• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Front Cover
 Table of Contents
 Executive summary
 Introduction
 USAID and agriculture
 A closer look at USAID's evolving...
 The new BIFAD
 Strategic challenge
 Conclusion
 Annex tables and graphs






Group Title: Famine prevention and freedom from hunger
Title: Report to Congress on Title XII : Famine prevention and freedom from hunger
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00082746/00001
 Material Information
Title: Report to Congress on Title XII : Famine prevention and freedom from hunger
Physical Description: Book
Language: English
Creator: United States Agency for International Development
Publisher: United States Agency for International Development
Place of Publication: Washington, D. C.
Publication Date: December, 1998
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00082746
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: oclc - 4434993

Table of Contents
    Front Cover
        Front Cover 1
        Front Cover 2
    Table of Contents
        Table of Contents
    Executive summary
        Page i
        Page ii
        Page iii
        Page iv
        Page v
    Introduction
        Page 1
        Page 2
    USAID and agriculture
        Page 3
        Page 4
        Page 5
        Page 6
        Page 7
    A closer look at USAID's evolving agricultural programs
        Page 8
        Page 9
        Page 10
        Page 11
        Page 12
        Page 13
        Page 14
        Page 15
        Page 16
        Page 17
        Page 18
        Page 19
        Page 20
        Page 21
        Page 22
        Page 23
        Page 24
    The new BIFAD
        Page 25
        Page 26
    Strategic challenge
        Page 27
        Page 28
        Page 29
        Page 30
        Page 31
    Conclusion
        Page 32
    Annex tables and graphs
        Page 33
        Page 34
        Page 35
        Page 36
        Page 37
        Page 38
        Page 39
        Page 40
        Page 41
        Page 42
        Page 43
        Page 44
        Page 45
        Page 46
        Page 47
        Page 48
        Page 49
        Page 50
        Page 51
        Page 52
        Page 53
        Page 54
Full Text

A I /. oO-


'.y^: ' ..:: re r

. .
rr

4 'r : : % , : :


: ." h *' .." ,. -
: ':: ;S

RW | :





'i'
:' ." .' ^ f .b' ": .. . .,- p -/ :r, ,,' ., ..\ ..'






,-, '^.,.. .& ^
. :' .' ., /. ,:^" .'," "'; ^ "'
,. '*.^,*, "*, ,- ". ; ,' *. *. ',, <' ^ i
'. : .. / .: ,, ;,. i.
FRO : GER..,, .


.C ,. : .s'. L '.." ./'.," '. ,, *, .<

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .. :....:,"'" ::,$' ." '., .; '"



1"... ," :. ::.. : .
,:l .:: ,;-'..-,.:,, .. .;.i ,:" ,~~.;:. ,..
",, .' -'..: : .~ ..:, ,,., .., ,:; .:. : .
,. :.. ,.( ":, ... ." .. ''., .,, ::.,: :, : ,' ,,., .


r.'' '
~. ;~SrqesBDQgBCQlsl ';'
d; ? .
c, ., ;iC~l'~i~.
.. .;
-~i~it ir I.
.
..
~
.a;.
?I
f~j:~~i


E~
1., ..
~ '_n
:
~'i'.'..rY; :h..:.l..
Pt" ~:~
...~
.'I
:E ~
.. ~du~


United States Agency for

International Development











Remarks at a dinner, "Agricultural Innovation at Home and Abroad: Partnerships for
Success", to celebrate the partnership of USAID, the US universities and the
agriculture community and their efforts to prevent famine and establish freedom
from hunger around the world. September 22, 1998


"The percentage of
malnourished people has
fallen, and the lives and
livelihoods of countless millions
of rural families have
dramatically improved. Food is
more available --
at lower cost -- in many
developing countries, both
because of more productive
seed varieties and because of
policy reforms USAID has
fostered actively.

"Title XII legislation played a major role in making these
accomplishments possible. Title XII helped create a new
means of marshalling the strength of the U.S. research
establishment to help meet the global hunger challenge.
Title XII legislation also broke new ground by recognizing
the value that agricultural development abroad brings to
the American farm economy.

"We have met Title Xll's first stated mandate to
increase world food production many times over.
We have not met Title Xll's second stated mandate,
'solving food and nutrition problems in the developing
countries.'

"Ending hunger is in everybody's best interests ...
It serves the security needs of every nation, every
enlightened leader, every person that walks the
earth."

J. Brian Atwood
USAID Administrator


"... BIFAD laid down the
intellectual foundations for
training, institutional building, and
research.

... Information technology and
biotechnology are enormously
powerful tools and bring
significant additional agriculture
production in the developing
world... This is an environment
where great progress can be
made."

Peter McPherson,
President
Michigan State University





"Farmers are key to maintaining
the environment, maintaining
culture and tradition, as well as
being producers. This latter
view is the one that is more
realistic, and we both (USAID
and land-grants) need to
aggressively 'redefine'
agriculture beyond its productive
functions."

C. Peter Magrath, President
National Association of State
Universities and Land Grant
Colleges


U.S. AGENCY FOR
INTERNATIONAL
DEVELOPMENT










Report to Congress on Title XII:
Famine Prevention and Freedom from Hunger
December 1998

Table of Contents


Executive Summary

Introduction 1

I. USAID and Agriculture 3
The Backdrop: Global Changes in Agricultural Productivity, Trade, and Research 3
The USG Context for Development Assistance 6

II. A Closer Look at USAID's Evolving Agricultural Programs 8
Mission Programs in Agriculture 9
Support for International Agricultural Research 14
Partnerships with U.S. Universities 16
Collaborative Research 17
University Development Linkage Program (UDLP) 22
Building University [ARC Linkages 22
USAID Contracts and Grants with Universities 24

III. The New BIFAD 25

IV. Strategic Challenge 27
Preventing Famine and Achieving Freedom from Hunger 28
Re-Emphasizing Investments in Agricultural Research 29
The Linkage between Civil Conflict, Democratic Participation and Food Security 31
Strengthened Market Ties and Public Private Partnerships 31

Conclusion 32

Annex Tables and Graphs
Total Obligations in Agriculture, by Emphasis Area by Bureau, FY 92 97
Budgeted Obligations in Agriculture by Emphasis Area by Bureau, FY 98 99
USAID Obligations by Emphasis Area, FY 92 97
Components of Economic Growth Obligations
Agriculture Obligations (millions $); USAID Obligations in Agriculture (percentage)
USAID Obligations and Food Aid
Agency Obligation Totals by Emphasis Area; CRSP Funding Levels for FY92-FY98
CRSP U.S.-Host Country Linkages
CRSP Presence Countries
Members of BIFAD
Members of Advisory Committee on Food Security
Title XII Legislation










Report to Congress on Title XII:
Famine Prevention and Freedom from Hunger
Fiscal Years 1992 1997

Executive Summary


This report summarizes USAID implementation of the Title XII legislation
between 1992 and 1997. Over the years, USAID's agricultural programs
have most directly reflected the mandate of Title XII, complementing other
USAID efforts in support of economic growth and private sector development,
child survival, education, and other social and political development goals.
Country agricultural programs have focused on local institution-building in the
agricultural sector as well as establishment of an appropriate policy
environment for all productive sectors. Regional programs have emphasized
trade policies and regulations as well as agricultural production technology-
sharing and transfer. Global programs have focused on the genetic
improvement of crops, issues related to the conservation of biodiversity and
management of natural resources, food and agricultural policy, the
involvement of U.S. universities in multi-regional research and training, and
collaboration and coordination with other donors.

In the 1992-97 period, the Agency revisited its strategy, introducing new
priorities in democracy, governance, and human capacity development and
reshaping other objectives -- including those involving broad-based economic
growth, agriculture, food, and nutrition. Both the end of the Cold War and
the new era of expanding global markets contributed to changing trends in
USAID assistance. Beginning in 1992, USAID expanded its programs into
the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, providing support for economic
and political transitions on a significant scale. At the same time, however,
budget agreements between the Administration and the Congress resulted in a
gradual reduction in overall appropriations for USAID programs.

While $7.5 billion was approved for USAID programming in FY 92,
USAID's appropriation in FY 97 was $6.7 billion, a decline of just over 10
percent. Operating Expense (OE) constraints resulted in severe restrictions on
new hiring and, in 1996, in a major reduction-in-force. Combined with
retirements, Agency staff was downsized by 30 percent. USAID's obligations
for agricultural activities declined by 59 percent between 1992 and 1997 (from
$594 million to $244 million) as Administration priorities shifted and new
programs opened in the former Soviet Union.

Agriculture also claimed a reduced share of the total budget, going from 10
percent of total USAID obligations in FY 92 to less than five percent of
obligations in FY 97. Within overall budget trends, agricultural obligations in
the Asia/Near East region dropped most sharply -- by almost 75 percent.
Other reductions were less drastic. For example, agricultural investments in
the sub-Saharan Africa region were reduced by 57 percent, but settled at $80
million in FY 97 (thus making it the largest agricultural program among all









the regions) contributing over 11 percent of the total Africa assistance
program.

To respond to these changed resource levels, USAID's managers modified
agricultural portfolios in several ways.

* In Sub-Saharan Africa, the reduced budget levels mainly affected
programs that involved work with public agencies, particularly agricultural
research. They had relatively less impact on programs with a private sector,
cooperative or agribusiness focus. Programming priorities led to closure of
agricultural programs in several countries -- Senegal, Tanzania, Guinea and
Zimbabwe. At the same time, strong programs that emphasize both food
crops and cash crops as a means to increase rural incomes and food security
continue in countries such as Kenya, Uganda and Mozambique.

* In the Asia and Near East region, activities focused on agribusiness
and policy reforms continued in Egypt and, at reduced levels, in Sri Lanka,
Nepal, Morocco, the Philippines and Bangladesh. Agriculture sector
assistance to Indonesia ended in 1997 with the reduction of economic growth
funds available to the Mission.

* The Bureau for Latin America and the Caribbean shifted program
emphasis from "strengthened markets" to "expanding access and opportunity
for the poor." This meant a refocusing of agricultural and rural development
efforts as well as a general downsizing of programs across the region.

* The Europe and the New Independent States region began
operations in the early 90s, and all assistance programs had, from the outset,
very limited time horizons and an orientation toward accelerating the transition
to market economies. The programs emphasized private sector and
commercial agribusiness development, and complemented other ENI programs
in commercial law, privatization, enterprise development and financial sector
restructuring.

The various global programs through which USAID partners with U.S.
universities in mobilizing science to solve agricultural problems and in
training and educating the next generation of agricultural scientists from
developing countries were also downsized and modified.

In the 1992-97 period, USAID's support for land-grant university-led
research activities was embodied in nine Collaborative Research Support
Programs (CRSPs) and three related programs: the Postharvest Collaborative
Agribusiness Support Program (CASP), the Agricultural Biotechnology for
Sustainable Productivity (ABSP) activity, and the Food Security Policy
project. Fifty universities from 34 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto
Rico are participating in these programs.









The CRSPs have continued to produce a large quantity of research results and
information even though the overall scale of effort has been trimmed. Over
7000 scientists and support staff from the U.S., host countries, and other
developing countries have been better educated through the involvement of the
CRSPs. Approximately 60 percent of the financing for the CRSPs came from
the centrally-managed USAID grants -- worth a total of $98 million over the
period -- and the remainder came from the participating universities, missions,
and other organizations involved in the research.

Consistent with larger budget trends, USAID's funding of both research and
implementation activities carried out by U.S. land-grant institutions declined
during the period. Contract/grant data show that, in FY 92, USAID signed
384 agreements with universities. A third of these agreements (134) were for
agricultural sector activities, and the average value of such activities was
$3.4 million. In FY 97, USAID negotiated 142 contracts or grants with
institutes of higher education (a drop of 63 percent), of which 11 were for
agriculturally-related activities. The average value of each grant was $.9
million. In comparison to agriculture sector activities, total funding levels of
grants/contracts with universities fell less dramatically, from $221 million in
FY 92 to $162 million in FY 97, a drop of 27 percent.

During the 1992-1997 period, USAID's unrestricted core support to the
International Agricultural Research Centers (IARCs) in the Consultative
Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) was cut nearly in half,
from $42.9 million in 1992 to $22.4 million in 1996. In 1997, following the
World Food Summit, funding was increased to $26 million. Most of this
increase was in support of expanded research linkages with U.S. universities.

The increasing interest in, and scope for, collaboration between U.S.
universities and the IARCs reflect larger trends in scientific research. As both
a greater number of disciplines contribute to integrated research approaches
and as budgets have been reduced, it has become increasingly attractive to
seek collaborative linkages, especially in areas such as biotechnology and
information management. In this context, USAID's initiation of the new
CGIAR-U.S. university linkages program in 1997 was effective in fostering
more collaboration between U.S. universities and the IARCs, with the latter
funding some 80 activities involving more than 50 U.S. universities. Given
this importance of the U.S. university partnership to USAID, the ability to
join the clear scientific strength of the U.S. universities with the critical global
leadership of the CGIAR institutions through a simple mechanism has been
gratifying.

One important instrument to promote increased collaboration between U.S.
universities and various other groups interested in international agriculture in
the Board for International Food and Agricultural Development (BIFAD).
The current BIFAD was named in August 1995; its mandate is to advise and
assist the USAID Administrator with regard to programs and activities relating
to agriculture and food security. Along with other groups and individuals,









BIFAD has encouraged USAID to refocus attention on international
agricultural development.

With BIFAD support and encouragement, the Administrator has taken a
number of specific and concrete steps to reemphasize the importance of
agriculture in USAID's programs. These include:

* stressing the critical role of agriculture in promoting economic
development in low income countries in his congressional testimony
and public speeches;
signalling USAID's recommitment to agriculture and food security by
explicitly adding "agricultural development" to the Agency strategic
goal of economic growth;
renewing U.S. university collaboration in agricultural research with
developing countries (including a revision of the CRSP guidelines);
opening new windows to collaboration with the U.S. agribusiness
community (this was supported by naming a key private sector
member to the BIFAD);
fully participating in the interagency process related to the 1996 Rome
World Food Summit and sustaining the involvement of the
nongovernmental and agribusiness sectors; and
reversing the declining trend in funding for agricultural activities.
From a low point of $244 million in FY 97, USAID's FY 98
agriculture budget was $294 million and the FY 99 budget request
included a further increase -- to nearly $305 million.

While this renewed budgetary commitment to expanding the role of
agriculture in promoting economic growth and protecting the global natural
resource base is straightforward, the strategic challenge faced by USAID in
implementing Title XII is complex. This challenge encompasses:

* recognition that the size of the world's hungry population is not going
to diminish without additional and more focused efforts, not only on
increasing agricultural production, but also on other factors associated
with children's nutrition, such as women's education;
* realization that under-investment in agricultural research for more than
a decade may have already disrupted the flow of benefits which can be
expected from publicly-funded research;
* increased understanding of the linkage between civil conflict,
democratic participation, education, rule of law, women's roles, and
food security; and
a awareness that strengthened market ties with the developing world are
essential for growth of U.S. agriculture and new forms of public-
private partnership are needed.

To respond to these complex issues, USAID has many of the resources
needed, the most important of which are the long-standing institutional
relationships which it has developed both in developing countries and the U.S.









The U.S. land-grant universities are, as the Title XII legislation asserts,
essential partners in many of these relationships. These relationships enable
USAID to call upon expertise around the globe, mobilizing the most
appropriate to solve problems wherever they occur.

