Food Security, 
Fiscal Year 2008: 

Types of activities: A. Food aid; 
* Emergency food aid; 
* Nonemergency food aid; 
Description: State's Bureau of Population, Refugees and Migration 
(PRM) provides aid and sustainable solutions for refugees, victims of 
conflict, and stateless people around the world, through repatriation, 
local integration, and resettlement in the United States[A]. PRM also 
promotes the U.S. population and migration policies; 
Reported funding: $44,397,453[B]. 

Types of activities: B. Nutrition: 
Description: [Empty]; 
Reported funding: [Empty]. 

Types of activities: C. Agricultural development: 
* Agricultural technologies; 
* Farming techniques; 
* Agricultural risk management; 
* Agricultural research and development, education or training; 
* Maintaining the natural resource base; 
Description: State's Bureau of International Organization Affairs pays 
U.S. assessed contribution[C] to the Food and Agriculture Organization 
(FAO) of the United Nations; 
Reported funding: $109,349,295. 

Types of activities: C. Agricultural development: 
* Agricultural technologies; 
* Farming techniques; 
* Agricultural risk management; 
* Agricultural research and development, education or training; 
* Maintaining the natural resource base; 
Description: State contributes funding to several technical assistance 
and exchange programs that are implemented by the Department of 
Agriculture and promote agricultural development, including the Former 
Soviet Union Cooperative Research Program, the Caucasus Agricultural 
Development Initiative, the Cochran Fellowship Program, the Faculty 
Exchange Program, and the Support for Eastern European Democracy 
Program; 
Reported funding: $12,685,000. 

Types of activities: C. Agricultural development: 
* Agricultural technologies; 
* Farming techniques; 
* Agricultural risk management; 
* Agricultural research and development, education or training; 
* Maintaining the natural resource base; 
Description: Bureau of Oceans, Environment and Science (OES) promotes 
sustainable agriculture, sustainable natural resource management, and 
environmental protection in the Dominican Republic and member 
countries of the Central America Free Trade Agreement; 
Reported funding: $1,000,000. 

Types of activities: C. Agricultural development: 
* Agricultural technologies; 
* Farming techniques; 
* Agricultural risk management; 
* Agricultural research and development, education or training; 
* Maintaining the natural resource base; 
Description: Bureau of Economic, Energy, and Business Affairs (EEB) 
funds speakers' programs to support and educate foreign governments on 
the importance of agricultural biotechnology. In fiscal year 2008, EEB 
promoted the understanding of agricultural biotechnology as a tool for 
improved food security in developing countries; encouraged the 
adoption of fair, transparent, and science-based policies and 
practices in other countries; and supported biotechnology applications 
for biofuels; 
Reported funding: $207,091. 

Types of activities: D. Rural development: 
Description: [Empty]; 
Reported funding: [Empty]. 

Types of activities: E. Safety nets; 
Description: PRM supports food security and livelihoods programs 
targeting refugee and returnee populations, using funding listed above 
under "Food aid;" 
Reported funding: [Empty]. 

Types of activities: F. Policy reform; 
Description: In addition to agricultural development, U.S. assessed 
contribution to FAO, listed above under "Agricultural development," 
supports policy reform on issues related to global food security; 
Reported funding: [Empty]. 

Types of activities: G. Market intelligence, information and 
monitoring: 
Description: [Empty]; 
Reported funding: [Empty]. 

Types of activities: H. Other types of food security assistance: 
Description: OES supports the building of a global partnership to 
advance point-of-use approaches for treating and storing water at the 
household level, strengthening global advocacy on sanitation, and 
advancing the development of water safety plans; 
Reported funding: $250,000. 

Types of activities: I. Future challenges to food security: 
Description: [Empty]; 
Reported funding: [Empty]. 

Types of activities: Total; 
Reported funding: 168,000,000. 

Source: GAO presentation of agency response to the data collection 
instrument. 

Notes: 

[A] According to PRM, "repatriation" means going home when no longer 
at risk of persecution, "local integration" means settling permanently 
in the country to which one has fled, and "resettlement" means 
settling permanently in a third country. 

[B] Funding information is based on total project costs (food and non-
food activities). In addition, this funding includes support for 
safety nets programs reported later in the table, as State reported 
one number for both types of activities. 

[C] Assessed contributions are payments that the United States makes 
to more than 40 international organizations, including FAO, in which 
the United States is a member pursuant to treaties, conventions, or 
specific acts of Congress. These contributions are assessed "dues" for 
belonging to these organizations. 

[End of table] 

U.S. Trade and Development Agency: 

Table 8 summarizes the U.S. Trade and Development Agency's (USTDA) 
funding obligations for global food security-related programs and 
activities in fiscal year 2008. 

Table 8: Summary of USTDA's Reported Funding for Global Food Security, 
Fiscal Year 2008: 

Types of activities: A. Food aid: 
Description: [Empty]; 
Reported funding[A]: [Empty]. 

Types of activities: B. Nutrition: 
Description: [Empty]; 
Reported funding[A]: [Empty]. 

Types of activities: C. Agricultural development: Assistance to the 
agribusiness sector; 
Description: USTDA agribusiness activities are related to growing, 
cultivation and processing of agricultural, aquaculture, and forestry 
products. Although a very broad definition, it is nevertheless 
consistent with the way it is often utilized (e.g., food processing, 
storage and transport, and irrigation). This assistance is provided to 
China, Egypt, and Morocco; 
Reported funding[A]: $852,054. 

Types of activities: C. Agricultural development: Assistance to the 
water and environment sectors; 
Description: USTDA groups water and environment sectors together 
because of a close relationship between many large water control and 
supply projects and the environment (e.g. air quality and solid waste; 
water supply and control to support agricultural development). This 
assistance is provided to Jordan, Mexico, Morocco, and the Philippines; 
Reported funding[A]: $1,173,263. 

Types of activities: D. Rural development: Assistance to the 
transportation sector; 
Description: USTDA transportation projects emphasize the movement of 
people and goods--specifically, upgrading airports, highways, mass 
transit, railways, and shipping and ports to support the development 
of a modern infrastructure and a fair and open trading environment 
(e.g., improving transportation networks to facilitate the transport 
of food from farm to market). This assistance is provided to Brazil, 
Chile, China, Colombia, India, Mexico, Panama, and Trinidad and Tobago; 
Reported funding[A]: $3,640,375. 

Types of activities: D. Rural development: Assistance to the energy 
sector; 
Description: USTDA funds activities in support of projects designed to 
generate, transmit, and distribute power and heat to the food industry 
(e.g., electricity distribution and transmission to end users or food 
suppliers for cold storage, and promotion of renewable resources to 
produce electricity). This assistance is provided to Indonesia, 
Jamaica, Jordan, the Philippines, and Uganda; 
Reported funding[A]: $1,280,553. 

Types of activities: E. Safety nets: 
Description: [Empty]; 
Reported funding[A]: [Empty]. 

Types of activities: F. Policy reform: 
Description: [Empty]; 
Reported funding[A]: [Empty]. 

Types of activities: G. Information on and monitoring of the global 
food security situation: 
Description: [Empty]; 
Reported funding[A]: [Empty]. 

Types of activities: H. Other types of food security assistance: 
Assistance to the service sector; 
Description: USTDA funds activities in this sector for those country 
entities that provide services to their clients, such as banking and 
finance to improve access to credit to support the food industry, 
government administration, and retail and wholesale, among others 
(e.g., improvement of host government services, namely tax collection, 
social security); 
Reported funding[A]: $1,355,740. 

Types of activities: H. Other types of food security assistance: 
Multisectoral assistance; 
Description: Multisector activities encompass projects that do not fit 
into any of the specific sectoral classifications and include USTDA 
activities that are designed to support projects in more than one 
sector yet support global food security efforts (e.g., transportation 
and construction). This assistance is provided to El Salvador, Ghana, 
and Morocco; 
Reported funding[A]: $819,993. 

Types of activities: H. Other types of food security assistance: 
Assistance to the telecommunications sector; 
Description: USTDA's telecommunications activities focus on the 
transfer of voice and data communications from one location to another 
to provide vital monitoring and other forecasting capabilities that 
could be useful in the agricultural sector (e.g., a water monitoring 
information technology). This assistance is provided to China; 
Reported funding[A]: $41,621. 

Types of activities: I. Future challenges to food security: 
Description: [Empty]; 
Reported funding[A]: [Empty]. 

Types of activities: Total: 
Reported funding[A]: $9,200,000. 

Source: GAO presentation of agency response to the data collection 
instrument. 

Note: 

[A] The table summarizes actual funding provided by USTDA in fiscal 
year 2008. In addition, USTDA regularly responds to and supports 
project requests for agricultural technologies, land tenure reform, 
encouraging private sector investment, and future challenges to global 
food security. 

[End of table] 

Department of Defense: 

Table 9 summarizes the Department of Defense's (DOD) Defense Security 
Cooperation Agency's funding obligations for disaster relief and 
humanitarian assistance with global food security components in fiscal 
year 2008. 

Table 9: Summary of DOD's Reported Funding for Global Food Security, 
Fiscal Year 2008: 

Types of activities: A. Food aid: Emergency food aid; 
Description: The Defense Security and Cooperation Agency (DSCA) 
manages the storage and transportation of humanitarian daily 
rations[A] to countries experiencing adverse effects from war, famine, 
floods, or earthquakes; 
Reported funding: $1,500,000. 

