 I can't think of anyone more appropriate to give a major speech here at CSIS on global food security in the American interest. And so, Senator Johans, it's my distinct pleasure to ask you to come up and address us. Thank you so much. Please join me. Well, thank you very much. It is good to be here. Thank you for the kind introduction. You've got everything right, and that's kind of impressive. I appreciate that. There are actually, ladies and gentlemen, there is a story behind the fact that I ran for mayor, ran for reelection, and I was unopposed. Here's the story. I kept saying that, you know, at the end of the day, somebody's going to file to run against me, but it wasn't happening, and it wasn't happening. Now, newspapers hate that. They just hate the fact that a politician would get a free pass, so the Lincoln Journal Star actually did a story in an editorial saying, we can't let this happen. The mayor needs competition, so I thought, oh, gosh, after that, there'll be 10 people that will file. Well, we're now down to the last week, and nobody filed. And finally, the last day, at 5 o'clock, I called the election commissioner's office. Anybody filed? Nobody had filed. I was going to run unopposed, so that evening, I went home to my wife, Stephanie, maybe a little bit too full of myself, you know? When I said to her, I said, Steph, can you believe this? Isn't this impressive? No one's going to take me on. No one's going to challenge me in this mayor's race. And she said to me, she said, Mike, did it ever occur to you that maybe no one else wants this job? So, you know, it did occur to me after that. Well, again, thanks for the nice introduction. I am so impressed by CSIS in what you do here. I thank you for your efforts. You shine a spotlight on development in advanced U.S. efforts in this arena. This room is filled with people who do the same. Today in my comments, what I would like to do is focus specifically on the crucial role in a very foundational role that agriculture plays. As the introduction indicated, I do come from the great state of Nebraska. If you've ever driven across the state, you know what we are known for. We raise a lot of corn and cattle. You would see that in our state, known for a lot of other things, but we do that well. Even though we're landlocked in the middle of the United States, Nebraska farmers, I guarantee you, always think globally. There's a simple reason for that. At our borders, we know that markets are growing. Nebraskans love to see developing countries go through the dietary transition that occurs when standards of living improve. After all, it's a market, and it's a market for products we grow very well. Many countries will become a market for beef, pork, soybeans, or corn. And like other Americans, Nebraskans are heartbroken when we see the kind of poverty that does exist in our world. Of course, we see the images just like you do of malnourished children and families who are suffering through wars, disasters, other tragedies that are desperate for food, and our hearts do go out to them. Real food security is one of the most important challenges of the 21st century. Very good friend of mine from the state of Iowa, Chuck Grassley, always says that we are about seven meals away from complete chaos. Think about that. If you missed the next seven meals and had no prospect of where you were going to eat next, you can imagine the chaos that would reign. It is a truism that we have a moral obligation to do everything we can to end starvation, to end hunger. But what does that specifically mean in practice? How do we get from that goal, that desired goal, to food in the mouths of the hungry around the world? And what about the nutritional needs of our fellow Americans right here within our borders? It is true that we have poverty and food securities, food insecurity right here. But it's also true that we devote tens of billions of dollars annually to addressing hunger here at home with a number of programs that make a huge difference. We also have institutions. We have established programs. We have charity networks that partner with government to do all we can to feed the hungry. Instead of governments that provide the basic institutions necessary for thriving food markets, in many parts of the world, what other countries experience is rampant corruption or lack of knowledge and the resources to lay the foundation. People can't get help from their communities, why? Because their neighbors also have nothing. In other places, disasters, wars, disease, drought, disrupt production, they disrupt markets, allowing hunger to take root. Now for a long, long time, for decades, the United States has provided food assistance to the needy around the world. We do what we can. I will tell you as Secretary of Agriculture, I saw firsthand the benefits of our food aid programs. I can tell you with memory, being, I was hugged by hundreds of young women in Guatemala who attended school but ate every day because of our programs. I've been inspired by the newfound confidence of women in Africa who are able to feed their families and talk to me about a better life that they are providing to their kids because we taught them cropping practices. I've been humbled by the immense gratitude of Iraqi farmers who are learning in the midst of war, literally, how to create successful agricultural operations to provide food and jobs in a war-torn country. I've been literally moved to tears by the touching stories and expressions of gratitude from those who are surviving, and in some cases, I might add thriving thanks to U.S. aid and development efforts. Our programs do a lot of good around the world. It's difficult to believe these efforts constitute less than 1% of all federal spending. It is a minor investment that we are making. That 1%, though, is returned to us tenfold in appreciation and affection and sometimes markets. You can see the dollars making a real difference. And I might also add that investment is an important diplomatic tool. In the atmosphere in Washington these days, we tend to forget how important that diplomatic tool is. It shows that the American people care about the most basic needs of people who live in poverty in the world. Now, the centerpiece of our food aid program is Food for Peace. It provides both emergency and non-emergency food aid. All food purchased through this program is basically required to come from the United States. I am off or sending the highest quality food to others in need, but I also recognize that sometimes logistics mean that we miss the crisis when we have this requirement and when we miss the crisis, people die. So when I was Secretary of Agriculture, I proposed allowing up to 25% of our food aid purchases come from that locality that needed the food or somewhere in that vicinity. The goal was not to mitigate the contribution of U.S. farmers. That contribution is important. But the goal was to make Food for Peace a more effective federal program in responding to emergencies and saving lives. Well, ladies and gentlemen, I can tell you I still carry the scars from that proposal. It was a bridge too far for Congress. I spoke about it all over the country to ag groups, did my very, very best to convince them that we really did need to do this, but I have to tell you we didn't get very far, although I was able to get a pilot program. In the most recent Farm Bill, which we passed just a few months ago, we managed to make that pilot program permanent with an 80 million authorization. I applaud the Obama administration because they haven't given up. They think this is important too, and basically now they're making the same proposal that I made when I was Secretary, and I support what they're doing. So step by step, we are making some progress in modernizing our marquee food aid program. But at the end of the day, food aid alone is not going to be enough to solve long-term hunger or poverty. It does address an immediate need, and I recognize that. And of course, that's important. Without us, people do live or die. It's that simple. But it does not prevent the need from reoccurring, and we know that. People who are fed today will be hungry again tomorrow unless circumstances change. And we have to change those circumstances. True food security will never happen without long-term changes in both food and insecure countries. This requires a number of things, basic things that quite honestly, we were applying to our farming practices when I grew up on that dairy farm in northern Iowa during the 50s and 60s. This requires better crop production capabilities, better supply change, and most importantly, better governance. If you cannot build upon better governance, it's not likely to happen. So let me take this opportunity for the second time to praise a program developed by the Obama administration. Now, I oftentimes don't make that statement. I sometimes agree with, disagree with the Obama administration. But let's give credit where credit is due. The