World Food Summit: Five Years Later

SECRETARY VENEMAN: It is truly very, very good to be back in Rome and to be participating in this very important conference and to be representing President Bush at this conference. I am very pleased that we have a very high-level delegation with us here from the United States. Under Secretary Alan Larson from the State Department and Andrew Natsios, who is the Administrator of our Agency for International Development, are here with me today. We also have two members of Congress who have joined us as part of our delegation, Eva Clayton and Tony Hall, and a number of private sector representatives as well.

We are pleased that the resolution today was agreed upon, and we think, overall, it's a good resolution and one which should allow us, together, to move forward toward the goal of reducing world hunger - something that is very needed. President Bush is very committed to this cause. As you know, he introduced the Compact for Development in Monterrey, Mexico recently. Our Secretary of the Treasury Paul O'Neill just completed a tour throughout Africa to look at the needs of these developing countries, to look at the hunger and to really get a first-hand idea of how the U.S. might be most helpful. We are, as you know, the largest contributor of food aid in the world. We are the largest contributor to multi-lateral lending banks. We are involved in a school feeding program, something that has been called the Global Food for Education initiative - now the McGovern/Dole Education Initiative - where we are helping to put school lunches into schools to encourage people in developing countries to come to school. As you know, when people eat they learn better - and if they learn better, it's clear they will have a better opportunity for economic development. And it will create more opportunities in these countries.

The United States has three priorities for this conference: reducing hunger by increasing ag productivity, ending famine and improving nutrition. In addition, we think it's very important that we look at international trade as an opportunity to enhance the overall system throughout the world.

We are announcing today that I will convene next year a science and technology conference at the ministerial level to look at all the technologies that are being developed with regard to food and agriculture, and the importance of biotechnology in that development. We will look at the role of partnerships and how we can enhance technologies to increase productivity and increase the ability of people to have access to food. We are all gathered in Rome for a common cause and that is to wipe out hunger to improve nutrition and to build a more peaceful, prosperous and secure world. These are challenging, but attainable, goals that President Bush and the United States are deeply committed to attaining. So I just want to say, again, how much I appreciate the opportunity to be here and to represent President Bush. Now I would like to ask Under Secretary Larson and Administrator Natsios if they have additional comments and then we'll take your questions.

UNDER SECRETARY LARSON: Thank you very much Madam Secretary. I'd like to make just three quick comments expanding on the theme of agricultural productivity. The first is that we strongly believe that ending hunger does require that we increase harvests, particularly in places where hunger is greatest. Agriculture can be part of a growth strategy for alleviating poverty, particularly in the rural areas. We think it's very encouraging that developing countries including the African countries are putting a focus on agriculture and agricultural productivity.

Secondly, as the Secretary said, we see biotechnology as making a very important contribution here. It will allow more food to be grown on less land with fewer environmental footprints, fewer chemicals, herbicides and pesticides, and it can be done in a very farmer-friendly way. This can also be done in a way that improves the nutritional characteristics of the food, as we've all seen through the example of golden rice.

Third, this whole process of ending hunger through greater agricultural productivity will be enhanced by strengthening the agricultural trading system. I think it's a very good thing that the declaration has a very strong reaffirmation of the commitment of the countries to implement the Doha development agenda.

ADMINISTRATOR NATSIOS: Thank you very much. USAID is, of course, a strong supporter of increased agricultural programming in the developing world. In Africa, it is one of four major objectives. President Bush has put a heavy focus on it because we know that population increases in various areas of the developing world will not be dealt with in terms of nutrition requirements without more focus on agriculture. In 1986, the U.S. Government was spending $1.3 billion a year on development programs in the agricultural sector. Three years ago it went down to $250 million. There has been a billion dollar drop. We are now rebuilding that budget and those programs. We believe it is centrally important to alleviate poverty in the world. Three-quarters of the poor people in the world live in rural areas and they are the farmers and herders. If you do not deal with agriculture, you cannot deal with poverty in the developing world, and that's particularly true in the sub-continent in central Asia and in sub-Saharan Africa, which is the focus of the highest rates of malnutrition in the world.