Types of activities: B. Nutrition: 
Description: [Empty]; 
Reported funding: [Empty]. 

Types of activities: C. Agricultural development: 
* Irrigation and watershed management; 
* Maintaining the natural resource base; 
Description: DSCA manages the Overseas Humanitarian Disaster and Civic 
Aid (OHDACA) appropriation, which funds disaster relief and 
humanitarian assistance projects developed by the six geographic 
Combatant Commands. The United States Africa Command, Southern 
Command, and Pacific Command used some of these funds for projects 
directed at flood control and building of wells in developing 
countries in fiscal year 2008; 
Reported funding: $2,100,000. 

Types of activities: D. Rural development: Rural infrastructure; 
Description: The United States Africa Command, Southern Command, and 
Pacific Command used Overseas Humanitarian Disaster and Civic Aid 
funds to construct roads, bridges, and water treatment facilities in 
developing countries in fiscal year 2008; 
Reported funding: $4,800,000. 

Types of activities: E. Safety nets: 
Description: [Empty]; 
Reported funding: [Empty]. 

Types of activities: F. Policy reform: 
Description: [Empty]; 
Reported funding: [Empty]. 

Types of activities: G. Information on and monitoring of the global 
food security situation: 
Description: [Empty]; 
Reported funding: [Empty]. 

Types of activities: H. Other types of food security assistance: 
Description: [Empty]; 
Reported funding: [Empty]. 

Types of activities: I. Future challenges to food security: 
Description: [Empty]; 
Reported funding: [Empty]. 

Types of activities: Total: 
Reported funding: $8,400,000. 

Source: GAO presentation of agency response to the data collection 
instrument. 

[A] Humanitarian daily rations contain approximately 2,400 calories 
and conform to a range of cultural or religious dietary restrictions. 
In addition, nutritional content is tailored for populations near 
starvation or fleeing from catastrophe. 

[End of table] 

The Peace Corps: 

Table 10 summarizes the Peace Corps' response to our data collection 
instrument. The Peace Corps did not report any funding data. 

Table 10: Summary of the Peace Corps' Response on Global Food 
Security, Fiscal Year 2008: 

Types of activities: A. Food aid: 
Description: [Empty]; 
Reported funding: [Empty]. 

Types of activities: B. Nutrition: 
* Nutritional education, counseling, and assessment; 
* Assistance focusing on especially vulnerable groups; 
Description: Peace Corps volunteers provide nutritional assistance 
through education and capacity building, such as classroom health 
education for students and health care providers; informal educational 
health sessions; and technical support and organizational development 
for local nongovernmental and community-based organizations; 
Reported funding: The Peace Corps did not report any funding data. 

Types of activities: C. Agricultural development: 
* Farming techniques; 
* Agricultural research and development, education and training; 
* Irrigation and watershed management; 
* Maintaining the natural resources base; 
Description: Peace Corps volunteers improve communities' food security 
by implementing sustainable practices, promoting crop diversification, 
and encouraging production of more nutritious foods. Peace Corps 
volunteers assist with launching or expanding small-scale 
agribusinesses, as well as train and advise cooperatives and producer 
associations on business planning, marketing, financial management, 
product design and distribution; 
Reported funding: The Peace Corps did not report any funding data. 

Types of activities: D. Rural development: Access to microloans or 
other forms of credit; 
Description: Peace Corps volunteers provide technical support to 
microfinance institutions, credit unions, and nongovernmental 
organizations with microcredit programs, and train villagers to set up 
and manage their village savings and loan associations; 
Reported funding: The Peace Corps did not report any funding data. 

Types of activities: E. Safety nets: 
Description: [Empty]; 
Reported funding: [Empty]. 

Types of activities: F. Policy reform: 
Description: [Empty]; 
Reported funding: [Empty]. 

Types of activities: G. Information on and monitoring of the global 
food security situation: 
Description: [Empty]; 
Reported funding: [Empty]. 

Types of activities: H. Other types of food security assistance: 
Description: [Empty]; 
Reported funding: [Empty]. 

Types of activities: I. Future challenges to food security: 
Description: [Empty]; 
Reported funding: [Empty]. 

Source: GAO presentation of agency response to the data collection 
instrument. 

[End of table] 

Office of the U.S. Trade Representative: 

Table 11 summarizes the U.S. Trade Representative's (USTR) response to 
our data collection instrument. USTR did not report any funding data. 

Table 11: Summary of USTR's Response on Global Food Security, Fiscal 
Year 2008: 

Types of activities: A. Food aid: 
Description: [Empty]; 
Reported funding: [Empty]. 

Types of activities: B. Nutrition: 
Description: [Empty]; 
Reported funding: [Empty]. 

Types of activities: C. Agricultural development: 
Description: [Empty]; 
Reported funding: [Empty]. 

Types of activities: D. Rural development: 
Description: [Empty]; 
Reported funding: [Empty]. 

Types of activities: E. Safety nets: 
Description: [Empty]; 
Reported funding: [Empty]. 

Types of activities: F. Policy reform: 
* Encouraging private sector investment; 
* Strengthening national and regional trade and transportation 
corridors; 
Description: USTR develops and coordinates U.S. international trade, 
commodity, and direct investment policies, and oversees negotiations 
with other countries. USTR is engaged in interagency consultations and 
has recently created an interagency subcommittee at the Trade Policy 
Staff Committee to coordinate trade policy elements of the 
administration's global food security initiative; 
Reported funding: USTR did not report any funding data. 

Types of activities: G. Information on and monitoring of the global 
food security situation: 
Description: [Empty]; 
Reported funding: [Empty]. 

Types of activities: H. Other types of food security assistance: 
Description: [Empty]; 
Reported funding: [Empty]. 

Types of activities: I. Future challenges to food security: 
Description: [Empty]; 
Reported funding: [Empty]. 

Source: GAO presentation of agency response to the data collection 
instrument. 

[End of table] 

Office of Management and Budget: 

Table 12 summarizes the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) 
response to our data collection instrument. OMB stated that it is not 
an implementing agency for global food security activities, and as 
such does not have programs, activities, or funding to report. 

Table 12: Summary of OMB's Response on Global Food Security, Fiscal 
Year 2008: 

Types of activities: A. Food aid; 
Description: OMB: 
* Analyzes agency budget requests (annual and supplemental) for global 
food security; 
* Advises the White House and other components of the Executive Office 
of the President on the resource options available to support the 
development of new global food security initiatives; 
* Participates in interagency consultations on global food security 
issues; 
Reported funding: OMB did not report any funding data. 

Types of activities: B. Nutrition: 
Description: [Empty]; 
Reported funding: [Empty]. 

Types of activities: C. Agricultural development: 
Description: [Empty]; 
Reported funding: [Empty]. 

Types of activities: D. Rural development: 
Description: [Empty]; 
Reported funding: [Empty]. 

Types of activities: E. Safety nets: 
Description: [Empty]; 
Reported funding: [Empty]. 

Types of activities: F. Policy reform: 
Description: [Empty]; 
Reported funding: [Empty]. 

Types of activities: G. Information on and monitoring of the global 
food security situation: 
Description: [Empty]; 
Reported funding: [Empty]. 

Types of activities: H. Other types of food security assistance: 
Description: [Empty]; 
Reported funding: [Empty]. 

Types of activities: I. Future challenges to food security: 
Description: [Empty]; 
Reported funding: [Empty]. 

Source: GAO presentation of agency response to the data collection 
instrument. 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Appendix IV: GAO's Desirable Characteristics for a National Strategy: 

Table 13 provides a brief description and examples of the elements of 
the desirable characteristics for a national strategy that we 
identified in prior GAO work. 

Table 13: GAO's Desirable Characteristics for a National Strategy: 

Desirable characteristic: Purpose, scope, and methodology; 
Brief description: Addresses why the strategy was produced, the scope 
of its coverage, and the process by which it was developed; 
Examples of elements: 
* Statement of broad or narrow purpose, as appropriate; 
* How it compares and contrasts with other national strategies; 
* What major functions, mission areas, or activities it covers; 
* Principles or theories that guided its development; 
* Impetus for strategy (e.g., statutory requirement or event); 
* Process to produce strategy (e.g., interagency task force; state, 
local, or private input); 
* Definition of key terms. 

Desirable characteristic: Problem definition and risk assessment; 
Brief description: Addresses the particular national problems and 
threats the strategy is directed towards; 
Examples of elements: 
* Discussion or definition of problems, their causes, and operating 
environment; 
* Risk assessment, including an analysis of threats and 
vulnerabilities; 
* Quality of data available (e.g., constraints, deficiencies, and 
"unknowns"). 

Desirable characteristic: Goals, subordinate objectives, activities, 
and performance measures; 
Brief description: Addresses what the strategy is trying to achieve, 
steps to achieve those results, as well as the priorities, milestones, 
and performance measures to gauge results; 
Examples of elements: 
* Overall results desired (i.e. "end-state"); 
* Hierarchy of strategic goals and subordinate objectives; 
* Specific activities to achieve results; 
* Priorities, milestones, and outcome-related performance measures; 
* Specific performance measures; 
* Process for monitoring and reporting on progress; 
* Limitations on progress indicators. 

