President Barack Obama’s 2014 budget proposal promises significant food aid reform that will enable the United States to feed about 4 million more people without a significant increase of the current $1.8 billion spent on feeding the world's most hungry. Since the food aid program's inception in 1954, the U.S. has helped feed more than 1 billion people in more than 150 countries, and remains the largest provider of international food aid.

The intention of the reform is to make food aid more efficient, cost effective, and flexible. It aims to use local and regional markets to lower the cost of food and speed its delivery, and calls for the use of cash transfers and electronic food vouchers.

The proposed reforms would also end monetization—the sale of U.S. food abroad to be sold by local NGOs for cash. This practice has been criticized for hurting vulnerable communities by depriving local farmers of the incentives and opportunities to develop their own livelihoods. Several studies, including one by the Government Accountability Office, found monetization to be costly and inefficient—an average of 25 cents per taxpayer dollar spent on food aid is lost.

Barry Riley, a food aid expert and visiting fellow at the Center on Food Security and the Environment, discusses his perspective on the importance of these new reforms, their chances of passage, and the country's current role in international food aid.

Why is local procurement such an important addition to food aid reform?

An increase of funding for local and regional procurement is the most important programmatic element of the proposed reforms. It would help managers working in food security-related development programs to determine for each emergency what commodities are most appropriate and where they can be procured most quickly and inexpensively. Some studies have shown local and regional procurement of food and other cash-based programs can get food to people in critical need 11 to 15 weeks faster at a savings of 25-50 percent. Equally important, local procurement is less likely to disrupt local economic conditions, but rather promote self-sufficiency by increasing demand (often for preferred local staples) and incomes of local producers. The move to 45 percent local (and 55 percent tied) procurement is a BIG step, and one to face strong opposition from American commodity interests and U.S.-flag shippers. 

How difficult is it to ensure vouchers and electronic cash transfers are getting into the hands of people that really need the aid?

Vouchers (and similar urban coupon shops) have been used many times over the past decades as a food transfer mechanism (also sometimes used in food for work programs) enabling the recipient to trade the voucher(s) for foodstuffs when it is most convenient or when they are most needed. Electronic vouchers are new, and how well they work depends on local situations. In places like urban Latin America, Africa and India, it probably could be made to work quite well; the technology is evolving quickly that would enable this sort of transfer mechanism.  

Rural Ethiopia, Burkina Faso, Central African Republic, Malawi – probably not so well. I’m admittedly skeptical that electronic transfers of purchasing power to remote areas would be sufficient in most cases to motivate traders to move food to these hungry areas. Their risks are extremely high and, in my experience in Africa, traders will only deliver food to remote rural areas (inevitably over very bad roads) if they can command prices considerably higher than costs plus a high risk premium.

Why aren’t international food aid organizations more in favor of direct dollar support for local operating costs?

There is (and has long been) opposition among many of the NGOs to the President’s proposal to replace “monetization” with a promise of on-going direct dollar support for the local operating costs of NGO food security-related projects. They believe it will continue to be easier to get Congress to approve money to buy American food commodities to ship overseas than to get approval for dollars to ship overseas, particularly in light of tightening budgets. These NGOs have tended, over the years, to receive a sympathetic ear from Congress.

The proposal shifts oversight of the food aid program from the Agriculture Committees within the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to the Foreign Affairs/Relations Committees of the State Department’s U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). What is the likelihood of Congress approving this transfer?

The chance of that happening, in this of all Congresses, is about the same as winning the Power Ball Lottery. Crusty committee chair-people are extremely sensitive to reductions in their empires and the agriculture committees – especially in the Senate – are powerful committees. On top of that, there are so many elements in the overall 2014 federal budget creating heartburn on the Hill that food aid considerations are far, far, far down the line. The best the President is likely to get in the present divided Congress are hearings and a continuing resolution of some sort.

What did you wish to see in the food aid reform proposal that was not addressed in this budget?

Change, if it ever comes, will likely be incremental and halting. I’ll be happy to see any step, however small, in the right direction. The total end of tied procurement would be at the top of my wish list. Even more important, perhaps, iron-clad, multi-year commitments of funding to food security programs intended to overcome long-term institutional impediments to achieving enduring food security in low income food deficit situations…and sticking with such commitments for 15 years.

What role does food aid play in advancing American foreign policy goals?

Most importantly, by being the single largest source of food commodities to the World Food Program in confronting disaster and emergency situations. Food support to American NGOs has been under-evaluated over the past 40 years. I’ll be talking about this later in the book I am writing, but these small projects were all that kept agricultural development (and early food security efforts) going in many small countries during the “dark decades” when international finance institutions and bilateral donors were not financing agricultural development. There are valuable on-the-ground lessons in that NGO food-assisted experience still waiting to be assessed.

Let me add, given what we know about the onset of serious climate change in the decades to come, the need to supply large amounts of food to populations suffering severe food deprivation will probably grow in the future. Where will the food come from and who will pay for those future transfers?

While the U.S. remains the largest provider of food aid, what can the EU and Canada teach the U.S. about food aid policy?

Donors hate to think that other donors have something to teach them. But, of course, they always do. The Canadian and European experience with food aid is best summed up in the way their objective has come to be restated over the past 15 or so years: not “food aid” but “aid for food.” The purpose of assistance intended to improve food security is to improve either, or both, availability and access over the long term (leave nutrition aside for a moment).

European and Canadian assistance can be much more flexible in choosing the instruments – food, cash, technical assistance, training, institutional strengthening, public policy, public-private cooperation, etc. – required to achieve a realistic food security goal which I would describe as pretty good assurance that most people can get their hands on the food they need most of the time. Commodity food aid, in some form – or the promise of its ready availability when needed – will probably need to be part of the total array of inputs required for the several years needed in particular food insecure countries to achieve that “pretty good assurance.” Europe and Canada are closer to understanding this and have become appropriately flexible in concerting resources to get it done. That’s the lesson.

Scientists are making progress in helping millions of wheat farmers adapt to hotter conditions, but the gains have been uneven, reports a new study led by Stanford University. New approaches to breeding are needed to withstand increasingly common heat waves and keep pace with growing global food demand.

Wheat is the most widely grown crop in the world; unfortunately it is also one of the most sensitive to future global warming. Scientists around the world strive to develop new wheat varieties each year that incorporate improved features, much like car companies release new models each year. Different strategies are commonly used; some target fully irrigated conditions that favor very high yields, while others focus on dry and hot conditions where yield maintenance under stress is a priority.

The team, which includes scientists from Stanford and the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (known as CIMMYT), evaluated 25 years of data from historical trials around the globe and analyzed the outcome of different past breeding approaches to help prioritize future strategies. The fully irrigated nursery, known as the elite spring wheat yield trials, produces varieties that are released for the majority of wheat farmers in countries like India and Egypt each year. While cultivars selected under stressed conditions showed significant yield progress at higher temperatures, the elite trials did not.

“There has been very impressive progress in improving yields for the elite varieties at the cooler temperatures that wheat prefers,” explains lead author Sharon Gourdji, a post-doctoral scholar in Stanford’s department of Environmental Earth System Science and Center on Food Security and the Environment (FSE).

“However, to date, our analysis shows a lack of yield gains for these varieties in hot environments over the past 25 years. Along with the gains in cool conditions, this means that the yield difference between cool and hot conditions is getting larger.”

A CIMMYT researcher plants wheat seed in pots in the center's greenhouse facilities. Photo credit: X. Fonseca/CIMMYT

"I think we have learned that the current main approach to breeding won't quite cut it in terms of adapting wheat to climate change,” said co-author David Lobell, assistant professor in Environmental Earth System Science and FSE center fellow. “That is useful information as breeding centers try to raise their game to contend with long-term warming."

Lobell notes that there are good reasons why improved heat tolerance for the elite varieties has not happened naturally.

“Breeding is tough since scientists are aiming for so many traits at once – for example, disease resistance, high yields, and good quality for bread making. Adding heat tolerance is like telling a scout looking for a superstar athlete, ‘by the way, make sure he’s a straight A student’,” said Lobell.

One important lesson from the study is that sifting through historical data can help identify what works and what does not.

“It can often be a hard sell to have breeders take the time to send their data back once they have selected their varieties and moved on,” explains CIMMYT wheat physiologist and co-author Matthew Reynolds. “This study clearly demonstrates the advantage of having these data to assess progress. It shows the genetic potential of wheat to adapt to warmer-than-usual conditions, and reinforces the value of screening under stress as a strategy for adaptation to climate change.”

The progress in the nursery targeted towards stress conditions shows that it is possible to make sizable gains in improving heat tolerance. But whether this can be combined with continued high performance under cooler conditions remains to be seen.

“It is critically important for farmers that they not only survive the bad or hot years, but that they can take full advantage of the favorable years” says Gourdji. “What is needed is a breeding strategy that can successfully achieve both.”

This work was supported by a grant from the Rockefeller Foundation. Additional co-authors of the study include CIMMYT’s Ky Mathews and Jose Crossa.

Wheat is a staple crop throughout much of India, but in many areas it is commonly sown past the optimum yield window. A study led by FSE associate director David Lobell uses satellite measurements to estimate a decade’s worth of sow dates in wheat-growing areas of India.

The study finds, among other developments, that wheat was sown one week earlier by 2010 than it was at the beginning of the decade, a change that explains 5% in country-wide yield gains. It also predicts that yield benefits from sow date shifts will likely diminish in the next decade.

"There's an important, one time boost farmers have gotten recently from moving into the optimum sowing window, but the data suggest this effect will run out of steam in the coming years," says Lobell.

Without coordinated global action on climate change, it will be increasingly hard to reduce poverty in the world's poorest countries, said UN Development Program Administrator Helen Clark. Clark's visit to campus comes a few weeks before global climate negotiations are set to begin in Doha, Qatar. 

She highlighted ways in which climate change will, and is already, impacting food security in the world's most vulnerable regions: 

The United States continues to endure the worst drought to hit the country in over 50 years. Although conditions have improved, 53 percent of the US is still experiencing moderate or worse levels of drought. The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) projected last week that the drought will reduce the nation’s corn yield by 13 percent and soybean yield by 12 percent. As the world’s largest exporter of corn, soybean and wheat, this major disruption in U.S. supply is already having an impact on global food prices.

Is this summer a glimpse of what our future could look like under a changing climate, and what does that mean for the world’s poor who are disproportionately impacted by volatile food prices? What policy options are available to help avoid a repeat of the 2007-2008 food crisis? I sat down with FSE visiting scholar Thomas Hertel, an agricultural economist from Purdue University, to discuss these questions and related research as he wraps up his sabbatical year here at Stanford.

DEAN: The current drought has already had a dramatic impact on US corn prices, exceeding record highs of $8 a bushel. While American consumers are unlikely to feel the impacts until next year, the spike in corn prices has sparked debate over whether to drop or temporarily suspend US ethanol mandates to free up supply and ease the pressure on world food prices. In April, you published a paper in Nature Climate Change with Stanford environmental scientist Noah Diffenbaugh that looked at this very scenario.

How are current biofuel policies affecting the market’s ability to respond to extreme weather events like the current drought?

HERTEL: The remarkable thing about that paper is how timely it was. We predicted a volatile interplay between an extremely hot summer and the Renewable Fuel Standard for corn ethanol, and that is what we are now seeing, with the value of the mandates’ Renewable Identification Numbers (RINs) accruing greater value as the drought deepens. There are increasing calls for a waiver of the mandated 13.2 billion gallons of corn ethanol needed to meet this year’s federal renewable-fuel standards. This new source of demand (about 40 percent of production last year) has absorbed virtually all of the increased output the US has generated over the past eight years. By limiting the ability of commodity markets to adjust to yield fluctuations, biofuel mandates work in exactly the wrong direction. These price spikes are likely to be even larger in the future if these policies are not altered.

DEAN: In that same paper you warn that extreme weather events, like the current drought, are likely to become more common and potentially even more intense under a changing climate. To better understand the impacts of climate change on global agricultural production, trade, prices and poverty you have developed a global trade analysis model (GTAP), now used by over 10,000 members. Some of those results were published in a 2010 paper with FSE fellow David Lobell and FSE affiliated researcher Marshall Burke.

What have been some of the most interesting findings to come out of that model?

HERTEL: Prior to the publication of our 2010 paper in Global Environmental Change, most studies of climate change and poverty focused on the likely impact on prices and low income food consumers. Our paper was one of the first to examine the impact on wages and farm incomes. We found that low income farm households in regions of the world that are relatively less hard hit by climate change may actually benefit from the ensuing rise in world prices. Of course, low income consumers worldwide, as well as farmers in the regions hardest hit by climate change, such as Southern Africa and South Asia, will be hurt.

DEAN: Poor households in developing countries spend a disproportionately large amount of their disposable income on food. Even small price spikes can have a large impact.

What policies are needed to help protect the world’s poorest from price volatility?

HERTEL: This is an important question. Being a trade economist, I think immediately of trade policies and their role in improving or worsening the situation. From a global perspective, the best thing that can be done is for all regions of the world to share in the needed adjustments to events like the US drought of 2012. If all countries were to adjust their corn use by just a modest  amount, the shortfall could be accommodated more easily. However, the evidence from the 2007-2008 commodity crisis suggests that many countries – most notably India and China – responded to the crisis by adjusting border policies so as to shield domestic consumers from the price rise, thereby failing to share in the adjustment. This, in turn, made the world price rise larger and worsened the situation for low income households in other developing countries.

