ED 245 986'

TITLE

INSTITUTION

PUB DATENOTE

AVAILABLE FROM

PUB TYPE

EDRS PRICEDESCRIPTORS

IDENTIFIERS

DOCUMENT RESUME

SO 015 760

Overcoming World Hri,ger: The Challenge Ahead. Reportof the Presidential Commission on World Hunger. AnAbridged Version.Presidential, Commission on World Hunger, Washington,DC.Jun 8034p.; Photographs and pages printed on colored papermay not reproduce clearly.Superintendent of Documents, U.S Government PrintingOffice, Washington, DC 20402 ($6.00).Reports Descriptive (141)

MF01/PCO2 Plus Postage.Developed Nations; *Developing Nations; ForeignPolicy; *Global Approach; Government Role; *Hunger;International Cooperation; *International Relations;Iriternational Trade; Nutrition; Poverty; *WorldProblemsFood Production; Food Supply

ABSTRACTThis U.S. presidential commission report outlines

specific recommendations for eliminating world hunger in the 1980's.Following a summarization of world hunger problems, the reportaddresses specific ways to deal with world hunger. Short-term goalsinclude taking immediate action to ensure that poor people are nothungry, assuring that infants and children are adequately nourished,eliminating diseases resulting from specific nutritionaldeficiencies, and providing disast'r relief. Long-term goals involvethe provision of equitable growth, rediktribution of existing wealth,production of enough food, and developimnt of a system of world foodsecurity. Recommendations for U.S. action involve commitment andaction in the following areas: (1) developing more equitable tradeand debt policies, (2) ensuring that corporate investments made byprivate U.S. companies do not harm, but aid the fight against hungerand poverty, (3) ensuring that there are adequate food supplies evenduring times when production is low, (4) ensuring that developmentassistance goes to the countries and people who need it most and thatit is as effective as possible, 1(4) overcoming domestic hunger, and(5) establishing an organization to educate and inform the Americanpublic about hunger and malnutrition. Appendices summarizing thereport and additional views of commissioners are appended. (LH)

*********************************************************************** Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made *

* from the original document. *

***********************************************************************

Overcoming World Hunger:The Challenge Ahead

Report of thePresidential Commission onWorld HungerAn Abridged Version

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONNATIONAL INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION

EDLICAT!ONAt_ RESOURCES I`.FORVATICt.:CE!:TER ;ER;C)

Tats COcurneof has been feDrOn.:CeOtorn tole person of Ofg.rn.f.fTon

Ofe;:n.enng.1( f .eee cnvin,r,es O3.e been rt-tle to

epf 0Ot O d htV

Points of vie,. Of Ope,onsstatelt in TO, dfiCemen d do not oeCesser4 o-roresenfOthoial MEPOSiO0n or pOlICV

June 1980

f.A

; e1

w

'

444,-.1;11

- tIA

=4,

.1.

eAtil .

Overcoming World Hunger:The Challenge Ahead

Decor: of InePresidential Commission onWord HungerAn Abridged Vers:nn

June "101E3

I c,,r!FI 5 !,(4 Tor, U C 71)1(),.

About The PresidentialCommission On World Hunger

Mounting public and Congressionalconcern over the continuing deterio-ration of the world food situation ledPresident Carter to create a Presi-dential Commission on World Hun-ger by Executive Order 12078,dated September 5, 1978. The Com-mission's mandate was to identifythe causes of domestic and interna-tional hunger and malnutrition, as-sess past and present national pro-grams and policies that affecthunger and malnutrition, review ex-isting studies and research on hun-ger, and recommend to the Presi-dent and Congress specific actionsto create a coherent national foodand hunger policy. The Commissionwas also directed to help implementthose recommendations and focusattention on food and hunger issuesthrough various public education ac-tivities. The Commission issued itsPreliminary Report in December1979 and its Final Report in March1980

For a verbatim listing of recommendations seeAppendix AFor additiona! views of Commissioners seeAppendix B.Overcoming World Hunger: The ChallengeAhead is an abridged version of the Final Re-port of the Presidential Commission on WorldHunger. The full Report by the same title isavailable from the U.S. Governrm:nt PrintingOffice, Washington, D C 20402. Stock No041-002-00015.8 $6 00 per copy

rhotowaphs Courtesy USAiD and USDA

Members of the Commission

Ambassador Sol M. Lina.vitz,ChairmanDr. Steven Muller, Vice ChairmanDr. Jean Mayer, Vice Chairman

Dr. Norman E. BorlaugMr. D. W. BrooksMr. Harry ChapinMr. John DenverSenator Robert DoleDr. Walter FalconMr. Orville FreemanCongressman Benjamin GilmanSenator Patrick LeahyMs. Bess MyersonCongressman Richard NolanDr. Howard A. SchneiderDr. Adele Smith 'SimmonsMr. Raymond Singletary, Jr.Dr. Eugene StockwellDr. Clifton R. Wharton, Jr.Mr. Thomas H. Wyman

Daniel E. Shaughnessy, ExecutiveDirector

4

Commission StaffJanice E. BakerAlan BowserPatti Mae Chaifetz*Don Ambrose ChevalierJeffrey D. Curran*Elizabeth Anne DonnellyKaren A. GrosDonald B. HarperLinda S. HenselMargaret C. Jameson'Betsy KrystynakJanet W. LowenthalRosemary R. MandelstamTerence H. MartinJoan V. MiddletonLynn RandelsM. Carolyn RhodesTerence A. RogersTimothy P. Rumberger*Thomas W. StephensRussell L. TuttleDaphne C. Weaver*Caroline E. We lions*Charles W. WixomSusan E. Worth

--res.gned

Overcoming World HuItger:The Challenge Ahead

The Problem Of World Hunger

... hunger is at least as much apolitical. economic, and socialchallenge as it is a scientific. tech-nical or logistical one.

Starwng chi!gren in Biafra, droughtn the Sahel. earthauakes in Guate-mala. wars in southeast Asia. Theseare the events V.,e, think of whenthink of hunger in the Cevelopricwi,orld. Like people in many otherrichcountries. v.e in the Lir-lit:eaStates often have responded Qu;cklyand generously to the thre,at of star-vation and death resuliina from suchtemporary problems.

But the hunger and starvationcaused by natural disasters or politi-cal crises are'not the major hungerproblems in the world today. Thetrue hunger problem of our time ischronic undernutritionthe probfemof millions of men, women and chil-dren who do not get enough to eat.This is a problem that does notmake headlinesperhaps becausethe hungry have little or no politicalpower and are not able to exertpressure on their own behalf. Butthe toll of undernutrition is immenseAs many as 800 million of the earth'spoorest people do not get enough toeat each day and many more sufferfrom specific varieties of malnutrition.

Hunger (or undernutr/tfon) resultswhen people consume fewer calo-ries and less protein than their bod-ies need in order to live active.healthy lives It di:ninishes physicaland mental capabilities and thusmakespeOple less energetic. lessproductive and less able to team.Undernutrition also increases sus-ceptibility to disease About one outof every four children in the develop-ing world die before the age of

1

0

_..t -2-- -e ate-n

res.L..7s a ce..7oiencyesse- ar"C

(377, not =;,::ng en.ouch: ofFfY =a7:amp:e.

100 000 i-shibren r, ti no each yeartor k (.)": h. A

.s art !,; ano mai-aho t,e tran:i ciseases that

reS.,;:t) V;)!t? Tr-Ian -3:4, are chHaren

::c men are more affected than7-nen. art. those in rural areasmore ohen Iran urban residents.Most of the s hungry live in theindian subcontinent. southeast Asia,and sub-Saharan Africa. Many also!;.e n tee Middle East and in partsof Latin America Even in the UnitedStatE,,. many of tee poor are under-nourished. (A sad fact of our time isthat malnutrition in this country isalso a problem. but it is primarilymalnutrition resulting from overcon-sumption. Though serious, this is adifferent problem. and recuires dif-ferent solutions. from the hunger andpoverty problem that continues toaunt so many lives and human ca-

)

Despite the severity of the hungerproblem. its true proportions are notoften understood for a variety of rea-sons

Undemutrition is a "silent killer.- It

increases vulnerability to diseasesthat cause death, but is seldomidentified as the "cause- of death.

The sheer number of :..;ople af-fected makes it difficult to grasp theproblem. It is much easier to under-stand--through television and news-papers-Lwhat the victims of a partic-ular flood, earthquake. or war arefacing than to picture a quarter ofthe world's people in chronic .suffer-mq

Al:no:itch huncer contributes topaw:cal ,.estability. hungry peop;e---especially women ala childrenconot have political and are notperceived to directly threaten thepoitical establishment As a result.national ana international policymak-ers often ignore chronic hunger. re-'sponging instead to more irnmed:atepressures and more vocal constitu-enc-es.

Yet hunger is one of the most seri-ous proc'ems of cur tree reguiresimmediate steps to relieve The pres-ent-day suffering of millions. to-gether with long-term strategies foreliminating its causes.

IN THE NEXT 60 SECONDS .

234 babies will be horn136 in Asia41 in Africa23 in Latin America34 in the rest of'the world

23 of these 233 will die before age1

6 in Africa vs 01 in North Amer-ica

2 in Latin America vs 25 in Eu-rope34 more will die before age 15

50 to 75 percent of these deathscan be attributed to a combinationof malnutrition and infectious dis-eases.

Many who do survive beyond age15 will be stunted in growth and willsuffer,brain damage that can inca-pacitate them for life.

4

2

6

Poverty ± Food Insecurity =Hunger

. . . hunger offers the single mostpowerful point of intervention inthe world of underdevelopmentpoverty, unemployment, disease,and high rates of populationgrowth.

The piimary cause of world hungeris poverty. Even in years of abun-dant harvests, many of the world'shungry have neither the land onwhich to crow food nor the moneywith which to buy it. In many ruralareas, large numbers of peopleoften have little or no access toland, water, or credit. In urbanareas, where schools, medical care.and food may be available, jobs(and thus the income to obtain theseservices) are scarce-l-largely be-cause so many men, women andfamilies have been forced to leavethe countryside. Inequitable distribu-tion of resourcesparticularlylandis a major cause of poverty.

The gap between the rich and thepoor is often widened because poorcountries and poor people tend tobe less productive than wealthycountries. For example. agriculturalproductivity per worker is now about13 times higher in trio developedthan in the developing world. Theyield per hectare (about 2.5 acres)for rice is almost four times as muchin the developed countries as in thedeveloping (where 92 percent of theworld's rice is grown). Poor health,lack of training, and.lack of capitaland technology are partial explana-tions. In addition, lack of irrigationsystems, flood control, and properdrainage makes it more difficult toimprove productivity. Frequently, the'fertility of the land has declined, be-cause it has been farmed--some-

.nes for thousands of years--with-cut replacing essential nutrients inthe sod. Furthermore, inappropriatemethods of food storage and preser-vation cause a large portion of theharvest to be lost or spoiled by in-sects, rodents, or decay.

Farmers ho. do not own their ownland but work instead on the and ofabsentee landlords have little incen-tive to increase production, sincethe and owners benefit rather thanthe farmers. Even for those farmingtheir own small plots of land, gov-ernment policies frequently holddown the prices farmers receive fortheir crops, restrict their access tocredit, and make such importantitems as fertilizer far too expensivefor them ,o use. In addition, therefrequently are no extension or farmorganizations where farmers canlearn new technologies Cr how toadapt existing knowledge to localconditions. When such services andtraining do exist, they tend to be di-rected toward the-men and to ignorethe womeneven where the womendo much of the farming and all ofthe marketing of crops

Rich people frequently say that "ifthe poor had fewer children, theywould have more food." Yet popula-tion growth is not only a cause butalso an effect of poverty. At both thenational and the family level, themore people there are, the fess foodthere is for each one and the morelikely the next generation is to con-tinue the cycle of poverty and mal-nutrition. For people who are poorand powerless, however, the desirefor many children is a response tohigh rates of infant mortality, to theneed for extra hands to earn thefamily income, and to the need forsupport in old age. The key to re-ducing population growth is eliminat-ing the social conditionspovertyand all its consequencesthatmake large families an attractive op-tion.

FACTS

. . . ABOUT THE DEVELOPINGWORLD

Today the developing countriesgrow 87 percent of their own food;by the end of the century this figurecould fall to 74 percent.

By 1988, the developing world willhave an annual deficit of 85 milliontons of wheat, rice and coarsegrains.