Desirable characteristic: Resources, investments, and risk management; 
Brief description: Addresses what the strategy will cost, the sources 
and types of resources and investments needed, and where resources and 
investments should be targeted by balancing risk reductions and costs; 
Examples of elements: 
* Resources and investments associated with the strategy; 
* Types of resources required, such as budgetary, human capital, 
information technology, research and development, contracts; 
* Sources of resources (e.g., federal, state, local, private; 
* Economic principles, such as balancing benefits and costs; 
* Resource allocation mechanisms, such as grants, in-kind services, 
loans, and user fees; 
* Tools of government (e.g., mandates or incentives to spur action); 
* Importance of fiscal discipline; 
* Linkage to other resource documents (e.g., federal budget); 
* Risk management principles. 

Desirable characteristic: Organizational roles, responsibilities, and 
coordination; 
Brief description: Addresses who will be implementing the strategy, 
what their roles will be compared to others, and mechanisms for them 
to coordinate their efforts; 
Examples of elements: 
* Roles and responsibilities of specific federal agencies, 
departments, or offices; 
* Roles and responsibilities of state, local, private, and 
international sectors; 
* Lead, support, and partner roles and responsibilities; 
* Accountability and oversight framework; 
* Potential changes to current organizational structure; 
* Specific processes for coordination and collaboration; 
* How conflicts will be resolved. 

Desirable characteristic: Integration and implementation; 
Brief description: Addresses how a national strategy relates to other 
strategies' goals, objectives and activities--and to subordinate 
levels of government and their plans to implement the strategy; 
Examples of elements: 
* Integration with other national strategies (horizontal); 
Integration with relevant documents from implementing organizations 
(vertical); 
* Details on specific federal, state, local, or private strategies and 
plans; 
* Implementation guidance; 
* Details on subordinate strategies and plans for implementation 
(e.g., human capital and enterprise architecture). 

Source: GAO. 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Appendix V: Comments from the Department of State: 

Note: GAO comments supplementing those in the report text appear at 
the end of this appendix. 

United States Department of State: 
Chief Financial Officer: 
Washington, D.C. 20520: 

March 1, 2010: 

Ms. Jacquelyn Williams-Bridgers: 
Managing Director: 
International Affairs and Trade: 
Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street, NW: 
Washington, D.C. 20520: 

Dear Ms. Williams-Bridgers: 

We appreciate the opportunity to review your draft report, "Global 
Food Security: U.S. Agencies Progressing on Governmentwide Strategy, 
but Approach Faces Several Vulnerabilities," GAO Job Code 320664. 

The enclosed Department of State comments are provided for 
incorporation with this letter as an appendix to the final report.
If you have any questions concerning this response, please contact 
Scott Alexander, Special Assistant, Office of the Counselor at
(202) 647-4690. 

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

James L. Millette: 

cc: 
GAO - Phil Thomas: 
C — Cheryl Mills: 
State/GIG — Tracy Burnett: 

[End of letter] 

Department of State Comments on GAO Draft Report: 

Global Food Security: U.S. Agencies Progressing on 
Governmentwide Strategy, but Approach Faces Several Vulnerabilities
(GAO-10-352, GAO Code 320664): 

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on your draft report entitled 
"Global Food Security: U.S. Agencies Progressing on Governmentwide 
Strategy, but Approach Faces Several Vulnerabilities." The State 
Department welcomes this report, and appreciates its timely input. We 
have submitted detailed technical review comments, and in doing so we 
also provided the draft public consultation document and acknowledge 
the forthcoming FY201 1 Congressional Budget Justification for the 
initiative which should he released within this month. We believe that 
these documents will provide greater clarity for the final report, and 
we look forward to its publication. Within this month, the State 
Department will be releasing an implementation document for the Global 
Hunger and Food Security Initiative (GHFSI). Many issues raised in 
this draft Report will be addressed more fully in the implementation 
document and we appreciate the collaborative benefits of having the 
GAO's input as we develop the
implementation strategy. 

First Recommendation: Develop an Operational definition of Food 
Security: The draft Report highlights a critical issue for the GHFSI-- 
the difficulty of gathering comprehensive data on food security 
programs and activities across the U.S. government. The Department of 
State agrees with the benefits of having a common definition of food 
security that would extend to all agencies across the government, and 
also notes that the definition of food security that the GAO uses is 
much broader than the operational definition within the defined budget 
for the Global Hunger and Food Security Initiative. The GHFSI will lay 
out a clear programmatic definition based on a common results 
framework with goals, objectives, and indicators. These two 
definitions arc not incompatible; rather the GHFSI operational 
definition is a sub-set of the larger definition that GAO developed in 
the course of drafting this Report. 

Within the GHFSI budget, food security will be defined by programs 
that quantifiably impact the objectives of a) increasing economic 
performance of the agriculture sector; b) improving nutritional status 
and; c) improving the capacity of vulnerable households to meet their 
food needs. Through an interagency process, we will develop a strong 
results framework with indicators that monitor progress on meeting the 
above objectives. All agencies participating in the GHFSI will be 
measured using this common framework for accountability. 

The GAO also recommends the Secretary of State should work with the 
NSC to "establish a methodology for consistently reporting 
comprehensive data across agencies; and periodically inventory the 
food security-related programs and associated costs for each of these 
agencies." As noted above, all agencies participating in the 
Initiative and funded by the budget of the Initiative will use the 
common framework to measure progress of programs and investments 
towards the common goals of the Initiative. While we support the 
concept of a common data set across the U.S. government for food 
security, the significance of the costs incurred in doing so would 
need to be weighed against the inherent value provided by this 
individual data set. The Department of State would be ready to work 
with the GAO to identify other offices or agencies where central 
database core competencies exist to collect this kind of data across 
multiple government agencies. 

Second Recommendation: Mitigate the Risks Associated with the Host 
Country-Led Approach: 

Another issue of concern highlighted by the Report is that a country-
led process--a core principle of GHFSI creates vulnerabilities 
including risks associated with weak host governments; a shortage of 
expertise in agriculture and food security at U.S. agencies that could 
provide technical support to host governments; and difficulties in 
aligning host governments' policy priorities with those of donors. The 
draft Report makes a specific recommendation to delineate measures 
that will mitigate these risks when developing the Initiative's 
implementation strategy. The Department of State has recognized the 
vulnerabilities that are associated with a country-led approach and 
will incorporate mechanisms in our implementation strategy that help 
to manage these risks. 

While there may be uncertainties and necessary flexibilities required 
in a country-led approach, the Department of State believes that such 
an approach provides the greatest opportunities for host country 
leadership and sustained effort, especially in the areas of promoting 
policy reform, encouraging private sector involvement and affecting 
change at the local level. 

FACTS and FACTS Info: 

GAO has conducted several previous analyses of FACTS and FACTS Info 
and has provided helpful recommendations. For example, GAO made 
suggestions for better managing and mitigating the risks associated 
with making changes to FACTS, and these recommendations have been 
implemented, including a weekly review of a risk registry with the 
FACTS Executive Sponsor. GAO has also recognized in past reports that 
the Department of State and US AID processes maintain a low risk of 
corrupt or incomplete data. In the current draft Report, the GAO 
highlights an issue which it terms a "discrepancy." USA II) and State 
believe that GAO inadvertently compared unlike data sets, leading to 
the perception of a discrepancy. Specifically, USAID accurately 
reports to Congress and the public its Title II food aid resources via 
the annual International Food Assistance Report. Towards the end of FY 
2008, USAID received a large supplemental appropriation for food aid, 
which was not recorded immediately as an Operational Plan modification 
and was not, therefore, reflected in the report GAO reviewed. The 
Department of State and USAID stand by the accuracy and completeness 
of the data contained in the FACTS Info database, and regret that this 
issue was not fully explained to GAO at the time of its research. 

The Department of State thanks you for sending your draft Report, and 
we look forward to working with GAO in the future. 

The following are GAO's comments on the Department of State's (State) 
letter dated March 1, 2010. 

GAO comments: 

1. The implementation of our recommendations, including developing an 
operational definition of food security that is accepted by all U.S. 
agencies, will help to ensure the successful implementation of the 
evolving strategy going forward--a position that State generally 
agrees with. However, we note that the defined budget for the Global 
Hunger and Food Security Initiative (GHFSI) does not include food aid, 
which is recognized as an integral part of food security. 

2. The limitations we found in the Foreign Assistance Coordination and 
Tracking System (FACTS) could be addressed by improving operating 
procedures and therefore need not be costly. Specifically, (1) an 
operational definition of food security could be provided along with 
guidance on the programs and activities that it covers, and (2) a 
requirement could be made that supplemental appropriations be entered 
into the system, as allowed for by FACTS' current structure. In 
addition, technical comments received from the Office of Management 
and Budget suggest that the budget database that it maintains may be 
able to address our recommendation to establish a methodology for 
consistently reporting comprehensive data across agencies and 
periodically inventory agencies' food security-related programs and 
funding. 