We are committed, therefore, to solving the funding and staffing problems
which affect our efforts to address this complex challenge and look forward to
building on our Title XII implementation experience to shape USAID's
response to the continued challenges of preventing famine and freeing the
world from hunger.










Report to Congress on Title XII:
Famine Prevention and Freedom from Hunger


INTRODUCTION

This report summarizes USAID implementation of the Title XII legislation during
the period 1992-97. Title XII was enacted in 1975, a time of widespread hunger
and famine in Africa. The U.S. responded to that crisis with unprecedented
volumes of food aid and other humanitarian assistance, thus saving millions of
lives.

Title XII, however, takes a longer view, and aims at marshalling American
teaching and research expertise in agricultural sciences to "prevent famine and
establish freedom from hunger" in developing countries. In order to achieve
these goals, "various components must be brought together...including:

strengthening the capabilities of universities to assist in increasing
agricultural production in developing countries;
a institution-building programs for development of national and regional
agricultural research and extension capacities in developing countries
which need assistance;
a international agricultural research centers;
a contract research; and
research program grants."

Over the years, USAID's agricultural programs have most directly reflected Title
XII's mandate, complementing other USAID efforts in support of economic
growth and private sector development, child survival, education, and other social
and political development goals. Country agricultural programs have focused on
local institution-building in the agricultural sector as well as on establishing an
appropriate policy environment. Regional programs have emphasized trade
policies and regulations, production technology-sharing, and transfer. Global
programs have focused on the genetic improvement of crops, issues related to the
conservation of biodiversity and management of natural resources, food and
agricultural policy, the involvement of the U.S. universities in multi-regional
research and training, and collaboration and coordination with other donor
agencies in both the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research
(CGIAR) and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development
(OECD), as well as other fora.

In the period covered by this report, however, the Agency revisited its strategy,
introducing new priorities in democracy and governance and human capacity
development; and reshaping other objectives, including those involving
agriculture, food, and nutrition. Overall, the period can be characterized as one
of declining budgets and staffing for USAID, not only in the agricultural area, but
for economic growth activities on a broader scale. At the same time, funding
and programs in democracy, environment, and population and health, especially
child survival, expanded.











Section I of this report describes the backdrop of global change in agricultural
trade, productivity, and technological innovation against which USAID programs
in agriculture have evolved. It also explains the U.S. government and USAID
context which affected agricultural programming.

Section II takes a closer look at USAID activities in agriculture, illustrating how
budget and program priorities have evolved in country, regional, and global
programs. It provides insight on the overall level and distribution of USAID
funding, as well as on the objectives sought and results achieved.

Section III explains the revitalization of the Board for International Food and
Agricultural Development (BIFAD) in 1995, and the impact which this has had on
the Agency's priorities and approaches.

Section IV provides a forward-looking vision for agriculture in the U.S.
development assistance program into the next century.










I. USAID and Agriculture


The Backdrop: Global Changes in Agricultural Productivity, Trade, and
Research

Years of research and development in crop breeding, pest management and
agronomy continued to bear fruit in the 1990s. Average yields of the major staple
grains increased worldwide between 1992 and 1997; in developing countries
alone, grain yields increased by more than 10 percent. Total production of
cereals and coarse grains increased from 1.41 billion metric tons (MT) to 1.55
billion MT. Net food availability, therefore, increased by more than 23 percent in
the six-year period and per capital availability by more than 13 percent.

Only in Africa did population grow faster than agricultural production. Although
overall food production has increased fairly consistently from 1992 to 1997, it was
more than offset by population growth. As a result, per capital food production
continued to decline gradually. Combined with weak economic (income) growth
and, therefore, a limited ability to pay for commercial imports, this meant
declining food availability for Africans and increased vulnerability to adverse
weather conditions and the disruptions of civil conflict. Indeed, such conditions
necessitated massive food aid interventions in Somalia (1992-94) and Rwanda
(1994-1997).

Nevertheless, private sector trade in agricultural commodities increased
enormously in other regions from the mid-1980s to the mid-1990s. As the Cold
War ended, and the countries of Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union
began to participate in markets, flows from and to those regions began to grow.
The most solid growth in agricultural commodity trade, however, came from the
rapidly-growing Asian countries.

Private sector involvement in agricultural research, which had increased rapidly
in the U.S. in the mid-1980s, began to be extended abroad in the 1990s as the
possibility of gaining markets with hybrid seeds and other proprietary technologies
emerged in the more rapidly-growing developing nations. More open, private
sector-dominated markets provided the incentives for research-oriented
agribusinesses to step into the traditionally "public" domain of agricultural
technology development and extension. In developed countries, research by the
International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) found that "spending on
private agricultural research has risen by...over 5 percent per year since 1981 and
now amounts to almost half of total agricultural R & D expenditures..."

A new international orientation is increasingly being felt in the breadbaskets of
America as the U.S. farmer becomes more aware of the importance of these
emerging markets. The 1996 "Freedom to Farm" Act and U.S. participation in
the World Trade Organization (WTO) are leading to an integration between U.S.
and world markets for farm commodities. U.S. producers recognize that their
future depends on expansion of exports to developing countries. USDA recorded
more than $50 billion in total agricultural exports every year after 1994. At the










same time trade with developing countries has expanded rapidly. The jump in
exports to developing countries is clearly evident in 1995.

U.S. Agricultural Trade with
Developing Countries ($ billions)


Year Imports Exports

1993 18.5 23.2
1994 20.5 23.6
1995 23.4 30.7
1996 24.6 34.1
1997 27.1 32.2


Concurrently, however, international commitments to using development
assistance funds in support of agricultural production declined significantly
between the mid-1980s and 1992 and continued to drop throughout the 1992-97
period. The World Bank statistics are startling: lending for rural development
(including agriculture) decreased by nearly 60 percent between 1985/86 and
1995/96. Total official development assistance (ODA) provided by the OECD
members for agricultural programs was reduced by 16 percent between 1992 and
1996, from $15.3 billion to $12.9 billion, largely reflecting a similar decline in
total ODA (from $66.7 to $60.1 billion). Total ODA further declined to $47
billion in 1997, a 40 percent decline from 1992.

The declines have been attributed to both positive and negative factors. On the
positive side, the 1980s were a period of relative food surplus in exporting (donor)
countries and rapid agricultural productivity growth in Latin America and in
countries such as India and Indonesia. This success, coupled with low prices and
few large-scale food crises, moved food and agricultural issues off the list of
critical development issues. Concern in some quarters of the donor countries that
agricultural growth in developing countries might hurt their own farm exports also
weakened support for agricultural research and development abroad. The
apparent success of commercial trade in meeting food needs and the expansion of
the private sector into formerly public sector functions (research, extension) also
generated some downward pressure on agricultural assistance budgets.

On the negative side, funding for agriculture declined because most donor-
supported rural development/agriculture programs had been largely focused on
government interventions, at times causing more problems (market distortions,
excessive growth of civil service work forces, etc.) than they solved. Further, as
the negative impacts of regulatory and legislative distortions were better
understood, donors were less ready to invest in agricultural research and
technology development until the policy environments were improved.










In keeping with these trends, the international agricultural research system,
supported by the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research
(CGIAR), began to experience problems associated with inadequate funding.
Donor funding levelled off during the late 1980s, and then began to decline, just at
the time that the CGIAR system expanded in 1992 to include four new natural
resource-oriented centers. In 1993 and 1994, the U.S. and a-few other donors
(e.g. Finland, Italy) made substantial reductions in their funding, owing to their
own budgetary constraints. While the new centers, covering areas such as
agroforestry, tropical forestry and fisheries, have been growing, the established
centers have in many cases made cuts in international staffing of 10-20 percent.
In addition, many staff have been shifted from "core" research programs to "soft-
money" projects, reducing the number of scientists working on long-term strategic
research.

Partially offsetting these changes on the international level, national agricultural
research funding continued to grow in most developing countries in the 90s, but at
a slower rate. In addition, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and private
voluntary organizations (PVOs) found that long-term engagement in community-
based agricultural production and extension efforts enabled them to sustain their
programs between humanitarian crises (for which many of them provided food aid
distribution services). These services provided an important complement to public
sector research efforts.

The impact of the downward trend in investments in agriculture among all major
donors was clearly visible by the late 1990s, as the rate of growth in food
production per capital began levelling off after decades of gradual but steady gains.
Ironically, support for the public research system which generated those gains was
declining just as rapid advances in scientific knowledge and techniques were
increasing that system's capacity to provide poor farmers in developing countries
with hardier, more disease-resistant and more nutritious crops and livestock.

More to the point, continuing hunger and malnutrition affected almost as many
people in 1997 as they had in 1972. Consequently, at the World Food Summit
held in 1996, the world community committed itself to reducing the number of
undernourished people from 800 million to 400 million by the year 2015.

The United States participation in this community decision reflected a growing
recognition that support to long-term agricultural development and the reduction
of hunger is a "win-win" situation for the U.S. Helping smallholder farmers in
developing countries stimulates overall economic growth, which leads to increased
imports of U.S. goods and services, such as the high-quality food and feed
commodities in which the U.S. has a comparative advantage. In addition,
international agricultural research which generates new crop varieties and other
technologies that can be used in U.S. research efforts can be of considerable
domestic benefit. Finally, participation by U.S. faculty and graduate students in
such international research enriches the U.S. teaching, research, and extension
programs.










The USG Context for Development Assistance


The end of the Cold War and the new era of expanding global markets had a
significant impact on U.S. development assistance programs. Beginning in 1992,
USAID expanded its programs into the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe,
providing support for economic and political transitions on a significant scale. At
the same time, however, budget agreements between the Administration and
Congress resulted in a gradual reduction in overall appropriations for USAID
programs. Operating Expense (OE) constraints resulted in severe restrictions on
new hiring and, in 1996, in a major reduction-in-force (RIF). Combined with
retirements, the Agency's staff was downsized by 30 percent during this period.
As a result, the location, nature and management of USAID programs changed
dramatically in a relatively short period of time.


USAID Appropriated or Administered Accounts ($ millions)

FY 92 FY 94 FY 96
DA* 2,325 2,330 1,906
ESF 3,188 2,365 2,363
SEED 364 382 475
NIS 0 555 625
TITLE II 710 822 837
TITLE 330 255 30

OE 474 518 488
TOTAL 7,534 7,227 6,724


*DA in this table includes, depending on the
year. DA, DFA. POP, CS, ASHA, Credit,
IDA, FS Retire.


In order to open and staff missions in the Eastern Europe and Newly-Independent
States (NIS), USAID downsized or eliminated longstanding development support
programs in Asia and the Near East, Africa, and Latin America and the
Caribbean.

At the same time, a revised Agency assistance strategy was developed in 1996-97,
with final revisions completed in late FY 97. The new strategy articulates seven
program goals. Two of them (Goal 1: Broad-based economic growth and
agricultural development encouraged, and Goal 5: The world's environment
protected for long-term sustainability) are expected to be attained, in part, by
USAID's successful efforts in agriculture. However, this will require that










USAID address the strategic challenges laid out in Section IV as well as further
shifts in funding patterns.

USAID Agriculture Funding
Selected Years ($ millions)


FY 92 FY 94 FY 97

Africa 176 122 80
ANE 220 95 57
ENI 50 87 32
LAC 66 42 29
Global 70 45 43
BHR* 9 6 3
PPC/M 3 2 2
Total 594 399 245


*Not including Food Aid monetizations.


As the table above shows, USAID's obligations for agricultural activities declined
by 59 percent over the period. Agriculture also claimed a reduced share of the
total budget, going from 10 percent of total USAID obligations in FY 92 to less
than five percent of obligations in FY 97. Agricultural obligations in the
Asia/Near East region declined most sharply -- by almost 75 percent. Other
reductions were less drastic. For example, agricultural investments in the sub-
Saharan Africa region were reduced by 55 percent, but settled at $80 million in
FY 97 (thus making it the largest agricultural program among all the regions), and
constituting a 10 percent share of the total Africa assistance program.

Shifts also occurred in the composition of the agricultural portfolio. Support to
crop production and agribusiness activities expanded while agricultural policies
and planning, training, extension and infrastructure declined. The smaller
percentages allocated to fisheries, livestock, pest management, research
management and agricultural credit remained relatively stable.

USAID's direct-hire technical agricultural staff has similarly been reduced
between 1992-97. The number of US direct-hire Foreign Service Officers
specializing in agriculture dropped from 150 in 1992 to 61 in 1997. Civil service
(GS) agriculturist ranks were depleted even more -- from 20 in 1992 to 5 in 1997.
Overall, the 60 percent drop in budget for agriculture was accompanied by a 60
percent decline in technical staffing. As agricultural staff left the Agency (either
through the reduction-in-force or through retirement) or moved to positions not
specifically focused on agriculture, management of USAID's agricultural









programs was shifted to non-technical staff, Foreign Service Nationals and
contractors.

Performance-based contracting methods have enabled USAID to shift some
responsibility for agricultural program planning and management to contractors.
In addition, where missions were greatly downsized, the remaining agricultural
officers expanded their portfolios to include other sector activities or, in some
cases, agricultural portfolios have been managed by general development officers,
environmental officers, or other non-agricultural staff. At the same time, in
Washington, greater reliance on RSSA staff from the U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA) has mitigated, to some extent, the reduction of technical
direct-hire staff; with communication tools, such as email, supporting increased
workloads. Nevertheless, there is a consensus that, for USAID to continue to
undertake high-quality agricultural programs, technical staffing issues must be
reconsidered.

Within the above context, the nature and extent of the U.S. government's
involvement in matters related to international agricultural research and
development has been changing. Preparation for the U.S. participation in the
World Food Summit in November, 1996 signalled an emerging trend for
USAID's management of its agricultural program -- increased collaboration on
policy and programs within the U.S. government, along with greater civil society
involvement. An Inter-Agency Working Group (IWG), jointly chaired by the
Administrator of USAID, the Under Secretary of State for Global Affairs, and the
Under Secretary of Agriculture for Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services,
provided the leadership structure for the formulation of the U.S. Summit position.
Broad participation from the U.S. public was also sought, and a number of private
citizens associated with domestic or international groups focusing on hunger issues
were part of the official U.S. delegation. In FY 97, planning for the U.S. follow-
up to the Summit was immediately launched under the same IWG leadership
structure. Follow-up included the formation of a new Food Security Advisory
Committee (FSAC) as a sub-committee of BIFAD, which included many of the
nongovernmental Summit participants and the BIFAD members.

II. A Closer Look at USAID's Evolving Agricultural Programs

In the country-specific programs managed by Missions under the direction of
USAID's regional bureaus, activities have been cut, merged, and redesigned to fit
the new circumstances. Within the Global Bureau, USAID's unrestricted core
support for the international agricultural research system has been trimmed and
redirected at the same time that new CGIAR centers came on-line. In addition,
the various Title XII programs through which USAID forges partnerships with
U.S. universities in mobilizing science to solve agricultural problems (for
example, the Collaborative Research Support Programs, or CRSPs) and in
training and educating the next generation of agricultural scientists from
developing countries were also downsized and modified.









Mission Programs in Agriculture


The cases which follow illustrate how the agricultural development programs in
Africa, Asia and Latin America have evolved and adapted to the new operating
and funding environment. They show USAID managers balancing new program
priorities (e.g., democracy and governance, microenterprise, child survival),
diminished budgets and reduced staff numbers, while taking into account local
institutional and professional capabilities, funding availabilities from other sources
for the implementation of agricultural projects, and local priorities and needs.

