David Kauck

Two years ago, rapidly escalating food prices made it more difficult for poor people in many countries to buy enough food to meet their needs. The price spike of 2008 brought the total number of hungry people to more than 1 billion and triggered food riots in some of the world’s major cities. Governments around the world began to wonder how to address this in a way that was comprehensive enough to eliminate the complex causes of poverty and hunger – and help avert future food crises. 

The Obama administration’s response to this challenge is Feed the Future, an innovative program designed to significantly reduce chronic hunger globally. The initiative combines current hunger relief and nutrition programs while coordinating these efforts with other donors, countries and private sector partners. But even as food prices creep up once again, Feed the Future is likely to be scrutinized by legislators as they react to President Obama’s 2012 budget released Feb. 14. United States legislators are considering cuts to Feed the Future before it can pay dividends for the world’s poor and hungry. 

What policymakers need to know is that Feed the Future is intended to use funds more efficiently and sustainably. The program draws on the expertise and experience of multiple U.S. agencies and departments to design well-conceived, coordinated programs with a laser-sharp focus on the ultimate goal: the permanent reduction of chronic hunger. Unlike past efforts that focused U.S. dollars solely on providing assistance in the aftermath of food-related emergencies, Feed the Future plans to use a range of development tools to strengthen rural livelihoods as the foundation of durable, prosperous economies.

Twenty countries in sub-Saharan Africa, Asia, Latin America and the Caribbean were selected in 2010 to launch the initiative. Under the leadership of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), Feed the Future puts solutions in the hands of these focus country governments. They are responsible for identifying the needs and priorities of local civil society organizations, farmers’ associations and corporations; and they must develop their own national strategies to promote agriculture-led economic growth, improve nutrition programs and create national emergency response plans. USAID has promoted this country-led process so that improvements to food security are sustainable long after donors leave.

An important component of Feed the Future is its recognition that women play critical roles in producing food and feeding their families. However, women don’t have the same access as men to agricultural opportunities and often are exposed to greater risks. Feed the Future promotes inclusive economic growth that levels the playing field for women and girls. It’s a smart approach, as research has shown repeatedly that income in the hands of women has a positive ripple effect for their children, families and communities.

With the official launch of Feed the Future approaching its first anniversary in May, many of the focus countries are reaching a critical point where planning will be translated into implementation. That means we’ll begin to see infrastructure projects breaking ground and extension services being revived to get farmers the best training possible. We will see women depositing income from the sale of their crops into mobile banking accounts and children being fed with vegetables from kitchen gardens. Most importantly, we will see countries begin to pull themselves out of poverty so that over time, U.S. investments are no longer needed.

None of this will be possible if drastic reductions in federal funding for foreign assistance become a reality. Such a dramatic decline could ultimately cost the U.S. more in the long run. Numerous international bodies, including the World Bank and the World Food Programme, recently reported that staple food prices are rising dangerously again. Without investing in agricultural development and other solutions to hunger and poverty, we could recreate the circumstances that led to the launch of Feed the Future – rapidly escalating food prices that pushed millions into poverty and encouraged food riots around the world.

In a time when all of us need to do more with less, Feed the Future is an example of smart investments focused on results. U.S. assistance through Feed the Future will lay the groundwork for economic growth and stability in critical regions around the world. If the U.S. is to “win the future,” in the words of President Obama, lawmakers need to protect investments in Feed the Future now, to plant the seeds of global prosperity.  

David Kauck is ICRW’s Senior Gender and Agriculture Specialist

As they gather this week for the World Food Prize Symposium, government leaders, multilateral institutions, civil society and private corporations will again discuss international hunger. Their usual response to this issue is to beef up agricultural production by focusing almost exclusively on expanding markets and developing new technologies, such as improved seed varieties. This is necessary, but insufficient. It would be wise – especially now – for world leaders to consider a novel approach. This is our best opportunity in decades to get it right.

To make a significant dent in chronic hunger and  jump-start economic growth, global food security strategies must tackle something less tangible than seeds, less visible than tractors: It's time for an approach that addresses the underlying social inequities between women and men that contribute directly to low productivity farming. Members of the G20 and President Barack Obama already recognize the value in this. Obama's Feed the Future Initiative suggests that if women farmers had the same assets as men, economic output would increase and fewer children would go hungry. The message here? Gender inequality is a drag on productivity, and until we do something about it, we'll keep taking two steps back with each step forward.

To understand why we need to do more for women farmers, it helps to examine their unique place in the agricultural sector, particularly in Africa, where hunger is common and where most women work as small-scale farmers. In sub-Saharan Africa, it's women who often are responsible for ensuring the nutritional well-being of their children. It's women who produce most of the food eaten at home. And it's women who have a strong role in farming crops for sale.

Strategies to boost household food production in Africa and elsewhere oftentimes assume that the  household acts as one unit – that women and men under the same roof split chores, make decisions jointly and share land, equipment and other assets. Decades of field research demonstrate that this is not the case. In most rural farming communities around the world, women hold less power than men. They have less say over household decisions. They have less influence over income. Meanwhile, studies show they labor longer hours than their male counterparts.

And for all their work, women farmers are less likely to see the profits from the sale of the goods they produce. What's more, many women from Latin America to Southeast Asia report that as the value of a particular commodity – that they farm – increases, men take over the marketing and sales.

It's for these reasons that women do not have the same preferences as men. Why should a woman grow a higher-value crop if it will mean more labor on her part, but still the same income – or less? Essentially, many women farmers are locked into low-value, low-productivity farming because their lives do not measurably improve if they change their methods.

One reason that global food security strategies continue to fall short is that they don't recognize these on-the-ground realities of women farmers. Simply put, agricultural investors don't know their primary client. And until food security strategies address the inequities women face – while simultaneously providing them equal access to training, information, capital, seeds and tools – efforts to increase agricultural productivity in some of the neediest corners of the world will fail. Poor, rural families will remain trapped in poverty. Children will continue to go hungry and malnourished.

So to the leaders and decision-makers at the World Food Prize gathering, I say this: Let's get it right this time. Let's dive into those less visible, yet powerful drivers that cripple agricultural productivity. Gender inequality cannot be an afterthought to our food security strategies. It must be the linchpin.

This commentary was featured as a guest column for The Des Moines Register on Oct. 1, 2010.