The CGIAR network, which is part of the World Bank System, has 17 agricultural research stations around the world that for 35 years have been developing improved varieties of seed for various kinds of crops. A lot of those seeds have not made it into many areas of sub-Saharan Africa, and one of the focuses of USAID programs will be to get these improved seed varieties into rural areas, along with policy assistance to governments that are trying to liberalize their economies.

Finally, I would like to make a comment on famine. I have worked in famines now for 13 years - have written a couple of books on them - they are horrendous things to watch or work in and we are making a public commitment now that the U.S. government will lead the fight with our other donor friends and friends in the developing world to stop famines, to end famine as a phenomena in the world. We do know that famines don't take place in democracies.

There is no recorded example of a famine in a democratic system of government, according to the great Nobel Prize economist of famine. And we believe that governments need to be responsive to food emergencies when they do develop so that early-warning systems can be made more sophisticated. Secondly, donor governments have to make commitments early on when the warning signs are there.

Finally, food needs to be distributed and this is a policy that President Bush has repeated both in 2000 during the campaign and then repeatedly since. Food aid will be distributed based on need - it will not be used as an instrument of diplomacy during a food emergency. We are following that policy.

Last Friday we announced - the U.S. Government announced - an additional 100,000 tons of food to North Korea, which is not exactly one of our best friends. We are concerned in terms of the distribution system in North Korea and we've indicated that there will be no further contributions to the system beyond the 25% we've committed of the WFP appeal -- unless there are improved monitoring and nationwide assessments; unless there is access to remote areas that have been off-limits to outsiders and, finally, that there will be no notice. Right now you have to give six days notice to go monitor in a particular town. We are insisting that there be no notice for that, in order to insure that our monitors get in and see what's actually going on. When I say "our," I mean the international community. So we are committed to ending famine, but we need governments to be cooperative with us, as well.

SECRETARY VENEMAN: We will now take your questions. I'll go right here first. Could you please identify yourself and what organization you are with? Thank you.

QUESTION: (Australian Newspaper). Many of the speakers today have been very critical of both Europe and the U.S. in terms of the agricultural policies. The EU criticized the U.S. Farm Bill and Australia and the Cairns Group have also been highly critical. They claim that it entrenches poverty in countries, which can't develop export markets. What do you say to that? Do you accept any responsibility for weakening the capacity of development countries to export into wealthy markets?

SECRETARY VENEMAN: We know that there has been a tremendous amount of criticism of the Bill, however, I think much of it is misplaced. There's been a lot of criticism that it increases spending when, indeed, it is roughly an equal amount of spending to what's been appropriated by Congress for spending in agriculture over the last four to five years. In addition, there is certainly a lot of discussion about whether or not it creates protectionism and I'm very puzzled by this allegation, because there is nothing in this bill which changes access to the U.S. market. There are no tariffs that are changed, the preferences that are in place either through AGOA or through the general system of preferences are still in place. It does not change the ability of countries to export to the U.S. market and we know that the U.S. market is an important market for many of the developing countries; therefore, I think that criticism is very misplaced as well. I might add that the estimations are that it will keep us within our commitments agreed to in the Uruguay Round, and that if there is some indication that we may go beyond those commitments on domestic supports, then the bill has a provision that allows the Secretary of Agriculture to reduce the amount of support to keep us within our international trade obligations. So that, again, is a very important component of the bill.

Finally, and I think probably most importantly, this bill has done nothing to change the resolve of the U.S. to negotiate a very aggressive result in the Doha Agenda. In the agriculture negotiations we've said we want to eliminate export subsidies, we want to reduce the most trade-distorting domestic supports and we want to increase market access. I might also note with regard to market access and with regard to this charge of protectionism that we average in food and agriculture tariffs in the U.S. about 12% - whereas around the world it averages around 62%. Therefore, our market is relatively open vis a vis the rest of the world. We think it's very important to negotiate a very aggressive result in market access as we move forward in the Doha development agenda. So while I know there has been concern about the Farm Bill that has been passed, I think that much of it, as I've said, is misplaced. Certainly we remain, as the U.S., very committed to an aggressive trade agenda in the Doha Round.

