Will USAID's Feed the Future Plan Combat Hunger or Just Bolster Big Ag?

The Feed the Future Initiative being spearheaded by the U.S. Agency for the International Development (USAID) sounds great on paper. The program, states a USAID press release, "targets the causes of hunger and aims to reduce poverty, hunger and undernutrition" in countries around the world. The effort "will build upon strong existing foundations to make improvements in global health, poverty reduction, and the overall development of our focus countries."

A noble goal, for sure, but what will the scheme really look like? The Initiative emerged as a result of President Obama's commitment at the G-8 Summit in July of 2009. The president promised $3.5 billion over three years to address the root causes of global hunger via "accelerated agricultural development and improved nutrition." Is this, as Jill Richardson writes on La Vida Locavore, "just the latest incarnation of the ongoing U.S. plan to 'help world hunger' by pushing biotech and industrial ag on poor countries"? Or is it, as Sarah Jane Staats writes on the Center for Global Development blog, "the future of foreign aid"?

Well, it might just be both. USAID Administrator Rajiv Shah has drawn suspicion for his welcoming attitude toward agricultural biotech. Plus, the agency's announcement of the 20 countries the Feed the Future Initiative will focus on makes it very clear that the private sector will be at the front and center of development efforts. In testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee’s hearing on global hunger and food security last month (PDF), Shah emphasized the importance of science and technology, specifically mentioning the goal of "adapting biotechnology for small-scale farmers."

He also, however, mentioned the need to address the "unique needs of women who make up the majority of the farming labor in our countries of focus," and lauded community-based, small entrepreneurship like enterprises that "aggregate the production of numerous small-scale producers – men and women with just a few cows each. These aggregators get the milk on the main roads for delivery to urban processors and ultimately to consumers." This doesn't sound like some conniving, agribusiness-lover to me.

It is true, however, that a strategic logic is emerging in this new approach to foreign aid, and it's a logic some might find distasteful. Richardson puts it like this: "They made it clear that they are absolutely working to serve U.S. interests, and if a country doesn't want to do it our way, we won't work with them."

Staats, on the other hand, expresses the idea a bit more even-handedly: The approach is "emphasizing the importance of global hunger and food security to U.S. development and national security objectives."

I personally don't see anything wrong with spending our money in ways that helps us as a country and helps developing nations, too. But, it is unfortunately true that America's government officials tend to believe it's in their best interest to support big agribusiness firms, conveniently forgetting that the success of those companies may not be the best thing for the country or the "beneficiaries" of Big Ag's technological advancements.

If Shah is confusing U.S. agribusiness' interests with our country's interests, then our national security is going to be much more harmed by this initiative than it will be helped (and it likely won't do developing nations any good, either). But if his heart (and mind) really are in the right places, then as far as I'm concerned, let's get busy feeding the future.

Photo: UN Photo/John Isaac