More than 100 million agriculturalworkers have little or no land of theirown.

In 1976, the developing countriesspent over $10 billion to import food.This is equal to about 70 percent ofthe total development assistanceprovided by the industrialized coun-tries in that year.

3

One out of every eight people onearth is hungry most of the time.

In many countries, up to 40 per-cent of the population is malnour-ished.

Between 1957 and 7976, develop-ing-world imports of military goods.grew from $5.4 billion to $9.3 billion(in constant dollars).

In Me deve/o,..qg world, there ex-ists one soldier for every 250 peo-ple, but just one doctor for each3,700.

. ABOUT HUNGER ANDPOVERTY

16 percent of the world's childrenare malnourished.

Over 600 million people live on in-comes of less than $50 per year.

Even under conditions of rapideconomic growth, 470 million peoplewill still be living in absolute povertyin year 2000.

More than three-quarters of theworld's inadequately nourished peo-ple live on the Indian subcontinent,in Southeast Asia, and in sub-Sa-haran Africa.

While the developing countriesthemselves will play the most impor-tant role in making many of thechanges required to improve condi-tions of life for their poor, interna-tional economic circumstances over

The Development Gap

Per Capita GNP

Deaths Per 1000Live Births

Grams of ProteinPer Day Per Person

Number of PeoplePer Doctor

Life ExpectancyIn Years

Literacy

What Is Needed?

. the outcome of the war on$500 hunger, by the year 2000 and be-

S5.500 yond, will not be determined pri-marily by forces beyond human

120 control but, rather, by decisions20 and actions well within the capa-

bility of nations working individ-54 ually and together.97

The hunger problemparticularly in3.4;0 the developing countries, and even

680 in the rich countries like the UnitedStatesis enormous. It affectshundreds of millions of people di-rectly and, as a result, affects all ofus in one way or another. If we con-

43% tinue to allow the problem to go un-97% checked, it will have even graver

and deeper consequences than theenergy crisis.

5271

El Less Developed Country III Developed Country

which they have little control limittheir abRity to act. North America,:_urope, and Japanwith only 19percent of the world's populationearn 67 percent of the world's in-come. In contrast, the poor coun-trieswith 51 pP.cent of the world'spopulationearn only 14 percent ofglobal income. If world hunger is tobe brought under control, the richcountries--especially the UnitedStates--must make a major politicaland financial commitment to elimi-nate both hunger and poverty. Thiswill require not just more foreignaid- but also some importantchanges in the world economy.

The problem of poverty is oftencompounded by a second majorcause of hungerthe insecurity of

food supplies. Food security meansa combination of having enoughfood in the right place at the righttime at a reasonable price, of ade-quate transportation within andamong countries to transport foodwhere it is really needed, andenough personal or national incometo buy extra food when the localsupply is inadequate.

Unfortunately, when the local supplyis smaller than usual, families whonormy have barely enough foodare forded to eat even less. Even ifsupplies exist somewhere else in theworld, poor countries may not beable to buy additional food if theworld price is too high or if they donot have enough foreign exchange.The world currently has no systemfor assuring that no community ornation must suffer because of tem-porary crop shortages. Establishingsuch a system is an important ob-jective in the fight against hunger.

4

Despite the size and the severity ofthe problem, it is possible to elimi-nate the worst aspects of hungerand malnutrition by the year 2000(less than 20 years from now!)pro-vided tbe United States and othercountries make this a major policyobjective. Doing so will require ac-tion in a number of areassome ofwhich are not yet widely recognizedto be related to hunger and poverty.It will also require that two kinds ofapproaches be taken. In the short-run, it will require measures aimedat hunger eirectly, under conditionsof continued poverty and underde-velopment. However, to overcomehunger on a permanent basis re-quires a concerted attack on thevery causes of hungerpoverty andinsecure food suppliesby helpingdeveloping nations to achieve rapidand equitable economic growth.

Alleviating Hunger inThe Short Run

:neare poof-

n-es cr ..-z.zed as attack:ngrat -e7 :her the d:s-

Yet 7 a7rodart andn'a.r 73 -',/ of p7,eventronun-

,n arc to :gnore then.: 5'.. o swffer now Taking

'n) aEe,.,ate r.,:rgerts erao'cated

C..: :7-1' ,a

Ensuring thai poor peopleare not hungry.

st20-2-7--2..ns- and income sup-!ne model of.the U.S.

xa s:iivrp program. which enables1---,''Hc!Pants to stretch their food dol-ars) can ne!rp the poor to obtain

more foot and more nutritious!go::

Assuring that infants and childrenare adequately nourished.

Malnutrition takes its greatest tollamong infants and young children.For those whd do not die from it, theadverse effedts of malnutrition aretiff:long. Notrwon programs directedis pregnant and nursing ,.:omen andtrr' school chddren can help to en-

!hat n-,alnutH;on wiil not Impaircf ye: another generation

Eliminating diseases resultingfrom specific nutritional deficiencies.

cir1:clenC'e; currentlyr:t'va rnIlions through such dis-(..are'; bivdness. goitre, anclane-into These can be prevented in thenear termlong before poverty iseliminated-L-through some very spe-cific health and nutrition programs.

programs can he implementedrelatively quickly and inexpensively.

-

Providing disaster relief.

Effective international relief effortsundertaken in response to wars,famine, earthquakes, and other natu-ral and man-made disasters canand do prevent mass starvation. Tobe effective, however, such ,...effortsrequire food reserves, fast transport,efficient administration, and the co-operation by and with local authori-ties.

Building A World Without Hungerin the long-run, hunger will be elimi-nated only when the poor countrieshave the opportunity to develop andwhen all countries work together toensure that global food supplies arelarge enough to meet global needs.Building a world without hunger re-quires action toward four goals.

5

EqUitable economic growth.

Even if the poorest countriesachieve the highest economicgrowth rates possible between nowand the year 2000, at least 470 mil-lion-people will still be living in theconditions of stark poverty. Yet thisfigure could be reduced by at least120 million (about the population ofJapan) if these countries start in-creasing the share of income goingto their poorest people. This wouldrequire policies in these countriesspecifically designed to meet the"basic human needs" of the poorestpeople by redirecting income fromthe rich to the poor.

Redistributing existing wealth.

Redistributing existing wealth is asimportant as redistributing incomeresulting from new growth. Redistri-bution, however, requires changesin existing economic and politicalsystems. (Examples of suchchanges -re land reform and the

T T

f

creation of new lobs through ex-panded public services.) Becausethese actions are so politically diffi-cult, such changes require extraordi-nary commitment from local leaders.Political, financial anc technical sup-port from the more developed coun,tees can assist iccal governmentsto make tne required changes

Producing enough food.

By the year 2000, the world will haveat least .sx. biii;on people, and nearly8 out cif e-ery 10 of them live intee ce,velr2ping world. The World hasthe ph../sioal capacity tO growericiign food to feed all these peo-ple Yet more food must be grown inthe uCve!opng countries them-

selves. SinCe the poorest countriescannot afford to import all the foodthey need to feed their populations

and because the need for in-creased production is greatest inthese countriesit is vital that theya.chieve significant increases in foodproduction. This will require both re-form in domestic agricultural policiesand supportive international actions.At the same time, attention must begiven to preserving the environmentand to reducing the rate of popula-tion growth. To the extent that popu-lation growth is reduced, the burcenof increasing world food productionwill be lightened. But populationgrowth has such a strong momen-tum that the 50 percent expansion ofworld population by the year 2000must be faced realistically and ef-forts to eliminate hunger must beplanned with that fact in mind.

/ 06

A system of world food security.

Achievinc a woi.ktl hUnT.',er

W!H ,nSUrarCe aOanSt thevariations in yearly food productiunthat result when-natural or man-made disasters (floods. orouchts,earthquakes, wars) occur. Since thepoor are inevitably the first to sufferwhen short-term shortages pushfood prices up, tne world needs asystem for raising and keepingprices at reasonable levels evenwhen food production itself fluc-tuates. An international system ofbrain reserves would enable excessgrain to be stored in years of abun-dance and made available duringtimes of shortage.

A Question of WillEliminating at least the worst as-pects of hunger requires commit-ment on the part of both developedand developing countries. To date,

-neither the developed nor the devel-oping countries have given toppriority to alleviating hunger or in-vesting in agriculture in the poorcountries. Domestic political prob-lems, national security questions, in-dustrial development, and improvingarmies and cities have oftenattracted more attention and re-sources in the developing countriesthan investment in agriculture, healthcare or education. Moreover, poli-cies that have emphasized "modern-izing" the economy rather than as-suring that the benefits of develop-ment reach the poorestandhungriestpeople have oftencaused the gap between rich andpoor to widen, rather than to narrow.

The rich industrialized countrieshave also not paid adequate' atten-tion to the alleviation of hunger. Insetting their policies toward the de-veloping world, the United States

and other developed countries havenot over the elimination of hunger ahigh priority and have too oftenbeen guided by short-term securityand political concerns. As a result,they have often paid more attentionto training local military personnelthan to educating teachers, farmers,scientists, economists and healthcare specialists.

While more countiie:: are talkingabout hunger and meeting the basicneeds of the world's people, wordshave not yet been translated into de-cisive action. Action must begin im-mediately both to alleviate hunger inthe short-run and to build a world inwhich there is no hunger. While thisrequires commitmentand, in somecases, political, economic and socialreformby the developing countriesthemselves, the Presit2ential Com-mission on World Hunger has exam-ined what the United States can doto assist in the process.

Food, Development And The!nternational Economy

. [accepting] the moral and eco-nomic responsibilities for helpingthe hungry and the poor ... willrequire a willingness to reevaluatecurrent policies, both private andpublic, in light f.)f their impacts onworld hunger.

Economic relationships amongcountries strongly influence thechances of meeting both the short-term and the long-term goals. Whiledevelopment assistance (a part of"foreign aid") is a very important in-gredient in helping poor countriesovercome their problems of hungerand poverty, and is crucial for alle-viating immediate hunger, it is notthe only, nor even the most impor-tant, form of economic activity be-tween the rich and poor countries.

A continued dependence upon di-rect aid and development assis-tance would doom the developingcountries to continued poverty.While greatly increased foreign aidcould alleviate the immediate pain ofhunger, it would not, by itself, bringabout a world in which the threat ofhunger.is eliminated. The develop-ing countries will only become freeof hunger as a result of equitableand self-reliant development. Yet thepace and extent of economic devel-opment depends on far-reachingchanges in the international eco-nomic environment. Among the ma-jor changes needed are increasinglevels of international trade, ade-quate and appropriate investments,and systems which assure globalfood security.

Trade and Debt

Trade can make an important differ-ence in poor countries efforts toachieve self-reliant development. Itcan foster economic growth by pro-viding larger markets for the coun-tries' products, by creating morejobs, by making cheaper resourcesavailable, and by stimulating effi-ciency through competition. Importsprovide products and technical abili-ties that are in short supply at home,while exports provide the foreign ex-change needed to pay for those im-ports. Vv:ithoul enough foreign ex-change, the developing countriesare forced further and further intodebt. Countries with too many debtobligations, just like individuals andfamilies who have over extendedthemselves, sooner or later must cutback on even essential purchases.

The contribution that trade can maketo economic growthwhich is cru-cial to the long-term struggle againsthungerdoes not assure that thebenefits of growth will actually reachthe poor and hungry, but it does atleast help to create the climatewithin which developing-countrygovernments can act to eliminatehunger. As a leading trade power,the United States is in an ideal posi-tion to influence that climate.

More than hail of the developingcountries that do not export oil earn50 percent or more of their trade in-come from sales of raw materials.Many countries depend heavily ononly one or two export commodities,such as tea, cocoa, cotton, and rub-ber. This dependence on primaryproducts makes these countrieseconomically vulnerable, since theprices of these productsand oftenthe developing countries' total earn-ingsvary widely from year to year.These sharp fluctuations often dis-rupt carefully planned investmentand long-term development plan-ning. Moreover, this dependence onprimary products sometimes in-creases the temptation to grow morecommodities for export, at the ex-pense of food needed for local con-sumption.

World markets for many raw mate-rials also expand far more slowlythan the markets for manufacturedproducts, causing many developingcountries' purchasing power (that is,their ability to purchase certaingoods) to decline sharply in recentyears. Diversification of exports (i.e.,depending on several productsrather than on just one) would helpto average out the effect of pricefluctuations, since the prices ofsome of a country's exports arelikely to be high while others, low. Itwould also allow investment capitalto shift from one industry to another,without leaving the county, ulti-mately improving total earning capa-bility.