3. We do not question the appropriateness of the host country-led 
approach. However, we do point out the potential weaknesses of the 
approach as risks that the administration should mitigate to ensure 
successful implementation of the strategy, and State provides its 
assurance that the GHFSI implementation strategy will incorporate 
mechanisms to help manage the risks that a country-led approach 
presents. We note that the weak capacity of host governments is a 
systemic problem in many developing countries, particularly in sub- 
Saharan Africa. We emphasize the need for the U.S. government to be 
clear on its application of the criteria that the GHFSI strategy has 
delineated for identifying and selecting Phase I and Phase II 
countries, which we note include, among other things, host government 
commitment, leadership, and governance. We note, for example, that two 
of the five countries currently under consideration as Phase II 
countries--Rwanda and Tanzania--have not met their own pledges to 
commit 10 percent of government spending to agriculture. 

4. We compared the data in FACTS to data in other sources that 
reported funding for food security, such as the annual International 
Food Assistance Report (IFAR) and several years of congressional 
budget justifications because that is a standard methodology for 
assessing data reliability. Our goal, as State and USAID officials 
were aware through months of discussion, was to collect the most 
complete and accurate data possible on food security funding. With 
that in mind, we requested data on supplemental appropriations and 
were given data tables that included some supplemental appropriations 
data. In addition, when we alerted USAID officials to the discrepancy 
we found in the Title II emergency food aid data, they advised us to 
use the complete funding data reported in IFAR rather than the 
incomplete data that were reported in FACTS. State's comments confirm 
our finding that FACTS is limited in its capacity to track all food 
security funding. While FACTS contains reasonably complete and 
accurate data for initial food security appropriations, it lacks 
complete data for supplemental appropriations. This is a serious 
limitation inasmuch as the largest U.S. food aid program received a 
supplemental appropriation of $850 million in fiscal year 2008. 

[End of section] 

Appendix VI: Comments from the Department of the Treasury: 

Note: GAO comments supplementing those in the report text appear at 
the end of this appendix. 

Department Of The Treasury: 
Washington, D.C. 20220: 

February 26, 2010: 

Mr. Thomas Melito: 
Director, International Affairs and Trade: 
Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street N.W. 
Washington, DC 20548: 

Dear Mr. Melito: 

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the draft report regarding 
the U.S. government's efforts to develop a government-wide food 
security strategy. The Department oldie Treasury is proud of the role 
it plays in furthering U.S. and global efforts to reduce food 
insecurity and promote agricultural development around the world. We 
broadly agree with the draft report's two main conclusions: 1) the 
importance of consistent operational reporting on U.S. food security 
efforts; and 2) the need to finalize an integrated U.S. government-
wide strategy for food security. 

Issues with Attributing Multilateral Institutions' Food Security 
Assistance: 

On the first conclusion, we fully support the need for consistent 
financial reporting and appreciate the GAO's recognition that U.S. 
participation in the international financial institutions (IFIs) is an 
important component of the U.S. Government's response to global food 
insecurity. I want to emphasize, however, that the amount of funding 
attributable to Treasury is not direct appropriations but a GAO 
estimate of the U.S. "share" of agriculture and rural development 
assistance financed by the international financial institutions. 
Furthermore, since U.S. bilateral food security assistance is provided 
on a grant basis, it would be more appropriate in the future to focus 
on the highly concessional loans and grants provided by the 
concessional windows of the multilateral development banks (MDBs) to 
the world's poorest countries. Lending to middle-income countries, 
which is tied to market-based interest rates and accounts for 56 
percent of the estimated food security financing attributable to 
Treasury in this draft report, is not truly comparable to U.S. 
bilateral assistance either in its financial terms or its recipients. 

Additionally, it should be noted that the IFIs typically report 
activities on a sectoral basis (such as agriculture or rural 
development), and not by issue areas (such as Mod security). In this 
regard, a U.S. government-wide definition of food security and efforts 
to accurately measure expenditures in this area may not be wholly 
reflected in accounting from the IFIs. 

Finalizing a U.S. Food Security Strategy: 

With regard to the second conclusion, the interagency working team has 
made significant progress and a finalized strategy will be ready in 
the next several months. While we recognize the GAO's concern about 
pursuing a country-led development strategy, we believe that the 
effectiveness of a country-led approach is borne out by several 
decades of development experience. Furthermore, the interagency 
working group recognizes many of the potential problems in a country-
led approach, such as limited recipient country capacity, and has taken
steps to address those problems, including by proposing to increase 
the amount of technical assistance to our initiative focus countries. 

As noted in the draft report, an important component of the U.S. food 
security strategy for which Treasury has primary responsibility is a 
new multi-donor trust fund administered by the World Bank — the Global 
Agriculture and Food Security Program (GAFSP). Created in response to 
a call from G-20 leaders in Pittsburgh in September 2009, GAFSP will 
provide an additional source of grant financing and development 
expertise to support technically sound, country-led food security 
strategies. The GAFSP will complement our bilateral food security 
activities by leveraging the financial resources of other donors, 
utilizing the technical capacity of the multilateral development 
banks, and financing projects and activities unlikely to be funded 
adequately by bilateral donors. We expect that the GAFSP will be 
operational by mid-2010. 

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

Karen Mathiasen: 
Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary: 
International Development Finance and Debt: 

The following are GAO's comments on the Department of the Treasury's 
(Treasury) letter dated February 26, 2010. 

GAO comments: 

1. We recognized the difference between concessional windows and 
nonconcessional windows and noted the breakdown between funding to 
poor and middle-income countries: 

2. The definitional issue is a challenge in estimating or determining 
the funding level for food security provided by the international 
financial institutions. Accordingly, we discussed this issue with 
Treasury and mutually agreed on the method to calculate U.S. 
contributions to multilateral development banks that address global 
food insecurity. We mutually agreed to use a percentage of the banks' 
funding for agricultural development--which is key to food security--
as a way to estimate food security funding. The percentage is based on 
U.S. contributions to the banks. 

3. We do not question the appropriateness of the host country-led 
approach. However, we do point out the potential weaknesses of the 
approach as risks that the administration should mitigate to ensure 
successful implementation of the strategy. 

[End of section] 

Appendix VII: Comments from the U.S. Agency for International 
Development: 

Note: GAO comments supplementing those in the report text appear at 
the end of this appendix. 

USAID: 
From The American People: 
U.S. Agency for International Development: 
1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW: 
Washington, DC 20523: 
[hyperlink, http://www.usaid.gov] 

February 26, 2010: 

Thomas Melito: 	
Director: 	
International Affairs and Trade: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

Dear Mr. Melito, 

I am pleased to provide the U.S. Agency for International 
Development's (USAID) formal response to the GAO draft report 
entitled: "Global Food Security: U.S. Agencies Progressing on 
Governmentwide Strategy, but Approach Faces Several Vulnerabilities" 
(GAO-10-352). 

The enclosed USAID comments are provided for incorporation with this 
letter as an appendix to the final report. 

Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the GAO draft report and 
for the courtesies extended by your staff in the conduct of this audit 
review. 

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

Drew W. Luten: 
Senior Deputy Assistant Administrator: 
Bureau for Management: 

Enclosure: a/s: 

[End of letter] 

USAID Comments On GAO Draft Report No. GA0-10-352: 

As the lead implementing agency within the U.S. Government in the area 
of food security, the U.S. Agency of International Development (USAID) 
is pleased to offer its comments on the GAO Report to Congressional 
Committees, Global Food Security: U.S. Agencies Progressing on 
Governmentwide Strategy, but Approach Faces Several Vulnerabilities. 
The report comes at an important time as the President and Secretary 
of State have made food security a high priority within U.S. foreign 
assistance and USAID has played a central role in shaping the strategy 
and implementation planning. 

We are pleased to see GAO note the very significant progress on 
developing a government wide global hunger and food security strategy 
and believe that the implementation plan under development will 
address a number of the concerns raised in the report. 

We agree with the recommendation that central to building a whole of 
government approach will be a common definition for food security. The 
Global Hunger and Food Security Initiative (GHFSI) lays out a clear 
programmatic definition based on a common results framework with 
goals, objectives, and indicators. 

The revised public strategy, Feed the Future: The Global Hunger and 
Food Security Initiative Strategy, contains a definition for the 
initiative that will be applied to all U.S. Agencies working towards 
the goals of this initiative. Equally important, as part of the 
initiative, we will be putting in place a number of operational steps 
that further align the efforts of multiple agencies and allow us to 
better report on those combined efforts. As evidenced by the 
Congressional Budget Justification (CBJ) request for FY2010 and the 
forthcoming for FY2011, we arc developing a top down budget for the 
global hunger and food security initiative from the outset, rather 
than attributing spending afterwards, which more explicitly describes 
the initiative components of food security funding for State and USAID 
and better links strategy to resource levels. We are also developing 
interagency annual work plans that will facilitate a common reporting 
system that accounts for the contributions of other U.S. government 
agencies in implementing the global hunger and food security 
initiative. Most importantly, through an interagency process we will 
develop a strong results framework and indicators to monitor progress 
that will be applied to all agencies' programs that are a part of the 
initiative. This will establish a common framework of accountability 
and reporting across agencies against the goals and objectives of the 
global hunger and food security initiative. It will also focus our 
efforts to better build synergies across the resources and expertise 
of different agencies. 