In Sub-Saharan Africa, the reduced levels of development assistance (DA) and
of the Development Fund for Africa (DFA) included a major reduction in support
of public sector agricultural research and technology development, while
programs with a private sector, cooperative or agribusiness focus remained
strong. Programming priorities led to the closure of agricultural programs in
several countries -- Senegal, Tanzania, Guinea and Zimbabwe. However, strong
programs that emphasize both food crops and cash crops as a means to increase
rural incomes and food security continue in Kenya, Uganda, Mali, Malawi and
Mozambique. These programs promote the adoption of improved agricultural
policies, farmer involvement through associations and cooperatives in marketing
and processing, and agribusiness support to farmers. While both the Uganda and
Mozambique programs were built up during the period, Kenya's was radically
restructured and more closely integrated into the business (or private sector)
development thrust of the Mission strategy.

Kenya: In the early 1990s, a staff of six U.S. direct-hire (USDH)
agricultural officers and a complement of Foreign Service National (FSN)
professionals managed an agricultural sector program that invested $10
million annually in agricultural research, policy reform, education, grain
storage and non-traditional agricultural exports. These funds were
supplemented with PL 480 (food aid) program local currency generations
and had an important impact on agricultural productivity and rural
growth.

The University of Illinois, for example, supported the development of
institutional capacity at Egerton University as it transformed itself from an
agricultural college to a full-fledged university. This support raised the
professional qualifications of faculty and brought its performance up to
international standards. USAID/Kenya's support was terminated in the
mid-1990s, as both program and operating expense funding cuts began to
take effect but, as a measure of the project's success, Illinois and Egerton
continue to partner with their own resources.

The Kenya Market Development Program (KMDP) was another major
agricultural activity and involved a consortium of top flight U.S.
universities and consulting firms. Development Alternatives, Inc. (DAI),
Stanford University's Food Policy Research Institute, and the University
of Arizona worked with local and international counterparts to define










analytical agendas, conduct research, and produce policy briefs to aid key
decision makers. KMDP's results included less restrictive agricultural
policies, improved market information systems, and rehabilitated farm-to-
market roads. Even though KMDP was completed in 1996, according to
a 1997 study undertaken by Michigan State University, the more efficient
national maize and bean marketing system it helped produce gave Nairobi
consumers access to staple foods at lower costs.

By 1997, only one USDH agricultural officer and a reduced staff of FSNs
administered a $2 million annual program focused on strengthening and
increasing competition in Kenya's agricultural markets and increasing
non-traditional agricultural exports. The Mission was able to maintain
support for agriculture by integrating agricultural activities within a
broader private sector emphasis.

Although more limited, this USAID support has helped Kenya excel in
increasing horticultural exports at a rate of more than 10 percent annually
in recent years. Further, USAID's prior investments in seed development
and seed policy reforms have made Kenya both a regional model for
research and a source of improved seed varieties. USAID's continued
involvement in Kenyan agriculture also facilitated and buttressed the
country's emergence as a leader in regional trade and other initiatives.

In the Asia and Near East Region, activities focused on agribusiness and policy
reforms continued in Egypt and, albeit at reduced levels, in the Philippines, Sri
Lanka, Nepal, Morocco and Bangladesh. Agriculture sector assistance to
Indonesia ended in 1997 with the reduction of economic growth funds available to
the Mission. Within a context of declining budget levels, the Morocco program's
evolution resembles that experienced by USAID/Kenya.

Morocco: In 1992, USAID/Morocco had four USDH agricultural
officers on staff and obligated about $10 million to an ongoing
agricultural program which emphasized dryland agricultural research,
agricultural planning, economics and statistics, and cereal marketing
reform. In addition, the Mission started major natural resources
management and agribusiness promotion activities. By 1997, the USAID
agricultural program in Morocco was managed by one USDH agricultural
officer investing less than $4 million annually on activities focused on
developing agricultural product markets, export diversification and
integrated water resources management.

One example demonstrates how the current agricultural portfolio benefits
from the relationships established in previous years and enables even
partially-funded programs to be successful. The University of Minnesota
(UM) has been a consistent partner in USAID/Morocco's programs and
has also adjusted its involvement as the Mission's program levels and
emphasis have changed. Building on a longstanding partnership dating
from the 1960s, UM and Morocco's Institut Agronomique et Veterinaire










(IAV) began implementing a program of support to agribusiness as part of
the USAID-funded Morocco Agribusiness Promotion Program (MAPP).
UM support enabled IAV to respond to the needs of Morocco's
agribusiness sector for training, applied research, outreach and critical
support services. Accomplishments to date include: a Masters program
in agribusiness management producing graduates with the skills needed
for a modern, growing agribusiness sector in Morocco; Morocco's first
facility capable of conducting applied research and development on new
products and processes for food processing companies and providing
continuing education programs for the food industry; and a fee-for-service
clinic to diagnose crop pest problems and provide pest management
recommendations for growers.

So far, MAPP has enabled Moroccan firms to export $101 million worth
of horticultural and other crops and to generate 20,800 person years of
employment. With USAID funding, USDA has overseen the
establishment of world-class laboratories for food quality and food safety
and trained Moroccan technicians. The University of Minnesota has also
contributed to trade-promoting policy reforms through assistance carried
out under the project. Moreover, legal reforms critical to agricultural
development and exports were promulgated in 1997; for example,
assistance from Michigan State University resulted in new laws to protect
agricultural intellectual-property rights. Morocco will begin to graduate
from USAID's assistance programs in 1998. However, the legal and
institutional groundwork has been laid, and the systems are in place for
Morocco's agricultural products to successfully compete in the new era of
globalized free trade.

Bangladesh: In 1992, with a staff of six USDH agricultural officers, the
focus of the agricultural program in Bangladesh was on increasing food
availability and improving fertilizer distribution systems. Activities
emphasized road and electrification development, food policy, increasing
fertilizer availability, and vegetable and fish production. The agricultural
program was funded with $20 million annually of DA resources and $8.5
million of PL 480 local currency dedicated to agriculture and nutrition.

By 1997, PL 480 food aid funding in support of agriculture and nutrition
was $2.5 million of local currency annually and DA funding was $6
million. The Mission responded to the reduced funding in a number of
ways. First, the Agrobased Industries and Technology Development
Project (ATDP), envisioned as the flagship economic growth activity and
designed with an $80 million price tag, was scaled back in FY 94 to a $4
million project. Second, by 1997 all but one of the USDH agricultural
specialist positions were eliminated. Third, activities were consolidated
to focus on improving food security for the poor by applying food aid and
development assistance resources to problems of food availability, access
and utilization. In 1997 the University of Maryland began implementing
an employment generation activity (JOBS), in collaboration with










indigenous NGOs, to increase incomes and improve access to food.
Food-based nutrition programs, partially supported from child-survival
earmarks, became a focal point of the agricultural agenda.

From 1995-1997, with ATDP assistance, 23,340 farmers increased their
incomes by using more productive, environmentally sound technologies;
5,702 new agribusiness investments were made in seed, fertilizer,
agrimachinery, commercial livestock, poultry and fisheries; 30,660 new
jobs were created in agribusiness; and 19 policy reforms which facilitate
agribusiness growth were enacted.

To date, USAID's contribution to ATDP financing has leveraged $30.7
million from the Government of Bangladesh, $45 million from financial
institutions and $45 million from the private sector. The International
Fertilizer Development Center (IFDC), which leads the implementation
effort, draws on the expertise of US universities and is closely linked with
local and international PVOs, NGOs and local institutions in this effort.

Currently, USAID/Bangladesh supports increased production of fish and
vegetables through homestead vegetable gardens and fish ponds. These
interventions reach over three million beneficiaries and are having the
positive impact of reducing malnutrition as well as providing income and
employment. Overall, leveraging of nutrition, child survival and
environment funds and integrating food aid with development assistance
to achieve agriculture sector objectives is growing in importance in the
USAID/Bangladesh program.

The Bureau for Latin America and the Caribbean shifted program emphasis
from "strengthened markets" to "expanding access and opportunity for the poor."
This has meant a refocussing of agricultural and rural development efforts as well
as a general downsizing of programs across the region. USAID/Peru, however,
exemplifies the opposite trend. By making use of local currencies generated by
sizable PL 480 programs, it has maintained a significant agricultural portfolio
throughout the 1990s.

Peru: In 1992, USAID/Peru's budget included $4 million for
agriculture; by 1997, the figure was $2 million. On average,
USAID/Peru also programmed more than $75 million in food aid
resources each year over the five-year period. The DA resources for
agriculture were greatly augmented by the nearly $25 million in local
currency resources generated by Title II food aid monetization and $20
million in Title III reflows that annually were used for agricultural
program support. Technical staffing for agriculture remained constant,
with two USDH, one US Personal Services Contractor (PSC), and six
Foreign Service Personnel (FSP) managing the program.

The Mission's agricultural portfolio contributes to the strategic objective
of "encouraging broad-based economic growth." DA resources have









supported activities in: agricultural research and planning, integrated
regional development and technology transfer. The local currency
resources generated by the Title II program were used for agricultural
development activities in such areas as irrigation, road construction,
farmers' organizations and agricultural production. Title III local
currency has also been used for agriculture and rural development,
extension and related NGO projects. Local agricultural research has also
been supported with Title III funds, as have the activities of the
International Potato Center (CIP).

The Europe and the New Independent States (ENI) Bureau program was
established quickly in the early 90s. In the ENI, all assistance programs had,
from the outset, very limited time horizons and an orientation toward accelerating
the transition to market economies, as opposed to the more traditional
development programs more common to other bureaus. Thus, the programs
emphasized private sector and commercial agribusiness development, rather than
research, teaching, and extension. Agribusiness, with its inherent market
orientation, is seen as a means of rapidly and pragmatically approaching policy
and structural issues and opportunities both upstream (production, input supply)
and downstream (processing, marketing, trade). It also complements other ENI
programs in, for example, commercial law, privatization, enterprise development
and financial sector restructuring.

U.S. university involvement in the ENI programs has been largely in coordination
with host-country educational institutions in the area of business and agribusiness
curricula, and in very specific policy issues in support of private agribusiness.
Albania's story demonstrates the evolution of the longest standing program in
agriculture in the region.

Albania: Albania emerged from dogmatic and paranoid communism in
1991 as the most under-developed country in Europe with a bitter legacy
of 35 years of totalitarian rule. Government was chaotic and distrusted,
the economy was in shambles, infrastructure was in collapse and public
institutions were non-functional. Under these conditions, agriculture -
largely subsistence in orientation rapidly came to account for over two-
thirds of the GDP. A major emphasis of the USAID program was to
increase productivity and put agriculture on a modern, market-oriented
basis. To this end, a USDH agricultural officer was fielded and a range
of projects were initiated. These included fertilizer imports, which led to
the development of a private sector agricultural input supply activity;
work with small-scale dairy producers (largely women);private land
titling and registration (the result of the collapse of the collective farms);
and a broad, sector development project that included work with the
Ministry (mostly on agricultural statistics and planning) and with the
agricultural university.

The most successful programs (apart from land registration) have been
with the private sector: private input dealers are commercially viable and









are providing their own technical advisory services; increases in field
crop productivity and dairy production are evident and directly
attributable to USAID support. Meanwhile, public sector institutions
remain weak and largely ineffective. Therefore, the USAID program,
while remaining heavily involved in agriculture, is moving toward
increased emphasis on work with the private sector, including farmer
associations and cooperatives. At the same time, the USDH agricultural
position, due to program diversification and personnel ceilings, has been
transformed into a general development officer position responsible for a
range of private sector and natural resource activities in addition to
agriculture and agribusiness.

Support for International Agricultural Research

By its nature, agricultural research requires continuing investments to adapt to
changes in technology, consumer preferences, economic demands, and the
biology of plant and animal pests. USAID represents U.S. interests in the
international agricultural community both by participating in multi-donor fora on
agricultural policy, research, and information systems and by funding programs,
either jointly or collaboratively, with other donors. U.S. interests are also
conveyed by American scientists working in international agricultural research
organizations and through the training and consulting services which U.S. land-
grant universities provide to the international agricultural research community.

USAID's most significant multilateral research activity is the Consultative Group
on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR), of which it was a founding
member. Established in 1971, the mission of the CGIAR is to contribute, through
research, to promoting sustainable agriculture and natural resource conservation
for food and environmental security in developing countries. The CGIAR has
grown to include more than 50 donors who jointly sponsor and fund a network of
sixteen International Agricultural Research Centers (IARCs) around the world.
Crop varieties and other technologies generated by the centers and their partners
(national research systems, advanced research organizations in the U.S. and
elsewhere), are used on hundreds of millions of hectares in Asia, Africa and Latin
America, adding billions of dollars worth of increased production and income to
developing country economies each year. Major benefits have also accrued to the
U.S. directly: a 1996 impact study showed that U.S. farmers and consumers
reaped up to $15 billion in benefit from CGIAR wheat and rice research between
1970 and 1993.

USAID's Global Bureau staff participate actively in the CGIAR management;
senior professional staff of the Center for Economic Growth and Agricultural
Development (G/EGAD) serve on key CGIAR committees (genetic resources and
oversight, and the financial committee). U.S. core (or "unrestricted") funding for
the International Agricultural Research Centers (IARCs) in the CGIAR system is
programmed through G/EGAD, while Missions and regional Bureaus often
provide "project" funding for specific activities in specific countries.










Along with U.S. universities, the IARCs have a significant role in agricultural
research and development programs. Twelve of the IARCs conduct
multidisciplinary programs covering the developing world's staple food crops,
ruminant livestock and fish. In 1992, the CGIAR broadened its natural resource
focus, expanding its membership to include research centers working on tropical
forestry, agroforestry, water resource management and aquatic resources. Two
smaller centers, the International Centre for Research in Agroforestry (ICRAF),
and the Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), now focus on
natural resource policy and biodiversity conservation. One center, the
International Service for National Agricultural Research (ISNAR), is mandated
solely to strengthen National Agricultural Research Systems (NARS) and another,
the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), concentrates on food
policy research.

Americans make up the largest group of international research staff in the CGIAR
(roughly 18 percent of the total of 600 to 700 senior scientists) and nearly half of
all CGIAR scientists hold U.S. Ph.D.s. Americans also play important leadership
roles in the CGIAR. In 1997, four centers were led by Americans, seven had
American chairs of their Boards of Trustees, and the system's scientific advisory
body was chaired by an American.

The United States, traditionally the largest single donor to the CGIAR, provided
25 percent of its funding for many years. The World Bank and the Japanese are
now the largest donors. USAID's core support to the IARCs was reduced from
$42.7 million in 1992 to $22.4 million in 1996. In 1997, following the World
Food Summit, funding was increased to $26 million. Most of this increase was in
support of expanded research linkages with U.S. universities and is further
discussed below.
USAID Funding for the CGIAR
( $ millions)
Year Core Project Total
92 42.7 23.4 66.1

93 38.0 12.7 50.7
94 28.0 14.3 42.3
95 28.1 12.6 40.7
96 22.4 8.1 30.5
97 26.0 12.7 38.7
98 26.4 NA NA











CGIAR Core Funding Levels

45

... ...... ................ . .....................................

40
340 .......... ....... ......................................................... ..... ....... ............ .. ............. ........ ....
35 . .......... ......... ................ ....... .................. .......... ...... ......... ......... .................. ................. ......................... .... .