QUESTION: (Financial Times): A question about biotech. During the negotiation of the Treaty on International Plant and Resources, the American position on international property rights proved to be quite a large problem, and the Treaty was only agreed when a lot of the issues of the IPR were effectively postponed until a later date. Broadly speaking, can you see any way in which the U.S. administration is likely to soften its position on IPRs in the foreseeable future?

UNDER SECRETARY LARSON: First of all, I think it's very notable that today's declaration stresses in three different points the important contribution that agricultural biotechnology can make to addressing food security problems. I think that's important - that there is that recognition because we think biotechnology is an important part of the solution. We think that biotechnology can be adapted for use in developing countries and, in fact, already is being adapted.

Secondly, where I think it is important to note that there is a great deal of intellectual information that is in the public domain. Some of it has been developed in the public domain -- that's how golden rice was developed. Secondly, the private companies that have been very active in this area have recently been donating some of their information on the rice gene, for example, to the public domain. Beyond that, some of the companies are actively working with developing countries on specific challenges like developing drought-resistant sweet potatoes, so they are developing new intellectual property that is not useful to the companies themselves, but is valuable to developing countries. And this is the sort of trend we want to accelerate.

QUESTION: (Sunday Times of Malta): Ms. Secretary, I would like to ask you whether you think that biotech can make a more important contribution than organic agriculture, which don't seem to be mentioned at all. I would also like your view about the so-called terminator seeds, whereby farmers would not be able to save the seeds because they are genetically engineered so they cannot be harvested.

SECRETARY VENEMAN: Let me first comment on the organic aspect. In the U.S., we have recently completed the organic regulations which will go into effect as a national regulation this fall. Europe also has an organic regulation which allows certain products to be labeled as organic. And we know there is a consumer demand to have the choice to buy those kinds of products and, certainly, I think the market is responding to that demand.

I don't think we should look at biotechnology and organics as really the same kind of thing. In many ways, biotechnology will create, and has the potential to create, some of the same effects and benefits that people have been trying to get from organics. For example, we are already finding that with certain kinds of biotechnology seeds we don't have to use as much chemical, so you don't use certain sprays. We're finding, already, a benefit in water quality, and we know that there will be tremendous environmental benefits as a result of some of the new discoveries that are being made from biotechnology.

In addition, biotechnology will give access, to certain parts of the world, food that they've not been able as easily or productively to grow, which is one of the reasons we talk about ag productivity, particularly in parts of the world where people are hungry. We know that you can develop drought-resistant strains, salt-tolerant strains. Research is already going on in these areas and it will give us the ability to better feed the more hungry parts of the world. Biotechnology has a tremendous role to play in that regard, as well.

Biotechnology also has tremendous promise as we look to the nutritional benefits of certain foods. Under Secretary Larson has already talked about golden rice, the vitamin A enriched rice, but again I believe that we will continually see the biotechnology of agriculture and medical biotechnology come together with things like functional foods -- foods that are actually enhancing the benefit to the consumer, due to the health aspects of those certain foods. We are seeing research that's been directed toward that kind of result as well. So I think there is tremendous opportunity for biotechnology in the future. Obviously, we are going to continue working closely with other countries in terms of sharing research. I think the ability that we have now to map the human genome gives us even more ability to look at how we can engineer certain attributes that are more closely linked to human health. I think that will be a tremendous consumer benefit over time.

ADMINISTRATOR NATSIOS: Let me just add one thing to that. One of the big problems we face, particularly in sub-Sahara Africa, is the fact that inputs are relatively unavailable to a very large number of subsistence farmers, which is to say they are either logistically difficult to get to rural areas or they're too expensive for people to afford. So they simply don't use them. One of the reasons the rain forests are being cut down in the developing world is not just big logging companies. It's because farmers practice burn technology where they exhaust their fields because they don't have fertilizer. When that's finished they move on to cut more trees down and plant more crops until that's exhausted. If we can stop that cycle, we can reduce the destruction of tropical forests. And there's already evidence that that, in fact, will happen. So we have a chance of reducing world poverty, improving nutrition, reducing damage to the rain forest and improving the productivity of land per hectare by using these improved varieties of genetically modified seed.