The developing countries cannotsolve the problem of fluctuatingprices alone. Price stability will re-quire binding agreements on raw

materials between the buying andselling nations. These agreementswill often involve setting up reservesof the commodity so that enough willbe available in times of shortage. Tomake price agreements and the ac-companying reserves work, theUnited States and other rich, con-suming countries must be willing tobear a fair share of their costs.

Some developing countries have al-ready begun to earn more fromsales of manufactured products. Be-tween 1960 and 1978, the develop-ing countries as a whole raisedearnings from the sale of manufac-tured roods from $8 billion to $64billion. The shift to manufacturedgoods has a number of advantagesfor developing countries: it reducestheir dependence upon the export ofraw materials, provides jobs for theirlandless unemployed, andbe-cause the prices of manufacturedgoods are more stable and marketsgrow more rapidlyit increases theirtotal earnings.

FACTS

, . . About U.S. Food TradeMore than na/f the grain that

crosses international borders is fromthe United States.

The United States provides 46percent of the world's wheat exportsand 25 percent of the world's riceexports.

Developing-country imports offood from the United States rosefrom $2 billion to almost $10 billionin the past decade.

Over half of U.S. wheat exportsand nearly three-fourths of its riceexports go to the developing world.

Although farm output makes uponly 3 percent of the U.S. Gross Na-tional Product, it provides nearly 25percent of its exports.

8

However, some industries in theUnited States and other indUstrial-ized countries will be threatened, asthe developing countries begin tocapture a share of the richer coun-tries' manufactured good markets.Textiles from Taiwan, shoes from Ko-rea, and leather products from Bra-zil, all are in competition with Ameri-can industries. In response to thischallenge, the United States andother industrialized countries main-tain high import taxes or other re-stfictions on products made in thedeveloping world. These restrictionshelp to perpetuate a situation inwhich the developing countries pro -vide' ess than one-tenth of theworld's exports of manufacturedproducts even though they havemore than ha;f of the world's people.

The 6reatcst impediment to the ex-pansion of .developing countries'manufactured exports is not in thearea of import taxes, which increasethe cost of imports, but in the areaof "quantitative restrictions," whichput ceilings on how much of a givenproduct the industrialized countriesallow to be imported. The United'States, for example, puts such re-strictions on products ranging fromcolor television sets to clothes pins.While developing countries, withtheir low labor costs, can sometimesovercome the effects of high tariffs,there is no way they can escape theimpact of the industrialized nations'limits on how much of a given prod-uct may be imported.

12

The industrialized countries are con-fronted by a dilemma. If they allowcheap manufactured imports intotheincountries, they risk the closingof some industries.,the loss of somejobs and increased dependence onother countries. If they limit imports,they deprive their own consumers oflow -Cost goods and the developingcountries of improved export earn-ings. On balance, the benefits of im-ports greatly outweigh the costs,however, and the industrializedcountries should therefore imple-ment policies which will enable themto remain open to low-cost imports,but without putting a disproportion-ate share of the burden *ion the af-fected industries and workers. Forthe United States, this will requireprograms to "adjust" the economyto the changing requirements of in-ternational trade and domestic eco-nomic policies which insure bal-anced economic growth and fullemployment. The development ofthe poor countries must not beachieved at the expense of the jobsof the poorest workers in the UnitedStates arid other industrialized coun-tries.

While some developing nations haveincreased their eanings by export-ing manufactured products, the ex-port earnings of most poor countrieshave not kept up with the risingcosts of their imports. As a result,those countries have had to borrowheavily to pay for their imports. By1978, the total debt of the non-oilexporting developing world had in-creased to $220 billion and was anestimated $300 billion at the end of1979. This is more than a threefoldincrease since 1973.

Before 1974, the problem of devel-oping-country debt was not particu-larly severe. In that -year, however,the combination of increased importprices oil, in particular and arecession in the industrialized world,which reduced poor countries' ex-ports because the rich countrieswere buying less, forced the devel-oping nations to borrow consider-ably larger amour'; to keep theireconomies going. This increasedborrowing now seriously threatenstheir economic progress. The pres-ent recession in the United Stateswill only intensify the debt problemof the developing countries.

As the single largest governmentlender, the United States is in agood position to affect the debt pos-ition of many developing countries.The United States can reduce thegovernment debt of selected coun-tries, thereby automatically makingincreased funds available for devel-opment programs. We could alsos:ow the build-up of future debt bymaking more U.S. foreign aid avail-able in the form of grants-rather thanloans. U.S. action in the InternationalMonetary Fund can also help devel-oping 'countries with their debt andtheir hunger problems. The UnitedStates should use its influence in :theFund, which is an inter-governmental"credit union" to whiCh most nationsbelong, to ensure that policies areproperly designed to protect the in-terests of the poorest people in theborrowing countries:

9

Corporate Investment

In 1977, 20,000 affiliates of interna-tional corporations were operating inthe developing countries. About halfof these affiliateS were American.These companies affect efforts to al-leviate hunger through their involve-ment in national food systems andthrough their impact on employment,income distribution, and internationaltrade. Of all the companies in thedeveloping world, the agribusinessfirrns.that produce plant and animalproducts and sell food, seed, ferti-lizer, and pesticides and the con-struction firms that build rural roadsand irrigation systems have perhapsthe most direct impact in the attackon hunger.

The international corporations canhave either a positive or a negativeeffect on efforts to eliminate hunger,depending on the practices of thedeveloping-country governmentsand the companies themselves.Such companies increase theamount of capital and credit avail-able in the developing world, which,if proj6erly used, can assist develop-ment efforts. The corporations alsohave access to international mar-.kets, technology, scientific expertise,and managerial-skills. They can helpthe developing countries to modern-ize their food systems by buildingrural storage facilities, developingfood-processing capabilities, or es-tablishing food-fortification facilitiesto upgrade the nutritional value oftraditional foods.

However, corporations sometimesbadly undercut efforts to alleviatehunger and malnutrition. Some firms,for example, have converted valua-ble-agricultural land to the produc-tion of piiiductsWhich poor peoplein developing co ties sually can-

not afford to buy. Some have usedsophisticated advertising techniquesto promote products with little or nonutritional value, or have inducedpoor people to spend their meagerincomes on products they cannot af-ford. Such actions may be highlyprofi'able for the firms, but they workat cross-purposes with effOrts toeliminate hunger and malnutrition.

Neither business executives nor de-veloping-country officials realisticallyexpect the activities of corporationsto automatically increase the quan-tity or the quality of the food con--sumed by the poor. Rather, govern-ments in poor countries that wish toattract foreign investment must cre-ate incentives that induce foreignfirms to promote the developmentprocess, while the corporationsshould make good-faith efforts 'to re-spond to those incentives in wayswhich aid in the struggle againsthunger.

Due to their size and managementpractices, small-scale U.S. firmsmay ultimately prove to be bettereconomic partners for poor coun-tries than the large corporationswhich now account' for nearly all for-eign investment. Yet small firmsneed assistance to make the con-tacts and to dev,elop the experiencenecessary to identify investment op-portunities abroad.

LESSONS FROM THE PAST"Years ago, the United Statesentered:into what was then called aWar on Hunger.'

".1 . In recognition of the limits inmanpower and money availablethrough the public sector . . . amajor effort was made to enlist theparticipation of multinationalagribusiness corporations. . . .

Results were meagre and . . . whilecorporatelinvestments in food-relaled enterprisqs grew overseas,they had little effct on thecrisis ofhunger and its twin, poverty.

". . . Fundamentally, the mainstreamof investment decision was notconsciously and directly concernedwith solving the hunger problem orbenefiting the poor. On the onehand, iivestments focused on anexisting market among those alreadyfree of the pressure of poverty . . .

on the other hand, investments wereextractive and related to world tradedirected toward the advancedcountries: in sugar, cocoa, coffee,spices, oilseeds, fruits, and grain,essentially.'

"This is not to insinuate that to servea market anywhere, U.S.corporations should hesitate tocompete' for profit. Nor is it intendedto dowrigrade the positive impact onnational development that oftenaccompanies internationalinvestment, such as creating jobsand training the unskilled; earningforeign exchange and broadeningthe tax base, . . . However, theseindirect benefits filter too slowly ornot at all into the stomachs,pocketbooks, and daily lives of themultitudes.on the sidelines.

1 4

10

"Past experience, then, has taughtus this: if international agribusinessdoes accept . . . responsibility toorganize any part of its resourceswith intent to help relieve worthunger and poverty, then it ustrealize that the traditional mannerand types of investment are notadequate to do the job."

Excerpted from an article by:Simon Williams, DirectorCenter for Agricultural and RuralDevelopmentFort Collins, Colorado;in Agribusiness Worldwide,September/October 1979

In deciding whether to attract for-eign investment, developing govern-ments must give attention to thequestion of "who benefits, and atwhat cost?" They must determinewhether proposed investments willhave positive or negative effects ontheir poorest and hungriest citizens.

When a government is committed toimproving the welfare of its people,corporations may be able to contrib-ute to the fight against hunger byproviding appropriate technologyparticularly efficient production sys-1tems, food-processing techniques,1research, and organizational skills -

-and by assuming some social andcommunity costs. But corporationsoperating in poor countries must beprepared to allow more time for re-turns on their investments and in-clude concerns about the social ef-

fect of their activities as a part of"doing business" in such countries.(Right now, profits from foreign oper-ations are twice as large ason domestic investments.) In the fi--nal analysis, corporations are notgoing to provide a "quick fix" to theworld hiinger problem. They shouldbe encouraged to help developingcountries modernize their food sys-tems. But this is not likely to have di-rect benefits for the malnourishedpoor especially where there islittle profit incentive for companies todevelop cheap and nutritiousfoods.Jt is important that corpora-tions and the-developing countrygovernments recognize that theymust work together for mutual bene-fit.

World Food Security

In the United States, the averagefamily spends less than 20 percentof its budget on food and much ofthis is spent on the more expensivesources of nutrition (dairy products,meats and fruits). When prices rise,U.S. consumers can simply turn tocheaper varieties (for example,ground meat or poultry or evenbread in lieu of more expensivecuts of rneat). They may not behappy about having to change theirdiets, but most people will not facestarvation.

In the developing countries, though,where most people are already con-suming inadequate or barely ade-quate levels of grain, price in-creases resulting from productionshortfalls can be devastating. Peo-ple are affe.cted by shortfalls whichoccur in their own countries or inother producing countries fromwhom they import. True world foodsecurity will exist only when the poorhave incomes that allow them tosustain themselves during price in-

The Food Needs Of The Developing World In 1990(million metric tons cereal equiva!ent)

800

700

600

400

300

200

100

751

374

148

AllDevelopingCountries

M la Africa/Middle East

152 149

Latin.America

El Production M ConsumptionSource: Based on International Food Policy Research Institute. Research Report 3. Moles 5 and 8

creases due to temporary shortages.Until the long-term process of devel-opment brings this about, however,the world must prepare itself fortimes of hardship by implementing anumber of measures: to store food,to improve its food aid, and to pro-tect its agricultural resources. As theworld's largest international graintrader, the United States has a majorrole to play in each of these con-cerns.

Grain Reserves

The major goal of a grain reservesystem should be to reduce the riskof hunger anywhere in the worldthrough a system of international,nationai, and regional reserves.Such a system would protect farm-ers frOm low prices in periods ofoversupply and would protect poorconsumers from hunger when short-falls in supply would otherwise putprices out of reach.

The United States is currently in-volved in three separate efforts atbuilding reserves. The U.S. farmer-owned grain reserve, instituted in1977, was designed to stabilize do-,mestic farm incomes. It also helpsdeveloping countries in two ways:by providing a degree of price secu-rity in time of scarcity for poor coun-tries and by helping to ensure thatfarmers in poor countries are not in-undated by low-priced grain in pe-riods of .S. oversupply. Accordingto most estimates, the amountstocked is only a small proportion ofthe amount requiredtdprovide "rea-sonable" world security.

A second U.S. effort to build grainreserves is found in proposals for anemergency wheat reserve to back-stop P.L. 480 programs. At present,tunds appropriated for the U.S. foodaid program (P.L. 480) tend to re-main relatively stable from year toyear. This means that the amount offood shipped declines when pricesare forced up by shortages, justwhen the poorest countries are ingreatest need. Several bills nowpending in Congress attempt to ad-dress this problem by creating asmall wheat reserve some fourmillion tons to supplement theregular P.L. 480 program. Thesestocks would be released only forpurposes of emergency assistanceto develoPing countries when sup-p!ies are otherwise unavailable.

The third U.S. effort. to build a grainreserve is through participation inthe negotiations for an InternationalWheat Agreement. The idea is tocreate internationally coordinated,but nationally controlled, reserves.However, the discussions havestopped on the issues of how muchgrain to stock, at what prices grainshould be bought and sold, andwhat kinds of special provisionsshould be made available to the de-veloping countries. Concluding thisagreement would be art importantstep toward a global reserve.

Food aid

The 1974 World Food Conferenceset an international target of making10 million tons of food available tothe developing world annually. Sofar that goal has not been achieved,although in 1978, commitmentsreached nine million tons. This ninemillion tons of food aid representedabout one-fifth of the grain importedby the developing countries. TheUnited States contributed more thanhalf the total and has already prom-ised to make an equivalent amountof food aid available each year.

U.S. farm policy

Because the United States-i6 a ma-jor world food supplier, it farm poli-cies can greatly affect p(oductionand consumption in the developingworld. Sometimes the interests of theUnited States and the developingworld will coincide. When they donot (for the United States also hasmany domestic considerations thatguide its farm policy), the UnitedStates should adopt strategies thatwill prevent domestic policies_fromadversely affecting poor people inpoor countries.

12

16

U.S. farm policy can help or hinderthe availability of food in the world ina variety of wayS. First, the UnitedStates can continue to work towardstabilizing prices in its own grainmarket. Stability in the U.S. marketwill contribute greatly to price sta-bility in world markets. Second, theUnited States can remain open tocompetition from foreign producerswho may be able to produce someproducts more cheaply than U.S.farmers. Third, the United States canimplement policies to increase thestrength and viability of its farm sys-tem. Historically, the small- or me-dium-sized family-run farm in theUnited States has been more effi-cient than larger corporate farms.Domestic policies which supportand encourage viable family farmenterprises will do much to maintainhigh levels of U.S. agricultural pro-ductivity.

Finally, the United States can con-tribute to world food security by pro-tecting its farm system against envi-ronmental damage particularlythe loss of its soil and water supply.The United States currently losesabout three million acres of ruralland each year to homes, factories,roads, and other uses, forcing farm-ers to cultivate the more marginallands. In addition, soil erosionclaims a considerable amount ofland'eaqh year, and the country'swater bt)pply is being depleted atthe rat,' of 21 billion gallons per day.Only a.portion of the water loss isrenew through rain and meltingsnow In order to meet food needsnow and in the, future, the UnitedStates must become more com-mitted to good conservation policies.

Development AssistanceEv,:m today when Americans thinkabout U.S. relationships with the de-veloping countries, they generallythink about foreign aid. Just what isforeign aid? How does it help the re-cipient countries? How could it helpthem to alleviate hunger and malnu-trition?

Afte0World War ii, when govern-ment1 -to-government assistance pro-grams were first initiated, the UnitedStates was by far the largest donorof foreign aid. Today the UnitedStates is still the largest donor in ab-solute amounts, but, measured as apercentage share of wea'th or GrossNational Product, the United Statesranks behind 12 other donors. U.S.development assistance hasdropped from 2.7 percent of GNP in1949 to 0.27 percent in 1979 one-tenth of what it war, SO years beforeand less than one-half of one cent ofeach tax dollar. Currently, the UnitedStates spends 2C! '!mes as much fordefense as for for.., gn assistance.

For a number of reasc.):!'i. even thelimited funds that are :!-::or.-Ited forforeign assistance arL. Jsed aseffectively they riight be ti: com-bat hunger, because our devela-ment assistance is neither clearly fo-cused nor appropriately organizedto attain that goal. Most U.S. foreignpolicymakers stiI; iiew foreign aid asa tool for promoting short-term politi-'cal objectives. Therefore, the largestshare of our development assistancebudget goes to countries that arepolitical allies of the United Statesregardless of their relative economicneed or their commitment to equita-ble development. But because many

of the poorest countries with thelargest numbers of hungry peopledo not directly threaten U.S. nationalsecurity, they receive far less U.S.aid than they really need.

Moreover, no single agency withinthe Government presently has au-thority over all development-relatedactivities. Decision-making powerover these activities is sharedamong departments and agenciesthat have quite different and oftenconflicting goals. In October1979, the' International DevelopmentCooperation Agency was estab-lished to coordinate U.S. develop-ment programs and policies. How-ever, bureaucratic power struggleshave prevented the new agencyfrom obtaining sufficient authorityover important activities having thegreatest development impact.

U.S. assistance programs often aredesigned to benefit the UnitedStates as much as recipient coun-tries. For example, recipient coun-tries are frequently required to pur-chase goods from the United Statesr,-;:her than from cheaper and moreco!,..,.:ri:int local suppliers. About 75

U.S. assistance has thiswhich greatly reduces the

Gt..:seas impact of each foreign aiddollar. Finally, the yearly U.S. budgetcycle works against rational long-term planning. Multi-year develop-ment assistance funding would im-prove the planning, implementationand evaluation of individual pro-grams.

13

FACTS

. . . ABOUT DEVELOPMENTASSISTANCE

The United States once thelargest foreign assistance donornow gives less than 12 other coun-tries, when such assistance is meas-ured as a share of Gross NationalProduct.

The United States currentlyspends more than 20 times as muchon defense as on development as-sistance.

In 1978, the people of the UnitedStates lost more money at the gam-bling tables in Nevada than we gavein our development assistance pro-grams.

The U.S. development assistance ef-fort already contributes to the war onhunger in three important ways, butthere is also room for improvementin each of these areas.

Providing technicalassistance or U.S. expertise.

Training government planners, mid-dle-level managers, local researchscientists, and extension agents; ex-panding the agricultural infrastruc-ture; and developing alternative agri-cultural policies are all examples ofU.S. technical assistance. In provid-ing such assistance, however, U.S.officials should keep in mind that thetrue goal is to improve the lives ofpeople, not simply to transfer U.S.technology to the developing world,nor even to increase food produc-tion in general. Rather, the basic ob-jective is to help in all activities thatimprove self-reliance and lessen de-pendence on others.

U.S. Development Assistance Compared To Expenditures ForSelected Items of Personal Consumption-1978

($ billion)

Alcoholic Beverages

Tobacco Products

Household CleaningSupplies

Toys and SportSupplies\

Foreign Travel andTourist ExpendituresAbroad

Jewelry andWatches

Admission toSpectator Amusements

Barber Shopsand Beauty Parlors

Official DevelopmentAssistance_(ODA)

Brokerage Chargesand InvestmentCounseling

30.9

17.9

16.4

11.7

11 6

9.3

7.4

5.9

5.7

5.5

SOURCE C)eparmrem, of Commerce

Increasing the earningsopportunities of the poor.

While creation of jobs is largely de-pendent on policies by individualgovernments. external assistancecan have beneficial effects. U.S. as-sistance programs can encouragethe use of capital-saving, labor-in-tensive technologies, particularly inthe food-supply and rural-develop-ment sectors.

N

X

Increasing food consumption andnutritional levels among the verypoor.

The majority of the world's hungrypeople are unemployed and have lit-tle or no land. Therefore, they willbenefit only indirectly from efforts toincrease food production. Untilenough jobs are created so thatpeople can earn the money to feedthemselves and their families, devel-opment assistance programs canprovide some measure of imm4ciS2te

14 la

relief from hunger and malnutrition.These activities include, for exam-ple, programs to feed school chitdren, pregnant and nursing women;nutrition education programs to cor-rect harmful feeding habits; efforts tofortify local foods with necessary vi-tamins and minerals; and comple-mentary programs,to provide pri-mary health care.

The United States does not providedevelopment assistance only on abilateral or country-to-country basis.About 30 percent of its assistance isgiven on a multilateral basis; that is,it is given to various internationalagencies such as United Nationsagencies and development banksthat, in turn, have programs inmany countries. Many developingcountries prefer this type of assis-tance, because it enables them toavoid feelings of dependency. Do-nors have also come to recognizethat this type of assistance hasmany advantar ;. Internationalagencies can work in countrieswhere bilateral programs are notwelcome, or on projects (for..exam-ple, agrarian reform and administra-tive improVements) where bilateralaid is greeted with sOspicitn. Whilemultilateral organizations also facetechnical difficulties in reaching thepoor and hungry, they neverthelessare important vehicles for overcom-ing hunger and poverty. Many ofthem have proven to be effective inefforts to eliminate.hunger andnutrition and deserve the active sup-port of the United States and otherdeveloped countries.

Overcoming Hunger at Home

. . . despite the abundance of foodproduced by American farmers,pockets of poor, hungry peoplecan still be found in the UnitedStates.

If the United States is to make theelimination of hunger the major fo-cus of its relationships with the de-.yeloping world, then we must alsodeal with hunger and malnutrition athome. The U.S. "war on hunger" didmuch in the last decade to reducethe number of people suffering fromhunger and hunger-related prob-lems. Yet there are still hungry peo-ple in this country. The problem isparticularly severe among migrantand seasonal farmworkers, NativeAmericans, and the elderly. In theUnited States, as in the developingcountries, it is

In the last ten years, the UnitedStates has spent nearly $50 billionon domestic food assistance pro-grams. Federal funding for such pro-grams has increased from $1 billionin 1969 to $10 billion in 1979. TheFood Stamp program alone, thelargest domestic program aimed atthe hungry poor, reaches over 18million Americans. In 1979, this pro-gram cost $6.9 billion. The other ma-jor domestic food programs are theWomen, Infants and Children (WIC) -

program, the Elderly Feedingprograms, and the School Lunchprogram.

These programs have already con-tributed to the nutritional intake ofthe poor. Malnutrition and infantmortality rates have declined. Chil-dren of mothers in thp WIC programhave shown imprOved growth andfewer cases of anemia. Children inthe School Lunch Program are moreattentive and more \able to learn.And for many, the Fpod Stamp pro-gram provides just enough extra in-come to lift them above -the povertyline.

15

19

In spite of such improvements, theprograms are limited. The'WIC andthe Elderly Feeding programs do notprovide service for ail who need it,because the funds are insufficient.The Food Stamp program providesa benefit of only 36 cents per per-son per meal. In all these programs,local officials may try to prevent ac-cess rather than to encourage par-ticipation, and those who are eligibleoften do not have adequate informa-tion or are embarrassed to apply.Only about 60 percent of those whoare eligible actually take part in theFood Stamp program. Significant im-provements in nutrition could beachieved simply by expanding par-ticipation in programs that alreadyexist.

No single source of informationabout hunger and nutritional pat-terns in the United States exists inthe U.S. Government, making it verydifficult to design an effective anti-hunger campaign. Yet such informa-tion, if it existed, could be used tofight hunger among the poor as wellas to educate all Americans aboutthe relationship between nutritionand health.

Until recently, even the well-edu-cated and the well-to-do, with readyaccess to health care, paid very little

`attention to the relationship betweendiet and such diseases as heart dis-ease, diabetes, arteriosclerosiF andcancer. Nor, for tha. inattei,health care professionals. Today,however, we know that too much fat,cholesterol, sodium, or alcohol canlead to illness. Money spent on edu-cating Americans about how nutri-tion affects health is likely to save fu-ture medical costs. Helping the poorto maintain nutritious diets is alsolikely to be less expensive than thefuture medical ccsts of treating dis-eases resulting from poor diet.

FACTS

. ABOUT HUNGER IN THE\UNITED STATES

In a recent two and a half yearperiod, inflation increased 23 per-cent, yet the incomes of Food Stamphouseholds increased less than 7peent.

kInual income of migrant workersis legs than $4,000. For seasonalfarm workers who do not migrate, itis less than 33.000. Less than .10percent receive any form of publicassistance.

Life expectancy is 49 years forfarm workers, compared with a na-tional average of 72 years. Infantmortality for farm workers is morethan three times the national aver-age.

Inflation hurts all Americans, but thehungry poor suffer the most. Erosionof the dollar's purchasing power andrising food prices reduce theamount of food the poor can buy.Just when the poor need additionalhelp from Federal programs, middle-class and wealthy Americans mayresent allocating additional funds tofeeding programs. Private citizensand groups have critically importantroles to play in keeping hungerissues in the public mind and inmonitoring local anti-hungerprograms.

Federal assistance programs imme-diately improve the nutritional statusof participants but do not help peo-ple obtain jobs and adequate in-comes to continue to purchase a nu-tritious diet. A strong, balanced U.S.economy is needed for that. Policy-makers need to develop a plan forbalanced groWth and full employ-ment to use the skills of all Ameri-cans.

16

The Need For Public Education

... few Americans are aware ofhow much other nations are doingin development assistance or ofthe extent to which U.S. aid hasdeclined since Marshall Plan days.

Many Americans are not yet awareof the extent or severity of the hun-ger problem in either the developingcountries or the United States. Pollssponsored by the Commission showthat the American public is sympa-thetic to the suffering of the hungryand poor, though uncertain aboutthe ril3sures needed to eliminatethe problem.

The need to educate the Americanpublic about the complexities ofhunger and its relationship to agri-cultural production and food supplyis critical and increased understand-ing of the entire food system is es-sential. Risks dealing with weather,costs of production as well as in-vestment requirements are littleknown or understood by the Ameri-can public, which is totally depend-ent upon the U.S. food system fortheir food supply. In addition, themajor role that agricultural produc-tion plays in the U.S. economy andits effects on balance of payMentsand export earnings is barelyknown by most Americans. Conse-quently, the Commission believesthat a major effort to better educatethe American public about the com-plexities of hunger is extremely im-portant. Once Americans.can betterunderstand the causes and. effectsof world hunger, the United Statescan take the lead and work towardsa final alleviation of the problem.

Why Should The United StatesCare About World Hunger?

. . . failure to assure adequateworld food supplies will have farmore serious global implicationsfor the future than even the cur-rent energy crisis.

Most (but not all) of the world's hun-gry peopre'tive outside the bordersof the United States. They'do notvote in our elections or participate inour economy. Many of us may neverhave direct contact with poor andhungry people overseas. While it isclear that we, in the United' States,have a moral obligation and specialcapability to work actively and vigor-ously toward eliminating world hun-ger wherever it exists, it is also inour own national interest to do so. Inview of the combined humanitarian,political and economic interests atstake, the major recommendation ofthe Presidential Commission onWorld Hunger is that the UnitedStates make the elimination of hun-ger the primary locus of its relation-ships with the developing countries,beginning with the decade of the1980s. Living up to this commitment,however, will not be easy. It will re-quire action in all of the areas re-lated to the world hunger problem.

Moral OblIgatIOn andResponsibilityThe right to food is the most basicright of all. If we are truly committedto the cause of human rights, wemust exercise initiative and leader-ship and work to eliminate worldhunger. The United States has longbeen committed in rhetoric if notalways in its actions -- to eliminatinghunger both in this country and inother places. Following through onpast promises will be the strongestpossible proof of ourrenewed dedi-cation to human rights.

Moreover, as the most powerful ac-tor in the world's increasingly inter-dependent food system, the UnitedStates is-in a particularly good posi-tion to take the lead. More than halfthe grain that crosses internationalborders has been harvetted in theUnited States. U.S. grain reservesare the largest in the world, and theUnited States has high levels of agri-cultural productivity, advanced tech-nologies, and extraordinary marketpower -- all of which also conferresponsibility to act in ways thatwill have beneficial, rather thandetrimental, effects on the world'shungry.

U.S. Economic Self-Interest andNational SecurityA vigorous attack on the world hun-ger problem will have a positive of -_fect on both the national securityand the continued economic vitalityof the United States.

Hunger is only one of a number ofglobal issues which aggravate rela-tionships between the developedand the developing countries. Likewidespread hunger, the growing

17

scarcity of energy and other rOn-re-newable resources, environmentalhazards, the pollution of the seas,and international terrorism are allglobal problems that threaten na-tional security as much as militaryconfrontation. The developed anddeveloping countries have beenhostile to and suspicious of one an-other during various global confer-ences held in recent years. The de-veloping countries have looked atdeveloped-country proposals forregulation in these areas as simplynew attempts to keep the poorcountries from improving their eco-nomic situations. The United Statesand the other developed countries,on the other hand, have been afraidthat if they "give in" to demands bythe developing countries for agreater voice in international deci-sions they will lose too much.

Unless we begin to find ways of re-solving these tens;ons, we face thelikelihood of increasing chaos andbelligerence from large segments ofthe world. Becauseclhunger offersthe most powerful point for attackingthe many problems related to pov-erty and underdevelopment -- andbecause- the United States-is in anexcellent position to provide leader-ship. in solving the hunger problem

U.S. action could contributegreatly to solving-the current dead-lock between the two economicallydiverse groups of countries. The de-veloping countries are likely to re-spond positively to. the issues of im-portance to the United States, if werespond quickly and cooperativelyon this issue of critical importance tothem.

The U.S. economy will also benefitfrom a concerted attack on world-wide hunger. It is more and moreevident that for the international eco-nomic system to be healthy andgrowing, all countries must be ableto buy and sell products. In order tobuy Atherican pioducts, other coun-

. tries must be able to earn neededforeign exchange by selling theirown products. The more rapidly theagricultural and industrial sectors ofthe now-poor countries develop, thesooner they will be able to partici-pate fully in 'ntemational markets.

Some people fear that if the econ-omies of other countries grow,American farmers and industry work-ers will lose their jobs because con-.sumers in the United States andelsewhere will buy imports ratherthan equivalent American products.There will be some short-term costs.But over the long term, if other coun-tries can produce particular goodsmore cheaply than the UnitedStates, Americans will benefit. It willdampen inflation by making morelow-cost goods available and willensure that other countries are ableto purchase those products in whichthe United States is more competi-tive.

American farmers will continue tobenefit even when other countriesgreatly increase their own agricul-tural productive capacity. TheUnited States depends on worldmarkets to maintain its strong farmeconomy. American farmers exporttwo-thirds of their wheat, half theirrice and soybeans, and a quarter oftheir corn and other coarse grains.In fact,even though farm products_represent only 3 percent of thecountry's GNP, they represent nearly25 percent of U.S. exports. Many ofthese products are purchased bythe developing countries. Studiesshow that these countries will con-tinue to import increasing amountsof food (because of populationgrowth as well as changing foodconsumption patterns), even as theyincrease their own agricultural out-put.

Neither the United States nor therest of the world can aftord anotherfood crisis like that of 1972-74. But iffood production is not improved inthe world as a whole, and in thepoor countries in particular, anotherfood shortage could have seriousconsequences for all countries andcould be more, devastating than thecurrent energy crisis. In the devel-oped countries, it could causeprices to skyrocket. In the poorcountries, it could push millionsmore to the brink of starvation.

The Need for ActionEliminating at least the very worstaspects of hunger by the year 2000is possible if the United Statesand others make it a major policyobjective. We have the technicalknow-how and the resources to doso. What we lack is the political willto act upon this commitment withsufficient vigor.

18

22

Eliminating hunger will not be aneasy task, however. Nor will it be ac-complished just by growing morefood on American farms to shinoverseas. In the short run, more for- .

eign aid and more food aid areneeded to keep the poor from star-vation and to make sure that chil-dren born today do not suffer life-long harm from early malnutrition.But these are palliative's to keep theproblem from getting worse. Theyare not genuine, long-lasting solu-tions.

Over the longer term; hunger canbe eliminated only by eliminating itscauses poverty and insecure.foodsupplies. This requires that the poorcountries increase agricultural pro-ductivity and develop in ways thatallow them to distribute the gainsfrom development equitably through-out the population. Achieving suchequitable and self-reliant develop-ment is to a large extent the task ofthe poor countries themselves. Butthey cannot do it alone. The actions.of the rich countries and of theUnited States in particular haveimportant effects on whether andhow well these countries develop.

How much we export to and importfrom the developing countries; what,kinds of things we export andport; what kinds of investments ourlarge corporations make and howmuch return they get from those in-vestments; and how much grain we,the "breadbasket of the world," arewilling to store for hard times allof these can have either a positiveor a negative effect on the world'shungry. What the U.S. Governmentand private industry do (or don't do)will greatly.affect the lives of millionsof people in the poor countries.

Recommendations for U.S. ActionThe United States should make theelimination of hunger the majorfocus of its relationships with thedeveloping world.

This decisionthis commitmentwillrequire action in the following areas:

Trade and DebtIn its trade and debt relationshipswith the developing countries, theUnited States should:

1) enter agreements to stabilize theearnings of countries that produce,essential raw rnaterials;2) work with other countries toreduce the restrictions that keepmany developing-countrymanufactured products fromentering the market of the UnitedStates and other countries;3) pass legislation to make moreassistance available to workers andfirms negatively affected by imports;4) ?wipe out the debt currentlyowed by the poorest developingcountries in order to let them use thefunds for development projects;5) give the poorest developingcountries more U.S. assistance inthe form of grants and less in thefor-rn of loans;6) encourage the InternationalMonetary Fund to require countries .

receiving loans to do all they can tomeet the needs of their poorestpeople.

Corporate InvestmentTo ensure that investments made byprivate. U.S. companies do not harm,but aid, in the fight against hungerand poverty, the United Statesshould:

1) encourage cooperation betweendeveloping countries and U.S.investors, especially small firms;2) support U.N. efforts to set upstandards of conduct formultinational companies indeveloping countries;3) convene a meeting of corporateand agribusiness executives todiscuss corporate assistance inthe elimination of world hunger;4) take measures to increase theamount of information availableabout food supply and demand.

World Food SecurityTo ensure that there are adequatefood supplies even during timeswhen production is lowithe UnitedStates should:

1) support the creation of a globalfood reserve as well as t le efforts ofindividual countries to create theirown reserves;2) increase the level of the U.S.farmer-held reserves;3) establish an emergency wheatreserve as a back-up to the FoodAid (P.L. 480) program;4) pursue a strong U.S. agriculturalsystem by encouraging small- andmedium-sized farms and byemphasizing conservation of soiland water resources.

.1 A

23

Development AssistanceTo ensure that developmentassistance goes to the countries andpeople who need it most and ensurethat it is as.effective as possible, theUnited States should:

1) give more authority aboutdevelopment-related decisions tothe Director of the InternationalDevelopment Cooperation Agency;2) immediately double the level ofU.S. development assistance. Theaim should be to give 0.7 percent ofGNP (about three times the currentlevel);3) give assistance primarily tocountries committed to meeting thebasic needs and rights of thIpirpeople;4) put more emphasis on nutritionalgoals;5) direct more research towardimproving agriculture in thedeveloping countries (whoseclimate, soils, and environmentalconditions are very different fromthose in most developed countries,for whom most agricultural researchcurrently is done);6) increase U.S. support formultilateral institutions (e.g., theWorld Bank and specialized U.N.programs) that have proven to beeffective and that have the potentialfor being more eftective in efforts toalleviate hunger and poverty;7' improve the U.S. Food Aidprogram by giving food to countrieson the basis of need rather than .

political ideology and in ways thatreinforce self-reliant development.

Domestic HungerA commitment to ending worldhunger must be accompanied by acommitment to ending hunger in theUnited States as well. Toward thisend, the United States should:

1) systematically assess thenutritional staius of Americancitizens;2) put more emphasis on preventivehealth;3) increase funding of the FoodStamp program and other domesticfeeding programs;4) take measures to increaseParticipation in these programs:5) adopt a national economicdevelopment policy.

Public EducationTo work, the recommendations listedabove must have the support of theAmerican people, many of whom are:lot yet aware of the extent orseverity of the hunger problem ineither the developing countries orthe United States. Polls show thatthe American public is sympatheticto the suffering of the hungry andpoor but uninformed about the kindsof measures needed to eliminatethem. Therefore, in order to rallylong-term support for U.S efforts inthis area, the United States shouldestablish an organization to educateand inform the American publicabout hunger and malnutrition.

on

What You Can Do As AConcerned Citizen

about ,.^:erlci nLirig(r,:-.IffF!cts the gi.Juhty

(..)t Or., and siurity of the Jr too<iirl(1 your

td1111'./ kl-104%/HCI(jett)1,,,,

it It .L hi,iflt.ltN P00.10

IfIC1

Jou! 1 community group that ISdoing ',-..)rnething dbput hunger athorric, or abroad such as a neighbor-hood organization, a civic group, achurch group or an advocacygroup for a specific program such

Sttool Lunch 1,^,./ho's Involved in

lunge; is avaliabld for purchasefrom World Hiiider Education Ser-vice. 2000 P St , NW WashingtonDC 20031,

tiorm a group for -,furty or action Ife:ortvnut.)qy C.:tory

1;11.7 ., '.!1 ihinf If.?/" for

(Thl or 1(2.t'0r1

no

Inc; ou what msource.s your libraryon works hunger and ideas

about noi.^., to end it Find out ,vhatresources your school libratieS havetor blfferent ar.-1(?) ocommendrE,addrt;orlai

Ask your sc-Thno c.Pir.;i3;s t0 includeprograms on world nunger in theiroi.rin professional rneetirds and inassenThlies for students Ask !nilworld hunger he included inthe sclionl

Meet with local officiak to find oiitabout hunger in your community.what programs are available, whatthe problems are. Ask what localgovernment is doing to end hungerDiscuss how world hunger affectsyour community

Visit local programs to see how thciiwork. Talk with administrators of pro-grams to find out what progress isbeing made and what the problemsare Some programs you may wantto see in action are: Food Stamps:School Lunch and Breakfast.Women, Infants and Children; andMeals on Wheels.

Find out if local businesses havenon-profit foundations that couldfund educational activities on worldhunger, such as public rneetings,seminar series, or action projectsMany businesses and corporationshave set up such foundations aspart of their piiblic relations effort

Support local food banks or otherIC ;od distribution programs, by pro-viding personal time, financial assis-

tance or food. Find out who Could,use the food hank but does not nowparticipate. If no food bank exists.establish one F.or assistance con-tact. Second Harvest. National FoodSalvage Network, 1001 North Con.tral, Phoenix. AZ 85004 or (6021 252-1777

21

2.)

Ask your Senators aid Representa-tive what they are doing to end hun-ger at home and abroad Ask if theyhave reict the Report of the Presi-dential Commission on World Hun-ger and what views they have on trleReport's recOmmendations. Ask forleoisiation that has been introduced .

and read it to become informedauout the issues. Find out how muchmoney is being spent to end hungerin relation to other items in the Fed-eral Budget both abroad and here ather no Ask for information about U.S.i)roorams and which agencies tocontact for more information.

Ask local editors to include worldhinder !;sties in the newspaper, onthe radio and 'on local television. Of-fer to provide information or to be aquest on a program

Arrange meetings on world hungerissues to help inform fellow mem-bers of groups in which you alreadyparticipate. such as civic organiza-tions social clubs, church classesor school organizations

Donate money to groups involved inending hunger in your community oroverseas Use Who's involved.inHunc7er to locate names and ad-drzsses of groups working in othercountries and in various parts of theUnited States

Write to a (trout) ,%orking overseas tofind Out what they are doing to helpend hunger not lust' through foodaid but by ;helping nations growmom of their OVV11 food or increasetheir abiitiy to buy food from othersrind out what tI neir group is doing toimprove !he diets of the poorest .

peene in Hunger

1:),(ies a 1 a-.f,res'SeS ofiTycilps c)7,7:rseaS

Appendix A RECOMMENDATIONS OF THEPRESIDENTIAL COMMISSIONON WORLD HUNGER AS PUBLISHEDIN THE FULL REPORT

MAJOR RECOMMENDATION

The Commission recommends that the United Statesmake the elimination of hunger the primary focus of itsrelationships with th developing countjes, beginningwith the decade of the 1980s.

UNITED STATES EFFORTS TOIMPROVE THE INTERNATIONAL ECONOMICSETTING FOR COMBATTING HUNGER

Trade and Debt

The Commission recommends that:

The United States support continuing international effortsto create price-stabilizing agreements for those com-modities of particular interest to the developing nations.In particular, this country should be prepared '.o acceptan equitable share of the costs of maintaining bufferstocks which might be required by the agreements andshould adopt an affirmative attitude towards the produc-ers' price concerns;

The United States press for an early reopening of multi-?

lateral trade negotiations, under the General Agr?ementon Tariffs and Trade. with a view towards seeking furtherreductions in tariffs against manufactured goods, espe-cially those labor-intensive products of most interest tothe developing nations.

The extension of Generalized System of Preferencesprivileges be put on a sounder footing by extendingsuch benefits on a fixed-term, multi-year basis; theCommission further recc,nmends that the present list ofeligible products be expanded to the maximum extentpossible under existing Executive authority;

The United States take an active role in the continuingGeneral Agreement on Tariffs and Trade negotiationsaimed at limiting the conditions under which quantitativerestrictions may be imposed against another country'sexports; the Commission further recommends that thiscountry move, in upcoming negotiations, to ease anysuch limitations to which it is .a party; finally, the Com-mission recommends that the Congress and Administra-tion act to forestall domestic pressure for such limita-tions by extending specially targeted trade adjustmentassistance programs to industries and localities particu-larly hard hit by new influxes of imports;

22

The Se( .Speedily approve, and the Administrationsupport, H.R. 1543, the Trade Adjustment AssistanceAct of 1979, without weakening amendments. The Com-mission also recommends that the Congress appropriatethe funds necessary fOr full implementation of the Actand urges the Department of Labor and the variousstate governments to take those steps necessary to as-sure prompt and efficient delivery of benefits and ser-vices provided for under the Act;

The United States, Trade Representative press for inclu-sion of a code of minimum labor standards within theframework of the General Agreement on Tariffs andTrade, which would provide an appropriate forum fordiscussion and resolution of disputes; the Commissionfurther recommends that the International Labor Organi-zation be designated as the fact-finding agency for dis-putes coming under terms of the code;

The authority granted the President. under existing legis-lation to allow the least developed countries to placeamounts owed this Government into local currency ac-counts for development purposes be extended to applyto all non-oil developing nations; the Commission furtherurgently recommends that the Congress appropriate th3necessary funds to make implementation of these provi-sions possible; .

The Congress eliminate restrictions which limit the Presi-dent's authority to provide development assistance tothe "relatively least developed" nations on a grant basis;the Commission further recommends that the Presidentuse existing legislative authority to increase the propor-tion of aid provided as grants, consistent with maximiz-ing the development impact of available resources; and,

The Congress, in connection with the bill to increase theU.S. quota in the international Monetary Fund, adoptprovisions instructing the U.S. representative to the Fundto use his/her influence and authority to safeguard thebasic human needs of the poorest people in the borrow-ing nations. In particular, the Commission supports theamendment to that effect which has been offered by theChairman of the House Banking Committee:

2 61

Corporate Involvement

The CommTSsion recommends that:

Non-profit foundations, in cooperation with the privatesector and representatives of developing countries, es-tablisha non-governmental clearinghouse to encouragemutually-beneficial collaboration between developingcountries and U.S. investors, particularly small firms. inthe food and agriculture sector:

The United States fully support current United Nationsefforts to prescribe standards for investment on the partof international corporations in developing countries,and that U.S. representatives insure that these stan-dards include balanced requirements for both the cor-porate investor and the developing country. Congressshould consider adopting appropriate sections of theproposed U.N. code of conduct as U.S. law;

The President call a meeting of major corporate andagribusiness leaders to personally encourage such in-dustry representatives to provide their own views to thePresident and the public on international corporate in-vestment in developing countries, with particular empha-sis on corporate responsibility and action in the elimina-tions of world hunger; and,

The U.S. Department of Agriculture and the FAO takeadditional steps to increase the flow of public informa-tion dealing with food supply and demand conditions ofboth an emergency and commercial nature.

World Food Security

The Commission recommends:

The United States press for an early resolution of issuesimpeding the establishment of a global system of re-serves, and support the efforts of developing countrieswhich might wish to create their own reserves;

The maximum stocking level of the U.S. farmer-ownedreserve be increased to 30 million tons of wheat and.that the price at which farmers are allowed to sell theirreserve holdings be set at a level to preserve the re-serve for major international emergencies and to assurefarmers an equitable return on their labor and invest-ment;

The United States establish a Government-held reserveto support P.L. 480 dommitments;.and,

U.S. farm policy be directed toward enhancing farmstructure whereby producers operating small- and medium-size, economically productive farmis-will be assured an equitable return or their labor and investmentcomparable to returns to other sectors of the economy,and that the Department of Agriculture put greater em-phasis upon the conservation of soil and water-re-sources, particularly during periods when maximum pro-ductivity is a goal, for the purpose of assuring a strongagricultural system.

UNITED STATES EFFORTS TO COMBAT HUNGERTHROUGH DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE

The Commission recommends that:

The International Development Cooperation Agency besignificantly strengthened and that its Director be ac-corded Cabinet-level status, so that if objectives ofending hunger and providing equitable economic devel-opment can be more effectively integrated into U.S. for-eign policy and planning;

The United StateS move as rapidly as possible towardthe United Nations' goal of 0.7 percent of Gross NationalProduct as this nation's net disbursement of conces-sional economic assistance. Appropriations for this pur-pose should be made available on a multi-year basis,independent of Security Supporting Assistance, and"untied" from narrow domestic economic interests;

23

U.S. development assistance be targeted selectively atpoor nations strongly committed to meeting basic hu-man needs and rights, as determined by thr.) applicationof existing effectiveness criteria;

AID strengthen its own agricultural and managerial com-petence while simultaneously expanding its reliance onappropriate intermediary organizations for the designand delivery of technical assistance. The Commissionfurther, recommends that AID give far more attention tonutrition as an integrating theme for its program activi-ties in agriculture, health care, education and familyplanning;

Federal, state and university funding be increased for.in-ternationally oriented research on food and nutrition, andaccompanied by a corresponding commitment to redi-rect U.S. scientific talent toward the food and develop-ment problems of the developing countries through pro-grams designed to help create or strengthen indigenousagriculture and research institutions in those countries;

27

The United States should support agrarian reforms bothdirectly and indirectly through bilateral and multilateralfood and development assistance programs. It shouldalso support a multilateral institution or arrangement thatwould provide capital and technical assistance to facili-tate changes in inequitable land tenure patterns;

The International Development Cooperation Agency andthe Agency for International Development should'giveincreased emphasis to integrated policies and-programsto improve the employment and income earning oppor-tunities of the poor, starting with, but not limited to, thefood supply sector:The Commission further recom-mends that the Congress, in legislation, and IDCA,through appropriate policy directives, give explicit rec-ognition to the development and dissemination of capi-tal-saving technologies as an important program area;

The United States continue to support changes withinWorld Bank practices that facilitate the meeting of basicneeds, encourage sensitivity to structural concerns andincrease the U.S. contribution to the Bank's supply ofcapital for concessional loans to the neediest nations;

The United States give far higher priority within its over-all development assistance efforts to implementing re-quests for help in planning, financing and carrying outnutrition interventions designed to meet the chosen nu-tritional targets of individual nations;

Congress undertake a complete revision of the P.L. 480Food for Peace programto enable the program to ac-ccrd more closely with the New Directions approach todevelopment assistance; and,

The United States strengthen its professional and finan-cial inputs to selected U.N. programs and agencies withproven effectiveness in efforts to alleviate malnutrition,hunger and poverty

DOMESTIC HUNGER AND MALNUTRITION:OVERCOMING HUNGER AT HOME

The Commission recommends that:

The United States Government undertake a systematiceffort to assess the nutritional status of American citi-zens, and that the President direct the Secretary of.HEW' to immediately establish a National. Nutrition Sur-veillance Program to coordinate nutrition surveillance ac-tivities with other Departments and agencies involved innutrition programs; and that health care legislation pro-vide greater emphasis upon preventive measures likenutrition that would appear to be more cost saving thanthe current approach to deal with the after-the-fact treat-ment and recovery;

The AdminiStration and the Congress act to remove theexpenditure limit on Federal funding for Food Stamps, toincrease resources for all domestic feeding programswhich have a demonstrated record of success, and toimprove outreach efforts and certification procedures toincrease participation among eligible citizens, with spe-cial attention to utilizing the resources of local privatevoluntary organizations; and,

The President and the Congress adopt a national policyof economic development, designed to foster balancedgrowth and full employment along lines which best uti-lize the resources and skills of this country, and that im-plementation of such a policy should include a require-ment that the President, in his annual economicMessage, specify growth, employment, and sectoral in-vestment goals for the following year and the administra-tive and legislative means proposed to achieve thosegoals.

THE NEED FOR PUBLIC EDUCATION

The Commission recommends that:

The Congress provide funds to establish an organizationto educate and inform the American public about worldhunger.

',VGA/ Hearth arc; flur,,a, 5er. _es

2428

Appendix B DDITIONALC Orr

Commissioner BrooksTose of us who have been involved in the problems of world hungerfor many years real:zed from the beginning of our assignment on theComm.ss!on on World Hunger that it would be impossible to write aperfect report The problems of hunger are far too complex and too

rd to to that E-Tver if we could write a perfect report for today.not be perfect tomorrow

Th:r; Corr,n:ss:on, noweyer, has called to the attention of not onlyoeoo'e th:s country. but hopefully to peoples of the world, tne greatdarger of hunger to mankind and at !east some answers to theproblems of hexger We have pointed out that the problem is not onlyecorom:c. but it is also political

We have the techn!cal know-how for the world to feed itself for the;rtrtmeo:ate fut.Je. but we do not yet have the will to do so. If we are tostop wars on this earth. we are going to have to make war on hungerour number one priority

Commissioner DenverThe fo'lowing is my concluding statement which i rave asked to ber-oluded at the erd of the report

Recently, while considering the Commission and its work, I thoughtabout the group who founded our country and wrote our Constitution.They too were individuals with other jobs and professions who weregathered together to respond to a great challenge. The success theyachieved did not come from knowing all the answers or fromeliminating their differences and viewpoints, but from producing adocument which would respond to the problems at hand rather thantry to eliminate them They knew that the Constitution would need to beamended. that a Congress would have to implement it, a judicialsystem interpret it, and a President execute it.

I think it wmild be foolhardy, and even prideful, to think that we coulddo belle- man that The fact that the Report of this Commission isidentified as a -Final Report" tends to suggest some things that arenot true It irnples that we. as a group, have reached a point ofrescl,;t:on that allows us to speak with certainty and finality, and with asingle vo:ce, about the myriad complex issues we have confronted. ifwe accept that implication, we will be saddled with the burden ofgefend:ng the Report as something that it is not rather than respecting

for what it is

The Report fc./ ire the veh:c'e for summarizing and communicatingthe '.torn. i.e cone It is appropriate for release, not because itcorLir all the answers c' because all of the issues andtt,.,agreetrientc, haze been resolved, but because it provides anecessary staft:ro pant for the next step It should not so much beta'-ren as a fine! statement on world hunger as it should be seen as an

:11at:ng bar: for publ:c dialogue

There is rnucl-: in the report that is commendable As a Commission weat times were able to function with clarity and even in some instanceswith wisdom and courage Still, there are conclusions andre.commendations_wnich_t personally consider lacking; I doubt thatthere is any Commissioner for whom this is not true. It is, nevertheless;a document of which we can all be proud and one which I sign with

genuine pleasure

It has been a privilege and an honor for me to serve on thisCommission. I am grateful to the President for having established itand to the Congress for its legislative support, i commend them fortheir initiative. Many individuals have participated in the work of theCommissionthe Commissioners, the staff, the scores oforganizations, experts, and concerned individuals who have givengenerously their insights and advice. In each instance I have beenimpressed by their commitment and their involvement. Even when Icould not agree with their viewpoint, I benefited from their willingnessto dialogue. Even where particular contributions are not obviouslyincluded in the Report, it is clear that their input has been invaluable inour deliberation.

The ultimate success of this Commission does not rely on how perfectour report is so much as it depends on the process it is able tostimulate within our nation and 'around the world. The report is aninvitation and a plea to all people to become personally andindividually involved in the work that we have only just begun. As aCommission, have witnessed the inevitable temptation to make ourdisagreements and criticisms of each other's views more importantthan the job we have to do. If we are to succeed in moving beyondthis Report, it will require that everyone continually transcend to thattemptation; it will require that each of us remains conscious that ourdifferences conceal the unity reflected through our shared goal.

After all of our discussions, where I think all Commissioners do agreeis that hunger can be eliminated, and that it must be. If we can initiatewidespread involvement and dialogue which leads all to thatconclusion, our work will have become "a shot heard around theworld".

Commissioner DoleAlthough I agree with the broad objectives of the Commission's-workthat of conquering world hungermany of the findings in the FinalReport are an attempt to seek new ways to implement failed concepts.

In the chapter on Trade and Debt, I think the Commission is at leastpremature in trying to prescribe significant new trade and debtpolicies without closer study of the complex issues involving importantcompeting national interests. For example, the Commissionrecommends blanket U.S. support for the international commodityagreements of interest to developing countries, financial support forbuffer stocks. and an "affirmative attitude" toward price concerns ofdeveloping countries. Although I am willing to examine eachagreement that may be negotiated on its own merits, neither theUnited States nor the world's hungry people benefit from agreementsthat try to maintain artificially high prices, adding to inflation andwrongly encouraging developing countries to increase reliance oncommodity earnings. I also question the suggestion that scarcebudget resources be devoted to international buffer stocks, when thedistribution of benefits of those buffer stocks may be poorly related tothe relative needs of the hungry in different countries.

The other Commission recommendations concerning trade includenew multilateral negotiations directed at reducing tariff and non-tariffbarriers on-manufactured ..goods,.expansion_of tariff preferences_10developing countries, and establishing minimum international laborstandards. While each of these may be worthy long-term objectives, itmust be recognized that these are very complex issues not only forthe United States,-but for most other developed and developingcountries.

2.25

Parr. of the problem. this Commission addressee dealt with efforts byThe United States to improve peace and stability. in addition. to livingstandaras.m the global community through the use of foreign aid anddevelopment assistance !n section IV, we note that "since World War

the United States has committed substantial resources tointernational development. and yet the problems of poverty andht.,rge seem to have gro.i.in worse a result, the Americandisinusionmerr with current U S foreign aid programs promptedreappraisal with a goal towards the reassessment of the success ofthose assistance programs

The most serious problem now facing the Third World. however. is thesteadily increasing pressure on their balance of payments due torising oil prices and the resulting world-wide economic slowdown. U S.support and leadership in international development assistance effortsis essential However. the commitment and involvement of othernations is equally importantas is the need for the recognition of theAmerican role n preserving peace and freedom through the costlyma ntenance of our military and defense forces. Without thestability our forces provide, the United Nations and other multilateralinstitutions would be forced to operate in an environment that wouldmake development assistance pointless

The issue of grain reserves as dealt with by the Commission is onemore area which I believe causes great concern The best reservepossible is the promotion of effective grain production around theworld and insurance of an effeCtive grain marketing systemnot byimposing restrictive reserve standards that have negative effects onthose responsible for food production. I feel huge reserves would becounterproductive. because they tend to depress producer prices.destroy production incentives, and disrupt markets.

A tree - enterprise system of agriculture is the best mechanism to attainmaximum production at the lowest possible price Governmentprograms that try to manipulate and regulate the market, no matterwhat their goals purport to be, more times than not end up as"disasters Every time farm programs are implemented to keepsurpluses high and farm product prices low, the American farmer. towhom we have a primary responsibility, ends up being hurteconomically We must encourage maximum food production at a fairprice, and we should not support programs that disrupt the marketand hurt the- will and productivity of the world's most productive foodmachinethe American farmer

The economic complexities involved with pursuing the goal ofalleviating world hunger cannot be overlooked in light of currenteconomic conditions in the nation today Although I have gravereservations about the proposed recommendations included in theFinal Report of the President's Commission on World Hunger, I feelthat this report will serve as abeginning and not an end to the worldhunger dialogue

Commissioners Chapin, Gilman, Leahy and Nolan

The following statement entitled, "World Hunger: Neglected Crisis, Im-pending Catastrophe" outlines our views, which diverge from those ofthe Commission.. about_ the cause of hunger and the importance ofself-reliant development in alleviating it The paragraphs following theStatement address specific topics which require elaboration. For a de-tailed presentation of our views see the footnotes and appendix in theCommission's unabridged final report releaSed in March, 1980:

World Hunger:Neglected Crisis, impending Catastrophe

The fellowship of the starving and malnourished, now 800 million peo-ple around the globe. is one of the most melancholy. misunderstoodand potentially dangerous phenomenon of our times Some expertsbelieve that its threat to world-peace and stability is already equal tothat of a nuclear war

Curiously, in view of the acknowledged threat this id-starred and mas-sive legion poses for them, more fortunate humans have never suc-ceeded in abolishing the hungry and malnourished by humane or in-humane means. At various times and places. both approaches havebeen tried. A favorite modern response to the tragedy is moneyloansand grantsand continual studies by a myriad of special commis-sions. academic experts and ''development" agencies. all seeking newsolutions

What Is "world hunger"?It ;s net the kind of hunger you feel when you miss lurch Manyper-haps mostof the nearly quarter of the human race suffering frommalnutrition (up to and including outright starvation) feel no pangs ofhunger at all. They are often physically and mentally too far gone

But, even among the poorest of the poor, there remains a fraction withthe energy and leadership needed to protest their situation in the polit-ical arena (where permitted) or with violence. Whether the hungry onesare passive or aggressive./whatever their race or location, they sharea life condition which has,been de ,d by the World Bank as "socharacterized by malnutrition, disease, squalor, high infantmortality and low life expectancy as to be beneath any reasonabledefinition of human decency." in a world where the U.S NationalAcademy of Sciences says sufficient food supplies now exist to feedeveryone if the supplies were equitably distributed. In the absence ofdraconiaq efforts, even this ray of hope will vanish by the year 2000,smothered by population growth, resource depletion and environrnen-tal decay,

Other current indicators of world hunger are equally discouraging. Insome poor countries, 40 per cent of the children die before they arefive; the survivors' average life expectancy is 48 years Meanwhile, thericher nations consume 50 percent of the world's food, although theyaccount for only 30 per cent of the population The average person inthe poorest countries produces 8150 worth of wealth in a year. therichest 20 per cent typically control half of the national income

Why are people hungry?

A 1978 White House study concluded flatly that "people are hungrybecause they are poor." that they cannot earn the money to buyenough food or lack access to land to grow their food

Why not? An answer fashionable among international developmentpractitioners is that the "politica! will" to feed the hungry lacking-bureaucratic jargon for a more stark explanation There are not enoughpeople in a position to help who care.

2630

c.:ecressno ccnc,..s on most nationai go:.ernmensa.ierthe: worstid:: same effcc o fee:. :ne:r poor Private cneritles

.ad : °hail" cor c_.ted generously to :he task arc few peopleas- a -o..ea de: berate:y to starve to Thiere is also evidence :net00-4ernments and r.Dr:-.:soerous citizens of poor countries :ruiv fear :herboor a :..ear :eac rig to suppresson crueity or r.eglect The Overseas

reports "Tre perceived self interest ts

Cltif pC .0 es cesighed to rep the ;Licc!

l'hese attr ,:des are understandable in terms of human nature ano Gov-ern :rent str..c:ures including those of the -market economies." Efforts

mc'ove the boric...ion of the poor rase sensitive questions of food0' c rig c:Drr''OC..y prices wage rates. and ownership, tenant reiatiori

cs social prerogatives, etc. In Latin America. for instance, U N ste-t sacs snow that up to 94 per cent of the and is owned by seven percent c tne pe,opie

hiLnder tre armaments irCustry. has important constituen-cies hop no s..sta n it Discussing possible broadening of wealth distri-bi,..t or in the Ur fed States. Washington Post political columnist William

corclucea that "Me major power centers of American politicsfeel tn-eaterect by the idea of actually Cistributing capital ownership toei.-eyorie In :he poorest courtries this threat is strong because therethe ownership-governing caste is often much smaller and resourcesmore scarce, makiro the wealthy feel more vulnerable and more sel-

fish. As demonstrated recently in Iran and Nicaragua, possessingmodern rriiitary establishments can no longer be considered a guaran-tee of stability or the protection of privilege To paraphrase John F.

Kennedy. the world may have reached the point where it must help thepoor in order to save the rich

Maidistribution of both physical resources and the power to make de-cisions governing their use emerges as the major cause of povertyPoiitically controversial. the causes of poverty are sometimes accordedless enthusiastic attention than two other important but less explosiveconsiderations increasing food production and controlling populationg row,. h

M,;ch 1,',4e blind men touching an elephant, world hunger specialistsdescribe their subject in terms of the part they handle One resultingerror a the assumption that the more food produced: the more will end

on the tables of the hungry In reality, it depends on what food isbrod...icea. where. at what prices and for whose benefit And. there is a

t.-,r,dency to confuse one's own interests hwit., the interests ofthose being helped Some examples

U S grain and other foodstuffs, given away or sold at ;ow prices.extremely popular with American agoultural interests However.

this approach prevents the poor from becoming more self reliant MoreThan haif the Third Worlds neediest are subsistence farmers and somehaves been driven out of business by just such charity

Large otter U S -based agribusiness or industriai f,rms set up oper-ations in poor countries where they can benefit from low labbr costs orraise crops and make products for exports to well-to-do customers.abroad, not for local consumption.