administration's Feed the Future initiative is an innovative approach to food assistance. It's based upon a simple, straightforward, timeless principle that if you give a man a fish, he'll eat for that day. But if you teach him to fish, then he eats for the lifetime. Many farmers in the developing world, they know how to farm. It is a part of their background. But they need access to modern seeds, equipment, and markets if they are really going to survive and thrive in a global economy. Feed the Future helps farmers access private sector resources, and most importantly, develop their capacity. Let me step back for a moment and let's consider the challenge that we are facing. The UN projects that the global population will reach in the vicinity of 9 billion people around 2050 and remain near that level for the next couple of centuries. Contemplate that. This, of course, means 2 billion more miles to feed. But what you don't hear about those 2 billion people, as well as the other 7 billion that are on the planet, is that we're also going to see and improve standard of living. As countries start working through the issues they face, standard of living will improve for people. What happens when that occurs? People generally are not satisfied with a diet that is limited to just staple grains. For example, in the past 50 years, South Korea's meat consumption has increased 10-fold. 10-fold. The vast majority of the world's population and the projected growth that we anticipate will be found in countries less wealthy than South Korea significantly so. As their standard of living improves, people will eat more meat from livestock raised on grain. Now, that trend is going to make a difference for a state like Nebraska as we are poised to sell into that marketplace. Our farmers and ranchers are going to constantly improve their efficiency. But that can't be the only story about agriculture in the 21st century. We also have to make sure that the abundance is available to everyone. Now, as you know, that's easier said than done. Extreme poverty has been around a long, long time. But in the past century, we have seen remarkable strides. We shouldn't minimize that. US innovation and commitment to the cause of ending hunger has played a leading role. I first visited Africa in 2005, thereabouts. I've continued to go back to Africa many, many times over the years. I continue to be impressed by the progress that is being made in country after country there. US innovation and commitment has made a big difference. One of the most influential Americans in this regard was actually an Iowa farm boy. Grew up in a little community or near a little community called Cresco, Iowa. I grew up just down the road in Osage, Iowa. Two weeks ago, we celebrated the unveiling of a statue of this great American. His name is Dr. Norman Borlaug. An inscription on that statue reads, quote, the man who saved a billion lives, the man who saved a billion lives. Now, ladies and gentlemen, that is quite a legacy. Dr. Borlaug spent much of his life in developing countries. He was in his 90s when I met him as the US Secretary of Agriculture, one of the greatest thrills of my lifetime. And he was still traveling all over the world. He used science and he used technology to develop plant genetics that would thrive in local conditions and could be used by local farmers. He developed wheat varieties that allow countries with large populations like Mexico, India, Bangladesh to actually have an opportunity to achieve abundance. This is a model we must not only follow but we must continue to build upon and expand. How do we go about doing that? We must look ahead to the challenges that will serve as barriers. One of them is water. Water is the story of agriculture in our future. Well, enter a program that I'm very proud of in my home state. It's the Water for Food Institute at the University of Nebraska. We talked about it before we came in here. Our state, we've had to learn how to ensure that we use water appropriately if we are going to raise our crops. The Institute is using knowledge to innovate and to lead the way in finding solutions to sustainable water management. That's not only gonna benefit us here in the United States and back in my home state, but it will have a huge benefit worldwide. Unfortunately, there are those who lack understanding of the life potential or the real life changing potential. GMOs, animal drugs, a whole group of scientific items have moved us a step closer to ending hunger. We'll need all of the technologies to produce enough food and ensure food is safe. Just imagine if Norman Borlaug had stopped from developing wheat varieties that literally changed the world. One billion lives saved, one billion lives. Mothers who watched their children grow into be healthy adults instead of what would have watched them die of starvation. Farmers who harvested enough wheat to feed their communities instead of struggling to feed their families. Ladies and gentlemen, I would suggest that we need to embrace technology. It increases productivity. We need to embrace it for what it is, a piece of the solution. It's not the whole story. I'm not here today to argue that. Producing enough food is a first vital step, but clearly more is needed. The next element is better supply chains. Sometimes those supply chains will be just a couple of miles and sometimes they'll be 1,000 miles into another continent. In many parts of the world, a well-balanced nutritious meal is nearly impossible without global supply chains. This is the basic theory of international economics that countries specialize based upon comparative advantage, providing more for everyone. Nebraska can produce tasty beef, but I will tell you, I would not recommend a Nebraska pineapple. Advancing trade is very much a part of our effort to end hunger. When I sat at the negotiating table as Secretary of Agriculture during the Doha Round, development was only a part of the conversation interestingly enough. When you think about it, it needed to be more. Why? It's the very essence of what the Doha Round is about. It was called the Doha Development Agenda. Those negotiations provide a lesson in patience, that's for sure, but the US must continue to participate in the global trade conversation. Expanding the global supply chain requires transitions that are sometimes resisted, not only here, but across the world. As subsistence farming gives way to larger scale agriculture, that's more capable of feeding the world, all of us must adapt. I saw something similar happen when I was growing up. I loved to think about my years on that Iowa dairy farm. It was 160 acres, but with more technology and know-how, we began to realize that surviving on 160 acres wasn't going to be possible. Today, less than 2% of Americans are farmers, less than 2%, but they produce more than enough food for our needs. What happened? What happened between that time on that dairy farm and today? Well, science continually improved genetics, fertilizers, equipment, know-how, distribution channels, everything improved. That's part of a successful development strategy. It's no secret that another part of that strategy is to inspire improved governance in many countries that receive aid. A structured, accountable, and transparent system of government protects against corruption and builds infrastructure. That's exactly what the Millennium Challenge is all about. I'm a big fan. I know you are too, so I won't take more time on that topic other than to note it and to say, setting goals for countries that receive our aid is very important and it can make a difference. We are very fortunate in this country to have truly dedicated public servants and I want to end there today. If there would be one way of wrapping up and saying what made the difference over time, I'm sure it's all of the things I've mentioned, but I've worked with people at USDA, USAID, MCC, these people have a passion for what they're doing in the world, otherwise they would not do it. I applaud them. We need that passion. We need that goodwill and we need that vision to really make a difference and we also need you. We need people who care about this issue. One last thought, as I was thinking about my last months in the United States Senate, it occurred to me that we needed to do more with just the basic aid programs. Those programs have been cut over time. So I put in a proposal that basically says, look, let's look at the last 10 years funding. Let's increase the funding to the average of those 10 years. It would be an important step in the right direction. With that, I thank you for your patience. I thank you for the opportunity to speak. God bless you all. Well, thank you very much, Senator. That was just really tremendous. I, you've agreed to take one or two questions from the audience. So if people want to raise their hands, I'll call on a couple of folks. If not, I've got a couple of people in mind that I will call otherwise. So I see my friend Doug Faulkner in