And I have to say there is great interest in the developing world. The agricultural ministers in the developing world are sort of angry about this debate. They say let us make the decision, don't tell us we can't do something. We need to have a national debate because you have to balance what exists now. Twenty-six percent of the people who live in sub-Sahara Africa are now malnourished. Twenty-six percent. Tell them that they can't use this potentially very productive technology to deal with the fact that their children are dying before five, or adults are malnourished or stunted in their growth because they are not eating enough.

QUESTION: (Le Figaro): I just wanted to be more precise on the kind of criticism your country had to face during the last month. First is that I think many countries didn't criticize the fact that you have higher subsidies to agriculture, but the fact that you didn't lower it. So what do you answer to this precise criticism and second, in the use of this public money, the fact that you use the marketing loan a lot, which is supposed to put pressure down to the price of the world which is mostly the major countries of the world. What do you answer to those two more precise criticisms? Thank you.

SECRETARY VENEMAN: Let me first address the loan issue. The loan rate, as we call it, was actually fairly significantly lowered for soybeans from $5.26 to $5. In addition, most of the other loan rates are slightly below the market prices for those products, so they should not have a substantial market distorting impact. So I think it's important to point that out. On the issue of not lowering subsidies: as I indicated, this bill spends about the same as we have been spending.

But I think it's also important to point out that this bill does some very innovative and new things. There is more spending in the environment area than we've seen before for environmentally friendly practices on the farm. Things that will help the farmers improve water quality, improve air quality and that kind of thing. It increases the amount of land that will be retired under the conservation reserve program and for the first time in a farm bill, has an energy title. Looking at some of the new and alternative uses for agriculture in areas like bio-fuels, ethanol and bio-diesel, which are renewal types of fuels from agricultural products.

We also see some tremendous potential in biomass. Biomass for production of electricity through certain kinds of fast growing popular trees and switch grass and waste from certain agricultural products. So I think there are some innovative things that will be looked at in this farm bill, and some of the money is being spent toward more environmentally friendly and innovative uses for agriculture.

QUESTION: (The Economist): Tell me what role do you see the U.S. playing in this proposed international alliance against hunger and, secondly, do you think the proposed price tag of $24 billion a year is realistic and attainable?

SECRETARY VENEMAN: Well, the U.S. plans to play a very aggressive role and I'll let my colleagues comment a little more completely on it. But I think it's important to point out, as I said in my opening comments, that we are already the largest donor of food aid, we're the largest donor to international lending organizations, and the U.S. has played a very aggressive role. In addition, the President pledged another $5 billion in assistance over a three-year budget cycle when he was in Monterrey, Mexico just recently. So the U.S. plans to play a very aggressive role and we will be very actively engaged in this global fight against hunger.

ADMINISTRATOR NATSIOS: Let me just add a couple of things. The first is, 3/4 of the food that goes to the World Food Program for the developing world -- particularly for emergencies (90% of their food goes to emergencies) -- it's from the United States. It used to be that when I was in this work ten years ago, it was 40%. I don't think it's right, quite frankly, for it to be that high. Other donors need to step up as they used to and equal us in terms of these commitments, but we will continue our commitment. The President has made that clear and we've made it clear in our statements at this Conference.

In terms of the agriculture side of it, we are leading the debate now to urge other countries to rectify the mistake that was made by all of us, the donors and the international lending institutions, 13-14 years ago when we started reducing our commitment to agricultural development in terms of cash assistance toward research and toward improved seed varieties and all the things that go into improved agricultural production. We are increasing -- this year and between this year and next year -- there is a $100 million dollar increase in the AID budget for agriculture. It's the first increase in a decade. It's been declining. We've hired a couple dozen more agricultural scientists and agricultural economists, and we will continue to hire more to re-staff AID so we can develop -- and I've been talking with development ministers in other countries who are talking about the same thing. There is not a big disagreement that this needs to be done -- it's just a political will to do it, and we are doing what we say others should do by showing it in our programming. And we've been talking with the African heads of state to try to create coalitions. There is a coalition in the U.S. led by the former administrator of AID, Peter McPherson, who's right here. He's the President of Michigan State University. Many African heads of state are in the coalition, many NGOs, to begin a major agricultural effort, particularly in sub-Sahara Africa to reduce hunger and malnutrition.