The GAO report contains certain broad generalizations about data 
managed by the Department of State and USAID that result from its 
comparison of data sets that are not comparable. The process that 
State and US AID use to maintain a low risk of corrupt or incomplete 
data has been recognized by previous GAO studies as fully compliant 
with GAO recommendations. Both the Department of State and USAID stand 
by the accuracy and completeness of the data contained in the Foreign 
Assistance Coordination and Tracking System (FACTS) Info database. 

Specifically, with respect to the completeness of data from USAID, on 
an annual basis, USAID reporting of Title II food aid resources is 
accurately provided to Congress and the public domain via the annual 
International Food Assistance Report. Towards the end of FY 2008, 
USAID received a large supplemental for food aid, which was not 
recorded immediately as an Operational Plan modification, because, as 
supplemental appropriations, it was not required to be approved as 
part of an Operational Plan. 

Most significant, the report has identified important vulnerabilities 
in pursuing a country-led approach to food security. In making this a 
key principle for the U.S. strategy, we are addressing the dual 
challenges of aligning our strategy with the country-led approach and 
coordinating implementation with other donors and development 
partners. Coordination is a significant tool to build greater 
consensus and cohesion on policy issues and leverage the resources and 
commitment of other partners, rather than relying solely on a 
bilateral dialog. Our outreach through the Group of Eight (G8), Group 
of Twenty (G20), and the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) 
Summit last November demonstrates the ability to arrive at a common 
approach and see coordinated action move forward in implementing this 
approach. The Comprehensive African Agricultural Development Program 
provides a framework for deepening that coordinated approach in 
Africa, but also provides a roadmap and supplements the capacity of 
countries in the development of technical sound investment strategies 
for food security. 

In addition to building coalitions, the U.S. will implement our 
support in two phases. In the first phase, the U.S. will support the 
country—led investment plan development at a lower level of funding, 
emphasizing strengthening the enabling environment (including host 
country capacity) for more robust subsequent food security 
programming. We will then undertake a rigorous review of the technical 
quality of that investment plan, ensure it reflects an inclusive 
process of consultation with stakeholders, and represents a 
significant commitment of the host government itself. Through this 
review, the U.S. will reserve discretion on what we fund in the 
country-led approach and perform due diligence on the quality of 
potential U.S. support for the country's plan. Only after these 
reviews will the U.S. commit to a higher level of investment in 
implementation. This two-phased approach reduces the risks associated 
with limited country capacity and potential significant conflicts with 
U.S. perspectives on sound development policy. 

Investing in country-owned plans that support results-based programs 
and partnerships is both good development practice, as unanimously 
endorsed at the FAO Summit, and more likely to achieve the desired 
results than donor-driven programs. 

Lastly, as we noted in our technical comments, USAID has been 
examining our staffing to ensure we have high quality technical 
personnel in the field to engage with governments and oversee more 
diverse mechanisms for technical assistance in support of this 
strategy. With 79 agricultural officers on staff today, ranging from 
senior managers to new Foreign Service officers brought on board over 
the last year, we are well positioned to launch this priority agenda. 
The Development Leadership Initiative continues to add to the ranks of 
new agriculture officers along with other important technical areas 
such as economic growth. private sector development, humanitarian 
assistance, and health, among others. We are giving priority to 
aligning our best staff to positions in the focus countries and 
regions to ensure we deliver on the important goals of reducing 
poverty and hunger in the global and national interest. 

The following are GAO's comments on the U.S. Agency for International 
Development's (USAID) letter dated February 26, 2010. 

GAO comments: 

1. We recognize the progress that U.S. agencies are making toward the 
development of the strategy, Feed the Future: The Global Hunger and 
Food Security Initiative Strategy. The implementation of our 
recommendations, including developing an operational definition of 
food security that is accepted by all U.S. agencies, will help to 
ensure the successful implementation of the evolving strategy. 

2. We compared the data in the Foreign Assistance Coordination and 
Tracking System (FACTS) to data in other sources that reported funding 
for food security, such as the annual International Food Assistance 
Report (IFAR) and several years of congressional budget justifications 
because that is a standard methodology for assessing data reliability. 
Our goal, as USAID officials were aware through months of discussion, 
was to collect the most complete and accurate data possible on food 
security funding. With that in mind, we requested data on supplemental 
appropriations and were given data tables that included some 
supplemental appropriations data. In addition, when we alerted USAID 
officials to the discrepancy we found in the Title II emergency food 
aid data, they advised us to use the complete funding data reported in 
IFAR rather than the incomplete data that were reported in FACTS. 

3. USAID'S comments confirm our finding that FACTS is limited in its 
capacity to track all food security funding. While FACTS contains 
reasonably complete and accurate data for initial food security 
appropriations, it lacks compete data for supplementary 
appropriations, which is a serious limitation inasmuch as the largest 
U.S. food aid program received a supplemental appropriation of $850 
million in fiscal year 2008. 

4. We do acknowledge the roles of all development partners, including 
host governments, multilateral organizations, bilateral donors, and 
other entities such as nongovernmental organizations, philanthropic 
foundations, private sector organizations, and academic and research 
organizations--with whom U.S. agencies will have to coordinate their 
efforts. As with other donors, the United States is supporting the 
Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Program (CAADP) to help 
ensure a coordinated approach. However, we note that the data suggest 
that the vast majority of African countries have not met their own 
commitments to direct 10 percent of government spending to 
agriculture. This calls into question many of these countries' 
commitment to agricultural development [OR to raising agricultural 
productivity??] which, in turn, could impact the development of 
technically sound investment strategies for food security that reflect 
the reality of these countries' capacity to implement their own 
strategies, with donor support and assistance. 

5. While the two-phased approach in selecting countries for GHFSI 
assistance may reduce the risks associated with limited host country 
capacity and potential significant conflicts with U.S. perspectives on 
sound development policy, we note that two of the five countries 
currently under consideration as Phase II countries--Rwanda and 
Tanzania--have not met their 10-percent CAADP pledges (see comment 4). 
In identifying and selecting Phase I and Phase II countries, the U.S. 
government should be clear on its application of the criteria that the 
GHFSI strategy has delineated, which we note include, among other 
things, host government commitment, leadership, and governance. 

6. We acknowledge the recent steps that USAID is taking to rebuild its 
staff with technical expertise in agriculture and food security, which 
we believe is necessary to enhance the agency's efforts to help 
strengthen the capacity of host governments in these areas. 

[End of section] 

Appendix VIII: Comments from the U.S. Department of Agriculture: 

Note: GAO comments supplementing those in the report text appear at 
the end of this appendix. 

United States Department of Agriculture: 
Foreign Agricultural Service: 
1400 Independence Ave, SW: 
Stop 1001: 
Washington, DC 20250-1001: 

February 22, 2010: 

Mr. Thomas Melito	
Director, International Affairs and Trade: 
United States Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street, N.W. 
Washington, D.C. 20548: 

Dear Mr. Melito: 
		
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) appreciates this opportunity 
to comment on the Government Accountability Office (GAO) draft report 
"Global Food Security: U.S. Agencies Progressing on Governmentwide 
Strategy, but Approach Faces Several Vulnerabilities" (GA0-10-352). 

The draft report contains a recommendation that the Secretary of State 
work with the Interagency Policy Committee to develop an operational 
definition of food security, establish a methodology for reporting 
comprehensive data across agencies, periodically inventory the food 
security related programs and associated costs, and delineate measures 
to mitigate the risks associated with the host country-led approach. 
This recommendation gives the Department of State the lead role, 
despite acknowledging that USDA and the U.S. Agency for International 
Development (USAID) offer the broadest array of food security programs 
and activities (Figure 3, page 14). We believe that greater use of 
both USAID's and USDA's expertise should be at the core of developing 
the mitigation measures recommended by GAO. 

GAO notes that a shortage of expertise in agriculture and food 
security can constrain efforts to strengthen host government 
capacities, yet while USAID and USDA offer the most programs, USDA 
only ranks fourth in terms of funding. Since most of that funding is 
for reimbursable projects, USDA is limited in its ability to tap into 
our expertise and capacity in any on-going way. Limited resources also 
result in a limited in-country presence and tight travel budgets, 
which hamper the ability of USDA to develop, monitor and evaluate food 
security projects. We are taking steps to increase our presence in 
Africa (see below) in part to respond to the growing role of Africa in 
our food security and trade portfolios. 

The draft does not fully describe the benefits for the country-led 
approach but contains a heavy focus on the perceived vulnerabilities 
of it. Most experts believe such an approach builds host country buy-
in and provides a greater chance of sustained benefit, especially in 
the area of policy reform, which in turn encourages private sector 
involvement and affects change at the local level. The Millennium 
Challenge Corporation's (MCC) use of a country-led approach provides 
the U.S. Government (USG) with a baseline experience upon which to 
build on relevant lessons. 

A perceived inadequacy of critical technical support available from 
USAID and USDA is offered as one weakness in the country-led approach. 
In fact, non-government experts (e.g., from U.S. Land Grant Colleges 
and University partners) have been, and continue to be, actively 
engaged in providing short-term assistance. Peace Corps volunteers are 
also involved in supporting such efforts. Private voluntary 
organizations with their tremendous on the ground experience, as well 
as private sectors that fuel economic activity also will play 
important roles in the strategy implementation. 