.25 ............... ... ... .... .... : _...........
S--------................... .. -........--- --...
20
1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998
Year


In addition to its role in representing U.S. interests in the CGIAR, the Center for
Economic Growth and Agricultural Development has, throughout the reporting
period, provided technical input for meetings on food and agricultural issues of
the G-7, US-EU New Transatlantic Agenda, and US-Japan Common Agenda.
These coordination activities continued to be an important G/EGAD role.

At the same time, USAID's Bureau for Program and Policy Coordination (PPC)
backstops two of the three food and agricultural agencies headquartered in Rome,
the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and the International Fund for
Agricultural Development (IFAD). Similarly, the Bureau for Humanitarian
Response (BHR) assures coordination with the World Food Program. G/EGAD
provides support and advisory services to both PPC and BHR, as needed.

USAID staff actively observe GATT trade issues in the International Agricultural
Trade Research Consortium (IATRC). Coordination with USDA's Foreign
Agricultural Service, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, and the
Departments of State and Commerce is also required from time to time as issues
arise in specific countries.

Partnerships with U.S. Universities

USAID's partnerships with U.S. universities stem from both the Title XII
legislation and USAID's desire to mobilize the best and the brightest of American
teaching, research, extension, and scientific expertise in support of agricultural
development.

Four sets of partnerships have resulted from Title XII's Section 297, three of
which are: collaborative research between American and developing country
research institutions; long-term teaching/training cooperation; and research and
training linkages between U.S. universities and the International Agricultural
Research Centers (IARCs). The fourth partnership is carried out through a wide










range of contract and grant relationships generally seeking to accomplish a
specific scope of work in a specific country.

Collaborative Research

The Title XII mandate to provide "program support for long-term collaborative
university research on food production, distribution, storage, and marketing" was,
in the 1992-97 period, embodied in nine Collaborative Research Support
Programs (CRSPs) and three related programs: the Postharvest Collaborative
Agribusiness Support Program (CASP), the Agricultural Biotechnology for
Sustainable Productivity (ABSP) activity, and the Food Security II (FS II)
project.' Fifty land-grant universities from 34 states, the District of Columbia
and Puerto Rico are participating in these programs.

Focus and Funding, FY 92-97 of CRSPs and related University Programs

CRSPs
Broadening Access and Strengthening Input Marketing Systems (BASIS). $2 million
Bean/Cowpea. $15 million
Sorghum and Millet (INTSORMIL), $15 million
Integrated Pest Management (IPM). $6 million
Peanuts, $9 million
Pond Dynamics and Aquaculture (PD/A), $9 million
Sustainable Agriculture and Natural Resource Management (SANREM). $12 million
Small Ruminants/Livestock. $13 million
Soils Management. $16 million

Related Programs
Postharvest Collaborative Agribusiness Support Program (CASP), $4.9 million
Agricultural Biotechnology for Sustainable Productivity (ABSP), $5.7 million
Food Security II (FS II), $2.7 million

CRSPs address problems whose solutions will be mutually beneficial to the U.S.
and developing countries in increasing agricultural incomes, production, and/or
productivity. The CRSPs achieve their goals not only through research, but by
developing research capacity in developing countries through formal training,
mentoring, and collaborative research efforts. Through participation in CRSPs,
developing country scientists and educators can increasingly carry out independent
research and training activities and sustain their impact in their own and
neighboring countries.

In the 1992 97 period, CRSPs continued to produce a massive quantity of
research results and information. Over 7000 scientists and support staff from the
U.S., host countries, and other developing countries have been better educated
through their involvement in the CRSPs.



1 The Annex table "CRSP Linkages between U.S. Institutions and Collaborating Host Countries"
provides details on the universities involved in each of these programs and indicates the extent of state-
level participation achieved.









In the picture at right, Mr. Warren Christy,
a farmer from Harrison County, Iowa
examines his crop of pearl millet. The
Sorghum Millet CRSP (IN'SORMIL),
managed from the University of Nebraska
in Lincoln, was the source of seed,
originally from an international germplasm V '" ..A'' -
bank. Christy is innovating the use of
pearl millet as a specialized bird seed and
to promote habitat for wildlife, but also
sees its potential as poultry and hog feed.
He finds pearl millet a promising crop due
to its drought tolerance and short growing
season.

Universities are required to provide a 25
percent match to USAID's "core" funding
and USAID Missions and host countries Iowa Farmer Benefits from
often make substantial contributions as International Agricultural Research.
well, either in cash or in kind. Overall,
approximately 60 percent of the financing
for the CRSPs comes from the centrally-managed (by G/EGAD) grants, and the
remainder comes from the organizations involved in the research.


CRSP Core Funding Levels


22


D I .... . ..... ... .. ........ ......... ..... .............F u n
S14

10
FY92 FY93 FY 94 FY 95 FY 96 FY97 FY 98
Year
Note: 1997 includes carry-over funds from 1996_



The following highlights from the CRSPs and the three other projects in which
land-grant universities play a leading role illustrate key outcomes of the USAID-
U.S. university collaboration.









Increased food availability


* Pond Dynamics/Aquaculture (PD/A) CRSP researchers worked in
Northeast Thailand changing traditional pond management methods
through CRSP-generated pond fertilization recommendations. With these
recommendations, production in farm ponds increased from
500 kg/ha/year to 2000 kg/ha/year.

* The Peanut CRSP discovered a procedure to remove aflatoxins from
different chemical compounds. This major breakthrough is already
saving millions of dollars in the animal feed industry and has the potential
to save billions of dollars in human health costs.

Peanut CRSP efforts in Senegal contributed to the release of the
Fleur 11 variety in 1995, which increased yields by 30 percent among the
12 percent of the peanut producers planting the variety. With 100 percent
adoption nationwide, additional farmgate value from this variety will be
$50 million. Using the CRSP's international germplasm collection, a new
variety highly resistant to a form of blackrot (CBR), NC10c was
developed and released in North Carolina, adding $4.5 million annually in
value above that expected from standard varieties. Another CRSP
release, Tamspan 90 (which incorporates partial resistance to several
diseases from germplasm identified in Brazil) has added $25 million
annually to the value of Texas and Oklahoma peanut production.

r The International
Sorghum/Millet .
Collaborative Research a o :
Support Program A: ".
(INTSORMIL)
developed a hybrid
sorghum, Hageen
Dura-1, which A
contributes nearly $10
million annually of
added production for
This farmer (above) in Niger is admiring the high grain yield of
Sudan's farmers. his crop of hybrid sorghum. which gives higher yields than
Texas sorghum traditional. open-pollinated varieties. This hybrid was developed
producers save nearly through collaborative research by scientists at the International
Sorghum/Millet CRSP. the National Agricultural Research
$400 million each year Institute of Niger in West Africa and Purdue University.
by using insect-resistant Well-adapted to the hot. dry climate in Niger, the hybrid was
plant material brought released for commercial production in that country in 1992, after
several years of plant breeding research and testing at experiment
to the U.S. by stations and on over 100 farms there.
INTSORMIL. In
Mali, the CRSP has
produced a food-quality sorghum variety, N'tenimissa, which can be used
to prepare noodles using 100 percent sorghum flour and locally-available
equipment. This product can be used in wheat-free diets. CERELEG, a










weaning food developed through Mali/INTSORMIL collaboration and
marketed in Bamako, Mali, contains a mixture of dehulled pearl millet,
cowpea and maize flours -- all locally-available ingredients. In Niger,
CRSP collaborators are test-marketing a sorghum/millet-based couscous
of a consistently high quality. Finally, INTSORMIL scientists have
identified a sorghum variety with highly digestible protein and are
evaluating its milling qualities.

As a result of the Small Ruminant CRSP's health and breeding projects, a
method has been developed for reducing and controlling Haemonchus
contonus (a major sheep and goat parasite) by identifying the gene for
resistance and developing it into a recombinant vaccine. The CRSP also
helped the Kenya Agricultural Research Institute (KARI) develop their
own capacity to conduct multivalent vaccine research by training thirteen
staff at the graduate level. These trainees have key roles on the animal
health team that developed a vaccine for the Rift Valley Fever; this
promises to have a substantial impact in livestock production in Kenya
and much of East Africa.

Improved agribusiness opportunities

* The Integrated Pest Management (IPM) CRSP helped Guatemalan
exporters of snow peas solve a serious insect problem which curtailed
exports and resulted in a loss of $5.7 million in farmers' incomes. The
IPM CRSP staff noted that the major insect species found in Guatemala
also exists in the U.S. As a result, USDA/APHIS cleared the
Guatemalan snow peas for import, permitting Guatemalan farmers to
regain their market share and ensuring U.S. consumers access to high
quality snow peas. The total annual value of Guatemalan snow peas in
the U.S. market is about $140 million.

* Agribusiness firms and institutions in eighteen countries are using Soils
CRSP-designed fermentors and technology for production, and increased
quality, of legume inoculant. As a result, the increased yield and savings
from reduced nitrogen fertilizer use is estimated to be worth several
million dollars per year. Further, one U.S.-based firm produced and
exported CRSP-designed fermentors worth nearly $400,000 to over nine
countries.

* Work by the BASIS CRSP in El Salvador found that fewer than 10
percent of all agricultural enterprises have access to formal credit and,
consequently, lack the capacity to invest in improving their enterprises.
Lack of titled landownership further contributes to farmers' inability to
secure credit. Based on CRSP findings, steps are being taken to address
these issues through titling and microfinance interventions.

* Bean/Cowpea CRSP scientists conducted tests at Princess Maria Louise
Hospital for Children in Ghana, evaluating CRSP-developed cowpea










flakes for the management of protein malnutrition. The flakes were
highly accepted by both mothers and children and resulted in excellent
recovery rates from malnutrition. Firms in Benin, Nigeria, and Senegal
have expressed an interest in manufacturing this product on a commercial
basis.

The Collaborative Agribusiness Support Project (CASP) designed,
equipped and trained personnel for Albania's National Seed Testing
Laboratory, making membership possible in the International Seed
Testing Association (ISTA). Membership is a requirement for the
commercial import and export of improved seed, which has facilitated the
growth and development of the private seed industry in Albania.

a The Agricultural Biotechnology for Sustainable Productivity (ABSP)
program strengthened fruits and vegetable production by developing:
improved micropropagation methods for banana and pineapple; transgenic
melons with virus resistance; transgenic maize with putative resistance to
Asian corn borer; transgenic tomatoes with resistance to geminivirus;
transgenic potatoes with putative resistance to potato tuber moth; and,
disease-resistant sweet potatoes. Partnerships with Kenya, Indonesia,
Morocco and Costa Rica developed intellectual property rights legislation
and biosafety regulations and have involved the training of breeders,
molecular biologists, entomologists, and tissue culture specialists in
cutting-edge technologies.

Development of approaches for long-term conservation of natural resources

* Through the use of IPM technologies introduced by the CRSP, farmers in
the Philippines are now able to grow vegetables in rice fields during
periods which are not suitable for rice production, deriving more
production (and incomes) from the same land area.

* The SANREM CRSP's work with both farmer- and researcher-managed
erosion control test plots in the Philippines showed soil loss could be
reduced by 50-75 percent (from 54 to 13 t/ha) through strip and contour
planting. In addition, community-based organizations have been formed
to monitor water quality. In 1996, more than 1,800 water samples were
collected at 29 sites by these organizations to detect -- and to urge the
municipal government to address -- the human contamination of water
supplies.

These highlights are only a sample of the range and importance of impacts which
these programs are achieving in the developing countries and the United States.
In addition, the professional ties which the CRSPs have developed among
scientists from the U.S. and developing countries have a value which transcends
the specific research activities funded.










University Development Linkage Program (UDLP)


Title XII's Sec. 297 also directs USAID to "build and strengthen the institutional
capacity and human resources skills of agriculturally developing countries...".

Begun in 1991, the University Development Linkages Project (UDLP) supports
and encourages long-term linkages between U.S. and developing country higher
education institutions collaborating in broad areas related to USAID's
development interests. The linkages help strengthen developing country
institutions to more effectively meet their societal needs and contribute to the
internationalization of U.S. institutions. The linkages, which are multidisciplinary
and cross-sectoral, are funded at the level of $100,000 a year for five years on a
matching grant basis. USAID funding of $25 million has been matched by $47
million in non-USG funding. Activities undertaken by linkage partners include
skills and participant training; technology transfer using latest communications
technologies; extension programs to industry and labor markets; conducting
research; and improving, upgrading and developing relevant curricula. All
linkages are based on implementation of one or more well-defined objectives with
time-specific accomplishments for each objective that can help attain and support
Mission strategic objectives.

Many of the UDLP programs focus strictly on agriculture. Approximately 28%
of the linkages are in health, population and nutrition; 25% in economic growth
(including agriculture); 27% in environmental protection; 10% in democracy and
governance; and 9% are in education. The partnerships address USAID's five
goal areas (economic growth, health and population, environment and natural
resources, human capacity development, and democracy and governance) with a
variety of partnership-based teaching, research and outreach activities. In all, 42
centrally and mission-funded partnerships are at work in 29 countries and involve
approximately 50 U.S. and 50 developing-country institutions. Nine HBCUs are
actively participating in this program. The UDLP is active in 29 countries:
Argentina, Bangladesh, Belize, Botswana, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica,
Ecuador, Erithrea, Ghana, Guatemala, Guyana, Honduras, India, Indonesia,
Jordan, Kenya, Mali, Malawi, Madagascar, Mexico, Morocco, Mozambique,
Nepal, Nigeria, Senegal, Thailand, Tunisia, Uganda.

Linkages are also proving to be effective mechanisms for continuation of activities
without the need for Mission in-country presence.

Building University IARC Linkages

The increasing interest in, and scope for, collaboration between U.S. universities
and the IARCs reflects larger trends in scientific research. As both a greater
number of disciplines contribute to integrated research approaches and as budgets
have been reduced, it has become increasingly attractive to seek collaborative
linkages. This is especially true in areas such as biotechnology and information
management, where U.S. universities can contribute significantly towards
achievement of IARC objectives. In addition, continuing breakthroughs in










communications technology have made collaboration easier and more efficient
than ever before. IARCs, with their enormous "in-trust" agro-biodiversity
collections and extensive linkages to national programs, also offer U.S.
researchers an excellent means to apply and test new technologies of potential
benefit to developing country and U.S. agriculture.

A 1997 World Bank study on research linkages between IARCs and U.S.
universities found that the CGIAR Centers collectively had 263 joint programs
with 89 U.S. universities during the 1990-1995 period. Nearly 80 percent of
these programs were with land-grant institutions. The World Bank study found
that well in excess of $5 million in the CGIAR's international funds (from all
donors) were devoted to collaborative activities with American institutions.

To further expand the scope and impact of these trends, USAID initiated a new
program in 1997 to foster collaboration between U.S. universities and the IARCs.
In FY 1997, USAID increased CGIAR funding by $3.5 million. However, a
clear emphasis for this additional funding was placed on increasing the
engagement of U.S. universities in IARC programs. To this end, $2 million were
identified within the CGIAR funding levels to support new or expanded U.S.
university collaboration with recipient IARCs. Each IARC was asked to use up to
eight percent of its otherwise-unrestricted U.S. core funding to negotiate
individual arrangements with U.S. university partners. As a result, IARCs
funded some 80 activities involving more than 50 U.S. universities. These
activities have annual budgets ranging in size from $5,000 to $50,000, with a
median size of approximately $15,000; they covered graduate student stipends,
laboratory screening of germplasm, and a wide range of related research activities
conducted by university faculty and students.