QUESTION: (Agence France Presse): I wanted to come back to the issue of subsidies - lowering subsidies. You didn't really answer the question from the colleague from Le Figaro, and I simply wanted to have you address the issue of environmental measures, for example, that were highlights of the Farm Bill. But you didn't actually answer the question on why you are not targeting lowering agricultural subsidies, which is again an issue that you've come into strong criticism for, particularly from African countries.

SECRETARY VENEMAN: Again, let me just reiterate that the levels of support are not inconsistent with what has been spent, and they are within our WTO limits. We remain committed to lowering domestic subsidies through the WTO negotiations, along with the other countries of the world. I might add that while our limit is $19.1 billion per year, Europe has a $60 billion dollar per year with about the same level, by value, of production. Japan has a limit of $30 billion dollars a year. So I think that it's important to recognize this in context, and that where we have to work to lower the subsidies is through the WTO negotiations. The U.S. has never wavered in its commitment to do that.

But I think it's important that we really look at why we're here. We're here at this Conference to really look at how we can work together in partnerships with countries all around the world, both developing countries and developed countries to end world hunger. And part of the way we're going to do that is through increased trade, and that's why the trade negotiations are so important. I think we all remain absolutely committed to looking at everything we can -- new technologies, increased trade, quickly recognizing famine, and in partnership responding to it. We have got to do everything we can. We have got to use this conference to reduce world hunger and achieve that goal.

ADMINISTRATOR NATSIOS: Can I just add one thing to that? The major crops that are now exportable from Africa to Western Europe and the U.S. are not corn and wheat and sorghum. If you look to where the subsidies are, they are in the major staple crops. The exports of Africa to the rest of the world are fruits, vegetables, nuts, coffee, tea and cocoa. None of those are subsidized, they are unaffected by this farm bill. So a little bit of this is a little bit of a distortion of what the reality is in terms of the trading system. The efficiency of the American stable grains production of the U.S. is so high that with or without the Farm Bill, it's irrelevant. We're not going to start importing those grains from Africa. What we're going to import are these other commodities. As a matter of fact, if you look at the growth in agricultural exports of Africa, it's in these areas: in fruits, vegetables, nuts, and coffee, which are traditional with cocoa exports. But these new niche markets -- there is a big industry now of cut flowers being exported from Uganda. I was just in a Tanzania shop, and they employ thousands of people in these green houses. That's not affected by any of these bills. So we need to focus on what the reality is of the crops that are being exported to the U.S. and Western Europe.

QUESTION: (Interpress Service): Just want to ask you if the U.S. will lodge a formal reservation with the Declaration of the Summit, and what are the reservations?

UNDER SECRETARY LARSON: First of all, we're pleased with the Declaration. I think that it's a very strong one that puts a strong focus on the need for action to achieve these World Food Summit goals, a focus on agricultural activity on fighting famine and on addressing nutrition issues which have been U.S. initiatives here -- a very strong language on biotechnology and on trade. So we're very pleased by the statement. There is one issue where we have a concern, and we are considering whether we will make specific note of that through a reservation, and that's the paragraph with the so-called "right to food."

We are very conscious of the comments made at the beginning of this Conference by the Secretary General of the United Nations and by the head of the FAO that here we are, five years after the first World Food Summit, and we're not on track, that there was too much rhetoric and not enough results. And we share that view, and we want to focus on results, and we are concerned that a multi-year effort to sit in conference rooms around the world and define what the "right to food" might mean would be a major distraction to what the real challenge is -- which is to get into the fields, work with farmers in developing countries to produce the harvests that are going to overcome hunger. That's what the U.S. came to this conference to do, and that's what we want to do -- go forward.