Another weakness cited is concern that a country-led approach may pose 
problems if a country's policy position differs from USG policies. 
However, this can occur regardless of approach. The strategy as it is 
being developed places a heavy premium on insuring that the policy 
environment is supportive before significant agricultural investments 
will be made. The USG also believes there is a greater chance of 
influencing in-country policies in the context of a dialogue with the 
host country. 

The draft notes that local scientific capacity is crucial to 
sustainability in these country-led plans. USDA has contributed 
significantly to helping build scientific capacity through programs 
such as the Cochran and Norman E. Borlaug International Agricultural 
Science and Technology Fellowship Programs, as well as through 
partnerships with the Land Grant Universities. We believe that these 
partnerships can be expanded in ways that build institutional capacity 
in research and extension going forward. 

USDA is addressing the need of additional resources for this effort 
with increased programming and staffing. The Department's submission 
to the 2009 global review cited in the draft is a clear indication of 
USDA's awareness of this need. The global review relates to our long 
term food security strategy. 

As noted in the report, USDA has just named a new coordinator for 
global food security. The coordinator will be setting up structures 
within USDA to ensure that we are making the best use of our expertise 
in research, extension, policy analysis, markets and trade, natural 
resource management, and animal and plant safety, and to ensure that 
USDA can participate fully in the whole of government food security 
strategy. 

For the short term, and using existing resources and program funding 
flexibility, USDA can direct support where these resources can have 
the most impact. The draft specifically mentions a current lack of 
oversight for USDA programs in Africa. However, with the planned 
September 2010 opening of a permanent office -- staffed by USDA Foreign
Service personnel -- in Addis Ababa, USDA will have an Agricultural 
attaché in Ethiopia for the first time. In addition, we also have just 
hired a program analyst stationed at the Embassy in Maputo, 
Mozambique, who will work primarily on USDA's food assistance 
programs. We also currently are advertising for two program monitors 
who will support our global monitoring and program management efforts 
at FAS/Washington, with a primary focus on projects in Africa. 

As noted in this report, USDA included several multifaceted projects 
that address policy-making and social, economic, and political 
conflicts over resources at all levels. For example, with respect to 
the Monarch Butterfly and Migratory Bird habitat projects, both 
protect important forested landscapes in the highlands. By helping 
keep these forests intact, we are protecting important watersheds upon 
which agricultural production is dependent. Through engagement of 
governments, NGOs, and communities, these projects aim to preserve the 
very source of water and great a stable agricultural environment over 
the longer-term. 

Finally, while this GAO review focuses on the USG, a holistic approach 
to global food security needs to acknowledge the importance not only 
of better coordination within the USG structure but also better donor, 
private sector, and multilateral efforts. 

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

M. Ann Tutwiler	
Coordinator, Feed the Future Initiative: 
Office of the Secretary: 

Signed by: 

John D. Brewer: 
Administrator: 
Foreign Agricultural Service: 

The following are GAO's comments on the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture's (USDA) letter dated February 22, 2010. 

GAO comments: 

1. We are making our second recommendation to the Secretary of State 
to work in collaboration with the U.S. Agency for International 
Development Administrator, the Secretary of Agriculture, the Chief 
Executive Officer of the Millennium Challenge Corporation, the 
Secretary of the Treasury, and other agency heads, as appropriate. We 
recognize the important roles that all the relevant agencies play in 
the Global Hunger and Food Security Initiative (GHFSI) currently led 
by State as a whole-of-government effort. We also recognize the 
expertise that agencies, such as USDA and USAID, offer, and encourage 
fully leveraging their expertise, which is essential to U.S. efforts 
to help strengthen host governments' capacity in a country-led 
approach. USDA's expertise includes its relationships with U.S. land 
grant colleges and university partners, as well as the science and 
technology programs that the department supports. 

2. We acknowledge USDA's limited in-country presence and tight travel 
budgets--issues that agricultural attachés raised during our 
fieldwork. We also acknowledge steps that USDA is taking to increase 
its presence, especially in Africa, in light of the growing role of 
Africa in USDA's food security and trade portfolios. 

3. We do not question the appropriateness of the host country-led 
approach. However, we do point out the potential weaknesses of the 
approach as risks that the administration should mitigate to ensure 
successful implementation of the strategy. We note that the weak 
capacity of host governments is a systemic problem in many developing 
countries. 

4. We added a footnote to provide USDA's explanation for how the 
migratory bird and monarch butterfly habitat management were related 
to global food security. 

5. Although our review focuses on U.S. efforts, we do acknowledge the 
roles of all development partners, including host governments, 
multilateral organizations, bilateral donors, and other entities such 
as nongovernmental organizations, philanthropic foundations, private 
sector organizations, and academic and research organizations. 

[End of section] 

Appendix IX: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

GAO Contact: 

Thomas Melito, (202) 512-9601, or melitot@gao.gov: 

Staff Acknowledgments: 

In addition to the individual named above, Phillip Thomas (Assistant 
Director), Sada Aksartova, Carol Bray, Ming Chen, Debbie Chung, Martin 
De Alteriis, Mark Dowling, Brian Egger, Etana Finkler, Kendall Helm, 
Joy Labez, Ulyana Panchishin, Lisa Reijula, Julia Ann Roberts, Jena 
Sinkfield, and Barbara Shields made key contributions to this report. 

[End of section] 

Related GAO Products: 

International Food Assistance: A U.S. Governmentwide Strategy Could 
Accelerate Progress toward Global Food Security. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-212T]. Washington, D.C.: October 
29, 2009. 

International Food Assistance: Key Issues for Congressional Oversight. 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-977SP]. Washington, 
D.C.: September 30, 2009. 

International Food Assistance: USAID Is Taking Actions to Improve 
Monitoring and Evaluation of Nonemergency Food Aid, but Weaknesses in 
Planning Could Impede Efforts. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-980]. Washington, D.C.: September 
28, 2009. 

International Food Assistance: Local and Regional Procurement Provides 
Opportunities to Enhance U.S. Food Aid, but Challenges May Constrain 
Its Implementation. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-757T]. Washington, D.C.: June 4, 
2009. 

International Food Assistance: Local and Regional Procurement Can 
Enhance the Efficiency of U.S. Food Aid, but Challenges May Constrain 
Its Implementation. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-570]. Washington, D.C.: May 29, 
2009. 

USAID Acquisition and Assistance: Challenges Remain in Developing and 
Implementing a Strategic Workforce Plan. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-607T]. Washington, D.C.: April. 28, 
2009. 

Foreign Aid Reform: Comprehensive Strategy, Interagency Coordination, 
and Operational Improvements Would Bolster Current Efforts. 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-192]. Washington, D.C.: 
April 2009. 

GAO, Foreign Assistance: State Department Foreign Aid Information 
Systems Have Improved Change Management Practices but Do Not Follow 
Risk Management Best Practices. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-52R]. Washington, D.C.: November 
2008. 

USAID Acquisition and Assistance: Actions Needed to Develop and 
Implement a Strategic Workforce Plan. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-1059]. Washington, D.C.: September 
26, 2008. 

International Food Security: Insufficient Efforts by Host Governments 
and Donors Threaten Progress to Halve Hunger in Sub-Saharan Africa by 
2015. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-680]. Washington, 
D.C.: May 29, 2008. 

Somalia: Several Challenges Limit U.S. International Stabilization, 
Humanitarian, and evelopment Efforts. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-351]. Washington, D.C.: February 
19, 2008. 

Foreign Assistance: Various Challenges Limit the Efficiency and 
Effectiveness of U.S. Food Aid. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-905T]. Washington, D.C.: May 24, 
2007. 

Foreign Assistance: Various Challenges Impede the Efficiency and 
Effectiveness of U.S. Food Aid. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-560]. Washington, D.C.: April 13, 
2007. 

Foreign Assistance: U.S. Agencies Face Challenges to Improving the 
Efficiency and Effectiveness of Food Aid. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-616T]. Washington, D.C.: March 21, 
2007. 

Intellectual Property: Strategy for Targeting Organized Piracy (STOP) 
Requires Changes for Long-term Success. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-74]. Washington, D.C.: November 8, 
2006. 

Darfur Crisis: Progress in Aid and Peace Monitoring Threatened by 
Ongoing Violence and Operational Challenges. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-9]. Washington, D.C.: November 9, 
2006. 

Rebuilding Iraq: More Comprehensive National Strategy Needed to Help 
Achieve U.S. Goals. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-788]. Washington, D.C.: July 11, 
2006. 

Results-Oriented Government: Practices That Can Help Enhance and 
Sustain Collaboration among Federal Agencies. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-15]. Washington, D.C.: October 21, 
2005. 

Maritime Security Fleet: Many Factors Determine Impact of Potential 
Limits of Food Aid Shipments. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-1065]. Washington, D.C.: September 
13, 2004. 

United Nations: Observations on the Oil for Food Program and Iraq's 
Food Security. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-880T]. 
Washington, D.C.: June 16, 2004. 

Combating Terrorism: Evaluation of Selected Characteristics in 
National Strategies Related to Terrorism. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-408T]. Washington, D.C.: February 
3, 2004. 

Foreign Assistance: Lack of Strategic Focus and Obstacles to 
Agricultural Recovery Threaten Afghanistan's Stability. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-03-607]. Washington, D.C.: June 30, 
2003. 