the audience. I'd love to hear from my friend Doug Faulkner. We've got a microphone. We could bring it to my friend, Mr. Faulkner. And then, who else? And my, this woman up here, these two folks. So Doug Faulkner and this woman up in the front row will take questions from those two folks. Mr. Secretary, good to see you again. It is so good to see you. I see USDA friends in the crowd, and it's great to see you. Thank you for your service. I wonder if you could ruminate a little bit about the role positive or negative the biofuels could play in the developing world to build an agricultural sector. We know what it's done here in America, but there's a lot of critics of that overseas, you know, the food versus fuel debate that you're very familiar with, I know. I'm very familiar with it. I have a long history with biofuels. When I was governor, I actually worked with our unicameral in an effort to do an incentive program actually to try to build some plants in Nebraska for ethanol. That was our main investment in biofuels. We were successful. We went from nowhere to be the second largest producer of ethanol in the United States. So I will just put that out there for you. You can see what my background is. I appreciate the food for fuel debate. I just studied just yesterday, the USDA figures on exports of corn. How much are we using here for cattle feed? How much are we using here for biofuels? Of course, there's no question about it. We have ramped up our use of that commodity over the last 10 years or so, corn to produce ethanol. Some would argue that that has not been a positive thing. Let me offer a thought on that. About the time I became Secretary of Agriculture in January 2005, a bushel of corn was selling for $2 a bushel, thereabouts. Now, for those who aren't quite as attuned to agriculture prices as I am, that is not break even. That is production at a loss. Now, I know of no business, farming, ranching, making widgets that can produce what they do very long at a loss and survive. So how is the United States dealing with that? That's the old farm programs. I could tell you three different ways we sent cash to farmers so they could withstand what was happening. Now, I will tell you that's not a workable economic model. So when farmers themselves were out there trying to identify how do I change this, it was only a natural that they were looking for alternative uses for corn. We had huge surplus, low prices, growing production. I mean, it was a perfect storm of bad things. Now, here's a thought I would offer. There's the next step here. I argued as Secretary of Agriculture, and I'm not sure my corn growers always appreciated this, that the next step cellulosic ethanol, that there would be a day, I would say, to the corn producers in Nebraska where we will move ethanol in a different direction and it won't occur overnight, but it will use other products that maybe are waste to us today that will create ethanol. The vision kind of stopped when we plateaued, and the plateau for ethanol was when we ended up filling the 10% blend on fuel because it replaced a product called MTBE for clean air reasons, and we went to ethanol, but now we've filled up that 10%, and we've kind of plateaued. Recent EPA ruling causes me a great deal of concern because they changed the renewable fuel standard, and I think it's a message to the industry to stand down, if you will, not grow the industry anymore. I just think if you look at this, a part of the puzzle is to take that next step, take some of the pressure off of what we've seen over the years in terms of corn. Last thing I'll mention though, in terms of the impact on the rest of the world, a few years ago when corn was $7 a bushel, boy, this is really a farmer talking here today, then everybody was really feeling the agony and the pain, but what else was happening? Why did corn get to $7 a bushel, draw it across the corn belt? Now it was a very easy thing to pick ethanol and say that's the reason, that's the culprit, we've got to stop the culprit here and then we'll fix this problem. What's corn today? It's been anywhere from $4 to $5. If we have a big production year across the corn belt, you could see corn below $4. That's now with increased input costs getting close to the cost of production. So there's a balance, but sometimes mother nature throws us a curve ball and all I'm saying to the group here is make sure you recognize it's a curve ball before you swing at the fastball. The curve ball here was drought. It really was. Every place, every piece of the corn belt was hit by this severe drought and that really was what was driving higher corn prices. Therefore, you were seeing higher prices. Last thing I'll mention, we're going to see some aftershock here. Why? Because cattle numbers went down. There is a virus in the pork industry today that is just killing tens of thousands of piglets, baby pigs. You're going to see that in higher pork prices. How high? Time will tell. But all I can tell you again, before we rush sometime this year to blame or to swing at the fastball, make sure that it's not a curve ball and quite honestly this year because of that aftershock of the drought and that issue affecting pork production in the United States, you could see some pressure on higher meat prices. So you have to factor it all in. Hi Senator, Emily Cadet with Aussie Media. And you mentioned technology and I was curious to get your thoughts about saline agriculture and people who have been working to develop various types of plants and agricultural techniques, growing seeds from varying levels of water with saline in it. I've heard from some people they sort of view this as the silver bullet for food security. I'm curious what your thoughts are on that. I'm absolutely open to what you're seeing. I think about my life in agriculture. You know, I was kind of the first generation where pretty much everything was done with tractor versus horses. In fact, I remember growing up, there was still a farmer that farmed with horses in our neighborhood. The last one and I got to experience that. The technology you're talking about, I think has potential. We need to develop it. We need to think our way through that and put some investment behind it. So I wouldn't splash cold water on that potential at all. I do think there's potential, but I would also say it's not alone. I think there's other opportunities. There's other things going on that offer huge, huge potential. Senator, thank you so much for being here. Thank you. You have votes. Thank you. Please join me in thanking Senator Johans. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I guess my panel colleagues to join me up here on the stage. So I want to thank again Senator Johans. I thought that was really a tremendous address. And we're very fortunate here at CSIS to have had Senator Johans, but I want to recognize the hard work of my colleagues, Joanna Nessa-Tuttle and Anna Appelfield for really starting the food security program here at CSIS. They launched a congressional task force on food security with Senator Luger and Senator Casey about five years ago to look at the response to the global food price crisis. And they've done a series of initiatives around trade and markets, agriculture, research, and extensions, as well as the role of the private sector. And so I think this speech and the conversation we're going to be having, I think fits very nicely into the work that my friend Joanna Nessa, who has just left recently CSIS, but is still with us just across the street and at another at Chevron, but has helped us build. So I think it's very appropriate and fitting that we're having this discussion, given all the hard work that my colleagues have done here at CSIS. I think we've got a very interesting panel. I'm hoping each of my colleagues will make just some brief reflection comments, both on what the Senator had to say, as well as their perspective on this issue of global food security and the American interest. And then we might, I've got a couple of questions for the panel, then we'll open it up for questions. And this has been a very patient audience and I'll make sure we get a chance to get some Q and A from the panel. I'm gonna start first with my friend Peter McPherson, who used to be the head of USAID and was the founder of the partnership to Cut Hunger in Africa, Peter. I'd like to pick up on the Senator's comments as to the critical role of research in driving the solution to these food production and related issues toward 2050. Clearly, this has become, always was, but even more so, a very complex problem because not only do we have to increase the agriculture production, but we've got to do so in the context of probably water scarcity, prices of energy unknown, and a carbon footprint. So all that needs to go together is a set of complex demanding technological issues. But I do think that the innovation in technology is the only way we're gonna achieve these ends. I mean, there's other matters, education of women, availability of credit, numbers of things that go into making this all work. But in my mind, the technology, for example, the Green Revolution technology was key to make everything else feasible, for example. So how does that technology effort work? It's clearly gonna be a global effort. And there are more players in this and there were a generation to go. Europe clearly has an important role. Let me leave the US to the end here because I've got further comments about more extensive comments about that. But the NARS, National Agriculture Research Centers of some key countries are major players of that in Brazil, a very significant international player at this juncture, India. We hope we can have China certainly doing some and probably more. We need to get them drawn in deeper into this global set of players, South Africa. I can see Nigeria emerging and some other major countries with the resources to really get things done. The other developing countries will have a role and particularly on some of the adaption work and that their institutions, their people are key as well. In fact, a comment or two about these developing countries. I think we know from a lot of good research and analytical work that human resources are just a critical component of being able to not just create but take advantage of technology. And AID for a long time was producing, was had as many as 18,000 people or so a year to this country for long-term training that's virtually disappeared and has now for some time. And that's an important, but the education, long-term education, not just short-term training is important building but it's education here in Europe but it's also building the universities in places like Africa, various countries of Africa. For a long time, USAID was putting a lot of effort into this, many of you know some particular institutions that were built from India to Brazil to Nigeria and so forth, much of that direct building of institutional work is not being done now and it's my hope that we can get back into that. Africa, by the way, has five times more higher education students than it did 25 years ago. I mean, just think if the institution you went to was five times bigger than it was 25 years ago. So there's a great deal of work to do here. Now, let me talk about the U.S. contribution. Clearly, the U.S. universities, not just to land grants but the whole set of institutions, I was President of Michigan State for a long time and I became very accustomed to think of my college of agriculture as not being an agriculture college but really a science college. And I think that's the way to think about a college of agriculture these days. The land grant, but now many land grants have very strong biology in other programs. So it's the university effort here but we must recognize that a great deal particularly of the application, adaption research in this country and abroad too is done by the private sector. So the relationships with the universities and the private sector is just key. I think that USDA and AID are critical players in that research. I'm pleased to see NIFA, which is the goal of NIFA and USDA is to have a NIH NSF kind of competitive grant program. We're not quite there, but that's certainly the goal. And I think that's important. It is to be not just food, but nutrition, health kind of broadly defined. I'm intrigued to see what will happen to this couple hundred million dollar matching fund included in this last piece of legislation. I think it, when you, I should have mentioned by the way globally the CGIR International Agriculture Research System which is now moved from about 500 million a year to about a billion dollars a year. It's now a, this has happened the last four or five years this increase of support from donors, gates and others. So there are these various players around the world and there's a little more coherence to this than we might think, but I don't think enough actually. And I believe that the work of Margaret's organization with her GAP reports and several other reports that try to make some greater coherence out of this are important. I also might mention here that the World Food Prize annual as you know, I'll know as a prize that is announced every year almost always to a scientist that has made a huge impact on production Borlaug. Borlaug founded this World Food Prize actually, but Ken Quinn, the head of the World Food Prize Organization in October announced the creation of a panel that would annually, of international experts would annually give a report on the priorities as seen by that global panel of experts on research. I think we need, we don't have a place right now that regularly gives us some priorities. That panel won't have a report in October, but by a year from October, I think it will. This will be called the Borlaug report. When Norm was alive, he was sort of our person that would point out the key priorities for us, the wheat rust, some of you remember that set of issues, but we need a place that's respected that the global community has supports as a central point to regularly report on what the priorities are. We can debate them, but to give some real ump to this. Now let me mention, and let me mention one other point. I, and I'll close with this, two weeks ago as a senator made reference to, the Borlaug statue was unveiled on Capitol Hill. It was a great event. It was interesting when I, just to decide when I was administrator of AID, now this is a long time ago, this was in the 80s, there was less than a handful of sort of then grand old statesmen who used to call me up and tell me what I should do, which was wonderful actually, and some of you remember Jim Grant at UNICEF and Norm Borlaug was one of those people, but I, so I've, to say he was a friend, I think he was a good intellectual leader for me for sure. But as I saw that unveiling there and by the few hundred people there in the room all moved by the Borlaug impact, a billion people, it's just incredible. But what's followed was that you had a bipartisan excitement about this. You had Harry Reid, Senator McConnell, Speaker Boehner, and Nancy Pelosi, minority leader Pelosi all stand up and all remember that Borlaug had been given this congressional medal a few years ago. They all remember that they'd all been there and all talked about how critical agriculture research was in the Green Revolution and it was so critical to achieve the 2050 goals, to be able to feed the world in 2050. And I thought to myself, this is a wonderful thing. There aren't many bipartisan excitements in this town. And I think, Dan, that I came back and talked to some of my colleague, presidents of, who are former Ag Deans and so forth. I don't have the idea developed at all, but I think there's a Borlaug initiative here someplace, Margaret. I really do. We've got, and I don't think it's necessarily a huge amount more money, but we ought to pull together how the US government sees and works together. You've got department of energy that does a lot of work on food. In fact, Michigan states have a long-time center, plant breeding center funded by USDA. USDA obviously does, but so too does NSF. There's a number of places and some of the other, we ought to pull together a US vision that not only helps meet US needs, but is a global vision. I suggest this idea more than having concrete thoughts about it so far, but when I saw up there, these four leaders, each with some meaning. Usually you can sort of know when a politician gives a speech that somebody else prepares for them, right? This was real, I thought. Thank you. Peter, we're happy to host a conversation about that. I'm gonna follow up with you about that, and Joanna, if you're watching this online, I'm gonna call you and get you involved with this as well. But I think that's very intriguing, and we're gonna wanna follow up with you about this. Margaret Ziegler, thanks for being here. I thought, given what Peter McPherson was saying about speeches that people give, that they mean them or that they're canned, I thought that was a speech from the heart from Senator Johans and someone who really knows what he's talking about, and it was a real privilege to have him here, but you're also someone who knows what they're talking about on hunger and food security. You've been doing this for a long time. You're the executive director of the Global Harvest Initiative. I hope you'll tell folks what it is, but then you had a past life at the Congressional Hunger Center. Tell us about what the Global Harvest Initiative is and talk about the GAP report and just some of your reflections about Senator Johans' speech. Thank you, Dan, and thank you all, and thanks to Joanna Ness of the Tuttle, who also I've been collaborating with here at CSIS in the last year and a half, two years, since I joined Global Harvest Initiative. And I'm glad you mentioned, again, Dr. Borlaug, because when I think of him, not only was he a visionary man who was able to really identify those priorities, the strategic priorities, but he had the vision and the purpose and the drive then to get into the field and actually start working on those things and mobilizing so many other people, bringing so many disparate people together to make that vision real. And it really was a wonderful week that we had a couple of weeks ago celebrating his life and legacy. He was an inspiration to me as well. And I think the other thing that Borlaug always did was he included the private sector because for many, many years, we kind of had put agriculture development in this kind of place where it was a development activity, maybe. And I think one of the trends I've seen in the last five to 10 years is really that pulling in the private sector expertise to solve these problems and these challenges that farmers have not only in the US, but everywhere around the world. This is a problem that we need to solve with universities, with international research institutes, like the CGIR, with the public sector, USAID, State Department, international entities like the FAO, EFAD, the World Food Program, and of course, developing country governments themselves. And I think Senator Johans hit on the importance of this multi-sectoral approach to solve these problems. The Global Harvest Initiative came about after the food price crisis in 2007, 2008, when we had this extreme volatility in global grain markets and food markets. And our member companies are from a private sector. They include Accenture and DuPont, Elanco, John Deere, Monsanto, and we're joined by 10 consultative partner organizations. I see some of you in the room here today, the Inter-American Institute for Cooperation and Agriculture, World Wildlife Fund, the Nature Conservancy, ACDI VOCA, and are among those, as well as the Water for Food Institute that Senator Johans mentioned. We are primarily not a programmatic organization. We are a private sector policy voice. And what I mean by that is, we pull together our member companies, as well as other experts and our consultative partners to really hone in on how can we improve global agricultural productivity? And one of the ways we draw attention to that is we issue an annual GAP report, our Global Agricultural Productivity Report, which we release each year at the World Food Prize in Des Moines. And we're a policy voice for that enabling environment, which really needs to be in place for development and agriculture and food security to happen. So yes, you can invest, but you're not gonna wanna invest unless you have some certainty about your investment and whether that's going to have a long-term impact in a country. And Senator Johans mentioned a number of the criteria and the enabling environment that needs to be in place for true food security to take place. And this is another trend I've seen, a real trend in leadership in the US government, both through the Millennium Challenge Corporation, through Feed the Future, through USAID and State Department's efforts, really honing in on what's that enabling environment, how can we get that right and partner with governments to make these things happen, to create an environment where the private sector can invest. Now, the Global Harvest Initiative has estimated that we really are going to need to look at doubling our agricultural output by 2050. Now, when I talk about doubling, I mean that includes food, feed, fiber, and fuel. These are all demands that the planet needs by 2050, not only because we have this larger population, as the Senator mentioned in his remarks, but because people are shifting from a lower-class lifestyle to a middle-class or middle-income lifestyle. Our GAP report points out one case of that in China, for example. Currently, the middle-class population is about close to 300 million, which is almost a little smaller than the size of the entire United States. About 20 years ago, the middle class in China was about one million. And we can expect by 2030, the middle class of China will reach close to 900 million people. So what is this going to do in terms of food demand, not just food, but fiber, feed, fuel, all of these uses of agricultural products? So our advocacy point really is to meet these demands of a growing world. We really need to produce more, but we need to do it with less. We need to get at those productivity enhancements that are going to, in essence, freeze the footprint of agricultural production. Using the same amounts of water today, the same amounts of land, less inputs, how can we produce that, that which we are going to need by 2050? That's kind of what we're getting at. That's the focus of our work. And each year we provide a focus on this, using different cases. In this coming year, we're going to look very closely at the case of India to illustrate policy, innovation, and technology in the case of India to produce more with less and to get at that total factor productivity that we need countries to think about adopting. So the final thing I'll say, and then hopefully I'll be able to share a little bit later, maybe some Q and A, some examples of our member companies and some of their public-private partnerships. But there are five key policy areas we try to bring attention to in all of our work. The first one is really involving the private sector in investing in agriculture and rural infrastructure development. FAO came out with a study a few years ago that demonstrated a need for about more or less $80 billion a year, a gap in that investment to realize improved productivity in agriculture and food security. And so one of the sources of that will increasingly have to be the private sector. A second key policy area for us is investing in public agriculture research and development systems. While the private sector does invest in a lot of private research in the ag space, we feel as even as private sector organizations that public research is really important and it's been on the decline frankly and it needs to be brought back up. That public investment is key for research pipelines. It's also key for taking those innovations and then adapting them to local contexts and needs. A third policy area that we advocate is, and Senator Johans mentioned this in his speech, embracing different technologies along the value chain that includes science-based technologies and information technologies. Mobile phone technology, data technology, improved genetics of livestock and seeds, and improved irrigation technologies. All of those are things that must be embraced and adopted. Fourth, we advocate very much on behalf of international development assistance programs. We believe along with the Senator, as he mentioned as remarks, that we need to get back up the levels of investment in our international development assistance and make sure that it's closely coordinated so that you get the most impact for it. And finally, our fifth policy area is opening up regional and global trade opportunities, particularly for agriculture. We have written recently a paper on this and my colleague here has a couple copies of that. You can also find a number of our products, infographics, research papers, all on our website. So we'd like to serve as a resource. So please visit our website, which is globalharvestinitiative.org. For copies of the GAP report, you can get there as well as our policy papers. And hopefully we'll have some time to talk about maybe specific public-private partnerships during the Q&A. Good. I want to hear from my friend, Jonathan Schreiber, who's the acting special representative of the Office of Global Foods Curia. It's very appropriate that he's on this panel, given some of the remarks that Peter McPherson made about trying to, how do we bring together the whole of government and think about this? And I just, before you speak, I just want to signal to all of you that to the panel that I'd like to, to you be thinking about a couple of questions from me so that you're, one is around this issue of governance that came up in the speech. And I want, Jonathan, I won't ask you to speak to this now, but I want to just signal Margaret and Peter. And then I'd like to hear from all three of you about the issue of food waste. And how do you think about food waste, because I think it's one of the big challenges that didn't come up in Senator Johan's speech, but it's something that is part of the food, security, and agricultural development conversation. So, Jonathan, I won't ask you to respond to that now, but those will be my two questions for you all, and then I'll open it up. So, Jonathan, the floor is yours. Great. Thank you. Well, so I'm from the government and I'm here to help. And I'm also from the leadership team of Feed the Future, the whole of government food security initiative that was launched by President Obama in his first year in office. And President Obama really did focus attention on the challenge of hunger, literally in his first hour in office, in his first inaugural address, when he said that the U.S. would be there to help the world's hungry. Now, this is a commitment that the U.S. has had over time and certainly Feed the Future, the U.S. food security initiative, is built on foundations laid during the Bush administration and before. But what we've really seen happening over the past several years has been very exciting and it's been a ramping up of global attention at higher and higher levels to the challenge of hunger and under nutrition throughout the world. So in 2009, the U.S. worked with the government of Italy and others to hold a meeting on the margins of the G8 summit in 2009 in Laquella, Italy, where we launched the Laquella Food Security Initiative. We've now had six years running where G8 leaders have focused attention in their declaration often in major new initiatives launched during the G8 on the problem of hunger and under nutrition in the world. And in Laquella, in 2009, leaders of the G8 and other governments came together to pledge more than $22 billion over three years in food security. And they also pledged to do business differently in this area by supporting country-led processes, priorities and strategies, by taking a comprehensive approach to ensuring food security, one that looked at the short-term issues, as Senator Johans mentioned, of feeding people today in refugee camps or in other circumstances where there's a food emergency, and also investing in the long-term solutions that enable people to either feed themselves by growing what they need or feed themselves by earning what they need, including through agriculture. And we also pledged to coordinate our efforts more effectively and to take advantage of the multilateral systems that exist. And so again, Peter mentioned CGIAR, the International Agricultural Research Consortium, but it goes far beyond this. Margaret mentioned a number of the international organizations, and we're looking at ways to strengthen that all the time. Again, there are new pieces of this effort coming into focus each year. It was two years ago in Mexico that the G20 launched the meeting of agricultural chief scientist, Peter, as an example of a way of trying to bring together our research priorities. And so USDA's chief scientist, agricultural chief scientist, is the US representative in that process. Feed the Future has done some modeling in this area of priorities by work done by USDA and USAID to develop a research agenda, which we very prominently publish and focus attention on in hopes that it will generate more harmonization of research agendas globally. So back to Laquella, we pledged, the US pledged $3.5 billion towards the cause of global food security over three years. And that's in terms of agricultural development assistance leaving aside food aid. And this funding served as the foundation money for Feed the Future. Feed the Future is now focusing its attention on 19 countries across Africa, Asia and Latin America where US investments in agricultural development and related fields are supporting these focus countries own priorities and strategies for achieving food security. And this is where we as a major donor are learning from some of the countries that we've been trying to help. So Feed the Future's approach of country led development is really inspired by the comprehensive Africa agricultural development program that the African Union leaders launched in 2003 where they committed that each of their countries over time would work to develop a national agricultural development strategy, a country investment plan for agriculture. And what we try to do in Feed the Future is align our investments behind their priorities so that we're working together towards a common set of priorities. And we've worked in other parts of the world to help countries develop catap-like plans, plans similar to the ones that were developed first in Africa. And we're achieving results. And first of all, I should say when we set out to achieve results it's always good to know what you're shooting for. We have some top-line targets for Feed the Future that give us that kind of sense of direction and ambition. We are aiming in the areas in which we work to reduce the prevalence of poverty by 20% over five years. And we're also aiming to reduce the prevalence of child stunting in the under five child population by 20% over five years. So, and this is because we know that when we, when people are able to earn enough money getting out of poverty they will be able to fill their bellies. So it aims at the hunger piece of this. We know that also people don't always fill their bellies with the right mix of foods and so they could still be undernourished and suffer from micronutrient deficiencies. And that's why we also have that child stunting target because it's one of the best indicators of sound nutrition. And so if we are able to help people to find ways to eat the right foods we'll be really solving the problem of food insecurity. And we're seeing results. We and our partners have made progress in reaching 9 million households that have benefited from Feed the Future investments across the 19 countries that I mentioned. More than 7 million farmers have applied new technologies or agricultural management practices to more than 4 million acres of farmland. And farmers working with Feed the Future saw their sales increase by $130 million since they started receiving support through the initiative. And U.S. nutrition programs have reached over 12 million children under the age of five. And here let me reinforce that we play special emphasis on improving nutrition among women and children especially during the 1,000 day window from pregnancy to a child's second birthday which is the period that science has shown that medical science has shown has the greatest importance for and impact on lifelong outcomes. We know that sound nutrition in this window can lead not only to better physical health for the person but also better cognitive capabilities and therefore as a package, a better ability to contribute to the prosperity of their household, their community and their country and indeed the world. And that's why in 2010 the United States joined with the government of Ireland and other partners to launch the 1,000 days partnership to focus attention on this effort and to support the scaling up nutrition movement that the United Nations Secretary General launched. We're also making progress in the funding area because collectively donors that committed, as I mentioned earlier, more than $22 billion towards the cause of global food security over three years we were able to report in 2012 that we exceeded that figure and for the U.S. we also more than met our pledge of $3.5 billion because now with the support of people in both parties in Congress and the American people we've been able to commit over $3.8 billion against our three year pledge and we're continuing to devote resources to feed the future at a sustained level. But this kind of public funding that development assistance represents is never gonna be enough. And there's been recognition growing that we really need to work on mobilizing private sector resources in the cause of development and this is equally true in the area of food security and nutrition. And this is why at the Camp David Summit in 2012 President Obama joined with G8 and African leaders as well as leaders of the private sector to launch the New Alliance for Food Security and Nutrition. The New Alliance is a partnership platform among the private sector, African societies, civil society, donors and international institutions to accelerate the implementation of CADAP, that's the Comprehensive Africa Agricultural Development Program that I mentioned, and specifically to catalyze responsible private investment and activity in African agriculture. And through these efforts, African societies have come together to commit to, African governments have committed to specific policy changes that are intended to improve the enabling environment for private sector activity and agriculture. Donors have committed to align their resources behind the priorities of the countries that we're working with, of the African countries involved. And private sector participants committed to make new investments in African agriculture in these countries. And we're making sure that these efforts are targeted towards helping, especially the millions of smallholder farmers in Africa, because the New Alliance is committed collectively to raising 50 million people out of poverty in Africa over 10 years. Now, that'll help with the problem, but the problem is still large. We have a world today, we heard that there are two million more people plus who are gonna be joining us by mid-century. We've got 842 million who are hungry now. But we can make a difference if we keep working together across sectors. I can tell you more, perhaps during the Q and A period about the ways we're working with the private sector to achieve greater progress in food security and nutrition. But I wanna emphasize that Feed the Future is eager for new partnerships in this area. And that's why on the Feed the Future website, www.feedthefuture.gov, we have a new section under the partnering tab for exploring opportunities for public-private partnerships for food security. And private sector firms that are interested should go to that website. And through a brief questionnaire, you can identify the kinds of activities you're interested in getting involved with in partnership with the U.S. government. And the 10 agencies of the U.S. government that are involved in Feed the Future will review your proposals or your information and get back to you in a very quick period of time, saving you time and money on shopping ideas to multiple agencies, and we'll be able to give you a better coordinated response on ways to partner with us. Because Feed the Future has an extensive track record of partnerships throughout many of the countries in which we work with a number of U.S. corporations that cite the example of DuPont in Ethiopia, where we're improving smallholder farmer productivity, working together with DuPont, the Ethiopian government and USAID to improve productivity and therefore incomes and food security. So let me stop there. Thanks, John, and thanks very much. Let me ask for brief responses to my question about food waste and the issue of governance. I think Jonathan touched on it around this issue of the enabling environment. And Margaret, if you would just give one example of one public-private partnership that is particularly apropos here given the conversation we've been having. I hope that in the Q and A we'll be able to draw out some others as well. But Peter, why don't we start with you? Talk about this issue of, when the Senator talked about the central issue of governance and what it means for food security, if you just briefly reflect on that, A, and then B, if you just give me some quick thoughts about this issue of food waste and how that plays into food security. Well, we know that security and reasonably sound economic policies are critical for growth, including agricultural production. We know that when a generation ago we began to move away from farm gate price controls in Africa and many other places, it was a real boost to production. So policies, security, governance, if you will, is often the gorilla in the room or you've got a wide open room to work with. Food waste is really complex because it's a matter of, it's a lot of things going into it. It's worth focusing on working at, but there aren't many, generally there aren't easy solutions. When we were able to get refrigeration, railroads, refrigerated railcars from the Midwest to the East Coast 100 years ago, it changed the economics of preservation of food and food production enormously. When we opened, the Erie Canal opened up the Midwest, my home state of Michigan, to for sales of wheat globally. And that was an effect for food preservation, but there aren't too many big Gregorian knots to cut. A lot of it is. So I think this is worth working at and we'll find some big answers, I'm sure, and a lot of little answers, but I am always a little uneasy at the percentages that people talk about on the assumption somehow or the other, we're gonna find a way to reduce food waste to 3% or something, because I don't think that's in the offing. Hey, Margaret. Well, just quickly on the food waste issue, there are some really wonderful examples in our GAP report of some very, kind of low level, but simple technologies for preserving food after harvest, the Purdue Improved Cowpea Storage Bags, PICS. This is a great way to start storing cowpeas, preventing the pest infestations of this important nutritious food in West Africa. And interestingly, it's the introduction of this low-tech kind of simple bag is actually starting a lot of new businesses and value chains around not just cowpeas, but other types of crops that can be stored. Another organization, Grain Pro, is a wonderful post-harvest player. And their headquarters here in the US, but they also have a lot of operations in the Philippines and they have all sizes of storage types of bags. And these are simple technologies that can at least start reducing the amount of post-harvest loss that you have. And it's a really important part of solving that food fiber feed and fuel need because it's a waste, it's wasted energy, it's wasted land, it's wasted inputs if you're losing all of those things after harvest. And you asked me to mention just an example of a public-private partnership. I actually brought three and I'll just say very quickly, Jonathan mentioned one of them already, the government of Ethiopia, USAID and DuPont, a wonderful maize value chain initiative in East Africa and Ethiopia. And this includes not only improved seed technology, but also training for farmers about how to boost their productivity and it includes a post-harvest loss component. So it's not just about increasing yield. Monsanto has a water efficient maize for Africa program that's in conjunction with USAID, Gates Foundation, the African Agricultural Technology Foundation and at least three or four East African governments where improved maize, which is drought resistant, drought tolerant and insect protection programs are being provided to a large number of farmers. And finally, a couple of really interesting mechanization projects I could mention that John Deere is employing, one of them is in Gujarat, India. It's an actual partnership with the state of India, the Gujarat state of India, where actually they've designed a small tractor that is applicable to these farmers in Gujarat. It's about, I think, 35 horsepower, very small tractor, but it's not being sold one-to-one to farmers. They are being made available for leasing or for use by cooperatives so that you get at that issue of scale. So many small scale farmers can't afford to purchase a John Deere tractor, but they need mechanization. So there are new forms of helping farmers get mechanization without having to go into debt to buy an entire tractor for themselves. This same type of approach for mechanization is being employed in Zambia. Why John Deere? Where smallholders are able to access mechanization at a low cost. So those are just a couple of things I mentioned. Great. Jalen, talk about food waste. Sure. So on food waste, Peter's right that the data are not as robust as we'd like. So you sometimes do hear people throwing out specific percentages and there's lots of work to be done, which the US is supporting, to improve the quality of data about what amounts of food is lost in the post-harvest phase of the system. Because really food waste divides into two major categories. There's the consumer level waste. That's when you left that stake in the back of your refrigerator and forgot to cook it and then you tossed it out. Or you went to the restaurant. That never happens with me. Or maybe let me try another example. You went to the restaurant and didn't finish all the food on your plate. That never happens with me either. Okay. Well then maybe you're not contributing to the problem of food waste as it typically happens for more affluent populations. But in developing countries, the kind of food waste that we're dealing with is largely a phenomenon after the harvest and before it's gotten to the consumer. It's this problem of post-harvest loss that Margaret was talking about. And it is therefore lost earnings for the farmers. Because again when it's consumer end waste, the farmer's already made his money or her money. But when it's post-harvest loss, that farmer may be the one losing out. Or the small business person engaged in transporting the goods to market who brings them to the grocery store by which time they've spoiled or been bruised. And so it's a lot of what we end up doing is supporting activities that are improved post-harvest management techniques and technologies. So for example in Haiti, Feed the Future has introduced a simple intervention. Instead of the burlap bags slung over the back of a pack animal where the mangoes are put and carried to market by which time they're bruised beyond usability, instead the pack animal is carrying two crates. And so when you put the mangoes in the crates they don't get as bruised. It is storage technologies both small like the sacks that Margaret was describing and large silos and other technologies for consolidating production. It's dairy cooperatives so that the dairy farmers can bring their milk to a place that actually does have the refrigeration and the connections to markets so that they can keep that milk chilled all the way to the market and so on. And it's also making sure that we are keeping pests and diseases from attacking the harvest both as it's being grown and afterwards so that we keep the food safe for human consumption. It's great, thank you very much. We got time for two questions. My friend from my former colleague at AID, still my friend but my former colleague and then we're gonna do this World Bank style and so I'm gonna take someone else as well and I wanna, that's the gentleman here, sorry. So it's the two of you, so. Hi, I'm David Jesse. I've got a question directed possibly to Jonathan probably, but what do you see to be the principal organizational obstacles to a more robust implementation to the Feed the Future program? You say other organizations that are financing. What's the principal organization? What's the organizational? What's the organizational obstacles to better implementing the Feed the Future program? Okay, and then the gentleman behind you. Hi, I'm Jerry Martin from DAI. We implement six of the Feed the Future programs for USAID. My question has to do with Feed the Future programs that have evolved over the last three or four years. Wonder about your thoughts about Feed the Future 2.0? For example, when the Feed the Future began, the focus was on staple crops. But as we heard today, animal protein, how people are going to access meat products, et cetera, are increasingly important. Do you see that as becoming another component and the issues related to animal production, health and safety? Okay, why don't we just go down this way? So Peter, how about this issue of if you think about Feed the Future going forward as an outsider and someone who as a supporter of Feed the Future and someone I think that I think both you and Margaret, I think it had a lot to do with the shaping of the food security work that the U.S. government has been doing. What future directions would you like to see U.S. food security work go or how about I take it a slightly broader frame and say how would you like to see U.S. agricultural development work go forward? If you, and I think you've mentioned some of them around things like long-term training or others. But if you could just talk about a couple of themes that you'd like to see additionally highlighted maybe in sort of a next round of work. Not saying, you know, saying that obviously it's wonderful that all the work that's been going on has really been a step in the right direction as the Senator referenced and as we've been talking about. I think human resources are a key. I think it's location specific to some degree. We understand that market forces, that markets dealing with the private sector, there's a lot of things educating women. We know quite a lot about how to do this. And by the way, local people are pretty smart too. So Washington I think overprescribes in part because we've got all the constituent groups that all want a piece of the development pie. I would say one last thing. I think that in part because of Congress but I think it's an agency, the agency feels compelled at this juncture to try to have two short term outcomes. I mean, we're in the development business. This is generational in part. It's not just three to five years. You have to have milestones to see whether or not you're moving along. But if I could wave a wand and have AID and feed the future and otherwise do two things, I would have more human resource work and I would have an outcome measurement system that was took more into consideration the medium and long term nature of development. Okay, Margaret. I'm not sure this is a recommendation just for AID but it's more broad. I think really thinking about how to harness the potential of rural producers for urban markets in the developing world. So I was recently in China, GHI and the government of China had a one day workshop with OECD and we were looking at policies that Chinese government could implement to really enhance their agriculture. Then we went out and saw peri-urban agriculture in outside Beijing. It was really fascinating how much attention was being put and investment was being put on helping rural producers produce intensively, more nutritious foods and very, very sophisticated ways of producing but yet low tech as well for the urban Beijing market. So I think how can we really harness that coming demand even in Sub-Saharan Africa which is coming? It's gonna be 70% urban at some point in the next 30 years. Look at it as an opportunity for production, for consumer markets in urban areas. So orient maybe, I think there's been work done on this but keep that focus. And then one other area I would just mention and this is something Global Harvest is working on with the Inter-American Development Bank. We're really trying to raise the profile and focus of Latin America as an additional solution to global markets and global demand for food. We're coming out later this month, April 23rd with a major joint report with the input of over 30 partners looking at how Latin America, parts of Latin America but increasingly the entire Latin American region including the Caribbean and Central America can gear up and invest in their agriculture development to meet global demand. So those are just things I think that are on the horizon that not only at the institutional level we should be thinking of but at a private sector and many other levels to be thinking about. John, you have the last words so if you talk about this issue of some of the organizational challenges but also this issue of how you see, maybe I'll put this way, how you see future directions for the food security work. Yeah, thank you. So on the question about the principal organizational obstacle to success, I think it's one that we've been addressing since the start of Feed the Future and I think largely effectively and it was built in Feed the Future which is designed to overcome the principal obstacle to its success which is in the past we've had many different agencies working on different aspects of food security. What Feed the Future did was put it all under one collective roof. It is by design a whole of government initiative that's led by USAID which does manage the lion's share of the budgetary resources and we're also very fortunate to have the current successor to Peter McPherson who also has similarly has an agricultural development background in Dr. Rajiv Shah who previously had worked at the Gates Foundation and on agricultural development and so we've been fortunate to have that kind of inspired leadership at AID but as Peter said this is a long-term challenge so will we have the kind of whole of government approach with a clear effort by all the agencies to work together towards a common agenda over time that will be the challenge, that will be the obstacle and I think we can get there and I think we're laying the foundations for doing it but it will require continued and dedicated effort and on the second question which will relate to wrap up comments on whether how the food basket is evolved over time in Feed the Future. I guess I would say that some of what you may have seen from DAI's perspective as a focus on staple crops reflected the priorities of the governments and societies in which we were working in since Feed the Future is by design meant to support their priorities. That may have accounted for some of what you saw and I'd also add that there's a practical aspect to this which is in many communities, in many farming communities farmers aren't interested in branching out to other crops until they're sure that their corn supply, their maize supply or their rice supply or whatever is assured. Maybe over time as markets develop and people realize that they can sometimes buy what they don't grow, that will change but what has changed is as Feed the Future emerged from the shock of the 2007, 2008 period when agricultural commodity prices spiked up all of a sudden through tens of millions of people back into poverty and refocused global attention including by leaders to the challenge of hunger. The breakthroughs in research that really started to roll out around 2009, 2010 on nutrition, focused attention on the nutrition piece of the puzzle and so what we've been seeing is an increased emphasis on getting nutrition right as part of the solution to food insecurity because again, you may have enough to fill your belly but if you're still stunted, if you still are suffering from night blindness, from vitamin A deficiency or whatever else, you can approach some of those problems as public health matters and give people shots or powders or whatever but it would be better if we had globally something approaching the food plate that USDA promotes domestically. Thank you, John. I fibbed because I want Peter McPherson to have really had the last words of Peter. Over to you, Peter. I would make two points briefly. One, we're all appreciative of the Obama administration's huge effort on international food and agriculture. Two, Margaret, I think we've gotta figure out a way between the public sector and the private sector to get this intellectual property set of issues better and straight. The CGIR system is a mess. As a university president, I can tell you I was never happy. It's an issue for more discussion. We've gotta not only create the technology, but we gotta free it up. Okay, with that, please join me in thanking the panel. Thank you.