In this program's first year, IARCs pursued a mix of activities, engaging
university partners in areas ranging from genomics and biotechnologies to natural
resource management, information sciences and policy. Two examples illustrate
the range of creative partnerships launched:

* The International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI) initiated or
expanded 12 collaborative efforts involving 14 universities (12 of them
land-grant institutions), including several associated with the Small
Ruminants CRSP. Activities ranged from gene mapping and feed
utilization to policy reform and strategic planning; many included
opportunities for U.S. university graduate students to become involved in
international research activities.

* The Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) funded a
doctoral student from the University of Florida to develop a supply model
for mahogany exports and prepare a review paper describing the
evolution of natural resource management policies in Bolivia. From the
Florida perspective, the linkage activity is expected to help give young
researchers-in-training, as well as their professors, expanded
opportunities for international development engagement. In most cases,










the fact that these collaborations are mutually beneficial will help to foster
long term scientist-to-scientist, as well as institutional, relationships.

USAID Contracts and Grants with Universities

Contract/grant data show that, in FY 92, USAID signed 384 agreements with
universities. A third of these agreements (134) were for agricultural sector
activities, with an average value of S3.4 million. In FY 97, USAID negotiated
142 contracts or grants with institutions of higher education, 11 of which were for
agriculturally-related activities. The average value of each agriculture related
grant was $906,000. In comparison with agriculture sector activities, total
funding levels of grants/contracts with universities fell less dramatically, from
$221 million in FY 92 to $162 million in FY 97.


The geographic location of a college or university did not seem to influence its
participation. Only eight of the 134 agricultural grants/contracts signed in FY 92
(or six percent) were with institutions located in the five states nearest
Washington, D.C., or in the District of Columbia itself. Only two of the 21 (ten
percent) negotiated in FY 97 were in this geographic area.

Training at U.S. universities has long been an important element of the USAID
portfolio. During the period of this report, the total number of participants in
USAID-sponsored training at all U.S. universities peaked in 1994; since that
time, the numbers have declined steadily. Agriculture's share of total trainees
dropped from about 50 percent in 1992/93 to just under 12 percent in 1997.












Trainees at Land Grant Univ.
(New Starts)

2000
1500 .. i ..... . ..... ..... ...
1000 .. . ...

500-
0 .
1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997
Year

# Participants





1992 1993

Agnculture Training Agnculture Training

Unknown Unknown

Non-Ag. Training Non-Ag. Training


1994 1995

Unknown Agnculture Training Unknown Agnculture Training


Non-Ag. Training Non-Ag Training


1996 1997


Unknown Agnculture Training Unknown
N g Agnculture Training
Non-Ag. Training
Non-Ag. Training


Training at Land Grant Universities

III. The New BIFAD

The Title XII legislation mandated the establishment of a Board for International
Food and Agricultural Development (BIFAD) to "assist the administration of the
programs authorized by this title." The BIFAD members resigned in 1994 and a
new Board was named in August, 1995, with a mandate to advise and assist the










USAID Administrator with regard to programs and activities relating to
agriculture and food security.

Under the able leadership of the University of Minnesota's Dr. G. Edward Schuh,
the Chairman of BIFAD, the Board has addressed several of the agricultural
development challenges facing the Agency and encouraged USAID to refocus
attention on the importance of agriculture as a key to economic growth in low-
income countries.

With BIFAD support and encouragement, the Administrator has taken a number
of specific and concrete steps to reemphasize the importance of agriculture in
USAID's programs. These include:

* stressing the critical role of agriculture in promoting economic
development in low income countries in his congressional testimony
and public speeches;

signalling USAID's recommitment to agriculture and food security by
explicitly adding "agricultural development" to the Agency strategic
goal of economic growth;

renewing U.S. university collaboration in agricultural research with
developing countries (including a revision of the CRSP guidelines);

* opening new windows to collaboration with the U.S. agribusiness
community (this was supported by naming a key private sector
member to the BIFAD);

* fully participating in the interagency process related to the 1996 Rome
World Food Summit and sustaining the involvement of the
nongovernmental and agribusiness sectors (Dr. Schuh co-chaired the
Food Security Advisory Committee to demonstrate his own commitment
to the consultative process); and,

* reversing the declining trend in funding for agricultural activities.
From a low point of $244 million in FY 97, USAID's FY 98
agriculture budget was $294 million and the FY 99 budget request
included a further increase -- to nearly $305 million.

Still on the BIFAD agenda for discussion are issues related to agricultural
development in the Newly Independent States (including Russia); global climate
change; the relationship of increasingly-free markets to food security in low-
income, food deficit countries; public private partnerships for agricultural
development; and, food safety and science and technology policy.









IV. Strategic Challenge


As part of its recommitment to agriculture, USAID is working to increase funding
for such programs. Agricultural funding reached a low of $244 million in FY
1997. USAID's FY 1998 agriculture budget is S294 million and the FY 1999
budget request shows a further increase -- to nearly $305 million. There are,
however, many legitimate and competing needs in developing countries, as shown
by Congressional directives and/or earmarks for child survival, infectious
diseases, basic education, and microenterprise. In addition, Administration
priorities in critical areas like environmental protection and family planning also
impact funding in the remaining discretionary areas of the budget, such as
agriculture and business development.

The strategic challenge faced by USAID in achieving the goals of Title XII is
complex. This challenge encompasses:

* recognition that the size of the world's hungry population is not going to
diminish without additional, but more focused, efforts encompassing
increasing agricultural production and other factors associated with
children's nutrition, such as women's education;

realization that the Agency, along with the international donor
community, has under-invested in agricultural research for more than a
decade which may disrupt the flow of benefits expected from publicly-
funded research;

increased understanding of the linkage between civil conflict, democratic
participation, and food security; and,

a broader awareness that strengthened market and technology ties with the
developing world are essential for growth of U.S agriculture and that new
forms of public private partnerships are needed.

USAID has many of the resources needed to respond to these complex issues, the
most important of which being the longstanding institutional relationships it
fostered both in developing countries and the U.S. The U.S. land-grant
universities are, as the Title XII legislation asserts, essential partners in many of
these relationships. They enable USAID to call upon expertise around the globe,
mobilizing the most appropriate to solve problems wherever they occur.

However, funding and staffing trends, along with directives and earmarking,
constrain USAID's ability to develop creative and effective approaches to the
issues. Some of the ways in which USAID is proposing to overcome these
constraints and take full advantage of the strengths of our institutional partners
over the next five years are briefly outlined below.









Preventing Famine and Achieving Freedom from Hunger


These core goals of the Title XII legislation also remain core concerns for
USAID. USAID's participation in the 1996 World Food Summit signalled our
continuing involvement in these issues. However, budget levels for both USAID
and other donors clearly show ambivalence towards the role of agriculture and
economic growth in attaining these Title XII goals. During the 1992-97 period, it
is evident that both agriculture and economic growth, which are of a more long-
term and sustainable nature, received less attention than approaches with more
immediate impact. The latter include emergency and targeted food assistance,
conflict prevention and immediate post-conflict recovery measures, reduction of
trade barriers to permit an increased flow of commercial food imports, and even
the increased use of health care interventions to promote child survival.

Data shows, however, that sustainable freedom from hunger is largely derived
from sustainable freedom from poverty. The last two decades of economic
growth in East Asia and Latin America, and the economic progress realized by
some African nations, have demonstrated that reduced poverty is an attainable
goal and can, within the span of a generation, improve the nutritional status of the
majority of the population. But, as the Asian financial crisis has also illustrated,
such progress is not irreversible. Financial risks, market reversals, political
instability -- all can upset a long-term trend. Climatic risks -- such as the changes
in weather patterns associated with the El Nifio phenomenon -- must also not be
discounted, especially as they affect the most basic of productions, that of food.

Within the follow-up to the World Food Summit, USAID has played a leadership
role in developing a conceptual framework for achieving the Summit's target of
reducing the number of hungry people to 400 million by the year 2015. This
framework links interventions at the global, national, sector, community, and
household levels to create an impact on the nutritional status of individuals.

For example, agricultural research and the transfer of technology are one set of
critical "sectoral" interventions considered in the framework. They are
particularly important for Africa, where productivity gains still lag behind those of
other regions, and where increases in rural productivity are essential to increasing
incomes and improving nutrition. Interestingly, increasing women's educational
attainment also appears to exert a powerful impact on reducing hunger. Open
trade, working through its effect on increasing economic growth in general,
provides a further push toward freedom from hunger -- especially where the poor
have adequate access to productive resources (such as land) to permit their full
participation in economic growth. The analytical framework also posits which of
these interventions would likely be most effective in a particular geographic
context.

Against this analytical background, it is then possible to target those areas which
are most well-suited to U.S. support -- such as where we have a national interest,
a strong comparative advantage, or mechanisms through which we can organize a
coordinated program. This proposal for a revitalized, "Millennium" approach to










reducing world hunger is under active discussion by the Inter-Agency Working
Group on Food Security, as its adoption has significant budget and resource
implications.

The framework's analysis is likely to lead USAID into a more focused approach
to the problem of averting famine and reducing hunger. For example, in FY 98
the Africa Bureau has launched a regional program (the African Food Security
Initiative, or AFSI) which concentrates additional resources for agriculture and
nutrition investments in countries that are committed to economic reform and have
established the necessary policy framework. The analysis also points out the
importance of ensuring that the Africa Trade and Investment Initiative and the
new Education Initiative (both to start in FY 99) are closely coordinated with the
AFSI.

The framework also suggests that child survival and environment funding be used
to address hunger. Similarly, improved agricultural practices can have a positive
effect on the environment for example, increased productivity reduces the need
to expand cultivation into marginal or fragile lands. In many cases, environment
funding is already widely coordinated with agriculture funding. Both, however,
need to be programmed as effectively as possible to increase the impact on food
security.

Food is, of course, the major source of children's nutrient intakes and children
who are mal or under nourished are most vulnerable to infectious diseases.
Fortunately, the potential already exists for crop breeders to increase both the
yields and the micronutrient content of widely-consumed crops through the
application of biotechnology. Expanded research and technology transfer efforts
can ensure that improved crop varieties are developed as quickly as possible and
put into the hands of producers. If those producers are mothers, whose role as
primary care givers shapes children's consumption, the loop between research
results and nutrition impact is effectively closed.

Re-emphasizing Investments in Agricultural Research

The public sector has traditionally been the main source of improved agricultural
technology for developing nations. The private sector has generally supported
research only on high-value export crops. That pattern has begun to change
somewhat in recent years in ways that are both promising and challenging.

The international public sector has been particularly important because it has
provided support for both national programs and international research programs.
The latter provides international public goods which can be widely and freely used
by a number of nations. To the extent that public funds for international research
or for the support of national programs are constrained, the availability of public
goods is reduced.

The private sector has clearly been expanding its range of activities in developed
nations and is beginning to do so in the higher-income developing nations.










However, it is not yet a major player in the poorer developing nations and, except
in some special cases, is not likely to become one. The private sector is, of
course, usually interested in large and relatively high-income markets which offer
a substantial degree of intellectual property rights; these conditions are far less
prevalent in the poorer nations of the world. The private sector, moreover, is apt
to focus its activities on relatively advanced forms of biotechnology which may
find less immediate use in poorer developing countries.

Thus, the poor of the world depend and will continue to do so on public
agricultural research to help them improve their condition. As a result, the
stagnation and, in some cases, the decline in public sector funding for research
does not bode well for them. These declining funding trends have fostered more
collaboration among institutions and have led to increases in efficiency and
productivity. The process, however, has gone too far and may now be having
negative impacts on the quantity and quality of research.

Human resource investments over the past four decades of development assistance
have provided an institutional base and cadre of scientific, technical, and
managerial talent on which it was thought that the developing countries would be
able to rely. In the early 1960s, for example, developing countries had only half
as many agricultural researchers (20,000) as the industrial countries. By the early
1980s, developing countries had almost 50 percent more (80,000), and this
number is now thought to be over 100,000; but, many trained as scientists no
longer function in that capacity. It is also true that the flow through the U.S.
university system of budding agricultural scientists, especially those from low-
income food deficit countries in Africa and Asia, may have been so reduced for
lack of donor funding that the quality of national institutions has been affected.

There is clearly a substantial established capacity for research but, unless the
public systems are adequately funded, the best human talent is likely to go
elsewhere, with negative impacts on the overall quality of the system. In addition,
most developing countries have not yet dealt adequately with the issues of
protecting intellectual property rights (IPR) and the biosafety and regulatory issues
associated with transgenic varieties. These must be addressed to encourage the
entry of the private sector into agricultural research areas most suited to private
investors and not currently covered by public sector financing.

For all these reasons, it is time for the donor community to provide more funding
for global agricultural research. A more flexible and inclusive approach is also
needed to determine priorities and key problems which should be addressed
through the application of agricultural science. The CRSPs, the CGIAR, and a
host of bilateral partnerships between national agricultural research systems and
U.S. universities provide a solid foundation for developing expanded partnerships.
NGOs and private companies interested in agricultural productivity can work with
the USG and universities through these partnerships to regain the momentum of
research which once spawned the Green Revolution.









The Linkage between Civil Conflict, Democratic Participation, and Food Security

This aspect of the challenge of preventing famine and establishing freedom from
hunger is perhaps the most complex of all. On the one hand, it is clear that a lack
of food security can, in its more extreme forms, lead to civil disruptions and
conflict. Food riots such as those recently experienced in Indonesia are a well-
known manifestation of this problem. Such riots can be caused by a wide range
of factors, but reductions in food subsidies due to budgetary constraints often play
a triggering role, though there may be a wide array of background causes (such as
high-cost production, which necessitates subsidies in the first place). At the same
time, less extreme or more localized disruptions may go unnoticed. On the other
hand, food supplies are still affected by economic sanctions, and civil conflicts
increase human suffering through the disruption of food supplies.

Several Africa examples show clearly that the resolution of civil conflict
immediately leads to a decrease in hunger and undernutrition as production and
normal trade resume. Other studies show that citizens' participation in more
democratic forms of government tends to increase their ability to influence public
expenditures, especially for health facilities, schools, water and sanitation. These
expenditures enable populations to absorb and utilize available food supplies more
effectively and so improve their nutritional status.

USAID's democracy and governance programs have been growing around the
world during the 1992-97 period. Civil conflicts in populous, food-deficit
countries (Mozambique, Ethiopia) have ended. Emphasis on conflict prevention
and on the recovery from conflict has led USAID to create an Office of Transition
Initiatives (OTI) within the Bureau for Humanitarian Response.

From the perspective of Title XII's goal of freedom from hunger, however, the
linkage among civil conflict, democratic participation, and food security opens up
a whole new potential area of collaboration between U.S. universities and
SAID.

Strengthened Market Ties and Public Private Partnerships

The National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy (NCFAP) eloquently
articulated the case for U.S. agriculture profiting from revitalized trade and
development cooperation policies: "Abroad, we seek agricultural and rural
development, which is broadly-based and environmentally sustainable, and
capable of improving food security and economic welfare in developing countries.
At home, we seek a U.S. farm sector made more prosperous through continued
growth in international trade."

NCFAP also recommended that new partnerships between the public and private
sectors would be key to success in achieving these goals. USAID needs to
broaden its traditional partnerships to include the private sector which represents
the domestic and international food and fiber industry. While Title XII legislation










permits such new partnerships, amending the legislation could promote them more
explicitly.