Foreign Assistance: Sustained Efforts Needed to Help Southern Africa 
Recover from Food Crisis. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-03-644]. Washington, D.C.: June 25, 
2003. 

Food Aid: Experience of U.S. Programs Suggest Opportunities for 
Improvement. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-02-801T]. 
Washington, D.C.: June 4, 2002. 

Foreign Assistance: Global Food for Education Initiative Faces 
Challenges for Successful Implementation. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-02-328]. Washington, D.C.: February 
28, 2002. 

Foreign Assistance: U.S. Food Aid Program to Russia Had Weak Internal 
Controls. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/NSIAD/AIMD-00-329]. Washington, D.C.: 
September 29, 2000. 

Foreign Assistance: U.S. Bilateral Food Assistance to North Korea Had 
Mixed Results. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/NSIAD-00-175]. Washington, D.C.: June 
15, 2000. 

Managing for Results: Barriers to Interagency Coordination. 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/GGD-00-106]. Washington, 
D.C.: March 29, 2000. 

Foreign Assistance: Donation of U.S. Planting Seed to Russia in 1999 
Had Weaknesses. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/NSIAD-00-91]. Washington, D.C.: March 
9, 2000. 

Foreign Assistance: North Korea Restricts Food Aid Monitoring. 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/NSIAD-00-35]. Washington, 
D.C.: October 8, 1999. 

Food Security: Factors That Could Affect Progress toward Meeting World 
Food Summit Goals. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/NSIAD-99-15]. Washington, D.C.: March 
22, 1999. 

Food Security: Preparations for the 1996 World Food Summit. 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/NSIAD-97-44]. Washington, 
D.C.: November 7, 1996. 

[End of section] 

Footnotes: 

[1] At the 1996 World Food Summit, world leaders set a goal to halve 
the total number of undernourished people worldwide by 2015 from the 
1990 level. However, in 2000, the first of eight UN Millennium 
Development Goals (MDG), referred to as MDG-1, was defined as a 
commitment to halve the proportion of undernourished people. Both 
goals apply globally as well as at the country and regional levels. 
MDG-1 has two targets: first, between 1990 and 2015, to halve the 
proportion of people whose income is less than $1 a day and second, 
between 1990 and 2015, to halve the proportion of people who suffer 
from hunger. The second target is measured by two progress indicators: 
(1) the prevalence of underweight children under 5 years of age on the 
basis of United Nations Children's Fund and World Health Organization 
data and (2) the proportion of the population below the minimum level 
of dietary energy consumption. In this report we focus on the latter 
indicator, which is based on FAO's World Food Summit goal estimates. 

[2] Members of the G8 are Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, 
Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Although it is not 
a member of the G8, the European Commission also agreed to the 
commitment. 

[3] The President's budget for fiscal year 2011 includes $1.6 billion 
for agricultural development and nutrition programs as part of a 
multiyear plan that will rely on U.S. bilateral assistance and a new 
multidonor facility administered by the World Bank. 

[4] These include S. 384, Global Food Security Act, introduced on 
February 5, 2009; HR 2795, Roadmap to End Global Hunger and Promote 
Food Security Act of 2009, introduced on June 10, 2009; and HR 3077, 
Global Food Security Act of 2009, introduced on June 26, 2009. 

[5] FAO characterizes food security as a condition that exists when 
all people, at all times, have physical, social, and economic access 
to sufficient, safe, and nutritious food to meet their dietary needs 
and food preferences for an active and healthy life. Specifically, 
food security includes three elements: (1) food availability, (2) 
access, and (3) utilization. The declaration approved at the World 
Summit on Food Security in November 2009 expanded FAO's 
characterization to include stability as a fourth element. This fourth 
element was added after we completed our data collection and analysis. 
However, the FAO's characterization does not include an operational 
definition that would indicate which programs and activities it covers. 

[6] GAO, International Food Security: Insufficient Efforts by Host 
Governments and Donors Threaten Progress to Halve Hunger in Sub-
Saharan Africa by 2015, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-680] (Washington, D.C.: May 29, 
2008). 

[7] Many ongoing initiatives, such as the Chicago Initiative on Global 
Agricultural Development and the Partnership to Cut Hunger and Poverty 
in Africa, also recognize the importance of agricultural development 
in achieving food security and are therefore focused on agricultural 
development. 

[8] We have previously developed and used these criteria in other 
contexts, such as assessments of the Administration's strategies for 
combating terrorism, rebuilding Iraq, protecting intellectual property 
rights, and guiding U.S. activities related to Somalia. See GAO, 
Combating Terrorism: Evaluation of Selected Characteristics in 
National Strategies Related to Terrorism, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-408T] (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 3, 
2004); Rebuilding Iraq: More Comprehensive National Strategy Needed to 
Help Achieve U.S. Goals, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-788] (Washington, D.C.: July 11, 
2006); Intellectual Property: Strategy for Targeting Organized Piracy 
(STOP) Requires Changes for Long-term Success, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-74] (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 8, 
2006); and Somalia: Several Challenges Limit U.S. International 
Stabilization, Humanitarian, and Development Efforts, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-351] (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 19, 
2008). 

[9] In the absence of a commonly accepted governmentwide operational 
definition of food security, we developed a working definition for our 
data collection instrument based on a broad framework we established 
in an earlier report (GAO-08-680), prior GAO work on international 
food security, and our interactions with the agencies. See appendix II 
for a copy of the data collection instrument. 

[10] FAO monitors the state of food insecurity worldwide and 
periodically updates its estimates of the undernourished populations 
by country and by region. These estimates are published in FAO's 
annual report The State of Food Insecurity in the World (SOFI), which 
was first issued in 1999. The same estimates are used by the United 
Nations to track progress toward the MDG hunger goal. 

[11] See the State of Food Insecurity in the World 2009. Both the WFS 
and the MDG targets to cut hunger are based on FAO's estimates of the 
number of undernourished people. Because the MDG target is defined as 
the ratio of the number of undernourished people to the total 
population, it may appear that progress is being made when population 
increases even though there may have been no reduction in the number 
of undernourished people, according to FAO. 

[12] In sub-Saharan Africa, the primary vehicle for addressing 
agricultural development is the New Partnership for Africa's 
Development (NEPAD) and its CAADP. NEPAD was established by the 
African Union in July 2001 as a strategic policy framework for the 
revitalization and development of Africa. Support to CAADP is 
coordinated by a partnership platform, a group of senior 
representatives of multilateral and bilateral donors. 

[13] The UN High-Level Task Force on Global Food Security's progress 
report, April 2008 - October 2009, reported indicative funding for 
global food security by UN multilateral organizations from June 2008 
until September 2009, as follows: World Bank, $12.2 billion; 
International Monetary Fund, $9.2 billion; World Food Program, $5.6 
billion; IFAD, $910.7 million; FAO, $394 million; United Children's 
Fund, $146.3 million; UN Development Program (UNDP), $31.5 million; 
and World Health Organization, $2.9 million. 

[14] In L'Aquila the leaders of G8 countries pledged $20 billion for 3 
years beginning in 2010. Subsequently, at the G20 Summit in 
Pittsburgh, Belgium, Finland, Norway, and Switzerland pledged to 
commit $2 billion to the effort, bringing the total to $22 billion. 

[15] Also, in March 2009, the Alliance for a Green Revolution in 
Africa signed in Accra, Ghana, a memorandum of understanding with the 
Standard Bank of South Africa in Accra to provide a guarantee facility 
of $100 million to assist smallholder farmers in Africa. Ghana's 
Millennium Development Authority, which was established to implement 
the Millennium Challenge Corporation compact with Ghana, is among the 
contributing partners for the loan guarantee fund, which will be 
offered at prevailing market interest rates. 

[16] FAO's definition of the elements of food security is very high- 
level and does not provide guidance on which programs and activities 
it could cover. 

[17] GAO, International Food Security: Insufficient Efforts by Host 
Governments and Donors Threaten Progress to Halve Hunger in Sub-
Saharan Africa by 2015, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-680] (Washington, D.C.: May 29, 
2008). 

[18] The multilateral development banks' concessional windows provide 
development assistance to the world's poorest countries through highly 
concessional loans or grants. Concessional loans have no interest 
charge, 35 to 50 years maturities, 10-year grace periods, and a small 
service charge on disbursed balances. The concessional window at the 
World Bank is the International Development Association and it 
provides interest-free long-term loans and grants to the world's 82 
poorest countries which do not have the capacity to borrow on market 
terms. 

[19] Food for Progress and the McGovern-Dole Food for Education and 
Child Nutrition are among the six main U.S. food aid programs. Food 
for Progress involves emergency and nonemergency donation or credit 
sale of commodities to developing countries and emerging democracies. 
The McGovern-Dole Food for Education and Child Nutrition program 
involves nonemergency donation of commodities and provision of 
financial and technical assistance in foreign countries. 

[20] Section 1207 of the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal 
year 2006 (Pub. Law 109-163) provides authority for DOD to transfer to 
State up to $100 million per fiscal year in defense articles, 
services, training, or other support for reconstruction, 
stabilization, and security activities in foreign countries. Congress 
extended this authority through fiscal year 2010. 

[21] The Trade Policy Staff Committee and the Trade Policy Review 
Group, administered and chaired by USTR, are composed of 19 federal 
agencies and offices and make up the subcabinet level mechanism for 
developing and coordinating U.S. government positions on international 
trade and trade-related investment issues. 