DEAN: In addition to focusing on climate change impacts on agriculture and poverty, you have a long-standing interest in agricultural impacts on the environment, and the role economics can play in mitigating agriculture’s destructive planetary impacts. The latter is particularly important given that agricultural production accounts for 70 percent of global freshwater consumption, 38 percent of total land use, and 14 percent of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions.

How are economic forces impacting the kind of farming we see today?

HERTEL: One of agriculture’s most important impacts on the environment has been its contribution to global greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs). Farming accounts for a disproportionate share of GHGs, including nitrous oxide emissions from fertilizer applications, methane emissions from livestock and paddy rice, as well as indirect emissions from the conversion of tropical forests to agricultural uses. There is little doubt that the globalization of agriculture has contributed to an acceleration of land conversion in some regions which had previously been insulated from world markets. New agricultural technologies offer great hope for moderating such GHG emissions – both by reducing the emissions intensity of agricultural production and by reducing the total amount of land required to feed the world. And there is evidence that more rigorous enforcement of restrictions on land conversion in places like the Amazon can have a tangible impact on global emissions. So the answer lies in a combination of investments, regulations and enforcement. We have explored the potential for agriculture and land-based mitigation policies to contribute to reduced GHG emissions – as well as the implications for food security – in a joint project with the UN-Food and Agriculture Organization. These findings are forthcoming in a paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

DEAN: While at Stanford, you have had the opportunity to work closely with climate and earth system scientists to conduct research on the energy-water-land-agriculture-climate nexus under the umbrella of John Weyant’s Integrated Assessment Modeling (IAM) project and with former Purdue colleague, Noah Diffenbaugh.

How did you enjoy working in such an interdisciplinary environment?

HERTEL: This was the first deeply interdisciplinary experience of my career and it was both challenging and rewarding. Noah is the person who first stimulated my research interest in climate change five years ago. The idea that extreme events could have an important impact on agriculture, food prices and poverty is something that we have been exploring intensively since that time. However, it was only in the context of this sabbatical—with the help of Martin Scherer and Monika Verma—that we were able to really get our teeth into the issue, resulting in the April paper.

DEAN: You also taught an interdisciplinary graduate seminar with FSE fellow David Lobell on global agricultural land use change in 2050.

What sort of lessons did you learn from teaching an interdisciplinary seminar?

HERTEL: I really enjoyed the opportunity and the challenge of teaching an interdisciplinary course. I was fortunate to work closely with David Lobell in designing this course, as the structure was different from the typical economics course which I have taught in the past. Teaching the course also changed my perspective on which research questions are most important. Sometimes the points that most intrigue economists are of little broader relevance, while some of those issues which seem obvious to economists are deserving of much greater attention, more thorough investigation and better communication to the broader scientific community. I plan to offer this course when I return to Purdue, and I am also planning to write a textbook based on this course.

DEAN: You have also been working on the launch of an open source data program called GEOSHARE (Geospatial, Open-Source Hosting of Agriculture, Resources and Environmental Data).

What does GEOSHARE do and why is it needed?

Hertel: Feeding 9 billion people in 2050 in the face of a changing climate, while preserving the environment and eliminating extreme poverty, is one of the most important challenges facing us today. Yet the data currently available to understand how global and local phenomena affect the agriculture-environment-poverty nexus are insufficient to advance needed discovery and enable effective decision making. In order to address this limitation, we have initiated GEOSHARE. During my time at Stanford I was able to finalize funding for a two-year pilot effort aimed at providing proof of concept. It will prototype this freely available, global, spatially explicit database which will be accompanied by analysis tools and training programs for new scientists, decision makers, and development practitioners.

What will you take away with you from your time spent here on the Farm?

HERTEL: I greatly enjoyed my colleagues and conducting research, auditing courses (including a course in Geographical Information Science and David Lobell’s course in Climate and Agriculture) and teaching. But I also had great fun cycling and hiking in the hills around Palo Alto, windsurfing, singing in a local choir, and partaking of all that San Francisco has to offer. This is a lovely place to spend a sabbatical leave!

Indonesia’s rainforests are among the world’s most extensive and biologically diverse environments. They are also among the most threatened. An increasing population and growing economy have led to rapid development. Logging, mining, colonization, and subsistence activities have all contributed to deforestation.

But the recent and booming expansion of palm oil plantations could cause the most harm to the rainforests, and is generating considerable concern and debate among industry leaders, environmental campaigners and scholars.

Joanne Gaskell in Sumatra, Indonesia.

Joanne Gaskell has dedicated her graduate studies to better understanding the tradeoffs and demand side of this dilemma. The doctoral candidate and researcher for the Center on Food Security and the Environment recently defended her thesis before an audience of advisers, friends, and fellow students from Stanford’s Emmett Interdisciplinary Program in Environment and Resources (E-IPER).

“You need to understand the economics and politics of palm oil demand if you want to understand the regional dynamics of oil production and associated environmental impacts,” Gaskell said. “From a conservation perspective, this is as important as understanding supply since demand patterns affect the incentives facing producers.”

In the past 25 years, palm oil has become the world’s leading source of vegetable oil. Indonesia is currently the world’s top palm oil producer. Since the 1980s total land area planted to palm oil has increased by over 2,100 percent growing to 4.6 million hectares – the equivalent of six Yosemite National Parks. Plantation growth has predominately occurred on deforested native rainforest with major implications for global carbon emissions and biodiversity.

And Gaskell projects the demand for palm oil for food will double by 2035, requiring more than 8 million new hectares for production. Plantation expansion has already begun in Kalimantan and Papua, and Indonesian companies are now looking beyond Indonesia for new investment opportunities. Just as palm oil production spread from Malaysia to Indonesia to escape rising land and labor costs, palm oil production is now spreading to parts of Africa, where the crop is native, and Latin America.

Demand for palm oil is quickly rising in Asian markets – notably India and China – where it is used for cooking and industrial processes. Indonesia has the highest level of per capita palm oil consumption, resulting not just from population and income growth, but also from government policies that promoted the use of palm oil instead of coconut cooking oil.

“Taste preferences and investment more than international prices have driven palm oil demand in Indonesia,” Gaskell said.

Biodiesel production and speculation have also contributed to the rapid expansion of palm oil plantations, but to a lesser extent. Gaskell said the success of palm-based biodiesel hinges on remaining cheaper than petroleum diesel and whether governments subsidize the industry, as the United States has done with corn and soybean farmers.

Interest in palm oil as a cleaner burning fuel is already waning in Europe and the United States. The short-term carbon costs of deforesting and preparing land, fertilizing and managing the crops, then processing and transporting them outweigh the benefits. This is particularly true when palm oil plantations are grown on peat soils that release potent methane gas when drained for growing palm oil.

Palm oil seedlings ready for planting. Photo credit: Wakx/flikr

Growing plantations on ‘degraded land’, land that had been previously converted for other purposes, such as logging, is a much more favorable option over forest expansion. In theory, there is an abundance of degraded areas that can be profitably converted into palm oil plantations. But there are hurdles: The areas are not necessarily contiguous, making it difficult to organize a plantation, and ownership rights in these areas are often contested.

Palm oil’s considerable productivity and profitability offers wealth and development where help is most needed. Half of Indonesia’s population lives on less than $2 a day. But along with the negative ecological impacts, palm oil production increases competition for land and could exacerbate inequalities between the rich and the poor.

Gaskell believes sustainable expansion strategies are possible, and says smaller mills and different processing technologies are needed so production is affordable in scaled-down, more distributed systems.

Palm oil plantation in Cigudeg, Indonesia. Photo credit:  Achmad Rabin Taim/flickr

Her work is feeding an international conversation about palm oil production. The Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO), an international organization of producers, distributors, conservationists and other stakeholders, has promoted better ways of managing palm oil production and encouraging transparency and dialogue among corporate players, governments, and NGOs.

“We need to protect the most ecologically valuable landscapes from agricultural production and we need to make sure that, in areas where palm oil agriculture occurs, there are ecological management strategies in place such as riparian buffers, wildlife corridors, and treatment systems for mill effluent,” she said. “From a food security perspective, small palm oil producers, who might be giving up rice production or the production of other food staples, need strategies to minimize the economic risk associated with fluctuating global palm oil prices.” 

Commentary on Hans Binswanger-Mkhize's symposium on "India 1960-2010: Structural change, the rural non-farm sector and the prospects for agriculture". The symposium is part of a 2-year, 12-lecture series on Global Food Policy and Food Security.

Commentary on Hans Binswanger-Mkhize's symposium on "India 1960-2010: Structural change, the rural non-farm sector and the prospects for agriculture". The symposium is part of a 2-year, 12-lecture series on Global Food Policy and Food Security.