The globalization of markets in the early 1990s and the completion of the Uruguay
Round of the GATT have opened up new opportunities for USAID's Title XII
partners in two ways:

a First, the Treaty on Rights for Intellectual Property Systems (TRIPS)
extends the security of U.S. patent law to many emerging agricultural
markets. This security offers a new incentive for biotechnology
companies to develop innovative, patented technologies adapted for the
conditions of foreign agriculture. As already noted, however, private
sector efforts are not likely to be enough; the presence of certain
agricultural public goods in developing countries is necessary. USAID
and its Title XII partners (including the IARCs and the PVO community,
as well as the land-grant institutions) are in a unique position to provide
the trained agricultural personnel and functioning public agricultural
research and extension systems needed to complement private
investments.

Second, open and well-regulated agricultural markets provide further
incentive for U.S. agribusinesses to venture into foreign economies.
USAID's programs supporting the development of open, transparent, and
predictable trade regimes are an important complement to U.S.
agribusinesses' interests in expanding markets. Clear biosafety
regulations, competitive transport and communication systems, and
banking systems which facilitate reliable transfer of assets are also
important to both U.S. and host-country interests. In fact, their
importance is evidenced by the fact that potential investors are willing to
enter into cost-sharing partnerships with USAID to ensure that the right
technologies, the right institutions, and the right personnel are on hand
where they want to invest. In this context, the experience of American
agribusiness investors in the ENI -- where the regulatory, institutional,
and logistical infrastructures leave much to be desired -- is instructive.
While interest in, and potential for, U.S. agribusiness remains high, there
is also a greater appreciation for the difficulties which inefficient and non-
competitive markets pose -- difficulties which economic
growth/agricultural development programs managed by bilateral Missions
and supported by U.S. partner-resources can help address.

IN CONCLUSION

Given the experience, problems and opportunities of the 1992-1997 period,
USAID is seeking resolution of the funding and staffing issues which impact our
efforts to address the complex challenges before us. We look forward to building
on our Title XII implementation experience to shape USAID's renewed response
to the continuing need to prevent famine and free the world from hunger.







Total Obligations In Agriculture
By Emphasis Area By Bureau (FY 92-97)
(000)

FY92 FY93 FY94 FY95 FY96" FY97
Bureau for Africa
Agnlusiness 531 604 $22.594 524 4.1 $21.407 515 053 $17.739
Agrcuftural Credit 53 060 52,062 54 50- $5.841 $4 05- $3.462
Agrcutural infrastructure S24 412 $13,572 51z 655 $11.910 510060 57.218
Agnculural Polices and Planning 573 10- $35,243 $4--02 $33.761 524 096 $11.924
Agiculural Trairwng ana Extension S19 661 $17,428 51 04- 59,608 55 698 $10.690
Crop Production S10 440 $11,749 512 3~0 $12,317 $8 1 79 $21.946
Fisheries Production $1 213 $430
LivestocK Production 53 085 $2,981 S2 -58 2.825 $4 448 $760
Pest Management S2-68 $2,773 51 199 51,488 51 134 $208
Res Mgt For Agr Prod and Prod 518 231 $6,759 S- 835 $12.577 56 185 55.809
Sub-total: $186368 $115,161 5124 51- $111,734 580 123 B80.186
'Less Environment Funding 59957 52,222 52 361 $16.929 517
Total $176 411 $112,939 5122 156 594,805 $62606 580.186

Bureau for AsialNear East
Agribusiness $24 111 $13,093 58636 533,002 $19 156 $3,870
Agricultural Credit 9 769 $2,555 5S 150 5598 $1 172
Agrcuftural Infrastructure $49 901 $31,097 9 073 $7,331 $8 597 $8.226
Agricultural Polcies and Planning $83 287 519,804 $56 592 561,236 $48 622 $36281
Agrtcutural Trainng and Extension $30 051 $19,386 S- 249 $1.724 2 629 $1.563
Crop Production 6 940 6,448 $3 381 $7,729 $12 461 54.961
Fisheries Production $1 546 $1,284 $132 $92 $345
Livestock Production $350 51,946 $675 $814
Pest Management $2.585 $1,440 $523 $2.299 $430
Res Mgt. For Agr. Prod and Prod. $13085 $14,177 $1 604 $278 $410 $768
Subttotal: $221 625 $111,230 $94 883 $114,329 $93 569 $56.828
'Less Environment Funding $1 272 $2,346 5240 S3.385 $2 030
Total 220 353 S108,884 $94 643 $110,944 591 539 S56.828

Bureau for Europe and N.LS.
Agribusiness $32 364 564,199 $77.564 518.990 $19 118 23.995
Agncutural Credit $1 095 $432 $17.853 $1 023 $1.300
Agricultural infrastructure 5795 56,520 $4.355
Agricultural Poicies and Planning $14 499 $23,337 $9 526 55,862 55 310 53.104
Agricultural Training and Extension 32,651 $2.053
Crop Producton 6.980 $3.076
Fisheries Production S795
Livestock Proauction
Pest Management $600 $2,127 5250
Res. Mgt For Agr Prod. and Prod. $50
Sub-total: $50 148 $87,968 87 090 $60.983 532 109 $31.525
'Less Environment Funding $3.248 $1 138
Total $50148 $87,968 $87090 S57.735 $30971 $31.525

Bureau for Latin America and Caribbean
Agribusiness 15 212 $8,019 $10 153 $10,882 $4 598 53.814
Agricultural Credit 5 364 $2,645 52 888 $6.574 $3 966 $703
Agricultural infrastructure $11 312 511,722 15 453 $12,020 $2 397 $2,849
Agncuilural Policies and Planning $12 923 56,039 $1 748 54.381 53 120 53.735
Agricuural Training and Extension $9 998 $7,082 $4.648 $5,399 $5 091 $4.680
Crop Production 59 433 $7,510 $5 841 $6,180 $6 439 58.308
Fisnenes Production
Livestock Production $240 $1.170
Pest Management $1 068 32.219 $1 420 $717 $402 5116
Res Mgt. For Agr Prod and Prod. $3.045 52,848 $1 768 54.049 56 669 $3.583
Sub-total: $68.595 $48,084 $43 919 $50,182 $32 682 $28.958
'Less Environment Funding 2 183 52,982 2 411 $10,081 10 055
Total $66 412 $45,102 $41 508 $40.101 522627 $28.958

Bureau for Global Programs
Agribusiness $12 012 $9,397 8 744 $8,403 5 491 55.634
Agricultural Credit $604 5865 $843 $5.534
Agricultural Infrastructure $206 $473 $328 $717 $494 $5.534
Agncultural Policies and Planning $5890 $6,157 $3899 $7,740 $5 108 2.133
Agricultural Training and Extension $8.793 55,992 $4 397 $5,626 $3.728 $2.522







Total Obligations In Agriculture
By Emphasis Area By Bureau (FY 92-97)
(000)

FY92 FY93 FY94 FY98 FY96" FY97
Crop Production 521 256 517,225 $16 861 $19,688 $16 068 51.614
Fisneries Prouction S2 -2" $1.785 S1 168 $2,870 $1 9-5 $4.170
Livestock Production $11 292 $14,649 $4 632 $11.914 $10 "d- $4.454
Pest Management $9 506 59,082 $6 655 514.668 $11 26- 55.534
Res Mgr For Agr. Prod and Prod. $13917 $13.314 8 "'0 $13.210 59 135 55.534
Sub-total 586 203 $78,919 $56 297 $85,016 $64 040 $42.663
'Less Environment Funding $1- 149 $15,281 $11 619 $23,53 $16 195
Total $69 054 $63.638 $44 678 561,453 $4- 845 $42.663


Bureau for Humanitarian Response
Agribusiness 51 662 5819 $2 331 $4,419 $567 $618
Agncultural Credit $1 032 $853 $253 $1,045 5760 5194
Agricutural Intrastructure 5277
Agrcultural Poliies and Planning 5527 $425 $385 5260 $40
Ag cLwtural Training and Extension 53 528 $1,785 52 482 53.828 $1 731 891
Crop Production $1 109 $750 $417 $1,172 $1 034 $547
Fisheries Producton
LivestocK Production $315 $273 $223 S209
Pest Management
Res Mgt. For Agr. Prod and Prod 5359 5290 $100 $1,562 $1 17C
Sub-total: 8 532 $5,195 $6191 $12.286 $5 302 $2.736
'Less Envronment Funding $4 51,216 $933
Total $8528 $5,195 $6191 $11,070 4 369 52.736

Policy and Management Bureaus
Agribusiness $525 $574
Agiculural Credit
Agricultural infrastructure
Agncuftural Potiiesand Planning $2 528 $1,273 $665 5687
Agricultural Training and Extension $306 $1,060 $1 564 51.171
Crop Production $88
Fisheries Production $44
Livestock Production
Pest Management
Res. Mgt For Agr. Prod. and Prod. $447 $71
Sub-total: 3 806 $2,978 2 361 SO $0 51.858
'Less Environment Funding $412
Total 3 394 $2,978 2 361 $0 s0 $1.858

Grand Total
Agribusiness $117490 $118,695 $131 872 $97,083 $63983 55.670
Agricultural Credit $20 924 59,412 515 641 531.911 $10 978 511.193
Agncutural infrastructure 86 626 556,864 $37 509 $38.498 525 903 524.104
Agricutural Policies and Planning $192761 $92,278 5120.517 $113,240 $86.296 $57.864
Agrcultural Training and Exension $72 337 552,733 $31.387 $28,836 $20 930 521,517
Crop Production $49 178 543,682 $38.958 $54,246 544 181 540.452
Fisnenes Production $5068 53,049 $1 212 $3,002 $3 280 $4.945
Livestock Production 15 282 $19,849 8 288 $14.739 $15 222 $7,407
Pest Management $16.527 $15,514 9 797 $21.299 $13 483 55.858
Res Mgi. For Agr. Prod. and Prod. 549 084 $37,459 $20 077 $31,676 523 569 $15.744
Subtotal: $625 277 5449,535 $415.258 5434,530 $307 825 5244.754
'Less Environment Funding $30 977 $22,831 $16.631 558.422 $47 868 $0
Total $594.300 5426,704 $398 627 $376,108 $259 957 5244.754


*FY96 figures are Congressional Presentation (CP) estimates.






Budgeted Obligations In Agriculture
By Emphasis Area By Bureau (FY 98-99)
(000)


FY98


Bureau for Africa
Agribusiness
Agricultural Credit
Agncultural Infrastructure
Agncultural Policies and Planning
Agricultural Training and Extension
Crop Production
Fisheries Production
Livestock Production
Pest Management
Res. Mgt. For Agr. Prod. and Prod.
Total

Bureau for Asia/Near East
Agribusiness
Agricultural Credit
Agricultural Infrastructure
Agricultural Policies and Planning
Agricultural Training and Extension
Crop Production
Fisheries Production
Livestock Production
Pest Management
Res. Mgt. For Agr. Prod. and Prod.
Total


Bureau for Europe and N.I.S.
Agribusiness $
Agricultural Credit
Agricultural Infrastructure
Agricultural Policies and Planning
Agricultural Training and Extension
Crop Production
Fisheries Production
Livestock Production
Pest Management
Res. Mgt. For Agr. Prod. and Prod.
Agricultural Land Privatization
Total $

Bureau for Latin America and Caribbean
Agribusiness
Agricultural Credit
Agricultural Infrastructure
Agricultural Policies and Planning
Agricultural Training and Extension
Crop Production


$21,725
$1 343
$11 007
$10,295
$8,211
$17 381

$300
$285
$6,869
$77.416


FY99


$20,088
$3,718
$4,662
$15,202
$4,042
$15,882

$4,339
$880
$7,187
$76,000


$29,395 $14,280


$1,800
$77,680


$3,159
$74,688


$900 $1,050
$1,400
$245 $301


$4,925
$114,945


25,666
$2,311

$1,100
$8,300


$5,833
$100,711


$23,360
$1,342
$4,700
$4,205
$8,000


$17,800
37,377 $59,407


$2,540
$1,460
$1,547
$3,832
$2,321
$4,601


$8,462
$7,735
$2,650
$3,437
$3,185
$7,530






Budgeted Obligations In Agriculture
By Emphasis Area By Bureau (FY 98-99)
(000)

FY98 FY99
Fisheries Production
Livestock Production $166 $100
Pest Management $44
Res Mgt. For Agr. Prod. and Prod. $6.591 $12,410
Total $23 058 $45,553

Bureau for Global Programs
Agnbusiness $2,876 $2,180
Agricultural Credit $213 $2,185
Agricultural Infrastructure $2,185
Agricultural Policies and Planning $9,472 $2,185
Agricultural Training and Extension $900 $2,185
Crop Production $628 $2.185
Fisheries Production $1,450 $2,185
Livestock Production $4,950 $2,185
Pest Management $2,350 $2,185
Res. Mgt. For Agr. Prod. and Prod. $10,191 $2,185
Total $33,030 $21,845


Bureau for Humanitarian Response
Agribusiness
Agricultural Credit
Agricultural Infrastructure
Agricultural Policies and Planning
Agricultural Training and Extension
Crop Production
Fisheries Production
Livestock Production
Pest Management
Res. Mgt. For Agr. Prod. and Prod.
Total $0 $0


Policy and Management Bureaus
Agribusiness
Agricultural Credit
Agricultural Infrastructure
Agricultural Policies and Planning
Agricultural Training and Extension
Crop Production
Fisheries Production
Livestock Production
Pest Management
Res. Mgt. For Agr. Prod. and Prod.
Total


Grand Total


$1,143
$1,135
$6,000


$1,062
$1,062


$8,278 $2,124

$294.104 $305.640


. . . . . .. I -








USAID Obligations by Emphasis Area (US $ 000)


Democracy
Environment
Population & Health
Economic Growth
Agriculture
Basic Education"
Other Education"
Energy
Private Sector
Other-
Humanitarian Assistance
Human Capacity"*


FY92
224,701
475,693
874,768
4,122,732
594,300
113,822
231,266
200,419
1,022,195
1,960,730
38,006
0
5 71- qn0


FY 92-97
FY93
315,091
476,499
1,010,596
3,925,665
426,704
134,459
240,798
145,064
977,208
2,001,432
145,799
0


FY94
370,669
477.835
1,053,283
4,165,096
398,627
116,133
254,024
198,291
1,561,522
1,636,499
53,314
0


5 873 650 6120197


FY95 FY96*
435,516 387,103
634,312 547,180
1,121,315 931,330
3,798,173 3,292,251
376,108 259,957
142.049 126,310
222.206 164,373
144,291 37,262
1,015,257 843,275
1,898,262 1,861,074
0 0
0 0
5.989316 5157.864


USAID Obligations by Emphasis Area (%)
FY 92-97
FY92 FY93 FY94 PF


Democracy
Environment
Pop. & Health
Econ. Growth
Agriculture
Basic Education"
Other Education
Energy
Private Sector
Other--
Humanitarian Assistance
Human Capacity""


3.92
8.29
15.25
71.88
10.36
1.98
4.03
3.49
17.82
34.18
0.66
0.00
100


5.36
8.11
17.21
66.84
7.26
2.29
4.10
2.47
16.64
34.07
2.48
0.00
100


6.06
7.81
17.21
68.05
6.51
1.90
4.15
3.24
25.51
26.74
0.87
0.00
100


r95


7.27
10.59
18.72
63.42
6.28
2.37
3.71
2.41
16.95
31.69
0.00
0.00
100


FY96*
7.51
10.61
18.06
63.83
5.04
2.45
3.19
0.72
16.35
36.08
0.00
0.00
100


"FY 96 figures are Congressional Presentation (CP) Estimates
"FY97 figures are NOA and not obligations as in previous years.
-In FY97 all education that was previously under Economic Growth came under the newly formed Agency goal of Human Capacity Development
""Oher includes cash transfers
-"In FY97 Human Capacity was added as an Agency goal