[22] According to the Office of the Global AIDS Coordinator, under the 
President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief planned nutritional 
assistance in fiscal year 2008 was about $94 million. 

[23] USAID reported data on planned appropriations (plans for 
implementing current-year appropriated budgets); State provided 
appropriations, obligations, and expenditures data for different 
programs; DOD, MCC, USDA, and USTDA reported obligations data; and 
Treasury's funding is a GAO estimate (for detailed summaries of each 
agency's funding data, see appendix III). As planned appropriations 
may not lead to obligations, this creates a concern that planned 
appropriations may not reflect what USAID--the agency with the highest 
level of funding for global food security--allocates to these programs 
in a given fiscal year. 

[24] FACTS has two components: one is the FACTS database, introduced 
in December 2006, which is used to collect foreign assistance planning 
and reporting data, including plans for implementing current-year 
appropriated budgets and performance planning and reporting data. The 
other is FACTS Info, deployed in October 2008, which is used to 
aggregate, analyze, and report data on U.S. foreign assistance 
programs implemented by State and USAID. 

[25] See table 3 in appendix III for a detailed summary of USAID's 
response to the data collection instrument. 

[26] We did not include funding for these programs in the estimate of 
USDA's global food security assistance. However, in its formal agency 
comments on a draft of this report, USDA explained that both the 
migratory bird and monarch butterfly habitat projects protect forested 
landscapes in the highlands, thus protecting important watersheds upon 
which agricultural production is dependent. According to USDA, these 
projects aim to preserve water sources and create a stable 
agricultural environment over the longer term. 

[27] In its technical comments on a draft of this report, DOD 
disagreed with this estimate and stated that it implements 3 to 5 
percent of U.S. development assistance. 

[28] These include the regular appropriations (Pub. Law No. 110-161) 
of $1.2 billion and the supplemental appropriations (Pub. Law No. 110-
252) of $850 million in Food for Peace Title II funding for fiscal 
year 2008. 

[29] FACTS is designed to collect data on supplemental appropriations, 
and the data tables we were given included some supplemental 
appropriations for several subelements in our definition. However, we 
determined that while the data for regular appropriations are 
sufficiently reliable, the data for supplemental appropriations are 
incomplete. 

[30] In formal agency comments dated February 26, 2010, State 
indicated that the department will be releasing an implementation 
document for GHFSI within the next month. As part of technical 
comments on a draft of this report, on February 22, 2010, State 
provided to us an expanded draft of the Consultation Document that the 
IPC has commented on. 

[31] The lack of a comprehensive governmentwide information system is 
a prevailing limitation that hinders data collection and analysis for 
governmentwide programs, including those for global food security. 

[32] Members of the task force at the U.S. Mission in Bangladesh 
include USAID's Economic Growth Office, the Population, Health, 
Nutrition and Education Office, the Democracy and Governance Office 
and the Food, Disaster and Humanitarian Assistance Office; State's 
Political and Economic Section and Public Affairs Office; and the 
local hire staff of USDA and, remotely, the USDA representative in 
India who covers Bangladesh. 

[33] The Global Food Security Response Team was established to 
coordinate the Global Food Security Program in 2008, which has since 
been superseded by GHFSI in 2009. 

[34] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-680]. 

[35] The G8 joint statement was agreed upon in L'Aquila, Italy, in 
July 2009. The Comprehensive Framework for Action was issued in July 
2008 by the UN High-Level Task Force on the Global Food Security 
Crisis, which is chaired by the UN Secretary General with the FAO 
Director-General as vice chair. The Declaration of the World Summit on 
Food Security was adopted at the summit in Rome, Italy, in November 
2009. 

[36] State's Web site on global food security can be found at 
[hyperlink, http://www.state.gov/s/globalfoodsecurity/index.htm]. 

[37] In our view, a results framework is an important tool for 
monitoring and evaluation to ensure that the objectives of the 
projects and ultimately the U.S. strategy are achieved. Our prior work 
on various food aid programs found that U.S. agencies did not place a 
great deal of importance on investing the necessary resources in 
monitoring and evaluation. As the administration begins to implement a 
governmentwide strategy, monitoring of food security programs will 
serve to strengthen proper management and implementation of these 
programs, and evaluation will be crucial to ensuring that best 
practices and lessons learned are considered in the management and 
implementation of existing programs and in designing new ones. See 
GAO, International Food Assistance: USAID Is Taking Actions to Improve 
Monitoring and Evaluation of Nonemergency Food Aid, but Weaknesses in 
Planning Could Impede Efforts, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-980] (Washington, D.C.: September 
2009). 

[38] These funding amounts are delineated in State's Fiscal Year 
2011Congressional Budget Justification (CBJ). As of February 26, 2010, 
State expected the CBJ for the initiative to be released within 10 
days. 

[39] To provide funding information in response to our data collection 
instrument, USAID used FACTS while State did not. 

[40] For example, State's Bureau for Population, Refugees and 
Migration (PRM) reported funding information for global food security-
related activities using Abacus, PRM's system for program management, 
not FACTS. When we found, as discuss earlier in this report, that the 
FACTS data for fiscal year 2008 submitted by USAID did not contain a 
large amount of emergency food aid funding, we were told by USAID 
officials that the most up-to-date source of the food aid funding 
information is the Food for Peace Information System, used by USAID's 
Office of Food for Peace for program management and preparation of the 
annual International Food Assistance Report. 

[41] GAO, Managing for Results: Barriers to Interagency Coordination, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/GGD-00-106] (Washington, 
D.C. Mar. 29, 2000). See also Results-Oriented Government: Practices 
That Can Help Enhance and Sustain Collaboration among Federal 
Agencies, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-15] 
(Washington, D.C.: Oct. 21, 2005). 

[42] Major donors and their commitments--totaling $22.7 billion--are 
as follows: Australia, $464 million; Canada, $1.2 billion; the 
European Commission, $3.8 billion; France, $2.3 billion; Germany, $3 
billion; Italy, $450 million; Japan, $3 billion; the Netherlands, $2 
billion; Spain, $729 million; Sweden, $563 million; the United 
Kingdom, $1.8 billion; and the United States, $3.5 billion. 

[43] The heads of state and government of the African Union, meeting 
in Maputo, Mozambique, from July 10 through 12, 2003, issued a 
Declaration on Agriculture and Food Security in Africa 
(Assembly/AU/Decl. 7 (II)) that committed to allocating at least 10 
percent of national budgetary resources for the implementation of 
CAADP within 5 years. 

[44] GAO, Millennium Challenge Corporation: MCC Has Addressed a Number 
of Implementation Challenges, but Needs to Improve Financial Controls 
and Infrastructure Planning, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-52] (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 6, 
2009). 

[45] Investment requirements for the Second Strategic Plan for the 
Transformation of Agriculture (PSTA-II) are laid out in the 
Agricultural Sector Investment Plan 2009-2012 (ASIP). 

[46] IFAD's evaluation shows that the sustainability rating has 
improved in recent years, with the percentage of projects rated 
satisfactory on sustainability rising from 56 percent in 2006-2007 to 
70 percent in 2007-2008 worldwide. 

[47] World Bank, Independent Evaluation Group, Annual Report of 
Development Effectiveness 2008: Shared Global Challenges (Washington, 
D.C., 2008). 

[48] The Chicago Council on Global Affairs, Renewing American 
Leadership in the Fight Against Global Hunger and Poverty: The Chicago 
Initiative on Global Agricultural Development (Chicago, IL: 2009). 

[49] J. Brian Atwood, M. Peter McPherson, and Andrew Natsios. 
"Arrested Development: Making Foreign Aid a More Effective Tool." 
Foreign Affairs, vol. 87, No. 6, p. 127 (2008). 

[50] The vouchers offered average discounts of 64 percent (2005/2006) 
to 92 percent (2008/2009) on the price of fertilizer. 

[51] We did not include several agencies that now participate in the 
National Security Council Interagency Policy Committee but did not 
previously participate in the Food Security Sub-PCC, which was 
dissolved in January 2009. 

[52] The Food and Agriculture Organization's definition is very high- 
level and does not provide guidance on which programs and activities 
it could cover. 

[53] GAO, International Food Security: Insufficient Efforts by Host 
Governments and Donors Threaten Progress to Halve Hunger in Sub-
Saharan Africa by 2015, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-680] (Washington, D.C.: May 29, 
2008). 

[54] USTDA provided appropriations, obligations, and expenditures data 
but we only used its obligations data for fiscal year 2008. 

[55] For our purposes, we define developing countries as those outside 
the United States, Canada, Western and Central Europe, Australia, New 
Zealand, Japan, and Israel. 

[End of section] 

GAO's Mission: 

The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and 
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting 
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance 
and accountability of the federal government for the American people. 
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding 
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core 
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony: 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each 
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and 
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly 
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov] 
and select "E-mail Updates." 

Order by Phone: 

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and
white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s Web site, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm]. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional 
information. 

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs: 

Contact: 

Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]: 
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov: 
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470: 

Congressional Relations: 

Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov: 
(202) 512-4400: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7125: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: 

Public Affairs: 

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov: 
(202) 512-4800: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7149: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: