Is 'Feed the Future' the Future of Foreign Aid?

Alleviating global hunger is a moral and national security challenge, said Senators John Kerry (D-MA), Richard Lugar (R-IN) and just about everyone else at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee’s hearing on global hunger and food security last week . While global food security was the main focus, many were listening closely to testimony from Deputy Secretary of State Jack Lew and USAID Administrator Raj Shah for clues about what’s in store for foreign aid reform. The hearing didn’t disappoint on either front.On global hunger and food security, committee members and witnesses discussed the administration’s new “Feed the Future” initiative, as well as the Lugar-Casey Global Food Security Act of 2009, all emphasizing the importance of global hunger and food security to U.S. development and national security objectives:

• Chairman Kerry: “We have long viewed global hunger as one of our great moral challenges” and “a challenge to our broader development efforts and even to our national security.” (See full opening statement.)
• Ranking member Lugar:  Our witnesses “keenly understand the role that alleviating hunger and poverty plays for U.S. national security and global stability.” (See full opening statement.)
• Jack Lew :”Food security is not just about food, but is all about security—national security, economic security, environmental security, and human security.” (See full opening statement.)
• Administrator Shah: “The food security of developing nations is integral to our national security.”  (See full opening statement.)

In addition to being on-message about the national security aspects of food security, there was strong similarity (again) between Secretary Clinton’s January speech at CGD and testimony from Lew (almost verbatim) and Shah (conceptually):As we continue to wait for the final outcome of the Presidential Study Directive on U.S. Global Development Policy (PSD) and the interim recommendations of the Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review (QDDR), many in the development community are looking at Feed the Future for signs of where the administration is heading on broader foreign aid reform and U.S. global development policy. My big takeaways from the hearing:1. Feed the Future is being positioned as a model of 3D’s and integrated diplomacy and defense. Lew said:

Let me begin by setting the context for our work. President Obama and Secretary Clinton have committed the United States to a new vision for development—one that embraces development as a strategic, economic, and moral imperative, as central to solving global problems and advancing American national security as diplomacy and defense. We seek to balance, align, and leverage these three Ds as we pursue our national objectives in accordance with our fundamental values. This is a core characteristic of smart power and a guiding principle of our work around the world.The strategy for Feed the Future exemplifies our new vision for development.

Lew added that as they work to connect development and diplomacy, State and USAID will lead efforts to bring together other U.S. agencies—Department of Agriculture, Treasury, U.S. Trade Representative, etc.—and the multilaterals to expand the reach and impact of the program. In response to a question from Senator Lugar about who would ultimately be doing the coordination of the Feed the Future program, Lew explained that “in country, the answer is easy, you have ambassadors as chief of mission--this is a priority for the ambassador to manage,” and that the deputy chief of mission would do day-to-day management, two deputy coordinators would drive the program on a day-to-day basis, Shah would handle oversight mechanisms and that each agency would be accountable for funds for its agency but it “has to all tie together.” I’m sure I’m not the only one who would have liked to hear a lot more from Lew about USAID’s role--beyond oversight--in setting the direction and implementing the program in target countries.2. Global hunger and food security matters for U.S. national security; spurring economic growth is a big part of the response in Feed the Future and beyond. It seems to me economic growth got more attention than usual in testimony from Lew and Shah. Shah called the investments “essential to accelerating economic growth and poverty reduction” and emphasized that the approach to economic development would target the unique needs of women. Lew went even further, arguing “agriculture can be a powerful engine for broader economic growth”, that Feed the Future would create more economic opportunities for women and that the program takes the critical step of “investing in our partners’ futures by spurring long-term economic progress.” It’s great to see the attention to economic growth here and it could very well be the first sign of efforts to operationalize (at least in language) what we have heard will be the central objective of the PSD.3. Trade, migration, energy and other U.S. policies affect global hunger and food security; a broader development policy across the U.S. government is still needed. Senator Lugar noted that trends in population growth, energy costs and climate change affect global hunger and food security. He spoke of trade policies which “have too often focused on protecting domestic farmers, rather than creating well-functioning global markets,” and said both mass migration and intensifying health issues would result from growing hunger and food insecurity. While Lew and Shah’s testimony spoke of a whole of government approach for Feed the Future, it seemed to focus on implementing the program and leveraging expertise to get better results once a strategy, goals, and program had been defined. There is still an outstanding question of how broader U.S. development policy—not just for aid, but for trade, migration, climate change and more—will be set across government. Again, this is what the PSD seeks to answer and we’re anxious to see presidential action on the PSD recommendations.Time will tell whether Feed the Future signals the future of foreign aid reform, but I suspect we’re seeing strong signals of what’s in store. Defining development as part of U.S. moral, economic and national security interests isn’t new. A central focus on economic growth and job creation could be. Whither USAID is an open (and hotly contested) question. One other bright spot is that Senator Lugar said on global food security, he is “particularly pleased that discussions with the State Department have progressed so that we will soon be able to unveil a bill that represents a consensus among the administration, House and Senate sponsors, and non-governmental partners.” My fingers are crossed that this is a signal of the type of grand bargain we can still hope to see on broader foreign aid reform and U.S. development policy.For more on global food security, see Vij Ramachandran’s latest post.