FY97~
413,309
654,329
1,028.732
2,897,820
244,755
0
0
0
0
0
0
187,097
5.181.287


FY97"
7.98
12.63
19.85
55.93
4.72
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
3.61
100


A-[^^[ TLI


M


A- eny Total


enc oa


A enc Total







Components of Economic Growth Obligations


2500




2000




1500


1000




500


FY92


FY93


FY94


FY95


FY96


Note: FY97 is not included because the same categories are no longer used.
Note: "Other" includes categories such as telecommunications, roads, construction, and policy reform.


m Agriculture
11ln Basic Education

R Other Education
M Energy
M Private Sector

M Other







Agriculture Obligations


800




600


0)
0o 2 400




200


FY93


FY94
Year


FY95 FY96
FY95 FY96


*1


FY92


FY97








USAID Obligations in Agriculture


Fiscal Year
I % Agriculture


FY92
10.36


FY93
7.26


FY94
6.51


FY95
6.28 --


FY96 FY97
5.04 4.72


100






USAID Obligations and Food Aid


(I)
04


m Non-Ag. Obligations
iili Agriculture Obligations
a Food Aid (excluding Title I and Food for Progress)


FY93 FY94 FY95


FY92


FY96 FY97







Agency Obligation Totals
by emphasis area
1200 --


N'


.E-


ii]


N-


A~ A
I7
A
U- -- -


UI---- ----


FY93 FY94 FY95
Fiscal Year


FY96


F__L_
FY97


* Agriculture

+ Democracy

A Environment
E3 Population & Health


1000


800


600


400


200


0


..FY92
FY92





CRSP Funding Levels for FY 92 FY 98


CRSP University Projects FY 92 FY 93 FY 94 FY 95 FY 96 FY 97* FY 98 Total
INTSORMIL 2,300,000 2,700,000 2,300,000 2,355,000 2,543,000 2,727,000 2,500,000 14,925,000
Bean/Cowpea 3,750,000 1,900,000 2,300,000 2,355,000 2,400,000 2,736,000 2,500,000 15,441,000
Soil Management 4,555,000 4,325,000 1,600,000 2,100,000 145,000 3,609,000 2,500,000 16,334,000
Small Ruminant 2,960,000 2,700,000 900,000 2,200,000 2,036,000 2,390,000 2,500,000 13,186,000
Pond Dynamics 1,007,000 1,000,000 900,000 1,300,000 2,250,000 2,200,000 1,700,000 8,657,000
Peanuts 1,148,000 1,700,000 1,000,000 1,290,000 1,943,000 1,925,000 1,500,000 9,006,000
IPM 0 933,000 1,100,000 1,200,000 1,400,000 1,500,000 1,250,000 6,133,000
SANREM 1,847,000 2,300,000 2,200,000 2,728,000 1,300,000 1,650,000 2,000,000 12,025,000
BASIS 800,000 1,281,000 850,000 2,081,000
Total 17,567,000 17,558,000 12,300,000 15,528,000 14,817,000 20,018,000* 17,300,000 97,788,000
"FY97 includes $2 647 million of carry over from FY96










CRSP Linkages between U.S. Institutions and Collaborating Host Countries


State/Institutions/Collaborating CRSPs Collaborating Host Countries

Alabama
Alabama A&M (Peanut) Burkina Faso, Ghana
Auburn (PDA)(SANREM)(B/C)(SOILS) Honduras, Rwanda, Kenya, Egypt, Thailand, Haiti,
Philippines, Peru, Ecuador, Cameroon
Tuskegee (SANREM) Burkina Faso, Mali

Arizona
U. ofAz. (PDA)(INTSORMIL)(ABSP) Philippines, Egypt

Arkansas
U. of Ark. At Pine Bluff (PDA) Rwanda

California
U.C. (PDA) Honduras, Kenya, Peru, Philippines, Thailand
U.C. Davis (SR)(B/C) Indonesia, Kenya, Morocco, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan,
Uzbekistan, Peru, Bolivia, Ecuador, Mali
UCLA (SR) Kenya, Ethiopia Uganda
U.C. Riverside (B/C) Senegal

Colorado
Colorado State (SR) Kenya
Univ. of Colorado (SR) Tanzania, Kenya, Uganda

District of Columbia
Intern. Center for Res. on Women (BASIS) Ethiopia

Florida
Florida A&M (INTSORMIL)
U. of FL (SOILS) Uganda, Malawi, Zambia, Senegal, Ethiopia

Georgia Burkina Faso, Nigeria, Guatemala, Honduras, Kenya
U. GA. (IPM)(SANREM)(B/C)(Peanut) Peru, Philippines, Thailand, Ecuador, Mali, Ghana

Hawaii
U. of Hawaii (PDA)(SOILS) Egypt, Philippines, Kenya

Idaho
U. of Idaho (B/C)(CASP) Tanzania, Honduras

Illinois
Southern Illinois U. At Carbondale (PDA) Peru
Univ. of Ill. (CASP)

Indiana Mali, Guatemala, Cameroon, Costa Rica, Niger,
Purdue (IPM)(INTSORMIL)(B/C) Ethiopia, Uganda, Eritrea, Kenya, Sudan

Iowa
Iowa St.(SANREM) Ecuador, Peru

Kansas Mali, Egypt, Kenya, Uganda, Niger, Malaysia, South
KSU (INTSORMIL)(CASP) Africa, Swaziland, Uruguay

Kentucky
U. K. (SR)(INTSORMIL) Kenya, Ethiopia











State/Institutions/Collaborating CRSPs Collaborating Host Countries

Massachusetts
Harvard Inst. for Int. Devel.(BASIS) South Africa
Williams College (SR) Ethiopia, Kenya

Michigan
Mich. St. (PDA)(B/C)(ABSP)(FSII) Thailand, Costa Rica, Mexico, Malawi, Egypt, Kenya,
Indonesia, Morocco, Jamaica, Mali, Mozambique,
Zimbabwe, Ethiopia
U. of Mich. (PDA) Thailand, Egypt

Minnesota
U. Minn. Duluth (SR)(B/C) Mexico, Ecuador, Bolivia

Mississippi
Miss. St. U. (INTSORMIL)(CASP) Honduras, Ethiopia, Nicaragua

Missouri
Univ. of Missouri (SR) Bolivia, Indonesia, Kenya,
Lincoln U. (IPM) Jamaica

Montana
Montana St. (IPM)(SOILS) Mali, Ecuador, Peru

Nebraska Dominican Republic, Mali, Niger, Botswana, Namibia,
U. of Neb.(INTSORMIL)(B/C) Zambia, Zimbabwe

New York
Cornell (SR)(SOILS) Peru, Honduras, Ecuador, Bangladesh, Nepal
Inst. of Development Anthropology (BASIS) Ethiopia

North Carolina
NC State (SR)(Peanut)(SOILS) Indonesia, Thailand, Costa Rica, Philippines, Mali

Ohio Philippines, Jamaica, Mali, Uganda, Ecuador, El
Ohio St. (IPM)(BASIS) Salvador

Oklahoma
U. of Ok. (PDA) Honduras, Kenya, Peru, Philippines, Thailand, Egypt

Oregon
Oregon St. (SR) (PDA) Rwanda, Kenya, Honduras, Egypt

Pennsylvania
Penn St. (IPM) Philippines, Jamaica

Puerto Rico
U. of PR (B/C) Honduras

South Carolina
Clemson (B/C) Ghana
USDA Vegetable Lab Jamaica

South Dakota
South Dakota St. (SR) Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan










State/Institutions/Collaborating CRSPs Collaborating Host Countries

Texas
Texas A&M (SR)(INTSORMIL)(Peanut)(SOILS) Argentma, Bolivia,Botswana, Brazil, Namibia, Burkina
Faso, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Ghana, Guatemala,
Honduras, India, Uganda, Kenya, Mali, Mexico,
Nicaragua, Niger, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia,
Texas Tech (SR) (INTSORMIL) Zimbabwe,
U. of Texas (PDA) Bolivia
Honduras

Utah
Utah St. (SR) Kenya, Ethiopia, Peru, Bolivia

Virginia Philippines, Jamaica, Mali, Uganda, Guatemala,
VPI&SU (IPM)(SANREM) Ecuador, Peru, Burkina Faso

Washington
Wash. St. (SR)(SANREM) Kenya, Burkina Faso, Mali, Tanzania

Wisconsin Bolivia, Kazakhstan, Kirgystan, Uzbekistan, Mexico,
U. of Wisc. (SR) (SANREM)(B/C)(BASIS) Ecuador, Bolivia, Philippines, Thailand, Burkina Faso,
Mali, Costa Rica

Totals: 34 States, D.C. and Puerto Rico; 50 Institutions Total: 50 Host Countries









COUNTRIES IN WHICH CRSPs WORK BY REGION, 1992-1997

AFR ANE ENI LAC


Botswana (INTSORMIL)
(SANREM)

Burkina Faso (Peanut)
(SANREM)

Cameroon (B/C)

Eritrea (INTSORMIL)

Ethiopia (INTSORMIL) (SR)
(SOILS)(BASIS) (FSII)

Ghana (Peanut)
(INTSORMIL) (B/C)

Kenya (PDA) (SR)(SOILS)
(INTSORMIL) (FSII)

Malawi (B/C)(SOILS)

Mali (IPMXSANREM)FSI)
(INTSORMIL)(SOILS)

Mozambique (INTSORMIL)
(FSII)

Namibia (INTSORMIL)

Niger (INTSORMIL)

Nigeria (Peanut)

Rwanda (PDA)
(INTSORMIL)

Senegal (INTSORMIL)
(B/C)(SOILS)

South Africa
(BASISXINTSORMIL)

Sudan (INTSORMIL)

Swaziland (INTSORMIL)

Tanzania (B/C) (SR)

Uganda (IPM) (SRXSOILS)
(INTSORMIL)

Zambia (SOILS)
(INTSORMIL)

Zimbabwe (INTSORMIL)
(FSII)


Bangladesh (SOILS)

Egypt (PDA)

India (INTSORMIL)

Indonesia (SR)

Malaysia (INTSORMIL)

Morocco (SR)

Nepal (SOILS)

Philippines (IPM)
(PDAXSANREMXSOILS)

Thailand (Peanut)
(PDA)(SANREM)


Kazakhstan (SR)

Kirgystan (SR)

Turkmenistan (SR)

Uzbekistan (SRXBASIS)


Argentina (INTSORMIL)

Bolivia (SR)

Brazil (INTSORMIL)

Costa Raca (B/CXSOILS)

Dominican Republic (B/C)

Ecuador (IPM) (SANREM)
(B/C) (SR)(SOILS)

El Salvador
(INTSORMILXBASIS)

Guatemala (IPM)
(INTSORMIL)

Haiti (SOILS)

Honduras (PDA)
(INTSORMIL) (B/C) (SR)
(SOILS)

Jamaica (IPM)

Mexico (B/C) (SR)

Nicaragua
(SOILSXINTSORMIL)

Peru (PDA)(SANREM)
(SRXSOILS)

Uruguay (INTSORMIL)


22 COUNTRIES 9 COUNTRIES 4 COUNTRIES 15 COUNTRIES


I ,










Membership
of the
Board For International Food and Agricultural Development
(BIFAD)

Seven members were appointed in 1995

Dr. G. Edward Schuh, Chairman
Orville and Jane Freeman Professor in
International Trade and Investment Policy
University of Minnesota

appointed for two years and reappointed in 1998


Dr. Walter Hill
Dean and Research Director
School of Agriculture and Home Economics
Tuskegee University

appointed for two years


Mr. Miles Goggans
President
Goggans, Inc.
Little Rock, AR

appointed for two years and resigned from BIFAD in June 1998


Dr. Ada Demb
Associate Professor
Educational Policy and Leadership
The Ohio State University

appointed for one year and reappointed for an additional two year term



Dr. Walter Falcon
Director
Institute of International Studies
Stanford University

appointed for one year and reappointed for an additional two year term









Dr. Goro Uehara
Professor of Soil Science
University of Hawaii

appointed for one year and reappointed for an additional two year term


Mr. Alan Klingerman
CEO
Akpharma, Inc.

appointed for a two year term and resigned from BIFAD in late 1996


*Ms. Ertharin Cousin Moore
Vice President
Jewel-Osco
Chicago, III

Ms. Cousin Moore was appointed in June 1998 for two years to fill the position vacated by Mr.
Klingerman.










Membership
of the
Advisory Committee on Food Security

December 1997

The Advisory Committee on Food Security is an independent committee under the legislated auspices
of BIFAD. There are 30 members.


Andrew Agle, Lithonia, Georgia,Global 2000/The Carter Center

Selina Ahmed, Houston, TX, Mickey Leland Center for World Hunger

David Beckmann, Silver Spring, MD, Bread for the World

Margaret Bogle, Little Rock, AR, Lower Mississippi Delta Nutrition Intervention Initiative

John Cady, Washington, DC, National Food Processors Association

Ralph Christy, Ithaca, NY, American Agricultural Economics Association, Cornell University

Ada Demb, Columbus, OH, Ohio State University

Betsy Faga, Arlington, VA, Protein Grain Products International

Walter Falcon, Stanford, CA, Stanford University

Rick Foster, Battle Creek, MI, Kellogg Foundation

David J. Frederickson, Murdock, MN, Minnesota Farmers Union

Cutberto Garza, Ithaca, NY, United Nations University/Food and Nutrition Program

Miles Goggans, Little Rock, AR, Goggans, Inc.

Richard Gutting, Jr., Alexandria, VA, National Fisheries Institute

John D. Hardin, Jr., Danville, IN, farmer

Walter Hill, Tuskegee, AL, Tuskegee University

Charles johnson, Des Moines, IA, Pioneer Hi-Bred, International

Charles F. MacCormack, Westport, CT, Save the Children

Whitney MacMillan, Minneapolis, MN, Cargill, Inc.









Membership
of the
Advisory Committee on Food Security
(continued)

Ellen Marshall, Boulder, CO, National Audubon Society

P. Howard Massey, Jr., Blacksburg, VA, Rotary Foundation/Rotary International

Cheryl Morden, Takoma Park, MD, Church World Service/Lutheran World Relief

Sharyle Patton, Bolinas, CA, Citizens Network for Sustainable Development

Sherrie Perry, Tahlequah, OK, Food Distribution Programs, Cherokee Nation

G. Edward Schuh, Minneapolis, MN, University of Minnesota

P. Scott Shearer, Oakton, VA, Farmland Industries, Inc.

Barbara R. Spangler, Arlington, VA, American Farm Bureau Federation

*Goro Uehara, Honolulu, HI, University of Hawaii

Christine Vladimiroff, Chicago, IL, Second Harvest



Ertharin Cousin Moore, Chicago, II, Jewel-Osco, was appointed to BIFAD and became a member of
this committee in June 1998.