"Foreign aid," particularly U S "security supporting assistance,"often serves only the political interests of industrial nations

27

Pi. ;:d from both market economy" and socialist countries has but-tressed tnil:tary intervention in the Third World. U S. economic aid usedto backstop its milifary campaign in Indochina and Soviet and Cubantactic-, to strengthen 'socialist influence in Angola and Ethiopia are ex-Pn.-,ples. The world as a whole now spends about 5400 billion annuallyon armaments while a billion human beings live on 5150 per year. Ac-cording to the Agency for international Development, the United Statesa'or-e spent 5115 pinion. for military defense 'n 1978 and less than $2billion for foreign economic development programs. And the effective-ness of the S2 billion has been seriously questioned.

The Population ExplosionThe steady increase in world population, expected to nearly double bythe year 2000, complicates the problems of food production and distri-bution. the encouragement of self reliance. The time to act, therefore,is now

What is to be done?

The time may have arrived when government development agencies,scientists. agronomists. construction engineers and yes bankersneed to borrow the environmentalists' slogan "Small is beautiful." Thismeans a toning down of past and present emphasis on gradiose "de-velopment" projectsvast irrigation schemes, power dams, new in-dustrial establishments and huge loans for "economic growth" or foodimports by the poorest nations. Instead, there would be a turn to sim-pler but probably politically less popular approaches to world hungerand more emphasis on helping the hungry help themselves. WorldBank economist Mahbub ul Hag says, bluntly, "The only convincingsolution to the problem of world hunger is for the developing countriesto grow their own food What the poor and hungry need are permanentincomes, not temporary handouts."

It remains to be seen whether donor countries will willingly forego con-tinuation of the massive but mixed blessings bestowed ostensibly forthe poor in the past. but with so little helpful impact. A new approachcould include a decision by the United States to curtail its present giftsand subsidized exports of "surplus" foodstuffs except in natural disas-ters or famine, a politically difficult move. It will be equally difficult topersuade private and public financial institutions to restrain their ea-gerness to extend credit (mostly guaranteed by U.S taxpayers) topoor nations, many already in debt A considerable percentage of

these loan.dollars eventually purchase industrial world products formiddle or upper income customers abroad, doing little to assuagehunger The same is often true: of the Third World branches of plantsof wealthy multina1.Pnal corporations whose products are exported orsold to the affluent. When they pay bare subsistence wages or worse,in luring the poor off the land and into city slums in search -of non-exis-tent jobs they aggravate an already bad situation. Simple technology,agricultural extension services or implements, with the requirement thatthey reach the Poor. could be much more helpful Underdeveloped so-cieties must work out for themselves other urgent reformsmore equi-table distribution of land and access to water, effective control of cor-rupt marketing practices and an end to the exploitation of labor.

31

F.na:v ::.emaPs most c cu nears rm.:V. be `.cur-d to ma-e:.rtta-y to an.,cre's :ntevest to keep others poor :t often d,ff.cu'! for

tc't-r,a'f= CC,'MP","=erCi ths fact. for bott-1 ocr..ery andres.. r-nger a-e cret,2p,rg catastrophes. burn no cr s:ow. fusesTresE,> remeo,es m.e_ct,o,res port ca'y unpa'ar-ab'e to most cur-

the..r commss.ons and study .'cups Gent!ta t,rker-ng i. 7r. ex. st 4C;',d po.e7ty 0,0orams and deve!opment DO'.c esrat-, tr. arge,v ,'epee' whi!e, the need for basic changes J., hu-m in v.: ar It :a: u^ ,s ;noreasrg,y apparent Sercus effect .erefort-rs re:T, re the pat.ort educat,or, of the publ.c ano the world's.teal <:200^,07-:C, ;:',7:Clest-..p to u'tmate!y create a MOT cooperat:ve and

Tess octrr:-:,e'......ter,...Jman specie

Movement 'n s o.tec!on may accelerate as the ea'..r.s re-scu'ces become more scarce. population pressures increase. and thestarving become more desperate and art,culate As the noose t.ght-ens. even tne most unregenerate ind;,..:duai,sts may fnd it reass,Jr;ngto corterro'ate t.v rg .n a word where tt Is in the iard,ord's interest too-ctect. rot exp tne tenant farmer. ,n the rte,e.st rcreaSrcIly !r-terci,erendent 'over silo to serve the poor as they now do the rich

;>..e-yo.re's rtet..?.st t0 abc,sh world hunger

The Causes of Hunger

burger s caused by poverty. rot by food nsecurly Food rsecurtty isa symptom of poverty. related to structural. economic and politicalcond.t.ons which prevent the poor from growing and storing their ownfood o' having the !ncome to buy it Although poverty is the cause ofhunger, poverti itself results from inadequate and inequitable accessto income producing assets and lack of power to decide how the as-sets are used and d:str,buted While land ownership for all is not feasi-ble everywhere. the issue of who controls the land, and for whose ben-efit, is a key element tn agrarian reform The low productivity of thepoor :s also caused by lack of access to resources and technology,not by a lack of desire or mabillty to learn how to increase productivityApprop&e technology exists to improve productivity and the poorhave the capac!ty to use it The problem, however. is a political onethat keeps the technology out cf the hands of the poor

The Short Term And The Ldng Term

Alleviating hunger in the long run will be undermined by short-run "so-lutions" which. desp.te the best of ritentions, cannot be effective un-less accompanied by structural reforms Short run strategies which ig-nore the reed for structural reform are not solutions because theyoften worsen hurger and by nevertheless serving as a palliative, de-lay the implementation of econormc and polttica! reforms necessary toencourage sel-reltant development. Evidence indicates. for example.that many feeding programs are not even working in the short run be-cause they have reduced reliance on the local production of food andnutrtiona; levels have dropped as a result In and of themselves, shortrun strategies may assuage the conscience of the donor but they donot allevate huhger The technical and welfare remedies suggested inshort run strategies simply ore impossible to implement effectively un-der existing social, economic and political conditions which perpetuatepoverty and dependence.

28

Trade and Debt

--Fa .r trade.- riot 'tree trate," would be a more appropriate means ofencourag,ng se'f-re:iant development, and is in keeping with the Corn-m:ssion's ana'ysis which urges poicy-makers to "ask 'whether hungrypeople and poor nations will snare egu:tably in the expected gainsfrom new polcy choces A policy of trade expansion. however. over-lon;,.s the fact that ex.st:ng trade pat'.erns have contr.buted to the :re-oultable distr,borjon of income and the concentrated ownership of re-sources in developing nations Expanding trade on such terms willperpetuate poverty. postpone the elimination of hunger. and frustrateSel-rel;art. development Unless quaged by self-reliant developmentcriteria. simply calling for trade expansion may be construed as advo-catIng (1) an expansion of export cropping which often reduces theamount of food produced for local consumption while channeling theforeign exchange earnings into the hands of a few; (2) maintaining theeconomic dependency of developing nations by failing to encouragethem lc develop their own domestic niarkets by creating more jobsand better incomes to generate indigenous demand, and (3) locking inpoverty by recommending that commodity prices only be stabilized in-stead cf also being increased to levels which reflect true costs of pro-duction and reasonable profit to producers

Both commercial and official debt burdens aggravate the trade deficitsof developing nations and reduce the availability of resources for in-digenous development efforts. These burdens should be relieved bypursuing debt forgiveness policies and by providing future financialassistance through grants rather than loan programs, the eligibility forwhich should be based upon the application of basic human needscriteria.

Grain Reserves

The establishment of a system of grain reserves at the national, re-gional, and international level is a necessary, but not sufficient step to-ward increased world food security. Reserves in and of themselves donot assure that poor people will be fed. Nor do they have the allevia-tion of hunger as their only goal. The primary goal of the U.S. farmer-held grain reserve and of the proposed International Wheat Agreementis to help stabilize commodity prices and thus help promote consumerprice stability and farm income stability. They can, however, serve theimportant function of carrying over stocks from plentiful years to leanyears and thus increase the availability of supplies (as the emergencywheat reserve backstopping PL-480 is designed to do) To be fully ef-fective, a global grain reserve system must be carefully managed andmust be coordinated in such a way as to reduce the risk of severeshortages anywhere in the world. If distributed in a manner which doesnot undercut local production and which reaches the hungry people,grain released from the reserve will reduce hunger

,4

U.S. Farm Polley

The U S musr. unden.ak.e :re same kinds of strucfi;rai reformstrie Corr:mission is recommend rg for ceveloping nations in order topromiote more equitable development For example, the Commissionnas recommended that deveioping nations increase their production ofOra ris and foodsti_.`fs as part of a Pograrn of self-refiant development,r trie coal be d.fficui: as long as the low prices of U.Sgrain t c ,s continue to undermine price incentives for farmers in de-

rations to increase their production. in me U S., low com-modity prices are undermining the abliity of many farmers to continueproducing Low commodity prices and other public policies havefue:ed the tens toward fewer and larger farms in the U S., therebyconcentrating land ownership in fewer hands. converting agriculture toproduction patterns which 'undermine sound soil and water conserva-tion practices. and undermining the economic and social fabric of therural United States Far-reaching changes in current policies will be re-quired if U S. agriculture is to be restructured on a more self-reliantbasis and in a manner which will no longer discourage production indeveloping rations

Food AidMany development specie: Vs consider food aid to be an obstacle toself- reliant development and ineffective as a means to feed the poor.In Bangladesh. for example, about 90% of the food received under thePL-480 program benefited the middle class rather than the poor forwhom it was intended. Food aid is not a neutral or apolitical form ofintervention because when it is readily available the leaders of a devel-oping nation have no incentive to invest in developing their own agri-

cultural system and a permanent dependence is created. The poortherefore lose in two ways. They do not receive the food intended forthem and they cannot get assistance to increase the self-reliant pro-duction of food. If the criticisms of food aid as a development tool arevalid. theri the primary justification and usefulness of food aid wouldbe in the event of natural disasters (drought, earthquakes, etc.) or insuch cases as Kampuchea. A thorough investigation is needed of thecontradictions between self-reliant development and food aid pro-grams which create dependencies on imports and disincentives to lo-

cal production

Development AssistanceDevelopment assistance funds should be tied to commitments madeby developing nations to pursue a program of self-reliant development

recognizes-basic human needs Since political factors deter-mine the effectiveness of development assistance, a commitment tobasic human needs on the part of the recipient country must be madethe decisive factor in granting aid. At present, such a commitment isonly one of several parts of a formula which allows aid to be grantedon the basis of need and political expediency without assuring that the

poor actually will receive the assistance.

Aid should be conditional upon reaching a Basic Human NeedsAgreement (BHNA) under which the U.S. and the recipient countryagree to work together toward specific and measurable developmentgoals. The BHNA would function as a contract in which the aid recipi-ent agrees to pursue a self- reliant development strategy aimed at ov-ercoming poyerty and hunger in return for continued assistance. Fromthe U.S side, the BHnwould provide a method of accountability thatwould increase public confidence in the effectiveness of aid programs,thus assuring their continuity.__ _

29

Participatory DevelopmentDevelopmentitself must take place in an atmosphere of mutual re-spect and understanding. The beneficiaries of aid should no longer beconsidered the -subjects- to be developed or the "targets- of some-one else's good ideas. Rather, the development process should bemutually determined by donors and beneficiaries alike. This can beachieved by encouraging participation in diagnosing problems and inplanning, designing and implementing development programs. Localparticipants wiii offer ineir special insights and cultural perspectivewhich will ensure the appropriateness of development assistance.Since women form a very large part of the rural working economy, par-ticipatory development means that women also must be included in allphases of the development process_ Before granting any assistance,development agencies should require recipient countries to demon-strate a commitment to popular participation.

Public Education and New Policy DirectionsThe magnitude and persistence of hunger demand that an intensifiedprogram of action be undertaken now, not tomorrow or five years fromnow. The need for action now is underscored not only by our commit-ment to lives that could be saved but also by the diminishing ade-quacy of global resources to meet the escalating problem of hunger.U.S. citizens therefore must demand that their government make acommitment to alleviate hunger through the pursuit of self-reliant de-velopment strategies at home and abroad

Presidefitial Commission on World Hunger

34'