* Members of BIFAD




107 i -it <'NAN '-I A I I IF 1 (1'.i. H7 195) Sec. 296t

(c) 29" In order to cnrry outl ie purposes of this title, the agency
primarily responsible for administering part I of this Act, shall de-
velop systematic programs of inservice training to familiarize its
personnel with the objectives of this title and to increase their
knowledge of the political and social aspects of development. In ad-
dition to other funds available for such purposes, not to exceed I
per centum of the funds authorized to be appropriated for grant as-
sistance under this chapter and chapter 1 2"S may be used for car-
rying out the objectives of this subsection.
Title X-Programn Relating tn Population Growth "' * [Repealed-1978]
Title XI-Food Production Targets and Reports"' * Repealed-19781
Title XII-Famine Prevention and Freedom From Hunger "
Sec. 296."" General Provisions.--a) The Congress declares that,
in order to prevent famine and establish freedom from hunger, the
United States should strengthen the capacities of the United States
land-grant and other eligible universities in program-related agri-
cultural institutional development and research, consistent with
sections 103 and 103A, should improve their participation in the
United States Government's international efforts to apply more ef-
fective agricultural sciences to the goal of increasing world food
production, and in general should provide increased and longer
term support to the application of science to solving food and nutri-
tion problems of the developing countries.
The Congress so declares because it finds-
(1) that the establishment, endowment, and continuing sup-
port of land-grant universities in the United States by Federal,
State, and county governments has led to agricultural progress
in this country;
(2) that land-grant and other universities in the United
States have demonstrated over many years their ability to co-
operate with foreign agricultural institutions in expanding in-
digenous food production for both domestic and international
markets;
(3) that, in a world of growing population with rising expec-
tations, increased food production and improved distribution,
storage, and marketing in the developing countries is neces-
sary not only to prevent hunger but to build the economic base
for growth, and moreover, that the greatest potential for in-
creasing world food supplies is in the developing countries
where the gap between food need and food'supply is the great-
est and current yields are lowest;
(4) that increasing and making more secure the supply of
food is of greatest benefit to the poorest majority in the devel-
oping world;

"' Subsec. (e) wa added by sec lOib) of the FA Act of 1968.
D"Title X. a added by the FA Act of 1967. wai repealed by ec. 104(b) or the Internntional
Development and Food Assiitance Act of 1978 (Public Law 95 424; 92 Stat. 947)1.
"Title XI. an added by the FA Act of 1967. was repeated by ee. 602(dXI) of the International
eve " *2 U SC 2220. Sec 312 of Public law 94-161 (R9 Slat. 814 added title XII and new sec
296.


Ser. 29, )IIt i N 1 ASSi AN( AC T OF li ll l'.I.. 87 19'5) 108

(5) that research, leaching, and extension activities, and ap-
propriate institutional development therefore are prime factors
in increasing agricultural production abroad (as well as in the
United States) and in improving food distribution, storage, and
marketing;
(6) moreover, that agricultural research abroad has in the
past and will continue in the future to provide benefits for ag-
riculture in the United States and that increasing the avail-
ability of food of higher nutritional quality is of benefit to all;
and
(7) that universities need a dependable source of Federal
funding, as well as other financing, in order to expand, or in
some cases to continue, their efforts to assist in increasing ag-
ricultural production in developing countries.
(b) Accordingly, the Congress declares that, in order to prevent
famine and establish freedom from hunger, various components
must be brought together in order to increase world food produc-
tion, including--
(1) strengthening the capabilities of universities to assist in
increasing agricultural production in developing countries;
(2) institution-building programs for development of national
and regional agricultural research and extension capacities in
developing countries which need assistance;
(3) international agricultural research centers;
(4) contract research; and
(5) research program grants.
(c) The United States should-
(1) effectively involve the United States land-grant and other
eligible universities more extensively in each component;
(2) provide mechanisms for the universities to participate
and advise in the planning, development, implementation, and
administration of each component; and
(3) assist such universities in cooperative joint efforts with-
(A) agricultural institutions in developing nations, and
(Bl) regional and international agricultural research cen-
ters,
directed to strengthening their joint and respective capabili-
ties and to engage them more effectively in research, teaching,
and extension activities for solving problems in food produc-
tion, distribution, storage, marketing, and consumption in agri-
culturally underdeveloped nations.
(d) As used in this title, the term "universities" means those col-
leges or universities in each State, territory, or possession of the
United States, or the District of Colunbia, now receiving, or which
may hereafter receive, benefits under the Act of July 2, 1862
(known as the First Morrill Act), or the Act of August 30, 1890
(known as the Second Morrill Act), which are commonly known as
"land-grant" universities; institutions now designated or which
may hereafter be designated as sea-grant colleges under the Act of
October 15, 1966 (known as the National Sea Grant College and
Program Act), which are commonly known as sea-grant colleges;
and other United States colleges and universities which-





)t)lIVI- 4 A;SiSIANCE A(t O 1961 (1it 1.. H7 1!1) Sec. 297


(1) have denlonsIralle capacity in teaching, research, and ex-
tension activities in the agricultural sciences; and
(2) can contribute effectively to the attainment of the objec-
tive of this title.
(e) As used in this title, the term "Administrator" means the Ad-
ministrator of the Agency for International Development.29g
(300 * (Repealed-1978]
(g) 300 s [Repealed-19781
Sec. 297."01 generall Authority.-(a) To carry out the purposes of
this title, the President is authorized to provide assistance on such
terms and conditions as he shall determine-
(1) to strengthen the capabilities of universities in teaching,
research, and extension work to enable them to implement
current programs authorized by paragraphs (2), (3), (4); and (5)
of this subsection, and those proposed in the report required by
section 300 of this title;
(2) to build and strengthen the institutional capacity and
human resources skills of agriculturally developing countries
so that these countries may participate more fully in the inter-
national agricultural problem solving effort and to introduce
and adapt new solutions to local circumstances;
(3) to provide program support for long-term collaborative
university research, in the developing countries themselves to
the maximum extent practicable,302 on food production, distri-
bution, storage, marketing and consumption;
(4) to involve universities more fully in tie international net-
work of agricultural science, including the international re-
search centers, the activities of international organizations
such as the United Nations Development Program and the
Food and Agriculture Organization, and the institutions of ag-
riculturally developing nations; and
(5) to provide program support for international agricultural
research centers, to provide support for research projects iden-
tified for specific problem-solving needs, and to develop and
strengthen national research systems in the developing coun-
tries.
(b) Programs under this title shall be carried out so as to-
(1) utilize and strengthen the capabilities of universities in-
(A) developing capacity in the cooperating nation for
classroom teaching in agriculture, plant and animal sci-
ences, human nutrition, and vocational and domestic arts
and other relevant fields appropriate to local needs;
(B) agricultural research to be conducted in the cooperat-
ing nations, at international agricultural research centers,
or in the United States;

"' Sce 6 of Rrorganianlion Plan No 2 of 1979 teatablishinl IDCAI. transferred all responsibil-
ities and functions vested in this subsection from the Administrator to the Director of IDCA.
*' Subsecs (n and (gl. which defined the term "agriculture" and "farmers." were repealed
by sec. 103.c) of the International Development and Food Assistance Act of 1978 (Public law 95-
424; 92 Stat. 945). Similar definitions for these terms can now be found in sec. 644 (o) and (pl of
this Act
*' 22 1 SC 2220b See 291 was added by see 312 of Public Iaw 94 -161 (R9 Slat 849).
solThe words ". in the drvrlnoinig countries themselves to the maximum extent practicable."
were addil by rrc 11311 of I te lir rnltlinnlnli I.velopmient Cc( peritlioni Act of 1979 (Public law
96 S3~ 9:1 Sint 364r


109 )


Sec. 298 )FOR1I;N ASSISTAN('C ACT OF 19G1 L'.I.. 87-195) 110

(C) the planning, initiation, and development of exten-
sion services through which information concerning agri-
culture and related subjects will be made available directly
to farmers and farm families in the agriculturally develop-
ing nations by means of education and demonstration; or
(D) the exchange of educators, scientists, and students
for the purpose of assisting in successful development in
the cooperating nations;
(2) take into account the value to the United States agricul-
ture of such programs, integrating to the extent practicable
the programs and financing authorized under this title with
those supported by other Federal or State resources so as to
maximize the contribution to the development of agriculture in
the United States and in agriculturally developing nations; and
(3) whenever practicable, build on existing programs and in-
stitutions including those of tie universities and the United
States Department of Agriculture and the United States De-
partment of Commerce.
(c) 3os To the maximum extent practicable, activities under this
section shall-
(1) be directly related to the food and agricultural needs of
developing countries;
(2) be carried out within the developing countries;
(3) be adapted to local circumstances;
(4) provide for the most effective interrelationship between
research, education, and extension in promoting agricultural
development in developing countries; and
(5) emphasize the improvement of local systems for deliver-
ing the best available knowledge to the small farmers of such
countries.
(d) The President shall exercise his authority under this section
through the Administrator.304
Sec. 298.306 Board for International Food and Agricultural De-
velopment.-(a) To assist in the administration of the programs au-
thorized by this title, the President shall establish a permanent
Board for International Food and Agricultural Development (here-
after in this title referred to as the "Hoard") consisting of seven
members, not less than four to be selected from the universities.
Terms of members shall be set by the President at the time of ap-
pointment. Members of the Board shall be entitled to such reim-
bursement for expenses incurred in the performance of their duties
(including per diem in lieu of subsistence while away from their
homes or regular place of business) as the President deems appro-
priate.
(b) The Board's general areas of responsibility shall include, but
not be limited to-

"'e Subec. (c) was amended and restated by sec. 113(2) of the International Development Co-
operation Act of 1979 (Public Law 96-53 93 Stat. 364). It formerly read as follows:
"(c) To the maximum extent practicable, activities under this section shall (I) be designed to
achieve the moat effective interrelationship among the teaching of agricultural sciences, re-
search, and extension work. (2) joins irimnarily on tie needs of agricultural producers. (3) be
adp ted to local circumstances and (4) be carried out within the developing countries."
'"* Tiis authority of the Administrator wan trnltferrred to thie Director of IICA. pursuant to
sec 6 of lleruiRinirlion PI'nn No 2 of 1979 It.slt linshiig IIX'AI
.o" 22 II SC 2220c Sc- ?29H was nh.iil by mc 317 oI f I'ui. I 1w 9 161 (HI S (I Sint H,9




IIl 1 Vi n r.N A I'. I.I r r I. t i I 1 .I (r' H'i 1.1, ) Sec. 29!8

(I) participating in tlie planning, development, and imple-
incntlation of,
(2) initiating recommendations for, and
(3) monitoring of,
the activities described in section 297 of this title.
(c) The Board's duties shall include, but not necessarily be limit-
ed to-
(1) participating in the formulation of basic policy, proce-
dures, and criteria for project proposal review, selection, and
monitoring;
(2) developing and keeping current a roster of universities-
(A) interested in exploring their potential for collabora-
tive relationships with agricultural institutions, and with
scientists working on significant programs designed to in-
crease food production in developing countries,
(1) having capacity in the agricultural sciences,
(C) able to maintain an appropriate balance of teaching,
research, and extension functions,
(I)) having capacity, experience, and commitment with
respect to international agricultural efforts, and
(E) able to contribute to solving the problems addressed
by this title;
(3) recommending which developing nations could benefit
from programs carried out under this title, and identifying
those nations which have an interest in establishing or devel-
oping agricultural institutions which engage in teaching, re-
search, or extension activities;
(4) reviewing and evaluating memorandums of understand-
ing or other documents that detail the terms and conditions be-
tween the Administrator and universities participating in pro-
grams under this title;
(5) reviewing and evaluating agreements and activities au-
thorized by this title and undertaken by universities to assure
compliance with the purposes of this title;
(6) recommending to the Administrator the apportionment of
funds under section 297 of this title; 306 and
(7) assessing the impact of programs carried out under this
title in solving agricultural problems in the developing nations.
(d) The President may authorize the Board to create such subor-
dinate units as may be necessary for the performance of its duties,
including but not limited to the following:
(1) a Joint Research Committee to participate in the adminis-
tration and development of the collaborattive activities de-
scribed in section 297(aX3) of this title; and
(2) a Joint Committee on Country Programs which shall
assist in the implementation of the bilateral activities de-
scribed in sections 297(a)2), 297(aX4), and 297(aX5).
(e) In addition to any other functions assigned to and agreed to
by the Board, the Board shall be consulted in the preparation of
the annual report required by section 300 of this title and on other

'" This function of the Adniinistrator wan transferred to the Director of IIX:A. purnuant to
sec 6 of Reorganiration Plan No 2 of 1979 (resla lishling IICA)


Sec. 299 FIlE'.N ASSISTANtCE ACI OF 1' l1 i1'. H7 IWll 112

agricultural development activities related to programs under thrs
title.
Sec. 299.301 Authorization.-(a) The President is authorized to
use any of the funds hereafter made available under section 103 of
this Act to carry out the purposes of this title. Funds made avail-
able for such purposes may be used without regard to the provi-
sions of sections i 0(b) and 122(d) 30" of this Act.
(b) Foreign currencies owned by the United States and deter-
mined by t e Secretary of the Treasury to be excess to the needs of
the United States shall be used to the maximum extent possible in
lieu of dollars in carrying out the provisions of this title.
(c) Assistance authorized under this title shall be in addition to
any allotments or grants that may be nade under other authoriza-
tions.
(d) Universities may accept and expend funds from other sources,
public and private, in order to carry out the purposes of this title.
All such funds, both prospective and inhand, shall be periodically
disclosed to the Administrator as he shall by regulation require,
but no less often than in an annual report.30a
Sec. 300.a10 Annual Rleport.-Tlhe President shall transmit to
the Congress, not later than April 1 of each year, a report detailing
the activities carried out pursuant to this title during the preced-
ing fiscal year and containing a projection of programs and activi-
ties to be conducted during the subsequent five fiscal years. Each
report shall contain a summary of the activities of the Board estab-
lished pursuant to section 298 of this title and may include the sep-
arate views of the Board with respect to any aspect of the pro-
grams conducted or proposed to be conducted under this title.
Chapter 3-International Organizations and Programs
Sec. 301.311 General Authority.-(a) When he determines it to be
in the national interest, the President is authorized to make volun-
tary contributions on a grant basis to international organizations
and to programs administered by such organizations, and in the
case of the Indus Basin Development Fund administered by the
International Bank for Reconstruction and Development to make
grants and loans payable as to principal and interest in United
States dollars and subject to the provisions of section 122(b),312 on
such terms and conditions as he may determine, in order to further
the purposes of this part.
(b) 33 [lRepealed-1981]

"'0 22 U.SC. 2220d. Sec. 299 was added by sec. 312 of Public law 94-161 (89 Stat. 849).
's The references to "110(b) and 122(d)" were inserted in lieu of "I 0(b). 211(a). and 211(d1" by
sec. 102(cX2) of the International Development and Food Assistance Act of 1978 (Public Law 95-
424 92 Stat. 941).
'e This function of the Administrator was transferred to the Director of IDCA, pursuant to
sec. 6 of Reo, ganiration Plan No. 2 of 1979 (entablishing IIDA).
2* 22 I.S C. 2220e. Sec. 300 was added by sec. 312 of Public Law 94-161 (89 Stat. 8491.
"22 I.S.C. 2221.
The words to this point. beginning with ", and in the case of the Indun Basin", were added
by sec. 107(a) of the FA Act of 1966. The reference to sec. 122(b) was stilltituted in lieu of a
reference to sec. 201(d) by the Internationnl Development and Food Assistance Act of 1978
(Public law 95 424; 92 Slat, 941).
'"S Sibsec (b). as amended by sec. 107(b) of the FA Act of 1966. was repealed by sec. 734(aXI)
of the Iterirnlioonal Security and D)evelolpment (uopeirntion Act of 1981 t('ublic Law 97-113; 95
Stnt. 1560). It fomnnerly rend as follows
Continued




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs