United States Government Global Food Security Strategy - Fiscal Year 2022-2026

1. The Global Context 13

2. Goal and Objectives of the Strategy: The Results Framework 23 Objective 1: Inclusive and Sustainable Agriculture-Led Economic Growth 26 Objective 2: Strengthened Resilience Among People and Systems 33 Objective 3: A Well-Nourished Population, Especially Among Women and Children 38 Cross-Cutting Intermediate Results 44 Cross-Cutting Intermediate Result 1: Strengthened global commitment to investing in food security 44 Cross-Cutting Intermediate Result 2: Increased gender equality and female empowerment 45 Cross-Cutting Intermediate Result 3: Increased youth empowerment and livelihoods 48 Cross-Cutting Intermediate Result 4: Enhanced climate change adaptation and mitigation 50 Cross-Cutting Intermediate Result 5: Improved natural resource management 52 Cross-Cutting Intermediate Result 6: Improved water resources management 54 Cross-Cutting Intermediate Result 7: More effective governance, policy, and institutions 56 Cross-Cutting Intermediate Result 8: Improved human, organizational, and system performance 58 Cross-Cutting Intermediate Result 9: Enhanced integration of conflict sensitivity, peacebuilding, and social cohesion 59 Cross-Cutting Intermediate Result 10: Enhanced integration of digital technologies 60 Complementary Results 62

3. Targeting Approach 64

4. U.S. Approach 66 Localization and Country Ownership 66 Whole-of-Government Coordination 68 Sustainability 70 Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility 71 Partnerships 71 Science, Technology, and Innovation (STI) 74

5. Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning 77 Glossary of Key Terms 84 Annex 1. Agency Implementation Plans 93 U.S. Agency for International Development 94 U.S. Department of Agriculture 97 U.S. Department of Commerce 99 U.S. Department of State 102 U.S. Department of the Treasury 105 U.S. Government Global Food Security Strategy 2 The Millennium Challenge Corporation 107 U.S. International Development Finance Corporation 113 Peace Corps 116 Office of the United States Trade Representative 120 U.S. African Development Foundation (USADF) 121 U.S. Geological Survey 124 Inter-American Foundation 127 Annex 2. Index of Global Food Security Act Strategy Requirements 130 Annex 3. Global Food Security Research Strategy 133 U.S. Government Global Food Security Strategy 3 Executive Summary The Global Food Security Strategy (GFSS) charts a course for the U.S. government (USG) to support the achievement of global food security, the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs),2 and the 2030 Agenda, in collaboration and coordination with partners across the globe.3 The GFSS brings the full strength of the USG to bear on ending hunger by drawing from the expertise of agencies across the government. Led by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), the USG interagency community developed the first GFSS, as mandated by the 2016 bipartisan Global Food Security Act (GFSA), and implements Feed the Future (FTF), the USG’s initiative to end global hunger and food insecurity.4 The USG released the first GFSS in 2017, drawing on FTF’s lessons learned since its inception in 2010. Guided by the GFSS, FTF has shown that progress on ending hunger is possible. By bringing partners together to invest in agriculture, resilience, and nutrition, the USG has enabled millions of families around the world to have the basic dignity of food to eat. In areas where FTF works, an estimated 23.4 million more people are living above the poverty line, 3.4 million more children are not stunted, and an estimated 5.2 million more families are not hungry.5 In addition, the FTF initiative has unlocked $3.5 billion in financing for food security (2011-2019), helped generate $13.7 billion in agricultural sales, and developed and deployed more than 1,000 innovations. Since its inception, FTF has worked with 21 target countries. At the time of this writing, the FTF initiative works in 12 countries, while supporting food-security efforts in aligned countries across Africa, Asia, and Latin American and the Caribbean. In Fiscal Year (FY) 2022, USAID and its interagency partners will expand the number of target countries based on a data-driven analysis of “level of need” and “opportunity for impact” in alignment with the targeting criteria in the GFSA. Target Countries Bangladesh, Ethiopia, Ghana, Guatemala, Honduras, Kenya, Mali, Nepal, Niger, Nigeria, Senegal, Uganda. 2 United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. (2021). The 17 Goals. https://sdgs.un.org/goals 3 United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. (2021). Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. https://sdgs.un.org/2030agenda 4 USAID. Feed the Future. (2021). https://feedthefuture.gov/ 5 USAID. Feed the Future. (2021). U.S. Government Global Food Security Strategy Implementation Report. https://cg-281711fb-71ea- 422c-b02c-ef79f539e9d2.s3.us-gov-west-1.amazonaws.com/uploads/2021/02/Final-GFSS-Implementation-Report-021721.pdf U.S. Government Global Food Security Strategy 4 Building off the successes and lessons of the first GFSS, the FTF interagency community developed the FY 2022-2026 GFSS, a robust response to the crises that threaten to undermine global food-security progress: COVID-19, conflict, inequity, and climate. Through this strategy, we aim to contribute toward a 20% reduction in poverty and stunting in the areas where we work between 2022-2026 by partnering with foreign governments, the private sector, civil society, implementers, and the research community. Our overarching Goal is still to sustainably reduce global poverty, hunger, and malnutrition across FTF’s three Objectives: ● Inclusive and sustainable agriculture-led economic growth: Growth in the agriculture sector is up to four times more effective at reducing extreme poverty in developing countries than growth in other sectors.6 It does so directly through productivity growth that drives demand for locally produced goods and services, and indirectly by making food more affordable, which disproportionately benefits low-income groups. Productivity growth spans increased yields, resource-use conservation, reduced post-harvest loss, market efficiency, and value addition. The resulting inclusive and sustainable agriculture-led economic growth provides multiple pathways to poverty reduction in rural and urban settings. It creates jobs and reliable incomes directly through the agriculture and food system and indirectly through multiplier effects across the broader economy, while increasing access to safe and nutritious foods. Further, inclusive policies alongside local and country ownership strengthen the agency of individuals and communities to drive sustainable and equitable development. Elevating diversity, equity, and inclusion across FTF’s work is central to the GFSS. Senegal In Senegal, FTF unlocked $64 million in loans in a single year for Senegalese farmers, wholesalers, millers, and finance institutions. With access to high-quality seeds and mechanization services, smallholder farmers doubled their productivity and added a second growing cycle. As a result, their average rice production shot up 123% from 2012 to 2018. The U.S. African Development Foundation invested in local cooperatives, and the Millennium Challenge Corporation helped connect farmers to markets. Through this team effort, market prices have stabilized in Senegal, and loan defaults have declined, demonstrating progress that is paving the way for greater transformation in the rice sector. These changes not only benefit local communities but also cascade across the country. FTF is helping grow country-wide demand for locally milled rice by introducing it to the national market. As a result, demand for and consumption of local rice is up, and imports from Asia are down 300%. ● Strengthened resilience among people, communities, countries, and systems: Building resilience helps people, households, communities, systems, and countries mitigate risk and manage shocks and stresses without compromising their food security, nutrition, livelihoods, and well-being, especially among marginalized and underrepresented groups. Resilience investments strengthen risk-mitigation and management systems, shock-responsive mechanisms, and social protection systems that reduce vulnerability and exposure to shocks and stresses, prevent loss of assets during an emergency, and lead to a stronger recovery. Programs also invest in multisectoral adaptation strategies to build a range of resilience capacities and productive assets that strengthen 6 Ligon, E. & Sadoulet, E. (2018). Estimating the Relative Benefits of Agricultural Growth on the Distribution of Expenditures. World Development, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 417-428. U.S. Government Global Food Security Strategy 5 financial, social, physical, environmental, and political capital. Investing in people and systems at all levels enables programs to reach scale, build self-reliance, and can result in transformative and sustainable change. Core to resilience programming is strengthening linkages among development, humanitarian, and peace-promoting programs to foster transitions out of poverty toward sustainable and productive livelihoods and reductions in humanitarian need. Nepal FTF’s efforts to strengthen resilience in Nepal have created a strong foundation for recovery after a major earthquake in 2015 and protected previous development gains, including in child nutrition. FTF reached farming communities hardest hit by the disaster to expand agricultural development activities, like raising goats, that allowed farmers to increase revenues and rebuild their homes. FTF also unlocked access to finance for these communities to invest in commercial agriculture so that farmers could better provide for their families. Despite major setbacks from the earthquake, Nepal has made important strides in nutrition and food security. In areas where FTF works, for instance, stunting in children under 5 years old has dropped by 39% since 2011. ● A well-nourished population, especially among women and children: Undernutrition, particularly during the 1,000 days from pregnancy to a child’s second birthday, causes 45% of child deaths.7 For those children who survive, malnutrition contributes to lower levels of educational attainment, productivity, and lifetime earnings. Addressing malnutrition in all its forms is fundamental to eliminating the related economic and health impacts and to ensure resilient, prosperous communities. FTF focuses on improving the quality and affordability of nutritious diets, raising incomes, and empowering women. It emphasizes evidence-based pathways for enhancing nutrition through food systems approaches, food safety, and nutrition education, where policy interventions also feature prominently. Nutrition-specific interventions, often provided through the health system, are integral to FTF and complement our work across the food system. Nutrition is further advanced through allied efforts in water security, sanitation, and hygiene that also improve the efficacy and outcomes of nutrition-specific and food-based approaches. Today’s volatile environment demands that the GFSS adapt to a rapidly changing global context. Specifically, FTF incorporates five new or elevated priority areas of emphasis and action: ● Equity and Inclusion: FTF, with our focus on reducing extreme poverty and undernutrition, has always had a strong equity focus. Due to COVID-19 and other factors, gender inequality is rising globally, entrenching poverty and malnutrition and stifling communities' resilience.8 9 These trends 7 The Lancet. (2013). Maternal and Child Nutrition: Executive Summary of The Lancet Maternal and Child Nutrition Series. https://www.thelancet.com/pb/assets/raw/Lancet/stories/series/nutrition-eng.pdf 8 According to United Nations, "Bridging the Inequality Divide;" un.org; https://www.un.org/en/un75/inequality-bridging-divide, accessed July 30, 2021, although income inequalities between countries have decreased since the 1990s, the gap remains wide, and income inequalities within countries have become worse. Beyond measures of inequality related to income and purchasing power, inequalities of opportunity have wide reaching effects, including decreased life expectancy; less access to basic services; diminished human rights; hampered skills accumulation, economic and social mobility, and human development, which dampens economic growth; and increases social discord and insecurity. See also: World Social Report, (2020). 9 “Through 2017, the last year for which global data are available, extreme poverty reduction slowed compared with previous decades. This deceleration alone would have made it hard to reach the 2030 target of 3 percent global poverty. Now, the COVID-19 U.S. Government Global Food Security Strategy 6 underscore the need for sustained improvements in inclusive economic growth that reach those who are poor and marginalized. Years of evidence demonstrate that without inclusive and equitable approaches, development interventions are not as effective and can even do harm. When people face discrimination and are not provided opportunities to fully participate and benefit, growth will slow and inequality will increase. The evidence base is particularly compelling in terms of hindered progress with respect to a lack of gender equality. Despite having prioritized gender since its inception, FTF must do better to fully achieve its potential for addressing hunger and poverty, nutrition, and resilience. We will do this by intentionally addressing inclusion, especially of women and youth, both on farm and off. We will learn from consultations and engagements with marginalized groups that may include, but are not limited to women and girls; persons with disabilities; LGBTQI+ people; displaced persons; migrants; Indigenous peoples and communities; youth; older persons; religious minorities; ethnic and racial groups; people in lower castes; and people of diverse economic classes and political opinions. We know that if we do not intentionally include, we unintentionally exclude. In our work on the ground, we will collaborate with local partners to address the context-specific challenges to inclusion and work to ensure FTF programs are intentional in engaging all who can contribute to and benefit from inclusive growth. Mitigating vulnerable conditions by raising income and creating opportunities for those who are poor is critical to achieving both the GFSS goals10 11 and SDG 10, Reduced Inequalities.12 ● An Ambitious Approach to Climate Change: Addressing the immediate and long-term impacts of climate change underpins the achievement of all GFSS Objectives and the ability of communities to sustain development outcomes, particularly those that benefit the most chronically marginalized and underserved populations. Climate change is both a stressor and risk multiplier, leading to increased crop failures, water insecurity, depletion of natural resources, and more frequent and extreme weather events. Farmers face higher temperatures that stress crops and livestock and make agricultural labor more difficult and dangerous. In addition, climate change causes longer droughts, unpredictable rains, and warming oceans affecting fish stocks. It is estimated that 75 % of emissions from land-use change are generated by the expansion of agriculture in the developing world, resulting in deforestation or degradation of other carbon-rich ecosystems. Most of the hot spots for land conversion and forest loss are outside the FTF zones of influence, but many tools, technologies, and approaches utilized in FTF produce sizable climate gains. Reducing emissions and emissions intensity, enhancing carbon storage in soils and agricultural tree cover and many other climate-smart innovations are an essential part of the immediate and long-term strategy to reduce global greenhouse gas (GHG). The FY 2022-2026 GFSS serves as a guide for more ambitious FTF programming to enhance climate adaptation and mitigation by: (coronavirus) pandemic has reversed the gains in global poverty for the first time in a generation. By most estimates, this reversal of fortune is expected to push between 88 million and 115 million more people into extreme poverty in 2020. But COVID-19 is not the only reversal that threatens the poverty goals: Confronting conflict and climate change will also be critical to putting poverty eradication back on track.” See: World Bank. (2020). Poverty and Shared Prosperity 2020: Reversals of Fortune. https://www.worldbank.org/en/publication/poverty-and-shared-prosperity 10 United Nations. (2021). Bridging the Inequality Divide. https://www.un.org/en/un75/inequality-bridging-divide 11 World Bank. (2020). Poverty and Shared Prosperity 2020: Reversals of Fortune. https://www.worldbank.org/en/publication/poverty-and-shared-prosperity 12 United Nations. (2021). Sustainable Development Goal 10: Reduced Inequalities. https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/inequality U.S. Government Global Food Security Strategy 7 ○ Developing and promoting inclusive and equitable uptake of climate-smart technologies, practices, and policies that promote adaptation and also reduce emissions intensity and help conserve natural resources at scale; ○ Strengthening markets, policies, and risk mitigation that buffer food systems from shocks; ○ Reducing food loss and waste; ○ Reducing degradation of carbon-rich ecosystems and increasing carbon storage; ○ Developing sustainable on- and off-farm livelihoods that reduce dependency on seasonality and pressure on natural resources; ○ Improving water resources management (WRM); ○ Reducing climate-linked food and water insecurity, which can exacerbate displacement and conflict; ○ Developing public- and private-sector partnerships that advance collective action on climate change adaptation and inclusive development; ○ Incorporating social protection policies and programs into the FTF model, which can play a central role in managing climate risks by addressing chronic poverty, providing temporary support during periods of acute economic and livelihood disruption, and ultimately building resilience by enabling communities to be better prepared for shocks; and ○ Providing development finance in the form of investment capital to the private sector to prioritize food security and catalyze the fulfillment of climate adaptation and mitigation goals. ● Proactively Countering the COVID-19 Pandemic’s Long-Term Effects: The pandemic has had an unprecedented impact on food security and is already undermining FTF gains. Specifically, efforts to curb the spread of COVID-19, such as movement restrictions and market closures, combined with losses of incomes in many sectors, have not only disrupted access to food and compromised nutrition, but have also eliminated jobs and shut down entire sections of economies, including agriculture.13 According to a World Bank estimate, COVID-19 pushed 97 million people into extreme poverty14 15 in 2020, in addition to the 640 million people who were already living on less than $1.90 per day. An additional 9.3 million to 13.6 million children are suffering from wasting, and 2.6 million to 3.6 million more children are suffering from stunting. Furthermore, COVID-19 is deepening the gender poverty gap as women’s livelihoods are disproportionately affected.16 Recent evidence shows that inequality is the most powerful explanation of different death rates from COVID-19.17 This is expected to persist beyond 2021.18 In addition to the immediate health repercussions of COVID-19 and its burden on overwhelmed health systems, the secondary effects of COVID-19 include disruptions to the key components of the food system that allow for continuous, sustainable access to nutritious foods—farms, markets and trade, processors, and service providers. When these systems 13 USAID. Feed the Future. (2021). Feed the Future’s Response to COVID-19. https://cg-281711fb-71ea-422c-b02c- ef79f539e9d2.s3.us-gov-west-1.amazonaws.com/uploads/2021/02/COVID-19-Fact-Sheet-Feed-the-Future.pdf 14 Defined by the World Bank as living on less than $1.90 per day. 15 World Bank. (2021). Updated estimates of the impact of COVID-19 on global poverty: Turning the corner on the pandemic in 2021? https://blogs.worldbank.org/opendata/updated-estimates-impact-covid-19-global-poverty-turning-corner-pandemic-2021 16 UN Women. (2020). Press release: COVID-19 will widen poverty gap between women and men, new UN Women and UNDP data shows. https://www.unwomen.org/en/news/stories/2020/8/press-release-covid-19-will-widen-poverty-gap-between-women-and-men 17 Elgar, F., Stefaniak, A. & Wohl, M. (2020). The trouble with trust: Time-series analysis of social capital, income inequality, and COVID-19 deaths in 84 countries. Social Science & Medicine, 263(113365). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2020.113365 18 World Bank Blogs. (June 2021). Updated estimates of the impact of COVID-19 on global poverty: Turning the corner on the pandemic in 2021? https://blogs.worldbank.org/opendata/updated-estimates-impact-covid-19-global-poverty-turning-corner- pandemic-2021 U.S. Government Global Food Security Strategy 8 are broken, communities are increasingly vulnerable not only during a pandemic or global disruption, but also for years afterward. We are positioned to accelerate recovery from COVID-19 setbacks by helping restore and improve functioning food production and market systems that support strengthened livelihoods and incomes; provide affordable, safe, and nutritious food for all; and are more resilient to shocks and stresses.19 Improvements include increased commitments of development finance to inject liquidity and investment to revive these market and production systems, greater use of digital technology, and safer marketing and production practices that increase biosecurity and lessen the future potential emergence of threats associated with agriculture and food. All of this depends on strong public-sector commitment and leadership at the national, regional, and local government levels. We will work hand in hand with market and community actors to support market, health, and education recovery from COVID-19, as well as supporting other critical systems. ● Working Across the Food System: Since the drafting of the first GFSS in 2016, global recognition of a “food systems” approach has emerged, including through work by the UN Committee on Food Security and the UN Food Systems Summit. A food systems approach takes into account the many integrated parts of food’s journey from farm to table. The FY 2017-2021 GFSS, through its three Objectives, reflects how FTF has worked across the food system, not just in particular value chains or market systems. Going forward, the updated GFSS and FTF investments will support greater integration across the three Objectives by enhancing the production, affordability, and marketing of nutritious foods that reduce malnutrition and improve diet quality, helping to counter negative dietary transitions associated with rising obesity and diet-related diseases. Further, a food systems approach offers a comprehensive tool to address climate change, water and natural resource management, and other environmental and social dimensions of the FTF portfolio. The updated GFSS further highlights the importance of cultivating an enabling policy environment, as policy has the power to affect systemic change. FTF investments position the USG to work hand in hand with partner governments and key stakeholders to ensure food systems sustain the GFSA’s focus on ending extreme poverty, hunger, and malnutrition. ● Integration of Conflict Mitigation, Peacebuilding, and Social Cohesion: Hunger is on the rise for the first time in decades, with conflict emerging as a key driver. Nearly every country in a protracted food crisis was also engaged in violent conflict in 2019,20 and over the past four years conflict has become one of the largest drivers of food crises worldwide, especially in countries affected by major crises and where there is a confluence of conflict and climate shocks.21 Much of our food-security programming takes place in areas characterized by tension among and within social and socioeconomic groups, social marginalization, and in some cases, outright violence. All of these 19 USAID. (2021). Agricultural Productivity, Growth, Resilience, and Economic Transformation in Sub-Saharan Africa. https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/BIFAD_Agricultural_Productivity_Growth_Resilience_and_Economic_Transfor mation_in_Sub-Saharan_Africa_Brief_March_2021_3_1.pdf 20 Intergovernmental Authority on Development. (2020). Global Report on Food Crises. GRFC_2020_ONLINE_200420.pdf (igad.int) 21 Food Security Information Network reports. (2016-2020). Global Report on Food Crises. https://www.fsinplatform.org/sites/default/files/resources/files/GRFC_2019-Key_Messages-EN.pdf 2020: Ibid. 2019: https://www.fsinplatform.org/sites/default/files/resources/files/IGAD%202019%20online.pdf 2018:https://docs.wfp.org/api/documents/WFP-0000069227/download/?_ga=2.218157145.1517513090.1626359822- 1455967985.1626359822 2017: https://documents.wfp.org/stellent/groups/public/documents/ena/wfp291271.pdf?_ga=2.43927333.1044725417.1630611093- 268044032.1630611093 U.S. Government Global Food Security Strategy 9 factors mutually affect each other, requiring an approach that addresses internal power dynamics and enables local actors to create their own solutions. In fact, in areas characterized by food insecurity- related conflict, we must integrate the tools brought by our humanitarian, development, and social- cohesion programming in a holistic approach. Therefore, integrating the social, political, and local dynamics within our programming is integral to supporting linkages and coordination between humanitarian and development programming that improve food security and nutrition outcomes and build resilience.22 22 BIFAD. (2019). Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations, BIFAD 180th Public Meeting, Agriculture and Food Security in Fragile and Conflict-Affected Contexts, October 19, 2019. https://www.usaid.gov/bifad/documents/bifad-findings-conclusions-and- recommendations-agriculture-and-food-security-fragile-and U.S. Government Global Food Security Strategy 10 Acronyms and Abbreviations AfCFTA African Continental Free Trade Area Agreement BHA Bureau for Humanitarian Assistance (within the U.S. Agency for International Development) BIFAD Board for International Food and Agricultural Development C2M2 Cities’ COVID-19 Mitigation Mapping CAADP Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme CBJ Congressional Budget Justification CC Cross-Cutting CDR Climate Data Record CGIAR Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research CPO Climate Program Office (within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) DDL Development Data Library DEIA Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility DFC U.S. International Development Finance Corporation DOC U.S. Department of Commerce DRG Democracy, Human Rights, and Governance EB/AGP Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs, Office of Agricultural Policy (within the U.S. Department of State) ECOSOC Economic and Social Council FAO Food and Agriculture Organization FEWS NET Famine Early Warning Systems Network FIT Finance, Investment, and Trade Practice Group (within the Millennium Challenge Corporation) FY Fiscal Year GAFSP Global Agricultural and Food Security Program GDP Gross Domestic Product GFSA Global Food Security Act GFSRS Global Food Security Research Strategy GFSS Global Food Security Strategy GHCN Global Historical Climate Network GHG Greenhouse Gas GSI Gender and Social Inclusion Practice Group (within the Millennium Challenge Corporation) GWS U.S. Government Global Water Strategy HAACP Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points HCD Human and Community Development Practice Group (within the Millennium Challenge Corporation) I&A Industry & Analysis Unit (within the U.S. Department of Commerce) IAF Inter-American Foundation ICOADS International Comprehensive Ocean-Atmosphere Data Set ICT Information and Communication Technology IFAD International Fund for Agricultural Development U.S. Government Global Food Security Strategy 11 INR/GGI Bureau for Intelligence and Research, Office of the Geographer and Global Issues (within the U.S. Department of State) INR/GGI/HIU Bureau for Intelligence and Research, Office of the Geographer and Global Issues, Humanitarian Information Unit (within the U.S. Department of State) IO/EDA Bureau of International Organizations Affairs, Office of Economic and Development Affairs (within the U.S. Department of State) IR Intermediate Result ITA International Trade Administration (within the U.S. Department of Commerce) IUU Illegal, Unreported, and Unregulated IWGR Interagency Working Group on Research LAE Land and Agricultural Economy Practice Group (within the Millennium Challenge Corporation) LGBTQI+ Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, Intersex, Plus MCC Millennium Challenge Corporation MDB Multilateral Development Bank MEL Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning MNCH Maternal, Newborn, and Child Health MSI Minority-Serving Institution MSME Micro-, Small, and Medium Enterprise MUAC Mid-Upper Arm Circumference NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration NESDIS National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service (within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) NGO Non-Governmental Organization NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service (Within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (within the U.S. Department of Commerce) NOS National Ocean Service (within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) NWS National Weather Service (within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) OAR Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) OCG Office of Consumer Goods (within the U.S. Department of Commerce) OES/ECW Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs, Office of Conservation and Water (within the U.S. Department of State) OES/IHB Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs, Office of International Health and Biodefense (within the U.S. Department of State) OES/OMC Bureau of Oceans, Environment, and Science, Office of Marine Conservation (within the U.S. Department of State) OPATS Office of Overseas Programming and Training Support (within the Peace Corps) OPEN Open, Public, Electronic and Necessary (Government Data Act) PC Peace Corps PCV Peace Corps Volunteer PEPFAR President’s Emergency Plan for Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome (AIDS) Relief PMI President’s Malaria Initiative U.S. Government Global Food Security Strategy 12 R&D Research and Development R&D&E Research, Development, and Extension RFS Bureau for Resilience and Food Security (within the U.S. Agency for International Development) RISE Resilience in the Sahel-Enhanced S/GFS Secretary’s Office of Global Food Security (within the U.S. Department of State) SBC Social and Behavior Change SDG Sustainable Development Goal SME Small- and Medium-Sized Enterprises SPIGA Office of Strategic Partnerships and Intergovernmental Affairs (within the Peace Corps) SPS Sanitary and Phytosanitary STEM Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math STI Science, Technology, and Innovation TVS Transportation and Vertical Structures Practice Group (within the Millennium Challenge Corporation) UN United Nations UNICEF United Nations Children’s Fund USADF United States African Development Foundation USAID United States Agency for International Development USDA United States Department of Agriculture USG U.S. government USGS U.S. Geological Survey USTR United States Trade Representative WASH Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene WDMP Water Demand Management and Productivity Activity WFP World Food Programme WHO World Health Organization WRM Water Resources Management WSI Water, Sanitation, and Irrigation Practice Group (within the Millennium Challenge Corporation) ZOI Zone of Influence U.S. Government Global Food Security Strategy 13

1. The Global Context Unprecedented Challenges and Tremendous Opportunities Born out of a global food crisis, FTF is poised to meet today’s global crises: COVID-19, conflict, increasing inequity, and climate. Since FTF’s inception in 2010, the USG has united partners globally to solve the root causes of poverty, hunger, and malnutrition by working with local actors to support and catalyze change. With more than a decade of implementation, the USG interagency community has the capacity to build resilient food systems through inclusive agricultural-led growth.23 Recent evidence from the World Bank, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), and elsewhere confirms that in low-income countries, agricultural growth is up to four times more effective at reducing poverty than other forms of economic growth, across both rural and urban settings. The FY 2022-2026 GFSS outlines a common results framework along with evidence-based approaches to address the unprecedented challenges of our time. We are launching a new era of action to break the cycle of poverty, hunger, and malnutrition. The Inclusive Development Imperative Globally, after many years of income gains, the number of people experiencing extreme poverty is on the rise. COVID-19 has accelerated this trend, especially for women and those who are already poor or marginalized. Climate change and conflict are contributing to increased inequality.24 Economic slowdowns or downturns disproportionally undermine food security and nutrition where inequalities are greater. Income inequality increases the likelihood of severe food insecurity, and this effect is 20% higher for low-income countries compared with middle-income countries.25 The USG is committed to inclusive development, which is the concept that every person, regardless of their identity, is instrumental in the transformation of their own societies. Economic linkages that spur pro-poor economic growth can create employment for the landless and others with little or no assets. Efforts include reaching, benefitting, and empowering women, girls, and youth. Inclusive agricultural-led economic growth creates job opportunities for many, including women and youth (who represent around 70% of the national populations where FTF works), and other marginalized and underrepresented groups. In referring to marginalized and underrepresented groups in the strategy, such groups may include, but are not limited to women and girls; persons with disabilities; LGBTQI+ people; displaced persons; migrants; Indigenous peoples and communities; youth; older persons; religious minorities; ethnic and racial groups; people in lower castes; and people of diverse economic classes and political opinions. These groups often suffer from discrimination in the application of laws and policy and/or access to resources, services, and social protection and may be subject to persecution, harassment, and/or violence. In some instances, youth in particular can lead and benefit from economic opportunities in a range of service and marketing jobs, where their technological capacity, numeracy, and connectivity skills make them highly competitive. While approaches are often context specific, gender inequity stands out as a priority gap in essentially every setting where FTF works. 23 USAID. (2021). Agricultural Productivity, Growth, Resilience, and Economic Transformation in Sub-Saharan Africa. https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/BIFAD_Agricultural_Productivity_Growth_Resilience_and_Economic_Transfor mation_in_Sub-Saharan_Africa_Brief_March_2021_3_1.pdf 24 World Bank. (2020). Poverty and Shared Prosperity 2020: Reversals of Fortune. https://www.worldbank.org/en/publication/poverty-and-shared-prosperity 25 Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (2019). State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World. http://www.fao.org/3/ca5162en/ca5162en.pdf U.S. Government Global Food Security Strategy 14 In the context of resilience, we also reference vulnerability to shocks and stresses and increased exposure to risk. This means that all people, especially marginalized and underrepresented groups, may be vulnerable to a variety of shocks and stresses or conditions, or reside in geographic locations that affect their abilities to mitigate and manage risk without compromising their well-being in the face of shocks and stresses. There is a strong relationship between gender-based inequalities and food insecurity at the household and community levels. Indeed, to reach food and nutrition security for all, it is essential that agriculture; water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH); and nutrition policies and programs create conditions that advance gender equality and female empowerment. Research shows that investments in inclusion are crucial to support sustainable and broad economic growth, particularly as it relates to gender equality and women’s empowerment. As measured by the groundbreaking Women’s Empowerment in Agriculture Index launched by FTF in 2012, we observed dramatic increases in women’s empowerment related to agriculture (such as input into productive decisions, ownership of assets, and decisions on credit), including a 31% increase in Bangladesh and a nearly 20% increase in Nepal.26 Inclusive development also means inclusive policy systems. If the policy system is overwhelmingly representative of one group of actors or lacking representation from another, the former may have more sway over which policies emerge and who benefits from their implementation. An inclusive policy system enables all persons’ voices to be heard in the formulation and implementation of development policies and approaches. An inclusive development approach across all sectors challenges discrimination and other societal barriers that limit access to economic opportunities, development benefits, legal protections, and social participation. It adheres to the principles of “Do no harm” and “Do nothing about them without them.” This includes supporting local capacity development through mutually beneficial partnerships with local actors and ensuring those whose lives are affected by decisions have a meaningful role to play in the making of those decisions. Moreover, proactively addressing inclusivity drives the achievement of every other GFSS objective by overcoming the factors excluding communities from improved productivity, incomes, nutrition, and resilience. Do no harm: We must ensure that our work does not put any individual or group at increased risk of harm. Do nothing about them without them: Consult with local actors to understand their needs and priorities and the local context. An Accelerating Climate Crisis The climate crisis poses an enormous threat to global food security. Higher temperatures stress crops, livestock, and the ability of people to perform agricultural labor. Greater rainfall variability generates more extreme droughts and floods, rising sea levels, and changes in water availability and quality. The changing climate is also contributing to the spread of pests and diseases and threatens the viability of food and agriculture systems from production and storage to processing and distribution. This also affects the ecosystems and natural resources on which those systems depend, with consequences for environmental 26 Feed the Future used an abbreviated version of the Women's Empowerment in Agriculture Index in its population-based survey. U.S. Government Global Food Security Strategy 15 sustainability; production; availability of affordable, safe, and nutritious food and diets; safe drinking water; and sanitation services, all of which contribute to profitable, stable, and equitable livelihoods. The burden of climate change is borne disproportionately by poor rural populations that often depend on rainfed agriculture, fisheries, pastures, and rangeland, and who have limited economic options and safety nets. People who are marginalized due to their gender, age, ability, or other aspect of their identity will almost certainly face an increase in vulnerability from the impacts of climate change. Progress toward the goals of the GFSS is possible if countries, with the support of the development community and relevant private-sector actors, meaningfully tackle adaptation to climate change and the long-term mitigation of GHG emissions. The GFSS, in alignment with FTF department and agency climate strategies, seeks to guide the USG’s global food- security investments in ways that will accelerate progress toward resilience and food security. While the food system is a driver of the climate crisis, it can also be a solution. It is estimated that 75% of emissions from land-use change are generated by the expansion of agriculture in the developing world, resulting in deforestation or degradation of other carbon-rich ecosystems. Most of the hot spots for land conversion and forest loss are outside the FTF zones, but many tools, technologies, and approaches utilized in FTF produce sizable climate gains. Reducing emissions and emissions intensity, enhancing carbon storage in soils and agricultural tree cover, and many other climate-smart innovations are an essential part of the immediate and long-term strategy to reduce global GHGs. Food loss and waste is also a major contributor. To meet the temperature goal of the Paris Agreement and avoid the worst climate outcomes, it is essential to dramatically reduce GHG emissions from the global food and agriculture system, avoiding extensification and resulting land conversion, while increasing carbon storage through use of conservation agriculture, perennial crops, agroforestry, improved soil and water management, and other climate-smart practices. The GFSS positions the USG to work with countries and other partners to address these challenges head-on. COVID-19 Increasing Poverty and Extreme Poverty, Food Insecurity, Malnutrition, and Inequality The COVID-19 pandemic threatens to erase years of food-security progress. As a result of the pandemic, extreme poverty is rising globally for the first time in two decades, while global inequality is also on the rise. The latest estimate from the World Bank is that in 2020, the pandemic pushed up to 97 million additional people into poverty.27 These impacts from poverty are likely to persist for many years. By 2022, there could be 9.3 to 13.6 million additional children under 5 with wasting (47 million reported in 2019), and 168,000 to 283,000 additional under-5 deaths.28 Diet quality is degrading as a result of increased food prices, constrained incomes, and other pandemic disruptions, including limited access to nutritious food. Global food prices have risen 30% since January 2020, leaving a projected 220 million more people unable to afford a healthy diet.29 30 The Water Crisis 27 World Bank Blogs. (2021). Updated estimates of the impact of COVID-19 on global poverty: Looking back at 2020 and the outlook for 2021. https://blogs.worldbank.org/opendata/updated-estimates-impact-covid-19-global-poverty-looking-back-2020-and-outlook- 2021 28 Osendarp, S., Akuoku, J.K., Black, R.E. et al. The COVID-19 crisis will exacerbate maternal and child undernutrition and child mortality in low- and middle-income countries. Nat Food 2, 476–484 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-021-00319-4 29 World Bank Briefs. (2021). Food Security and COVID-19. https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/agriculture/brief/food-security-and- covid-19 30 Nature. (2021). COVID-19 pandemic leads to greater depth of unaffordability of healthy and nutrient-adequate diets in low- and middle-income countries. https://www.nature.com/articles/s43016-021-00323-8 U.S. Government Global Food Security Strategy 16 Our shared climate crisis is accompanied by a significant water crisis. Addressing water insecurity is an increasingly vital component of ensuring that food and agricultural systems are building resilience in the face of climate change and other stresses and shocks. Water insecurity threatens the productivity and sustainability of food and agriculture systems, from food and fiber production, food storage, processing, and distribution, to the availability of affordable, safe, and nutritious diets and profitable, stable, and equitable livelihoods. The agriculture sector is by far the largest user of freshwater, representing 70% of withdrawals globally. At the same time, water demand for both agriculture and growing cities and towns is rising.31 While water supplies are shrinking or are increasingly polluted, valuable water is frequently wasted in leaky pipes or inefficient irrigation schemes. The conversion of forests, wetlands, and other ecosystems for agriculture threatens the provision of water-related ecosystem services. All too often, water-related risks are addressed reactively in the wake of devastating weather events, rather than being proactively identified and managed. Rising demand coupled with growing scarcity can drive conflict between economic sectors, communities, and nations, posing risks to livelihoods as well as to broader peace and security. In addition, lack of equity and inclusion in WRM, especially for women, girls, and other marginalized groups, leaves many people without access to water supplies. The World Economic Forum has rated rising demand for freshwater resources, in addition to changes in water availability due to climate change, a top global risk for nine out of the last 10 years, with high intersectionality across food security and climate change adaptation. Failing to improve water management to address growing risks could result in regional GDP losses of between 2 and 10% by 2050, driven in large part by impacts to agricultural productivity.32 Investing in effective WRM, in turn, is one of the more cost-effective ways to address rising water stress, adapt to climate change, and build resilience.33 Feed the Future: More Important Than Ever Before To meet the challenges of the day, the GFSS will focus and adapt the whole-of-government FTF initiative to reassert our commitment to the SDGs in the following ways: ● Promote equity through inclusive growth and country-led development approaches as foundational to food security, reducing poverty, and building resilience, leading to sustainable outcomes that reach GFSA goals; ● Ambitiously integrate climate adaptation and mitigation approaches across the initiative, including prioritizing water resource management and utilization, along with other natural resource stewardship, as integral to agricultural sustainability, climate adaptation, and resilience in support of robust food systems; ● Enhance an inclusive and resilient food systems approach that prioritizes meeting the nutritional needs of low-income producers and consumers, including both terrestrial and aquatic foods; ● Expand the focus on resilience across FTF countries with particular attention on those experiencing chronic seasonal shocks and stresses as well as recurrent and increasingly severe complex emergencies; ● Continue to make strategic investments in research that drives innovation and equips smallholder farm families to increase their productivity and incomes, thereby reducing poverty and malnutrition, 31 Gleick, P.H et al. (2014). The World’s Water: The Biennial Report on Freshwater Resources. Washington, DC: Island Press. 32 World Bank. (2016). High and Dry: Climate Change, Water, and the Economy. https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/water/publication/high-and-dry-climate-change-water-and-the-economy 33 Global Commission on Adaptation. (2019). Adapt Now: A Global Call for Leadership on Climate Resilience. https://reliefweb.int/report/world/adapt-now-global-call-leadership-climate- resilience?gclid=CjwKCAjw95yJBhAgEiwAmRrutCibw_ztSyrNSTCebr9dfuw9bH-7Vpk-jyyfBExsJtOM4UX4AzoQ- RoCCv4QAvD_BwE U.S. Government Global Food Security Strategy 17 generating inclusive growth, and in some cases directly benefiting U.S. farmers, ranchers, and consumers; ● Commit to strengthening and expanding national social protection policies and programs to drive and sustain investments in human capital, food security, nutrition, resilience, and inclusive economic growth; ● Partner and build capacity in the public, private, and civil-society sectors in ways that promote local engagement and commitment to achieving goals elevated under the GFSA: ending hunger, child stunting and wasting, and the extreme poverty that accompanies them; and ● Leverage new agencies and authorities like the U.S. International Development Finance Corporation (DFC) to strategically deploy development finance at scale in complementary interventions with private-sector partners to deepen and strengthen local supply chains and value chains alongside other programming. Mitigating COVID-19 Impacts World Bank data suggest that Ugandan and Malawian households in areas reached by Feed the Future were more resilient to the economic impacts of COVID-19 than households outside those areas. While both groups experienced a major shock as the pandemic disrupted access to food, households reached by FTF were better able to maintain their food security in the face of economic hardship, whereas other households experienced significantly steeper declines. Achieving the SDGs and Adopting a Food Systems Approach The achievement of the SDGs is central to U.S. global development and foreign policy. The SDGs and 2030 Agenda set a shared global framework for realizing sustainable development, including eliminating hunger and malnutrition in all forms by 2030. USG global food security and nutrition efforts contribute directly to SDG 1 (No Poverty) and SDG 2 (Zero Hunger) and indirectly benefit many of the other 15 SDGs. The Addis Ababa Action Agenda34 reinforced the centrality of public policy, domestic resource mobilization, private investment, and innovation to achieving these ambitious goals and the importance of official development assistance to complement these efforts.35 Given that the world is not on track to meet the goals and targets of the 2030 Agenda,36 the global community has called for transformation in the food and agriculture sector, recognizing that parts of the sector are contributors to unsustainable social, economic, and environmental trends.37 The United States is a partner in this bold effort and has elevated a food systems approach to global food security that equally prioritizes and balances inclusive, agriculture-led economic growth with social empowerment, nutrition, health, policy change, and environmental stewardship.38 34 United Nations. (2015). Addis Ababa Action Agenda of the Third International Conference on Financing for Development. Adopted at the Third International Conference on Financing for Development (Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 13–16 July 2015) and endorsed by the General Assembly in its resolution 69/313 of 27 July 2015. New York. https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/index.php?page=view&type=400&nr=2051&menu=35 35 Ibid. 36 United Nations News. (2020). World off track in meeting 2030 Agenda, UN deputy chief warns, calls for solidarity in COVID-19 recovery. https://news.un.org/en/story/2020/07/1068551 37 United Nations. (2021). Food Systems Summit 2021: About the Summit. https://www.un.org/en/food-systems-summit/about 38 Ibid. U.S. Government Global Food Security Strategy 18 Advancing U.S. National Security Objectives Food insecurity both contributes to and results from a number of today’s most significant national security challenges, including inequality, poverty, conflict, irregular migration, water insecurity, rising and record numbers of youth without access to decent work, and regional instability. This leads to an unsustainable cycle that we must help break for our domestic safety and security. A 2015 Director of National Intelligence report validated FTF’s approach to agricultural development by noting that strategies such as reducing crop and food waste, generating off-farm income activities, conducting research in food-security crops, ensuring sustainable management of fisheries and aquaculture, and fostering technical education in agriculture would improve food system resilience.39 Further, there are tangible benefits to the United States resulting from investments in international agriculture and food-security research and programming, including health and safety through reduction in global transmission of plant, animal, and human pathogens as well as significant benefits from technology spillover.40 Food insecurity also undermines the political stability of countries generally and especially in fragile states. In most of the developing world, poor families spend most of their incomes on food.41 As food prices rise, families are hit hard and fast. Often, this rapid blow to purchasing power significantly affects livelihoods. In the longer term, the vicious cycles of poverty and malnutrition reinforce each other. The impaired development of children who suffer from malnutrition but survive has long-term consequences on their health and well-being as adults, educational performance, and future economic productivity. This traps communities in a cycle of poverty. Long-term follow-up studies have demonstrated that early childhood nutrition interventions accrue educational and work-capacity benefits throughout the life cycle.42 The United States is unlikely to escape the effects of widespread global food insecurity. The World Food Programme (WFP) estimates that for every year of food insecurity, refugee outflows increase by nearly 2%.43 While these refugees may initially go to nearby nations, the WFP also found that poverty and food insecurity often encourage refugees to set off for places like Europe and the United States. These trends exacerbate food insecurity and thwart development efforts. In 2019, the 10 most devastating food-security crises—affecting more than 88 million people—occurred in areas affected by conflict and instability.44 According to the United Nations (UN), roughly 1% (80 million people) of the world’s population is currently displaced, an all-time high.45 Conflict drives food insecurity and disrupts markets, including food supply chains. Trade and transport of highly nutritious, perishable commodities are especially vulnerable, necessitating emergency assistance to meet food needs. As with the COVID-19 pandemic and climate change, women, girls, and other marginalized populations are disproportionately affected by conflict, leading to 39 National Intelligence Council. (2015). Intelligence Community Assessment: Global Food Security. https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/Newsroom/Reports%20and%20Pubs/Global_Food_Security_ICA.pdf 40 IFPRI. (2019). How the United States benefits from agricultural and food security investments in developing countries. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2499/p15738coll2.133419 41 United Nations World Food Programme. (2012). How High Food Prices Affect The World’s Poor. https://reliefweb.int/report/world/how-high-food-prices-affect-world%E2%80%99s-poor 42 Maternal and Child Nutrition (2013). The Economic Rationale for Investing in Stunting Reduction. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6860695/ 43 United Nations World Food Programme. (2017). At the root of exodus: Food security, conflict and international migration. http://www.wfp.org/content/2017-root-exodus-food-security-conflict-and-international-migration 44 Hendrix, C. & Anderson, J. (2021). Resilience and Food Security Amidst Conflict and Violence: Disrupting a Vicious Cycle and Promoting Peace and Development. Research Technical Assistance Center, Contract No. 7200AA18C00057, March 2021 (Draft). 45 United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. (2021). Figures at a Glance. https://www.unhcr.org/en-us/figures-at-a- glance.html U.S. Government Global Food Security Strategy 19 increased inequality. Our approach to implementing this strategy acknowledges the role of conflict as a driver of food insecurity that requires emergency assistance. Longer-term development investments can provide a bulwark that increases resilience and food security, reducing vulnerability and promoting country and regional stability. FTF’s food-security and resilience investments in countries like Niger, Burkina Faso, Mali, Somalia, Kenya, Nigeria, and other fragile states strengthen resilience, helping make communities more resilient to shocks and potentially increasing political stability. In Central America, FTF work is helping enhance agricultural and food-system growth that creates economic opportunities to provide livelihoods and help people sustainably feed themselves and their families, lessening some of the economic drivers of irregular migration. Specifically, FTF programming addresses some of the multisectoral and mutually reinforcing drivers of irregular migration through improved and sustainable food security, expanded economic opportunities— including for women and youth—and building resilience to climatic and other shocks and stresses, while expanding the evidence base around drivers of irregular migration to allow us to better target our interventions. In addition, food-security investments contribute to U.S. national security by engaging long-time allies as well as emerging donors in supporting greater development financing to leverage and mobilize private-sector investment.46 These investments help counter corruption, raise environmental standards, and address other impediments to long-term, sustainable development such as debt on unfavorable and unsustainable terms. Our work promotes American influence in rapidly transforming regions and emerging markets. Strengthening Humanitarian-Development-Peace Coherence Humanitarian-development-peace coherence aims to promote complementary collaboration, coordination, and collective outcomes among humanitarian assistance, development assistance, and peacebuilding. One goal is to strengthen resilience and food security through protecting productive assets and promoting peace and stabilization for people who are vulnerable to shocks and stresses resulting from humanitarian disasters and conflict. Additionally, humanitarian-development-peace coherence aims to transition from emergency long- term assistance focused on reducing immediate risks to longer-term efforts that build agricultural growth to reduce poverty and improve food security, nutrition, social cohesion, and resilience to future shocks that reduce the likelihood of future humanitarian assistance. The GFSA indicates that innovative and flexible humanitarian response is an investment in recovery, resilience, and ultimately, our own national security interests. The humanitarian-development-peace nexus is important in the face of major shocks, such as COVID-19, climate, and conflict, which are exacerbating other vulnerabilities, and driving large-scale complex humanitarian emergencies and increased humanitarian caseloads. Improved response will help strengthen the capacity of local systems, foster self-reliance, reduce fragmentation, and ensure that support provided by the USG and our partners becomes more anticipatory, cost-effective, and effective overall. The USG is the largest provider of humanitarian assistance globally. Such assistance saves lives, prevents acute food insecurity and malnutrition, and serves as a source of stabilization among people, countries, and regions affected by seasonal and large-scale crises. We recognize that we cannot coordinate humanitarian- development-peace coherence in every situation, and we also cannot do it alone. Building coalitions and partnerships as well as supporting joint planning and co-creation with government and local stakeholders and across humanitarian, development, and peace actors have proven effective to navigate complex risk 46 USG Agencies like the DFC and MCC are well-positioned to coordinate with the private sector. U.S. Government Global Food Security Strategy 20 environments and promote collective outcomes at all levels, even in some of the most shock-prone and vulnerable regions such as the Sahel and East Africa. Additionally, well-layered, shock-responsive mechanisms, such as weather-indexed insurance, emergency reserves, or cash-transfer top-ups have proven to be effective means to bridge risk mitigation and emergency preparedness, asset protection, a more efficient and effective emergency response, and stronger recovery. Strengthening Adaptive and Shock-Responsive Social Protection Systems An excellent example of humanitarian-development-peace coherence includes the investments in strengthening adaptive and shock-responsive social protection systems and platforms, which can achieve both long-term and short-term development goals. Adaptive mechanisms include sequencing, layering, and integrating direct support, such as cash or in-kind food assistance with well-targeted interventions that support productivity and asset creation, such as agricultural and off-farm livelihoods, sustainable natural resource management, nutrition, access to finance, social cohesion and aspirations, and risk reduction. Robust shock-responsive systems incorporate a flexible crisis response mechanism that allows resources to pivot to humanitarian response mechanisms when needed, and then pivot back once the emergency subsides. A case in point is the magnitude of the social protection response to the COVID-19 crisis. Between March 2020 and May 2021, a total of 3,333 social protection measures have been planned or implemented in 222 countries or territories, valued at nearly $2.9 trillion and reaching more than 1.3 billion people. These locally-led systems and structures are currently used to reach massive scales and can continue to serve as a platform for layering long-term development assistance programs and lifting people permanently out of poverty. We will build on our evidence and experiences to prioritize strategies and approaches for breaking vicious cycles that fuel poverty and hunger and foster a transition from humanitarian assistance to long-term development, inclusive economic growth, and sustainable livelihoods. Working with our humanitarian assistance partners, we will also continue to identify local systems-level structures, platforms, and targeting mechanisms that can be used to ensure we reach people who are vulnerable to shocks and stresses with the right assistance package, and to ensure that our long-term investments are locally-led and owned, and that we reduce the need for humanitarian aid. Delivering Economic Benefits and Expanded Opportunities to the American People FTF’s proven development model shows that by leveraging the best parts of U.S. leadership, entrepreneurship, research, technology, and talent, we can work with the world’s poorest countries to harness the power of agriculture to strengthen their economies, while creating opportunities for U.S. investment, trade, and sales abroad. In a global economy where 95% of consumers live outside of the United States, FTF’s efforts to maintain and increase access to global markets will be critical to the current and future prosperity of our own economy and middle class. Our work delivers economic benefits to Americans in two key ways: ● FTF helps partner countries grow their agricultural and wider economies in ways that expand demand for U.S. exports. It promotes science- and evidence-based approaches that help expand markets for U.S. farmers and agribusiness. It also enhances the potential for mutually beneficial private-sector investment in agricultural and food systems, increasing productivity and incomes, and helping reduce undernutrition. U.S. Government Global Food Security Strategy 21 ● By helping promote free and fair trade and evidence-based policies, FTF helps U.S. companies and entrepreneurs expand into new markets, increase foreign demand for U.S. products, and launch startups that target customers in the regions where FTF works. Agriculture stands out as a sector where research drives innovation and progress. Agricultural growth has made huge advancements because of research—from the mechanization of farms, to improved management of soil fertility, to new high-yield and climate- and pest- resilient seeds. FTF invests in research that innovates within the agriculture sector, which is the foundation of developing economies and a reliable source of income generation and availability of nutritious foods. Research is one of the most effective investments in reducing global poverty, hunger, and malnutrition, and at the same time reconciling climate change and environmental objectives related to forests and biodiversity conservation. Research and innovation are essential to meet the challenges of sustainably feeding a growing world while conserving critical natural resources and biodiversity in ways that also advance progress toward meeting global climate change imperatives. In addition, international agricultural research investments benefit the U.S. economy: every 100 dollars of benefit to the U.S. economy from higher productivity in wheat and rice production costs taxpayers only two cents.47 In the face of climate change, agricultural research is a critical defense against evolving pests and diseases, which are accelerating in a warming and globally connected world. Fortunately, new techniques are opening pathways for rapidly evolving pest, disease, and climate change threats. As we partner with countries and international research partners to meet these challenges, U.S. farmers and consumers also benefit from resilient seeds that help U.S. farmers meet changing conditions and new threats. Similarly, in livestock, poultry, and fish, pests and diseases know no boundaries. By collaborating with our science partners in the developing world, integrating scientific expertise from U.S. universities, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), and the private sector, we can head off threats before they reach our shores, while at the same time offering lifesaving solutions to farmers, fishers, and herders in food-insecure regions. Unfortunately, some of the huge advances in agriculture have come at the detriment of ecosystems’ environmental sustainability. For example, excessive use of fertilizers pollutes lakes, rivers, and coastal areas, degrades aquatic ecosystems, and decreases their productivity. More than 500 dead zones have been identified in coastal areas, and another 370 dead zones are estimated to exist in tropical waters, largely from poor farming practices upstream, which threaten livelihoods of small-scale fishers downstream and pollute water resources that people depend on for other activities.48 FTF must continue to pursue resource-conserving productivity growth pathways, guided by research on sustainable production in watersheds that combine terrestrial and aquatic food systems. FTF research investments include 21 USG-led FTF Innovation Labs that are implemented by more than 60 top U.S. colleges, universities, and international agricultural research centers including those collaboratively funded by the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR). These innovative partnerships draw from top U.S. researchers supported by USDA, the National Science Foundation, the 47 International Food Policy Research Institute. (2019). How the United States Benefits from Agricultural and Food Security Investments in Developing Countries. https://www.aplu.org/library/how-the-united-states-benefits-from-agricultural-and-food-security-investments-in-developing- countries/file 48 Brietburg et al. (2018). Declining oxygen in the global ocean and coastal waters. Science. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aam7240 U.S. Government Global Food Security Strategy 22 National Institutes of Health, the Department of Energy, and the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association, leveraging their expertise to advance global food security, often in ways that benefit U.S. farmers and consumers. Strategic Pivots This GFSS faces a different global landscape than the first GFSS. To best respond to the needs of our time, as well as build on our successes and integrate the latest evidence and insights from the communities in which FTF works, we have undertaken a series of strategic pivots over time. Central to the FTF approach is locally- led development; we tailor and sequence our interventions to be responsive to the contexts in which we do our work. The strategic pivots below are instances where we have made evidence-based shifts to better reduce hunger, poverty, and malnutrition in the communities we serve. ● Previously, FTF ran programs whose primary purpose was to provide farmer training and extension services to fill the gap left by weak public-sector programs. Currently, programs close that gap by working with private-sector enterprises to add training and advisory services to their business models, supporting digital extension programming that removes the need for a person to visit every farm, and building capacity of public extension services where there is political will to improve. ● Under the previous GFSS, FTF invested in direct service delivery of social safety net programs. Under this strategy implementers will coordinate with host governments, USAID’s Bureau of Humanitarian Assistance, other interagency partners, bilateral donor agencies, and international finance institutions, which are best placed to invest in direct social protection service delivery. Additionally, we will coordinate FTF agricultural livelihoods, natural resource management, climate adaptation, nutrition, and risk-management approaches with national social protection systems, such as cash and in-kind transfers, support for disaster risk financing, and adaptive safety nets. ● FTF nutrition-sensitive programming initially focused on household-level income generation and production of staple—but nutrient-poor—crops, like maize, rice, and wheat. While work at the household level remains important, particularly for rural populations, focusing on households alone without addressing food systems is insufficient to make meaningful progress against widespread malnutrition.49 For example, our shift to a systems-level approach includes renewed attention on large-scale food fortification, a proven intervention that leverages public- and private-sector actors to fortify commonly consumed foods with essential vitamins and minerals. This pivot to food systems and diets will complement enhanced efforts to coordinate with essential nutrition-specific services, often provided through the health system, to maximize impact on nutrition. ● The previous GFSS prioritized stunting as the key nutrition outcome, which is only one form of malnutrition. Evidence has emerged on the interconnectivity of undernutrition in early life and later development of overweight/obesity and associated non-communicable diseases. We also see increasing rates of undernutrition (both stunting and wasting), micronutrient deficiencies, and overweight/obesity. Child wasting, which increases the risk of mortality, is unacceptably high in many FTF countries. Accordingly, we now include additional nutrition indicators besides stunting, 49 USAID. (2021). RFS Food Systems Conceptual Framework. https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/RFS-Food- Systems-Conceptual-Framework-Summary-Guidance.pdf U.S. Government Global Food Security Strategy 23 and the FTF research agenda will expand to better assess how our work contributes to the prevention of wasting. ● Some of the most nutritious foods—fruits, vegetables, meat, dairy, eggs—are at risk of contamination leading to foodborne illness; improving food safety is key to healthier populations. Recent evidence led us to prioritize a risk-based approach under the revised GFSS where we are better able to align resources and mitigation strategies based on the likelihood that a food-safety hazard exists and the risk of exposure to assess the threat to public health.50 A risk-based approach has identified a greater need to address microbial hazards, including bacteria, which pose a significant human health threat and great costs to economies.51 We will also use a risk-based approach to support local governments in establishing clear, unified, evidence-based food-safety guidelines and regulations.

2. Goal and Objectives of the Strategy: The Results Framework Our vision for the GFSS is inspired by the global agenda laid out in the SDGs and the objectives of the GFSA: a world where current and future generations are free from the scourges of hunger, extreme poverty, and malnutrition, supported by resilient systems. Our overarching Goal is to sustainably reduce global hunger, malnutrition, and poverty. Reaching this Goal will require an integrated effort which, our experience demonstrates, must include achieving the three main GFSS Objectives:

1. Inclusive and sustainable agriculture-led economic growth: There is broad consensus that sustainably reducing global hunger, malnutrition, and poverty will require accelerating inclusive agriculture-led economic growth. For less developed countries, strengthening the agriculture sector benefits low-income groups more.52 Inclusive and sustainable agriculture-led economic growth provides many pathways to poverty reduction, generating jobs and reliable incomes directly through the agriculture and food system and indirectly through multiplier effects across the broader economy, and increases access to safe and nutritious foods.

2. Strengthened resilience among people, communities, countries, and systems: Building resilience helps people, households, communities, systems, and countries mitigate risk and manage shocks and stresses without compromising their food security, nutrition, livelihoods, and well- being, especially among marginalized and underrepresented groups. Resilience investments strengthen risk-mitigation and management systems, shock-responsive mechanisms, and social- protection systems that reduce vulnerability and exposure to shocks and stresses, prevent loss of assets during an emergency, and lead to a stronger recovery. Programs also integrate multisectoral strategies to build a range of resilience capacities and productive assets that strengthen financial, 50 Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (2021). Risk-based approaches and tools. http://www.fao.org/food- safety/food-control-systems/risk-and-evidence-base/risk-based-approaches-and-tools/en/ 51 World Health Organization. (2015). WHO Estimates of the Global Burden of Foodborne Disease. https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/199350/9789241565165_eng.pdf 52 Ivanic & Martin (2018). Five new insights on how agriculture can help reduce poverty. World Bank Blogs. https://blogs.worldbank.org/jobs/five-new-insights-how-agriculture-can-help-reduce-poverty U.S. Government Global Food Security Strategy 24 social, physical, environmental, and political capital. Investing in people and systems at all levels enables programs to reach scale, build self-reliance, and can result in transformative and sustainable change. Core to resilience programming is strengthening linkages among development, humanitarian, and peace programs to foster transitions out of poverty toward sustainable and productive livelihoods and reductions in humanitarian need.

3. A well-nourished population, especially among women and children: Achieving the GFSA requires well-nourished populations in which everyone, especially women and children, have the chance to live healthy and productive lives. Improvements in nutrition are associated with decreased health costs, higher economic productivity, and lower rates of morbidity and mortality.53 Malnutrition, particularly during the 1,000 days from pregnancy to a child’s second birthday, is associated with lower levels of educational attainment, productivity, and lifetime earnings.54 Addressing the complex nature of malnutrition requires an integrated, multisectoral approach inclusive of investments across agriculture and food systems, health systems, resilience, and the environment. FTF provides an essential, but not sufficient, contribution to achieving nutritional goals, which depend on multisectoral gains. Affordable high-quality diets are critical to GFSA outcomes, complemented by safe drinking water and improved hygiene and sanitation, alongside nutrition-specific interventions that promote good health and best practices in child care and nutrition. The Intermediate Results outline the pathways toward achieving our Goal and Objectives. Nine Intermediate Results (IRs) outline our approach to achieving the three Objectives, along with 10 Cross- Cutting Intermediate Results (CC IRs) that are foundational to all areas of food security and nutrition and contribute to achieving all three Objectives and our overarching Goal. In addition to the three Objectives that lead directly to our core global food-security and nutrition development Goal, we have identified five Complementary Results from other USG investments that benefit from and contribute to our global food security and nutrition investments. These results are not only necessary for food security and nutrition, but they also benefit from improved food security, creating a mutually reinforcing relationship across government policies and implementation. The USG FTF interagency team within each GFSS target country will develop a country-specific theory of change and Results Framework that reflects the unique challenges, opportunities, and contexts in that country. The different elements of our Results Framework are shown in Figure 1, and their relevant theories of change are explained below. 53 The Lancet. (2021). The Lancet’s Series on Maternal and Child Undernutrition Progress. https://www.thelancet.com/series/maternal-child-undernutrition-progress 54 The Lancet. (2013). The Lancet’s Series on Maternal and Child Undernutrition Executive Summary. https://thousanddays.org/wp-content/uploads/Lancet-2013-Executive-summary.pdf U.S. Government Global Food Security Strategy 25 Figure 1: U.S. Government Global Food Security Strategy Results Framework U.S. Government Global Food Security Strategy 26 Objective 1: Inclusive and Sustainable Agriculture-Led Economic Growth Rationale Investing in inclusive, agriculture-led economic growth is a long-term, comprehensive approach to ending poverty, hunger, and malnutrition. Growth in the agriculture sector is up to four times more effective at reducing poverty in developing countries than growth in other sectors.55 56 Rural, urban, coastal, and inland communities participate in agriculture and food systems. They produce, process, transport, trade, market, consume, and use products derived from aquaculture, farming, wild fisheries, forestry, and pastoralism. Resilient, competitive, inclusive, and sustainable agriculture and food systems drive increased productivity and profitability for producers and enterprises and lower the cost of safe and nutritious foods. This is especially important for the world’s poor, who spend most of their incomes on food and often cannot afford a healthy diet.57 58 Increased incomes and economic opportunities in the agriculture and food system spill over into other sectors, creating opportunities for the rural and urban poor.59 We focus on inclusion, building resilience and sustainability to foster policies and approaches that equitably benefit marginalized and underserved populations. Scaling Up for Impact Cutting-edge innovations and information only make a difference when they are in the hands of producers and entrepreneurs, including those who have not always had access to these resources. Inclusive and sustainable agriculture-led growth requires widespread adoption of improved technologies, practices, and approaches by all system actors, including local service providers, input suppliers, smallholder producers, and processors. We develop and strengthen public and private delivery pathways to link appropriate solutions to demand. We strengthen the connections and coordination of system actors by identifying shared goals and facilitating productive engagements that move innovations toward impact, and by increasing access to finance to enhance the performance and effectiveness of market systems. We partner with regional and national policymakers to strengthen the enabling environment surrounding incentives and constraints to economic growth and ensure communities are engaged in decision-making and management of their natural resources. Agriculture and food systems have been rapidly expanding and changing across Africa, Asia, Latin America, and the Caribbean. While agricultural productivity growth—increasing output without increasing the amount of inputs—has increased globally, production growth, particularly in Sub-Saharan Africa, has been driven by the expansion of cropped land rather than agricultural intensification (i.e., increase in agricultural production 55 Ligon, E. & Sadoulet, E. (2018). Estimating the Relative Benefits of Agricultural Growth on the Distribution of Expenditures. World Development, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 417-428. 56 Fuglie, K.; Gautam, M.; Goyal, A.; Maloney, W.F. (2020). Harvesting Prosperity: Technology and Productivity Growth in Agriculture. World Bank. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/32350 57 Nelson, M. (2021). U.S. Food Expenditures at Home and Abroad. Farm Bureau. https://www.fb.org/market-intel/u.s.-food- expenditures-at-home-and-abroad 58 FAO, IFAD, UNICEF, WFP & WHO. (2020). The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World 2020. Transforming food systems for affordable healthy diets. Rome, FAO. http://www.fao.org/3/ca9692en/online/ca9692en.html 59 Delgado, C.L.; Hopkins, J.; Kelly, V.; Hazell, P.B.R.; McKenna, A.A.; Gruhn, P.; Hojjati, B.; Sil, J. & Courbois, C. (1998). Agriculture Growth Linkages in Sub-Saharan Africa. IFPRI. https://www.ifpri.org/publication/agricultural-growth-linkages-sub- saharan-africa U.S. Government Global Food Security Strategy 27 per unit of inputs) and the increased efficiency needed for sustainable growth.60 61 Increasing shocks and stresses related to climate, water insecurity, conflict, and deteriorating macroeconomic conditions threaten to undermine progress and affect future generations. Population growth, expanding urbanization, changing diets, and rising incomes have resulted in rapid increases in the consumption of fruits, vegetables, animal-sourced foods, and ultra-processed foods. As a result, the market systems that connect producers (including farmers, pastoralists, foresters, and fishers) to consumers—often involving countless firms engaged in inputs, services, finance, logistics, storage, processing, distribution, wholesale, and retail—have become more integrated and commercialized. However, productivity growth remains essential and should consider production of safe, nutritious foods to achieve our nutritional development outcomes. Climate change is one of the greatest risks to achieving agriculture-led economic growth. Adapting to the risks of climate change while promoting climate mitigation approaches where possible, especially in our most vulnerable partner countries, is central to our food-security, nutrition, and resilience-building efforts. Co- benefits—such as achieving development goals while reducing emissions intensity—can be achieved through innovations and established practices. For example, intensification of agriculture, livestock, and fish production in the most fertile areas can protect fragile forests, wetlands, and grasslands as well as maintain ecosystem services. Sustainable intensification is reliant on improved access to and management of information and knowledge that increases labor productivity; inputs such as water, soil, genetic resources, and fertilizer; and mechanization and innovations that improve productivity while enhancing adaptation to climate change. Other approaches directly target risk reduction, such as wider use of insurance and climate information services and social protection. Market systems can support incentives to limit increases in emissions, develop cleaner technologies, reduce food loss and waste, and become more resilient to shocks and stresses. Theory of Change Central to our theory of change is that a productive, efficient agriculture and food system can drive improved living standards and resilience.62 Sustainable, inclusive agriculture-led economic growth does this through expanded participation in markets, greater access to and affordability of safe and nutritious food, improved resilience, and broader availability of jobs. Inclusive growth refers to economic growth that engages and benefits all segments of the population and significantly reduces poverty. Inclusive growth works best when it focuses on increasing access to economic opportunities for marginalized and underrepresented groups while ensuring that markets are competitive. Agriculture transformation is realized by increased total factor productivity—which is more efficient use of land, labor, capital, and other inputs—and a shift of livelihoods from lower-productivity to higher- productivity sectors, while supporting broader economic sectoral change. Moreover, agricultural transformation relies on many drivers, which include: a supportive and inclusive enabling environment; 60 Jayne, T.S.; Fox, L.; Fuglie, K. & Adelaja, A. (2021). Agricultural Productivity Growth, Resilience, and Economic Transformation in Sub-Saharan Africa. Association of Public and Land Grant Universities. https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/BIFAD_Agricultural_Productivity_Growth_Resilience_and_Economic_Transfor mation_in_SSA_Final_Report_4.20.21_2_2.pdf 61 Virginia Tech. (2019). Accelerating global agricultural productivity growth is critical. ScienceDaily. www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/10/191016074750.htm 62 Jayne, T.S.; Fox, L.; Fuglie, K. & Adelaja, A. (2021). Agricultural Productivity Growth, Resilience, and Economic Transformation in Sub-Saharan Africa. Association of Public and Land Grant Universities. https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/BIFAD_Agricultural_Productivity_Growth_Resilience_and_Economic_Transfor mation_in_SSA_Final_Report_4.20.21_2_2.pdf U.S. Government Global Food Security Strategy 28 increased integration with the global economy through trade; private-sector engagement with U.S., regional, and domestic firms; sustainable inputs, especially clean water and healthy soil; improved human and institutional capital; and investments in infrastructure. Inclusive agriculture-led growth reinforces sustainability as producers and enterprises adopt innovative approaches that allow them to thrive and adapt to changing climate, market, political, social, and health conditions while protecting natural resources. Communities benefit from increased incomes, employment, and economic opportunities in the agriculture and food system and beyond, and the increased availability and affordability of safe and nutritious foods in local markets. For example, most African countries have achieved economic growth, improved wellbeing, and resilience through such transformative policies.63 Our development hypothesis for Objective 1 is as follows: ● If inclusive food and agriculture systems that are productive and profitable are strengthened, especially for small-scale producers and micro, small, and medium enterprises (MSMEs), and support availability and access to safe and nutritious foods; and ● If there is strengthened and expanded access to markets and trade, market participation is increased, and there is greater movement, availability, and affordability of agricultural inputs, goods, services, and safe, nutritious foods; and ● If employment and entrepreneurship is increased, especially for the landless, extreme poor, women, youth, and marginalized or underrepresented groups; and ● If sustainable productivity is increased while promoting nature-positive impacts on natural resources and the environment; Then inclusive and sustainable agriculture-led economic growth will be achieved, through a strengthened agriculture sector that will spill over to other sectors, benefiting from increased incomes, skills, and capacities that will contribute to the resilience of households and communities. Inclusive and sustainable agriculture-led economic growth both relies on and supports Cross-Cutting Intermediate Results. These mutually reinforcing linkages are critical, in particular for women’s empowerment (CC Intermediate Result 2), youth empowerment (CC Intermediate Result 3), climate change adaptation and mitigation (CC Intermediate Result 4), improved natural resource management (CC Intermediate Result 5), improved WRM (CC Intermediate Result 6), and more effective governance, policy, and institutions (CC Intermediate Result 7). Intermediate Result 1: Strengthened inclusive food and agriculture systems that are productive and profitable Strengthening the enabling environment supports a well-functioning food and agriculture system. Firm-level productivity drives economic growth, and MSMEs drive the development process through investment and innovation. Enterprises can flourish where incentives encourage the private and public investment needed to transform labor and capital into human capital and technology—the core components of productivity growth 63 Jayne, T.S., Fox, L., Fuglie, K. & Adelaja, A. (2021). Agricultural Productivity Growth, Resilience, and Economic Transformation in Sub-Saharan Africa. Association of Public and Land Grant Universities. https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/BIFAD_Agricultural_Productivity_Growth_Resilience_and_Economic_Transfor mation_in_SSA_Final_Report_4.20.21_2_2.pdf U.S. Government Global Food Security Strategy 29 for enterprises. A strong, intentionally inclusive enabling environment—one underpinned by a capable, responsive public sector—allows producers, producer organizations, and enterprises to benefit from wider opportunities; those opportunities include research, private sector investment, and extension and advisory services. Supportive policies institutionalize inclusion by promoting equitable property rights and access to finance, conservation, and governance of water and natural resources, as well as reliable infrastructure such as rural roads, communications, and electricity. We engage with local system actors to identify leverage points to initiate changes that increase performance. Equipping small-scale producers and MSMEs—especially those that are women- or youth-owned and operated—with the capacities to participate and engage in these systems benefits producers and enterprises while increasing the productivity and profitability of the systems. Small-scale producers and MSMEs face several constraints to improving their productivity and profitability and fully participating in market systems. These impediments include: ● A lack of access to innovative practices and technologies; ● A lack of access to finance, information, and technical services; ● Limited assets and business and management skills; ● Challenges accessing markets; and ● Smaller landholdings or insecure land, water, marine, or resource tenure. These constraints tend to be acute for women, youth, the landless, small-scale producers, and marginalized or underrepresented groups. Approaches that address these capacity gaps enable producers and enterprises to invest in their growing businesses, meet quality standards, and add value to products and processes. Examples of activities that contribute to this result include: ● Collaborating with public, private, and civil-society organizations to identify, adapt, and sustainably scale affordable, time-saving approaches and technologies so producers and MSMEs—particularly women—can become more profitable; ● Improving the business and regulatory environment for small-scale producers, MSMEs, and investment, including inclusive policies and practices in market institutions; ● Strengthening and commercializing market system functions, including provision of local inputs and services, planting materials, animal breeding stock, sustainable animal and aquaculture feed, mechanization, and extension; ● Expanding the use of digital technologies for real-time data collection, analysis, and exchange, including extension, finance, traceability platforms, and market, weather, and climate information; ● Expanding financial inclusion by increasing access to financial services, literacy education, and intermediation, especially for women and youth; ● Strengthening partner-government capacity to develop and manage an open, transparent, and accountable policy environment that encourages private-sector investment, fosters open markets and rules-based trading, increases tenure security, supports inclusion, and responsibly manages natural resources, such as land use and agriculture policies that discourage agriculture-driven forest degradation or deforestation; and ● Increasing the adoption of technologies, policies, and financial services to promote safe, nutritious foods as a key output of productive and profitable food and agriculture systems. U.S. Government Global Food Security Strategy 30 Intermediate Result 2: Strengthened and expanded access to markets and trade Strengthening forward linkages among producers, MSMEs and buyers in domestic, regional, and global markets is critical to food security and agriculture-led economic growth. Backward linkages with input suppliers, extension, and other service providers are also essential to expand access to markets and trade. Well-functioning and resilient market systems and trade networks support the movement of food and agricultural products from areas of food surplus to food deficit, stabilizing food supply and prices and improving food insecurity. Strengthened trade has the potential to improve diet diversity by increasing the availability of different types of nutritious foods. Expanding access to markets and trade networks is especially vital for small-scale producers and MSMEs, including those owned and operated by women, youth, and other marginalized groups. These groups often encounter difficulties accessing input, service, and output markets necessary for improved productivity and incomes. Because countries rely on varying levels of imports to achieve their food security and nutrition goals, we strengthen countries’ capacities to foster efficient markets and good governance that enable them to participate more successfully in regional and international trade. Sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) systems and regulations must also be in place to protect human, animal, and plant life or health and help ensure that increased productivity will translate into reduced hunger, higher incomes, and increased access to safe foods when producers and other actors are able to meet SPS requirements and access specific local, regional, and international markets. To facilitate trade, domestic regulatory systems must first harmonize with international standards. With harmonization comes regional food security, as food can flow from areas of excess to areas of need. We work with diverse and representative public- and private-sector market actors, including producer organizations, small-scale producers, and MSMEs, to build trusted connections and promote a fair and profitable business environment. This facilitative approach makes market systems more efficient, resilient, and inclusive and improves the quality of goods and services. Responsible investments by public- and private- sector partners in local and regional markets become economically self-sustaining. Increasing interaction among market-system actors can lead to long-term trade relationships between partner countries and the United States. Examples of activities that contribute to this result include: ● Positioning countries to capitalize on existing and new regional trade agreements, such as the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) Agreement; ● Advancing public- and private-sector efforts to improve market infrastructure to better link all producers with end markets; ● Strengthening private and public services that build the capacity of producer organizations, MSMEs, and small-scale producers, including women- and youth-led organizations, to improve performance, meet quality and safety market standards, increase negotiating power, and improve market knowledge, business models, and market linkages; ● Fostering new and improved relationships and linkages among market-system actors, such as fair contracting and payment schemes; ● Supporting the use of international standards in measures to protect human, animal, or plant life or U.S. Government Global Food Security Strategy 31 health; ● Increasing the availability of timely and accurate food and agriculture statistics and market information; and ● Leveraging digital technologies across the market system, such as those relevant to timely market information, traceability, finance, and food safety and quality testing. Intermediate Result 3: Increased employment and entrepreneurship The transformation of food and agriculture systems can be a major contributor to poverty reduction through the multipliers that transformation can generate in the local economy. It can also provide the opportunity to build back better following the COVID-19 pandemic by creating a stronger and more inclusive food system, tackling the climate crisis, and generating new market opportunities. Employment is created by the increasing demand for labor, goods, and other services. From input and service providers to producers, processors, and retailers, firms generate much-needed employment, including for women, youth, the landless, and other marginalized groups living in secondary cities, peri-urban, and urban areas. It is important to facilitate MSME growth to increase employment opportunities, while ensuring that this growth is inclusive and resilient to climate change impacts. Productivity improvements stimulate employment and firm expansion by reducing operating costs and increasing profit that firms can invest in growth. Supporting formal employment opportunities is important to improve job quality and ensure decent work for prospective employees and future generations. Resulting employment and entrepreneurship opportunities may require new skills and knowledge that current in-country education and training programs do not provide. Our activities will equip small producers, workers, entrepreneurs, MSMEs (including women- and youth-led firms), and marginalized and underserved groups with the skills and abilities to produce high-quality market- driven goods and services and generate jobs in the process. Positive economic spillovers for other sectors occur as households earn more money to spend in their local economies, thereby gaining purchasing power for safe, nutritious foods. This spillover increases the food security and resilience of households, especially rural households relying on diversified livelihoods that combine agricultural (on-farm and non-farm) and non-agricultural employment. Examples of activities that contribute to this result include: ● Increasing access to finance and services that build business management capacities of MSMEs through lending facilities, partial credit guarantees, financial product innovation (e.g., alternative collateral), financial policy engagement, and leveraging private sector investment; ● Analyzing the potential for different activities to generate employment across and beyond target market systems, particularly jobs for women, youth, landless workers, and households without access to property and resource rights/tenure; ● Expanding demand-driven, market-oriented training and education programs that are affordable and accessible to build technical and soft skills for entrepreneurship and workforce development along with an understanding of the job market, especially for those disadvantaged in accessing employment, such as woman and youth; ● Supporting government policy development and implementation processes to improve the business enabling environment to enhance growth potential; and ● Strengthening business development, technical advisory, and human resources services that enable U.S. Government Global Food Security Strategy 32 enterprises (including MSMEs) to develop and successfully implement market-driven business plans, innovate, improve productivity, and source diverse and qualified employees. Intermediate Result 4: Increased sustainable productivity (also contributes to Objective 2) Increased sustainable productivity drives agriculture-led economic growth. We focus on accelerating productivity growth and making these gains more efficient, ecologically sustainable, and resilient in the face of increasing conflict, climate change, disease-related threats, land degradation, and natural resource overexploitation, such as illegal, unreported, and unregulated (IUU) fishing. We will support the efforts of producers, food-system actors, and policymakers to identify and adopt integrated approaches to terrestrial and aquatic food production, which supports increased resilience and the availability and affordability of safe and nutritious foods. Integrated approaches to increased sustainable productivity encourage investment in international, national, and locally-led scientific research, development, and extension while supporting the health and nutrition of related systems and populations, as well as building multiple resilience capacities. We will consider the interactions and potential cross-sectoral impacts across human, animal, and ecosystem health, which reduces exposure and controls emerging threats of disease. The result is a safer and more consistent food supply for all in the long term. We will emphasize sustainably increasing productivity and incomes, adapting and building resilience to climate change and seasonal shocks, and reducing or eliminating GHG emissions. We will uplift that the coordination of local, national, and regional partners to manage water resources more effectively and equitably is key to increased sustainable productivity. Examples of activities that contribute to this result include: ● Strengthening government and private-sector research, education, extension, and advisory services in crops, livestock, aquatic systems, and natural resource management; ● Fostering knowledge exchange between the U.S. and partner countries on policy and innovative practices to increase sustainable agricultural productivity and resilience against climate change, through initiatives such as Agriculture Innovation Mission for Climate (AIM4C); ● Building local and national capacity to develop, disseminate, and promote the adoption of productivity-enhancing climate-smart inputs, services, and practices for crops, aquaculture, animal husbandry, and processing; ● Expanding the adoption of integrated approaches, such as One Health, climate-smart and regenerative agriculture and grazing, sustainable intensification, and business models that value and account for natural resources, health and nutrition outcomes, and social inclusion, as well as reduce exposure to threats of emerging pests and diseases; ● Increasing improved natural resources and water management, land use planning, and tenure security—particularly for women’s access to and ownership of land—including sustainable forestry and fisheries management that supports sustainable consumption of nutritious, safe, and wild-sourced food; ● Building local system capacity for enhanced surveillance, detection of, and timely responses to plant, animal, aquatic, and foodborne diseases; ● Increasing access to efficient and affordable irrigation systems, especially small-scale schemes while ensuring land and water security for producers; and U.S. Government Global Food Security Strategy 33 ● Scaling the integration of sustainable and inclusive productivity models within food systems and supply chains, such as the use of renewable energy, reducing food loss and waste, and payment for ecosystem services. Blue Foods, Fisheries, Aquaculture, and Fisheries Management Blue, or aquatic, foods include marine and freshwater fish, shellfish, aquatic plants, and algae captured or cultivated in freshwater or marine environments. The word “fishery” (or “fisheries”) can refer to the occupation, industry, or season for catching fish. It can also refer to the area where fish are caught, the fishing gear or method, the target species of the fishing operation, or the business of catching fish. The U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service further breaks down this description to include commercial (catching and marketing fish and shellfish for profit), recreational (fishing for sport or pleasure), and subsistence (fishing for personal, family, and community consumption or sharing). Aquaculture is the breeding, rearing, and harvesting of fish, shellfish, algae, and other organisms in all types of water environments. Marine aquaculture refers specifically to the breeding, rearing, and harvesting of aquatic plants and animals. It can take place in the ocean or on land in tanks and ponds. Ideally, fisheries management is a transparent and robust process of science, management, innovation, and collaboration with the fishing industry. There are three pillars of effective fisheries management: 1) Science: a rigorous, peer-reviewed process provides fishery managers with the information necessary to manage the long-term sustainability of fisheries; 2) Management: the science-based process ensures continuous improvement of fishery-management plans in response to new information; and 3) Enforcement: overseeing compliance with all applicable laws ensures accountability to the resource and the economies and communities that rely on it. Objective 2: Strengthened Resilience Among People and Systems Rationale Resilience enables people, households, communities, systems, and countries to manage and adapt in the face of a wide range of shocks and complex crises without lasting consequences to their food security, nutrition, and economic well-being.64 It also means building capacities and productive assets among people and systems, including national and sub-national governments, household and community structures, the private sector, and civil society, to a level at which they can break chronic cycles of asset loss and recovery and invest in long-term adaptation that transforms livelihoods and well-being in a positive way. Building resilience is applicable to all socioeconomic groups, as anyone can be affected by one or more shocks and stresses at a time and they are often interlinked. However, through system-level interventions, it is crucial that resilience approaches improve the lives of marginalized and underrepresented groups, especially the ultra-poor and poor, women, girls, and youth. People living in ultra-poverty, or on or barely above the poverty line, have greater risk exposure combined with fewer capacities and means to manage risk and are therefore more vulnerable to shocks. It is also important to reinforce, grow, and protect the resilience capacities and productive assets to prevent people and households from backsliding into poverty. It is also crucial to consider geographic vulnerabilities, especially regions vulnerable to climate change and other 64 USAID defines resilience as the ability of people, households, communities, countries, and systems to mitigate, adapt to, and recover from shocks and stresses in a manner that reduces chronic vulnerability and facilitates inclusive growth. U.S. Government Global Food Security Strategy 34 disasters. Since the design of the FTF Initiative, the global risk environment has changed dramatically and poses fundamental challenges to securing viable, stable, and sustainable livelihoods and inclusive growth. People, households, communities, and system actors operate in complex and interconnected risk environments and are exposed to a range of shocks and stresses at different levels and scales that affect their livelihoods. Some examples include chronic seasonal food insecurity; chronic and acute nutrition emergencies; livelihoods insecurity; political instability; IUU fishing; threats of emerging crop pests and zoonotic diseases affecting livestock and fisheries; human disease outbreaks; and economic shocks such as price volatility. Environmental and climate-related shocks and stresses include droughts; floods; earthquakes; cyclones; increasingly degraded land; water scarcity; ocean acidification; and threatened coastal marine resources. Increasingly severe and more frequent weather and climate change-related shocks, conflict and fragility, and large-scale pandemics (predominantly COVID-19), exacerbate risks and are driving recurrent crises, increasing large-scale humanitarian emergencies, and eroding development gains. Extreme poverty is increasing globally for the first time in two decades, and COVID-19 is deepening the gender poverty gap as women’s livelihoods are disproportionately affected,65 compounding inequities and disparities that already marginalize women and girls. In 2021, this is expected to persist and may increase to as many as 163 million people. Humanitarian emergencies also cost the USG and all system stakeholders billions of dollars in recurrent humanitarian spending, such as emergency food assistance. Additional costs include recovery, recapitalization of productive assets, and the costs of lost productivity, human capital, and well-being. An internal study estimates that every $1 invested in resilience over 15 years may result in between $2.03 and $3.30 in reduced potential humanitarian assistance and avoided losses.66 A lack of resilience to shocks and stresses also accounts for the alarming rates at which households descend toward or back into poverty, including households experiencing poverty for the first time.67 Today’s risk context reaffirms the urgency for the USG and its partners and alliances to work together to build resilience. This changing landscape drives us to expand the applicability of resilience across our priority countries and programs, with continued emphasis on areas of recurring crises and large-scale humanitarian disasters. Additionally, resilience can be applicable in a variety of contexts, such as through holistic multisectoral programming (which places greater emphasis on integration of resilience within and across agriculture and food systems), nutrition, water security, and systems strengthening to build multiple resilience capacities in a given area. Recent Results From Uganda and Malawi Illustrate How FTF Programs Enhance Food Security and Resilience A World Bank report comparing food-security data between 2019 and 2021 provides compelling and statistically significant evidence showing that households living in the FTF Zones of Influence (ZOI) in Uganda and Malawi were more resilient to the economic impacts of COVID-19 than households living 65 UN Women. (2020). Press release: COVID-19 will widen poverty gap between women and men, new UN Women and UNDP data show. https://www.unwomen.org/en/news/stories/2020/8/press-release-covid-19-will-widen-poverty-gap-between-women-and-men 66 USAID. (2015). Economics of Resilience to Drought in Kenya, Ethiopia, and Somalia. https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1867/V4_Infographic.pdf 67 Overseas Development Institute. (2015). The chronic poverty report 2014-2015. London, UK. https://odi.org/en/publications/the- chronic-poverty-report-2014-2015-the-road-to-zero-extreme-poverty/ U.S. Government Global Food Security Strategy 35 outside of those areas. Households inside and outside the ZOI reported similar levels of food insecurity in 2019, but by 2020-21 food security deteriorated much more sharply in non-FTF programming areas. FTF investments in these two countries include programs that strengthen market systems; improve agricultural productivity and incomes; increase access to affordable, safe, and nutritious foods; strengthen government-led multisectoral resilience coordination structures and resilience monitoring systems; and empower women and youth. Intervention strategies involved layering FTF programs with other programs, such as education, health, governance, and local capacity building, and with national disaster-risk management and shock-responsive social protection systems. Theory of Change Our development hypothesis for Objective 2 is as follows: ● If proactive risk reduction, mitigation, and management systems are improved at household, community, national, and systems levels, through strengthening and maintaining resilience capacities and building and protecting productive assets; and ● If adaptation to and recovery from shocks and stresses is improved through scaled and sustainable strategies that reduce chronic vulnerability and facilitate inclusive growth; Then there will be strengthened resilience among people and systems—people will be able to better protect and grow productive assets, food security will be improved and sustained, and populations will be well- nourished, even in the face of recurrent and sudden-onset shocks and stresses. Additionally, our investments must also analyze the comprehensive and context-specific risk environment as well as plan for and anticipate the increasing severity of shocks in the future and treat them as perennial features, not as unanticipated anomalies. This demands that our approaches be shock-responsive and flexible in both funding and programming scope to help predict, prepare for, and mitigate the impact of shocks on households, communities, and systems. To achieve this theory of change we must ensure that all people and system-level actors have the opportunity to plan, lead, participate in, and benefit from resilience programming, including marginalized and underrepresented groups, governments, communities, civil society, and private sector. The resilience theory of change underscores the importance of the holistic, multisectoral, and well- coordinated approaches in all Objectives and cross-cutting IRs to build combinations of sources of resilience capacities and build and protect a range of productive assets, including financial, physical, environmental, social, and political across multiple levels and scales. Diversifying agricultural and off-farm livelihoods across different risk profiles, ensuring access to flexible financial services, and building social capital among farmer organizations and food-systems actors, can help people increase and smooth incomes, reduce exposure to climate risks, strengthen market-systems resilience, and build social cohesion. Improved health, nutrition, education, and aspirations contribute to strengthening human capital and productivity. Integrating conflict mitigation, good governance, and peacebuilding, as well as empowering women and youth, can lead to improved social cohesion and stability. Building natural resource assets at a systems level improves productivity, health, and well-being and enables people and systems to mitigate risk and adapt to climate change. Increasing access to services, such as crop and livestock insurance and seed supply, is instrumental in building and protecting livelihoods, improving food security and nutrition, and reducing extreme and moderate poverty. Specifically, informal and national social protection systems, such as shock-responsive and nutrition-sensitive safety nets and gender- and youth-sensitive safety nets are an important foundation to resilience programs aimed at helping people permanently escape poverty and hunger. U.S. Government Global Food Security Strategy 36 We will work with our partners to establish and strengthen national and regional coordination and joint planning mechanisms and strengthen shock-responsive safety net systems. We will also sequence, layer, and integrate agricultural livelihoods; nutrition; financial services; land, water, and marine resource tenure and management; conflict mitigation and peacebuilding; and policies and programs that foster inclusive growth and strengthen the humanitarian-development-peace nexus. Additionally, we will help system actors plan for, anticipate, and proactively manage and respond to migration patterns and build stronger, more resilient rural- urban linkages and urban livelihood systems. To achieve our resilience objective, programs will need to achieve the outcomes in two primary Intermediate Results: Intermediate Result 5, which will improve proactive risk reduction, mitigation, and management; and Intermediate Result 6, which will improve recovery from shocks and stresses and long-term systems-level adaptation strategies. Additionally, Intermediate Result 4 (Increased sustainable productivity) contributes to resilience by increasing and protecting productive assets through pluralistic programs that benefit the environment and ecosystem services as well as human and animal health, and co-benefits to emissions mitigation. Resilience approaches must also be integrated into food systems and nutrition approaches outlined in Objectives 1 and 3. This can be done through increasing productivity and economic capital, building and protecting reinforcing natural resource assets, and strengthening human and social capital through nutrition, agency, and well-being. Additionally, the Cross-Cutting IRs and Complementary Results contribute to resilience capacities and assets by promoting inclusive growth; women’s and youth empowerment; sustainable land and water resources tenure management; climate resilience; strengthened policies and governance; and conflict prevention, social cohesion, and peacebuilding. Achieving our intermediate results and building resilience will also require developing and sustaining transformative capacity—the institutional, political, socioeconomic, cultural, and other system-level changes that are implemented at scale and are sustainable and ultimately self-financing. Without developing a combination of capacities and investing and protecting productive assets at a scale and coverage to achieve system-level change, efforts to strengthen resilience may not be long-lasting or lead to self-reliance. The ultimate mix of resilience capacities and assets to be strengthened, as well as how this is done, is highly context-specific and will continue to require research and learning on resilience monitoring and measurement. Intermediate Result 5: Improved proactive risk reduction, mitigation, and management All people and systems have a dynamic and changing risk profile that determines the extent to which they are vulnerable and exposed to risk, as well as their capacities to manage those risks throughout their lives. This includes their socioeconomic situation, environment, government, and other factors. Marginalized and underrepresented people, groups, and communities typically have increased vulnerability to shocks and stresses that affect their economic growth, environment, health, and well-being, especially women, girls, and youth. Groups that are vulnerable to shocks and stresses have few resources and productive assets and lack access to insurance or other forms of economic, social, environmental, and political capital to build and protect more sustainable livelihoods and well-being. All people can be vulnerable to malnutrition, climate change, violence, and ineffective and unstable political and governance systems. For example, the COVID-19 pandemic demonstrated that people from all economic strata are at risk of losing assets in the face of shocks, U.S. Government Global Food Security Strategy 37 relying on social assistance, or falling into poverty. Entire regions are at risk of climate and weather shocks and conflict, which can lead to unplanned migration and displacement; being on the move to find a new livelihood presents increased risk of violence especially for women and girls. Many people face the risk of being left behind and trapped in an insecure environment, and in some cases abandoned. Risk cannot be eliminated, but it can be anticipated, monitored, and managed to reduce vulnerability and exposure to shocks and stresses. We will support a range of shock-responsive risk-management strategies that strengthen systems at all levels. Examples of activities that contribute to this result include: ● Strengthening the capacity of governments and communities to develop and implement country-led, well-coordinated, multisectoral, and gender- and youth-responsive policies and programs for disaster risk management, and integrate and mainstream measurable outcomes across technical-sectors; ● Building capacity of communities and governments to develop and manage community and national- level risk management and early warning and monitoring systems, to track changes in food security, nutrition, coping mechanisms, seasonal weather, and climate change data, including the use of resilience-monitoring surveys; weather and climate forecasting; hydrologic monitoring; earth observation and geospatial technologies for modeling, prediction, and land and water resources management and planning; and marine and coastal water systems; ● Promoting near-term actions in Intermediate Result 4 focused on sustainable productivity, and in CC Intermediate Results 4, 5, and 6 focused on climate change, natural resource management, and WRM, including inland terrestrial systems, and ocean and marine coastal systems; ● Proactively tracking, understanding, and managing conflict and structural violence risks within and across sectors and societal structures and developing strategies for violence prevention, social cohesion, and building peace within communities, social groups, and governance structures, especially for marginalized and underrepresented groups; ● Increasing access to and adoption of crop, livestock, hazard, weather-indexed, and other insurance and risk-transfer products, and at multiple scales (from microinsurance and safety nets to sovereign insurance); ● Strengthening humanitarian-development-peace coherence through joint analysis, planning, and coordination among humanitarian, development, and peace stakeholders; ● Strengthening the design and implementation of shock-responsive social protection systems, linked to longer-term development programs that reduce risk, vulnerability, and exposure to shocks and facilitate more efficient and effective response and recovery; ● Strengthening informal savings and lending groups, especially for women and youth, to increase access to savings, credit, and emergency funds as well as diversify livelihoods and empower women and youth; and ● Strengthening the development of formal financial products, including climate financing mechanisms, and piloting new products and services to ensure these services are also inclusive and accessible by marginalized and underrepresented groups. Intermediate Result 6: Improved adaptation to and recovery from shocks and stresses Activities under IR 6 focus on strengthening the ability of people and systems to recover from shocks and stresses, adapt to climate change and other shocks, plan for future shocks, and build transformative system- U.S. Government Global Food Security Strategy 38 level capacities that lead to sustainable pathways out of poverty. We will support recovery and adaptation strategies that improve the risk environment through systems strengthening and promoting innovations and technologies that reduce vulnerability, risk, and exposure to future shocks and stresses. Adaptive approaches should also scale up and build transformative capacities that sustain future well-being and self-reliance. Examples of activities that contribute to this result include: ● Strengthening the capacity of governments, communities, and system actors to develop and implement country-led, well-coordinated resilience policies and strategies; ● Strengthening the policy and legal frameworks for natural resources and governance, including land, water, and marine resources tenure; ● Strengthening national social protection systems and structures through policy and advocacy in international and local fora; ● Strengthening local coordination and implementation mechanisms such as integrated social registries and sector-specific databases and management information systems that serve as a platform for sequencing, layering, and integrating agriculture, nutrition, and adapted livelihoods programs with national social protection systems services and shock-responsive mechanisms; ● Integrating conflict sensitivity, peacebuilding, and social cohesion strategies and mechanisms into recovery and long-term planning and adaptation programs; ● Integrating sustainable productivity approaches that are outlined in IR 4 that also serve to strengthen natural resource assets, ecosystem services, and climate adaptation strategies and co-benefits for emissions mitigation, as outlined in CC IRs 4, 5, and 6; ● Strengthening systems to promote diversified and profitable livelihood opportunities in and outside of agriculture that reduce pressure on diminishing natural resources and may also encourage migration that increases resilience in communities of origin and destination; ● Supporting people and system actors to strengthen planned and well-managed rural-urban transformation that fosters resilient food systems, sustainable and inclusive livelihoods, and prevents urbanization of poverty, while also safeguarding against new potential risks to marginalized and underrepresented groups; ● Combining informal savings groups and other formal financial products and services with other services, such as financial literacy, money management, livelihoods development, and other asset creation, especially for women and youth; ● Strengthening human capital through nutrition and coordination with health, education, and economic development programming, especially for marginalized and underrepresented groups; and ● Investing in research and development to continue to build the evidence base and tools for resilience monitoring, evaluation, and learning. Objective 3: A Well-Nourished Population, Especially Among Women and Children Rationale Malnutrition, including undernutrition, overweight and obesity, and micronutrient malnutrition, restricts the attainment of human potential and productivity and imposes a high burden of social and economic consequences on individuals, families, communities, and nations. Maternal and child undernutrition is the U.S. Government Global Food Security Strategy 39 attributable cause of 45% of child deaths.68 Proper nutrition promotes the optimal growth and development of children. We are committed to improving nutrition to enhance health, productivity, and human potential and to save lives, as reflected in the U.S. Government Global Nutrition Coordination Plan for 2016-2021.69 Nutrition is central to sustainable development and is required to make progress on issues such as health, education, employment, reduction of poverty and inequality, and the empowerment of girls and women. Malnutrition and chronic disease risk are interrelated: Poor nutrition in early life is associated with greater susceptibility to non-communicable diseases later in life. Further, the lack of availability of or access to enough affordable, safe, and nutritious foods can be a destabilizing factor in countries that do not have the financial or technical abilities to solve their own food security and nutrition problems. The third Lancet series on nutrition summarizes that, “A new body of evidence from national and state-level success stories in stunting reduction reinforces the crucial importance of multisectoral actions to address the underlying determinants of undernutrition and identifies key features of enabling political environments.”70 This series, the Global Nutrition Report, and evaluation of FTF activities indicate that effective action across key sectors yields significant results. However, progress toward decreasing the prevalence of malnutrition has been uneven across and within countries. The immediate determinants of poor child nutrition often include poor nutritional status of women before and during pregnancy, suboptimal infant feeding practices, poor sanitation and hygiene, contaminated food, and frequent infection in young children. Other underlying causes of poor nutritional status can include the inferior social status of women and girls, inequality, poverty, natural resource degradation, and poor infrastructure of both food and health systems and markets. Among many other effects, climate change has the potential to bring affordable, safe, and nutritious foods further out of reach, exacerbating inequities, particularly for the most marginalized. Theory of Change The multifactorial causes of poor nutrition highlight the need for a multisectoral systems approach to address the problem. Our development hypothesis for Objective 3 is as follows: ● If people: ○ increase their consumption of safe and nutritious foods; ○ increase their use of nutrition-specific interventions and services; and ○ maintain more hygienic household and community environments and have lower disease impacts; Then the population will be well-nourished. Global food-security and food-systems investments, including investments in nutrition, food safety, agriculture, natural resource management, WASH, health services, and building resilience will directly address all parts of this development hypothesis. At the core of our approach is a focus on affordable healthy diets, meaning that family members, especially women and young children, have year-round access to affordable, safe, and nutritious foods. 68 Black, R.E., Alderman, H, Bhutta, Z.A. et al. (2013). Maternal and child nutrition: building momentum for impact. The Lancet, 382(9890): 372-375.https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(13)60988-5/fulltext?rss=yes&code=lancet-site 69 USAID. (2016). US Government Global Nutrition Coordination Plan 2016-2021. https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1864/nutritionCoordinationPlan_web-508.pdf 70 Heidkamp, R.A.; Piwoz, E.; Gillespie, S.; Keats, E.C.; D’Alimonte, M.R.; Menon, P. (2021). Mobilising evidence, data, and resources to achieve global maternal and child undernutrition targets and the Sustainable Development Goals: an agenda for action. The Lancet 397(10282), p1400-1418. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)00568-7/fulltext?rss=yes U.S. Government Global Food Security Strategy 40 Feed the Future investments provide critical contributions toward achieving improved nutrition by directly complementing a range of nutrition-specific interventions, creating synergies, and increasing the benefits of all nutrition programming. The chief pathways for nutrition improvement contributed under the Global Food Security Act include: increased incomes and reduction in extreme poverty; women’s empowerment in the household, farm, and across the food system; increased availability and affordability of high-quality nutritious foods such as fruits and vegetables, legumes, and animal-source foods (e.g., dairy, eggs, fish, etc.); improved food safety and hygienic environments; large-scale food fortification; and nutrition education. Working together, these pathways help improve diet quality among low-income groups and improve the range and nutritional value of food choices among both producing families and consumers. To improve the nutritional status of the populations in the areas where we work, we will concentrate efforts on improving women’s and children’s nutrition, particularly during the critical 1,000-day window from pregnancy to a child’s second birthday. We will focus on improving safe and nutritious diets, reducing child wasting, and improving micronutrient status, all of which may contribute to reducing child stunting. The Intermediate Results under this Objective, in combination with those leading to inclusive and sustainable agriculture-led economic growth and strengthened resilience among people and systems, will contribute toward the global goal of ending malnutrition in all its forms and our Goal to sustainably reduce hunger, malnutrition, and poverty.71 Nutrition is an input and output of resilience, and the combination of these investments at scale will build resilience at the individual and systems levels and prevent backsliding. We will work through both nutrition-sensitive interventions across food systems that address the underlying and systemic causes of malnutrition (also known as indirect nutrition interventions) and nutrition-specific interventions that address the immediate determinants of malnutrition (also known as direct nutrition interventions), with a special focus on maximizing our impact and learning what works through a food systems approach. The agriculture-led growth outcomes embedded throughout the Intermediate Results and Objectives in the GFSS (specifically increased productivity to increase the affordability and availability of safe and nutritious foods) are essential to achieving improved nutrition. In addition, higher incomes, especially for women, when paired with women’s increased decision-making and other women’s empowerment outcomes, also contribute to better health and nutrition. To achieve the goal of a well-nourished population, we will support global, national, regional, and local policies, strategies, and processes. We will collaborate with partner governments (national and local), regional and international organizations, civil-society organizations, the private sector, researchers and universities, and other stakeholders to leverage resources, encourage nutrition advocacy, promote coordinated actions, and advance country priorities. There is a strong opportunity to engage both public and private food systems actors to implement, sustain, and scale efforts. Building technical expertise and institutional capacity within countries to deliver services is an important aspect of supporting country-led efforts to enhance sustainability. Delivering on Nutrition in Health Systems, Food Systems, and Emergency Settings Reducing child malnutrition and saving lives requires action in multiple settings. In health systems and emergency settings, we focus on pregnant women’s access to appropriate vitamin and mineral supplements, 71 See the section on Complementary Results below for a summary of how related U.S. Government approaches to reduce disease impacts contribute to and benefit from these nutrition approaches. U.S. Government Global Food Security Strategy 41 exclusive breastfeeding for children under 6 months and continued breastfeeding until 24 months,72 vitamin A supplementation for children 6-59 months, and uptake of specialized food products for the treatment of wasting. We complement these efforts through food systems that deliver essential vitamins and minerals through large-scale food fortification; improve the affordability and accessibility of safe, nutritious foods for women and children; support small and medium enterprises to access financial and technical resources to produce nutritious foods; and increase focus on women's empowerment. Intermediate Result 7: Increased consumption of safe and nutritious foods A nutritious and safe diet is one that supplies adequate quantities of all nutrients required for growth and normal functioning of the body, minimizes contaminants, and is culturally acceptable. Increased consumption of safe and nutritious foods requires an increased, affordable, and accessible supply of nutritious and safe foods, along with consumer demand for them. To achieve this, we will work across food systems, targeting gaps and bottlenecks. On the supply side of the food system, we will integrate, coordinate, and layer agriculture and nutrition activities under IRs 2, 3, 4, and 7 to increase the availability and consumption of diverse and nutrient-rich plant and animal source foods from terrestrial and aquatic food-production systems. We will expand commercial production of nutritious food and reduce food-safety risks across food systems. Habitats and natural resources important to livelihoods and nutrition should also be conserved. We will engage the private sector across food systems to increase availability, access, and demand for safe and nutritious food. We also will apply a facilitative approach to strengthen market systems and infrastructure to help ensure local markets across rural, peri-urban, and urban areas have year-round availability of diverse, affordable, safe, and nutritious food. On the demand side, we will strategically leverage nutrition education, training, marketing, and social- and behavior-change strategies with local-system stakeholders. These stakeholders include trained nutrition and agricultural professionals, private-sector actors, and others to increase demand for a safe and nutritious diet. We will promote adequate diets for women and appropriate infant and young child feeding practices, including promotion of early and exclusive breastfeeding and appropriate complementary feeding starting at 6 months, with continued breastfeeding and appropriate feeding of the non-breastfed infant or child. In addition, given the rise in dietary-related non-communicable diseases, nutrition programs will promote the importance of healthy, balanced diets that contain a variety of foods across and within all food groups and that reduce the amount of added sugars, sodium, and unhealthy fats. Examples of activities that contribute to this result include: ● Promoting optimal infant and young child feeding in households and communities; ● Increasing women’s dietary diversity through access to safe and nutritious foods, particularly during pregnancy and lactation; ● Increasing large-scale food fortification and consumption of fortified foods; ● Promoting production of biofortified crops; ● Facilitating increased capacity for commercial and household food processing to increase supply of 72 In situations in which human milk is unavailable, care must be taken to ensure that the most appropriate alternative source of nutrition is available and clearly labelled for consumer understanding. U.S. Government Global Food Security Strategy 42 nutritious foods year-round; ● Promoting other targeted gender and nutrition-sensitive social protection programs, such as food vouchers and conditional cash transfers to increase income and women’s empowerment, both of which are linked to improved nutrition outcomes; ● Promoting women’s empowered decision-making in households and communities and engaging men in supporting family nutrition; ● Improving metrics and measures of food environments, food consumption patterns, and diet quality; ● Improving measures of efforts to generate consumer demand to increase consumption of safe and nutritious foods; ● Supporting research, including on nutrition surveillance systems and nutrition-sensitive agriculture approaches and outcomes, including to account for climate change impacts; ● Strengthening local capacity for good agricultural and food-safety practices, from post-harvest handling through marketing, to prevent contamination of raw and processed foods by biological, chemical, or physical hazards; ● Strengthening regulatory and management systems to improve food safety and food quality to reduce risk of foodborne illness and increase quality of fortified and supplementary foods; ● Improving the regulatory and policy environment to increase availability of evidenced-based information on food to consumers, including through the development of country- or region-specific dietary guidance systems; and ● Expanding sustainable early child development, preschool, and integrated school nutrition programs that provide nutritious meals and other nutrition and health interventions, including nutrition education. Intermediate Result 8: Increased use of direct nutrition interventions and services While malnutrition is attributable to multiple factors, current evidence suggests that nutrition-specific interventions and services, which are often delivered through the health sector, make a significant contribution to improved nutrition status, particularly of infants and young children.73 In particular, the 2013 series in The Lancet on maternal and child nutrition74 and the subsequent 2021 Lancet series75 examined the evidence around a range of nutrition interventions and recommended interventions for maternal and child undernutrition delivered through the health system. We will focus our efforts on these interventions, primarily targeting pregnant and lactating women and children under age 2. We will do this in partnership with the health sector, which provides the platform for assessment of nutritional status and relevant counseling and support as core functions of clinical service delivery. Examples of activities that contribute to this result include: ● Supporting studies on the use of multiple micronutrient supplements during pregnancy to ensure their safety and programmatic effectivity; ● Promoting calcium supplementation to mothers at risk of low intake; 73 Ruel, M. T., & Alderman, H. (2013). Nutrition-sensitive interventions and programmes: How can they help to accelerate progress in improving maternal and child nutrition? The Lancet, 382(9891), 536–551. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140- 6736(13)60843-0 74 Black, R. E., Victora, C. G., Walker, S. P. et al. (2013). Maternal and child undernutrition and overweight in low-income and middle-income countries. Lancet, 382(9890), 427–451. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(13)60937-X 75 The Lancet’s Series on Maternal and Child Undernutrition Progress. (2021). https://www.thelancet.com/series/maternal-child- undernutrition-progress U.S. Government Global Food Security Strategy 43 ● Promoting maternal balanced energy protein supplements as needed; ● Promoting early and exclusive breastfeeding for 6 months and continued breastfeeding for up to 24 months and beyond; ● Promoting improved complementary feeding and appropriate complementary food supplements in food-insecure populations; ● Promoting vitamin A supplementation between 6 and 59 months of age when other vitamin A interventions (e.g., fortified foods) are not benefitting this group; ● Using zinc supplements in the management of children’s diarrhea; ● Preventing and treating wasting; ● Supporting other targeted preventive nutrient supplementation for children; and ● Promoting newborn and neonatal care interventions, including delayed cord clamping, Kangaroo Mother Care, and vitamin A and K supplementation. Intermediate Result 9: More hygienic household and community environments Improved community-level access to clean and safe drinking water, food, and sanitation services along with overall hygiene is critical to improving nutritional status and preventing diarrheal disease and environmental enteric dysfunction. Prevention of waterborne illnesses is associated with improved nutritional status and healthy cognitive and physical development. Community-wide access to safe WASH services can improve nutrition, particularly child nutrition, by reducing repeated episodes of diarrhea and infectious diseases, reducing frequent and intense enteric infections, improving gut health, and reducing effects from significant time spent accessing inconvenient services. Delivering sustainable WASH services through local systems requires attention to the role of water and sanitation infrastructure and systems, behavior change, and sector governance and finance, in addition to sustainable management of water resources (see CC IR 6), all of which should be incorporated into efforts to achieve lasting impact on nutritional status. Efforts to improve community-level access to safe water and sanitation services and the adoption of key hygiene behaviors also provide strategic and policy alignment with the U.S. Government Global Water Strategy (GWS), Strategic Objective 1. In addition to expanding sustainable WASH services, we recognize that food production can create risks to health from potential contaminants. We will promote agriculture practices that are safe and environmentally sound as well as supportive of the efficient, sustained production of increased quantities of nutritious foods. Examples of activities that contribute to this result include: ● Professionalizing water service delivery and working toward supplying safely managed water services; ● Improving area-wide, universal access to basic and safely managed sanitation services; ● Reducing barriers to the practice of hygiene behaviors (such as safe disposal of child and livestock feces, safe food handling, and handwashing with soap) through WASH services and products that are convenient, aspirational, practical, and durable; ● Promoting safe storage and use of agricultural inputs; ● Promoting construction of livestock housing to ensure safe handling of wastes, prevention of pest populations, and reduction of zoonotic disease; ● Promoting watershed and water resources management to improve water quality and quantity while promoting equitable use of resources; U.S. Government Global Food Security Strategy 44 ● Locating irrigation systems and managing agricultural runoff to prevent contamination of drinking water sources; and ● Continuing research to better understand how to interrupt fecal-oral pathways from poor food hygiene, geophagy, and direct soil and feces ingestion. Cross-Cutting Intermediate Results Cross-Cutting Intermediate Results are foundational to achieving our Goal and Objectives. They are essential to all areas of food security and nutrition and contribute to achieving the other Intermediate Results. Cross-Cutting Intermediate Result 1: Strengthened global commitment to investing in food security Reducing global hunger, malnutrition, and poverty requires sustained, long-term investment. The USG is a global leader in shaping the food-security agenda through high-level, sustained diplomatic engagement with partner governments, multilateral institutions, and regional fora and will invest its own capital in the form of development finance in and alongside private-sector enterprises and interventions that contribute to improvements in local and regional food security. We will advocate for attention and action on food security and nutrition among the Group of 7 (G7) and the Group of 20 (G20). We will continue to elevate food security and nutrition at the highest level in our bilateral relationships with foreign governments and engage with regional organizations to improve food security and nutrition. We will continue to use our leadership at the UN, the World Bank, and other international organizations and events, such as the UN Food Systems Summit and the Tokyo Nutrition for Growth Summit, to elevate food security and nutrition and integrate it across the work of multiple organizations. Finally, we will mobilize and catalyze public and private capital to contribute to improving food security and nutrition-related outcomes and strengthening local and regional food systems and supply chains, both directly through the DFC as well as through multilateral financing mechanisms like the Global Agriculture and Food Security Program (GAFSP). While global and donor investment is crucial, domestic spending in agriculture outstrips official development assistance by a rate of nearly 15 to one globally.76 Investments in some public goods and services have the strong potential to improve food security and nutrition, including infrastructure, research and development, data systems, education and extension services for smallholder producers, nutrition services, and social protection to build resilience among groups in highly vulnerable situations. Every dollar spent on these investments is returned multiple times over by the growth yielded.77 We will support country-led efforts to increase and improve domestic spending on food security and nutrition through bilateral engagement and regional platforms and will work with partners to develop transparent and detailed investment and spending plans. While domestic and international private entities are interested in investing in developing-country food and agriculture systems, they often view agriculture and related investments as risky due to weak and uncertain policy environments and inadequate and constrained access to finance for these sectors. In addition to 76 Chandy, L., Ledlie N., & Penciakova V. (2013). The final countdown: Prospects for ending extreme poverty by 2030. The Brookings Institution: Washington, DC. https://www.brookings.edu/interactives/the-final-countdown-prospects-for-ending-extreme- poverty-by-2030-interactive/ 77 Fan, S. (Ed.). (2008). Public expenditures, growth, and poverty: Lessons from developing countries. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press for the International Food Policy Research Institute. https://www.ifpri.org/publication/public-expenditures- growth-and-poverty-developing-countries-0 U.S. Government Global Food Security Strategy 45 engaging with partner governments to improve the policy environment, we can help mitigate both real and perceived risk in various ways, partner directly with the private sector, strengthen finance mechanisms, and provide capital directly. If successful, our private-sector partners will increase their responsible investment, fostering inclusion, innovation, and resilience. Their investments will also build needed infrastructure, create and expand new markets and more and better employment, and facilitate trade for the benefit of local and global consumers. Our efforts will increase and facilitate investment throughout agriculture and food systems—from production to marketing—to sustainably reduce inequality, global hunger, malnutrition, and poverty. With an estimated $210 billion in demand for smallholder finance alone78 and a huge gap in finance for many SMEs, tailored financial services, products, and systems, as well as agriculture-focused capacity building for financial actors, will be key components to achieving outcomes across all Objectives. For small-scale producers, and women and youth entrepreneurs in particular, a lack of secure tenure prevents the use of this resource as collateral for borrowing. We will continue to support specific, effective, and gender- and age- transformative financial mechanisms and approaches, both public and private. Our work with the private financial sector, including local bank and non-bank financial institutions, will be particularly essential to promoting sustainable development of food systems. Examples of activities that contribute to this result include: ● Exercising global leadership in multilateral fora, including the G7, the G20, and the UN Committee on World Food Security; ● Engaging with development partners and country governments bilaterally and through regional organizations and programs such as the Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP) to deliver on investment commitments and improve the quality of spending through transparent plans; ● Strengthening effective participation in the World Trade Organization (WTO) Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures and guiding and shaping the priorities and approaches of international organizations and networks, such as the UN Food and Agricultural Organization, the UN International Fund for Agricultural Development, CGIAR, the WFP, UN Children’s Fund (UNICEF), and the Scaling Up Nutrition movement; ● Providing investment, through the DFC and GAFSP’s private-sector window, in the form of direct loans, loan guarantees, risk-sharing facilities, and equity to private-sector businesses that can improve food security and nutrition-related outcomes and strengthen local and regional food systems and supply chains; and ● Supporting the flow of equitable financing and investment promotion mechanisms, partial loan guarantees, public-private partnerships, risk and other insurance products, savings, trade promotion, debt and equity instruments, blended finance, first-loss positions, and catalytic finance to attract additional financial intermediaries to provide finance. Cross-Cutting Intermediate Result 2: Increased gender equality and female empowerment Empowering women and girls in all their diversity, as well as the recognition and respect of their rights, is 78 Rural & Agricultural Finance Learning Lab. (2016). Inflection point: Unlocking growth in the era of farmer finance. https://www.raflearning.org/post/inflection-point-unlocking-growth-the-era-farmer-finance U.S. Government Global Food Security Strategy 46 critical to achieving secure, sustainable, and equitable global food systems. The multiple roles women, young women,79 and girls play—such as producing food, generating income, giving birth, and providing care—place them at a critical nexus in food security, resilience, and nutrition. If women had the same access to productive resources as men, they could increase yields on their farms by 20 to 30%, potentially raising total agricultural output in developing countries by 2.5 to 4% and reducing the number of hungry people in the world by 12 to 17%, or by 100 to 150 million people.80 Women’s empowerment and higher levels of gender equality are strong predictors of whether households can escape and remain out of poverty in the face of shocks and stresses.81 These are also associated with lower levels of child undernutrition and stunting.82 83 Women and girls are also responsible for more than 75% of the world’s unpaid care work, including food provision and preparation.84 Empowering women and engaging men can improve diets, hygiene, and use of nutrition services, contributing to a well-nourished population. Integrating gender into climate adaptation and mitigation efforts will be essential to achieving more effective, equitable, and sustainable outcomes. Women’s household and community roles and expertise are important in natural resource management issues like watershed protection and management. Women and girls bear primary responsibility for collection, allocation, and use of water for household and productive purposes, often relying on a single water point for all their needs. Particularly in Indigenous communities, women often hold important traditional knowledge about both water and land resources. WASH programs that involve women at all stages of design, implementation, and monitoring are more sustainable than those that fail to incorporate women’s leadership, and women’s participation in water management can contribute to peace processes where conflict over water resources is a risk. We must empower women, reduce the barriers they face to engaging in higher value-added and sustainable production activities, and supply them with technologies to reduce labor burdens. Barriers include an inability to participate in, contribute to, and benefit from food systems and diversified off-farm livelihoods systems as producers, entrepreneurs, traders, and wage workers. Promoting our objective of resilience requires a robust gender lens as shocks and stresses affect men, women, boys, and girls differently, even in the same household and across the life cycle. For example, food insecurity contributes to greater risk of gender-based violence, and women, girls, and boys bear the brunt of negative coping mechanisms, including child marriage, child labor, and transactional or survival sex as well as increased risks of trafficking. Child marriage can also perpetuate the cycle of food insecurity and malnutrition. Children born to adolescent mothers are more likely to have low birth weight, suffer from poor nutritional status, and experience stunting.85 We will work to ensure women and girls have optimal nutrition throughout their lives and access to full health and educational services to support their aspirations and agency at the household and community levels. 79 Refer to the youth definition elaborated below, under CC IR 3. 80 Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (2011). The State of Food Insecurity in the World – Women in agriculture: Closing the gender gap for development. Rome, Italy. http://www.fao.org/docrep/013/i2050e/i2050e.pdf 81 Cabot Venton, C., Prillaman, S.A., & Kim, J. (2021). Building Resilience through Self Help Groups: Evidence Review. Washington, DC: The Resilience Evaluation, Analysis, and Learning (REAL) Award. 82 Smith, L.C. & Haddad, L. (2015). Reducing Child Undernutrition: Past Drivers and Priorities for the Post-MDG Era. World Development 68 (1): 180–204. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2014.11.014 83 Yaya, S., Odusina, E.K., Uthman, O.A. & Bishwaji, G. (2020). What Does Women’s Empowerment Have to Do with Malnutrition in Sub-Saharan Africa? Evidence from Demographic and Health Surveys from 30 Countries. Global Health Research and Policy 5 (1): 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41256-019-0129-8 84 Care work and care jobs for the future of decent work / International Labour Office – Geneva: ILO, 2018. 85 Wodon, Q., Male, C., Nayihouba, A. et al. (2017). Economic Impacts of Child Marriage: Global Synthesis Report, Washington, DC: The World Bank and International Center for Research on Women. U.S. Government Global Food Security Strategy 47 Our programming, policy, and research efforts will engage women and men in all their diversity, as well as other communities and institutions to regularly identify and address gendered needs and barriers, including social norms and discriminatory policies and practices. We will apply evidence from the Women’s Empowerment in Agricultural Index and the Gender Integration Framework, developed under FTF, to effectively address the greatest constraints in each target country under the following domains: decision- making in agriculture, improving women’s and men’s access to and control over resources, income, social capital and leadership, workload, human capital, and access to technologies. We will promote women’s large-scale, active participation in leadership and productivity, profit and benefit in food systems and simultaneously leverage women’s empowerment and men’s engagement in nutrition approaches. This work will foster cross-sectoral coordination and linkages for social services and programs not directly funded by our efforts. Efforts to reach girls with nutrition and agriculture programming will align with USG policies. Examples of activities that contribute to this result include: ● Supporting women to gain greater access to inputs, extension, and other services, skills, resource- management capacity, networking, bargaining power, financing, technologies and innovations, and market connections needed to sustain their long-term economic prosperity; ● Supporting the participatory design and application of accessible and relevant gender-sensitive, climate-smart technologies, financial and extension services, and marketing support; ● Promoting positive norms and practices to encourage more equitable control over income and more equitable roles in caregiving and workloads; ● Supporting women, girls, caregivers, and other key stakeholders to ensure women have optimal nutrition and access to food and non-food nutrition-sensitive practices and services; ● Promoting cross sectoral coordination to ensure that women and girls have access to full health and educational services; ● Promoting women’s roles as entrepreneurs, employees, and leaders across the private and public sectors through transformation of gender norms, policies, and practices; ● Promoting clear, secure, and transparent land, freshwater, marine, and resource tenure rights, particularly those of women small-scale producers and their communities; ● Promoting women’s active leadership in decision-making, governance, research, and in food systems organizations at all levels, as well as in managing and governing land, freshwater, marine, and other natural resources; ● Identifying and addressing gender-differentiated needs, preferences, and roles in income-generating activities and in risk reduction and climate-related adaptation and mitigation activities; ● Promoting gender-sensitive social protection schemes that can address the specific risks and constraints faced by women, young women, and girls and tackle intergenerational poverty; ● Promoting efforts to address structural drivers of gender digital divide including support to women and girls to strengthen their digital literacy so that they can equally benefit from digital technologies; and ● Designing and implementing programs to monitor and address potential unintended consequences, including increased risks of gender-based violence and exacerbating women’s and girls’ time burdens and workloads. U.S. Government Global Food Security Strategy 48 Cross-Cutting Intermediate Result 3: Increased youth empowerment and livelihoods Youth need food systems, and food systems cannot function without youth.86 At more than 1.2 billion, the world’s youth population (aged 15-24) is the largest in history.87 Almost a billion (nearly 90%) of these young people live in economically developing countries,88 including about half in rural areas and another quarter outside of densely populated urban areas. The number of youth is projected to increase 62% in the economically poorest countries by 2050, rising most rapidly in Sub-Saharan Africa.89 Rapid population growth is increasing pressure on natural resources and the demand for nutritious food. It is also placing intense pressure on governments to prioritize the creation of more and better (stable, safe, lucrative) jobs, including for 14 million new workforce entrants annually in Africa alone. With the right policies and investments to target equitable youth inclusion, food systems are well placed to urgently deliver many of these opportunities. Moreover, inclusive agriculture-led growth involves a process of delivering more and better jobs as structural and employment transformation occur.90 91 If enabled to uptake and benefit from them, youth will provide essential contributions to unlock the potential of food systems to deliver inclusive, sustainable economic growth, nutrition, and water security. Two out of three rural youth in developing countries live in rural opportunity spaces with high agricultural potential.92 Although it is often said that young people are not interested in agriculture, they are already heavily involved in it and play diverse roles in food systems up and down value chains.93 Young workers, however, are two times as likely as adult workers to live in extreme poverty.94 They are often in low-skilled, low-paid, precarious, and informal work. The vast majority of unemployed youth are young women. 95 Youth often face heavy constraints to establishing a livelihood, particularly young women who often carry a greater burden of unpaid household responsibilities. Youth endure family vulnerabilities and violence and lack access to productive resources, particularly land, finance, and social protection, and at times are unable to join unions or workers’ associations.96 They also have limited opportunities to complete high-quality education and access extension and advisory services as well as digital and other technologies. These barriers become more acute with layered identities of being young, female, a person with disabilities, an LGBTQI+ individual, an Indigenous person, displaced, or part of another community facing exclusion. Helping young women transition to decent employment is particularly critical to avoid intergenerational poverty and poor 86 USAID. (2012). Youth in Development, Realizing the Demographic Opportunity, USAID Policy, Youth: October. https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1870/Youth_in_Development_Policy_0.pdf 87 United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. (2017). International Migration Report 2017: Highlights. https://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/migration/publications/migrationreport/docs/MigrationReport2017_highlights.pd f 88 International Labour Organization. (2017). Towards Policies Tackling the Current Youth Employment Challenges in Eastern Europe and Central Asia. ILO Decent Work Technical Support Team and Country Office for Eastern Europe and Central Asia. Moscow: ILO. ILOStat (International Labour Organization) 89 UNDESA. (2019). Ten Key Messages, August 12. 90 Jayne, T., Yeboah, F.K. & Henry, C. (2018). The future of work in African agriculture: Trends and drivers of change. Geneva: ILO. 91 USAID (2019). Getting Employment to Work for Self-reliance, a USAID Framework for Programming. https://www.usaid.gov/documents/1865/getting-employment-work-self-reliance-usaid-framework-programming 92 IFAD. (2019). Rural Development Report 2019. Creating Opportunities for Youth, pp 28-29. 93 Mueller, B. (2021). Rural Youth Employment in sub-Saharan Africa, Moving Away from Urban Myths and Toward Structural Policy Solutions, in Chacaltana, J. and Dasgupta, S. eds. Is the Future Ready for Youth? Youth Employment Policies for Evolving Labor Markets. International Labor Organization. 94 UNDESA. (2021). SDGs Goal 1. https://sdgs.un.org/goals/goal1 95 High-level Panel of Experts. (2021). Promoting youth employment and engagement in agriculture and food systems. Committee on Food Security, p. 8. 96 High-level Panel of Experts. (2021). Promoting youth employment and engagement in agriculture and food systems. Committee on Food Security. U.S. Government Global Food Security Strategy 49 development outcomes. Failure to ensure girls finish school, avoid early marriage and early motherhood, and get good jobs violates girls’ rights and undermines development.97 Adolescents, and particularly adolescent girls, have critical nutrition needs and roles to play as they make the transition from childhood to adulthood. USAID’s Multi-sectoral Nutrition Strategy 2014-2025 aims to reduce malnutrition in women of reproductive age (ages 15-49) and children under 5. Consuming a micronutrient- rich diet before pregnancy promotes mental and physical development and provides essential vitamins and minerals that women need when they decide to have children.98 Adolescence is a period of rapid physiological, sexual, neurological, and behavioral changes, so adequate nutrition is crucial for achieving full growth potential. This is also a critical time of behavioral development, including the formation of healthy eating habits.99 Adolescence may provide a “second window of opportunity” for improving nutritional status. Failure to achieve optimal nutrition may lead to delayed and stunted linear growth and problems with organ remodeling.100 But addressing the nutritional needs of adolescents presents unique challenges, given their varied household, school, work, marital, and parental circumstances. Improving rural water infrastructure, especially through the professionalization of the WASH sector and related employment creation (including through non-sector-specific jobs, such as human resources), would increase the health of and opportunities available for rural youth. Improved water quality can also support healthier aquaculture systems, which hold a number of employment possibilities for young people. Improvements to menstrual health and hygiene infrastructure further decrease the likelihood that young girls will drop out of school.101 The impacts of climate change will disproportionately define future opportunities and challenges for young people, including in food systems. However, climate change also presents an opportunity to create new jobs that meet the needs of both people and the planet. A focus on creating jobs for youth that use greener practices in agri-food systems can help achieve climate adaptation and mitigation goals. Examples of activities that contribute to this result include: ● Systematically engaging young people in all phases of policy and program design and implementation, responding to youth aspirations and cultivating youth leadership, agency, and connections, particularly among young women; ● Undertaking youth- and gender-inclusive market-systems analysis and development approaches that unlock opportunities for better, decent, greener jobs for youth at scale in sustainable agri-food and water systems, addressing both demand- and supply-side issues; ● Addressing barriers and risks that disproportionately affect young people’s abilities to enter into and profit from agriculture, aquaculture, and fisheries activities, including activities beyond production and that equitably include female youth; 97 Emry, M. (2019). How Child Marriage Harms Agricultural Productivity. Agrilinks blog: Oct 24. https://agrilinks.org/post/how- child-marriage-harms-agricultural-productivity 98 USAID. (2015) “Multi-sector Nutrition Strategy 2014-2025, Technical Guidance Brief.” 99 Keats, E.C. et al. (2018). Diet and Eating Practices Among Adolescent Girls in Low and Middle-income countries, A Systematic Review. https://www.spring-nutrition.org/sites/default/files/publications/reports/spring_diet_eating_adol_girls_lmic_0.pdf 100 Das, J.K., Salam, R.A., Thornburg, K.L. et al. (2017), Nutrition in adolescents: physiology, metabolism, and nutritional needs. Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci., 1393: 21-33. https://doi.org/10.1111/nyas.13330 101 USAID. (2020). USAID Water and Development Technical Series: Gender Equality and Female Empowerment in WASH, Technical Brief 4. https://www.globalwaters.org/resources/assets/usaid-water-and-development-technical-series-gender-equality-and- female U.S. Government Global Food Security Strategy 50 ● Supporting youth to gain greater access to inputs, land, extension, digital and other technologies and innovations, services, financing, and market connections needed to sustain their long-term economic prosperity; ● Developing innovative and appropriate business models and sources of capital for youth to promote financial inclusion, business mentorships, and business advisory services; ● Increasing youth access to diverse education, skills, and capacity-development opportunities, ranging from school-based agriculture to private-sector extension, that build their knowledge, know-how, social and emotional skills, resource-management capacity, networking, and social capital; ● Applying technology to engage youth, with an emphasis on digital technologies such as mobile devices and applications, mobile money, social media, geospatial technologies, sensors, 3D printers, autonomous systems, and artificial intelligence systems; and ● Building evidence of how nutrition-sensitive agricultural interventions can improve the nutrition outcomes of adolescents. Cross-Cutting Intermediate Result 4: Enhanced climate change adaptation and mitigation Current and projected impacts of climate change are an existential threat to food security, development outcomes, and peace and stability, and disproportionately affect marginalized and disadvantaged members of society. At the same time, it is estimated that 75% of emissions from land-use change are generated by the expansion of agriculture in the developing world, resulting in deforestation or degradation of other carbon- rich ecosystems. Most of the hot spots for land conversion and forest loss are outside the FTF zones, but many tools, technologies, and approaches utilized in FTF produce sizable climate gains. Reducing emissions and emissions intensity, enhancing carbon storage in soils and agricultural tree cover, and many other climate- smart innovations are an essential part of the immediate and long-term strategy to reduce global GHGs while also providing adaptation benefits. The GFSS responds to this challenge systematically—from the priority of building resilience to shocks and stresses, to the need for more environmentally sustainable food and agricultural systems, to addressing the interlinkages of climate change and nutrition. Indeed, our partner countries, in their Nationally Determined Contributions and National Adaptation Plans, consistently identify agriculture, fisheries, livestock, and water management as priorities for climate actions.102 Under the GFSS, our responses will recognize that cross- sectoral approaches are often necessary and that human, community, organizational, and systemic capacities must be strengthened. We will respond to urgent adaptation priorities under the GFSS. It is essential that we develop and scale technologies and integrated approaches that allow crops, livestock, and fisheries to thrive under increasing temperatures, greater climate variability, and changing trends in precipitation. The entire food chain, from production to processing to storage and distribution, needs to be climate-proofed. We need to strengthen local risk-reduction and response capacities and enhance use of climate and weather information for decision- making. We must recognize that climate change can reduce the viability of agricultural and pastoral livelihoods, requiring investments in rural and urban economic diversification toward less climate-sensitive sectors. Our approach to adaptation will be context-specific, locally-led, and responsive to the differentiated impacts on, and adaptive capacities of, marginalized groups, women and men, girls, and boys. 102 CCAFS. (2015). Info Note: How countries plan to address agricultural adaptation and mitigation. U.S. Government Global Food Security Strategy 51 Under the GFSS, we will also address urgent mitigation priorities as appropriate to their scale of contribution to global emissions. In emerging economies and some developing countries, emissions from agriculture can be substantial, particularly deforestation associated with agriculture, livestock, or aquaculture expansion; methane emissions from livestock and rice; nitrous oxide emissions from fertilizer use; black carbon emissions from open agricultural burning; and food loss and waste. Our approach will largely be one of partnership, supporting ambitious national policies, building technical capacity, and facilitating private-sector investment. However, most poor countries in which the GFSS has the largest investments have low absolute or per capita emissions. They need to increase use of fertilizers and mechanization in agriculture and food production to achieve higher yields and profitability. For these countries, reducing GHG intensity (emissions per unit of production) is preferable. Addressing food loss and waste will also be a priority. Facing the climate crisis, we also need to transform our food and agricultural systems fundamentally to increase their resilience and adaptive capacity, much of which is described in greater detail under Objective 2: Strengthened resilience among people and systems. Future climate impacts will be extreme, highly dynamic, and context specific. Countries need systems and capacities that are responsive, flexible, and able to transform and thrive under new conditions, to safeguard populations so climate shocks do not result in humanitarian crises, and to mainstream climate-risk management and risk-reduction practices in government, communities, and the private sector. Globally, agriculture and food systems must reduce their emissions and increase the amount of carbon they sequester from the atmosphere. Maximizing the terrestrial carbon sink requires us to reduce our collective footprint on the land by dramatically increasing the productivity and resilience of the most fertile, already- cleared agricultural and pastoral areas, while returning fragile lands to carbon-rich forest, wetlands, and grasslands that harbor biodiversity and provide essential ecosystem services, such as watershed functions. An equitable transition in use of land and water resources that reduces poverty requires a diverse, coordinated approach including government policies for low-emissions supply chains, alternative revenues from ecosystem services (like carbon credits), and meaningful livelihoods for former subsistence producers. Examples of activities that contribute to this result include: ● Supporting sustainable intensification on higher-quality agricultural or pastoral lands, while protecting and restoring nearby natural ecosystems on vulnerable or marginal lands; ● Developing and scaling crop and animal varieties and management approaches and practices that are adapted to changing climatic conditions and/or that reduce emissions intensity, including of methane and nitrous oxide, taking into account the specific needs of women, youth, and other frontline users; ● Enhancing carbon sequestration and climate resilience through agroforestry, agropastoral systems, perennial crops, soil health enhancement, and improved WRM; ● Promoting carbon accounting, measurement technology and standards, and governance structures to enable carbon finance for agriculture and food production; ● Supporting agricultural and land policies that reduce deforestation while ensuring or enhancing security of land and resource rights of women, small-scale producers, and communities; ● Improving wild fisheries management to adapt to a changing climate; ● Advancing policies and practices and improving systems to reduce food loss and waste; U.S. Government Global Food Security Strategy 52 ● Promoting cleaner energy sources for processing, storage, and transport; ● Supporting circular economy business models, such as using crop residues and fertilizer to generate energy if and when they are not needed to control erosion and provide nutrients; ● Increasing climate finance flows for inclusive economic opportunities and climate adaptation; ● Supporting shock-responsive social safety nets, agricultural and livestock insurance, provision of climate and weather information and extension services, and adoption of risk-management practices; ● Promoting policies and investments to diversify rural economies toward less climate-sensitive sectors and increasing capacities of marginalized populations to thrive in those alternative occupations; ● Engaging with local and multinational companies to reduce the emissions and enhance the resilience and equity of their supply chains in developing countries; and ● Supporting consumer education about the impacts of their food choices, stimulating demand for more sustainable products. Cross-Cutting Intermediate Result 5: Improved natural resource management The sustainability of food security investments depends on improved management and governance of natural resources within and beyond agricultural systems, including the land and water resources that support terrestrial, freshwater, and marine production systems. Innovative and locally-led approaches, grounded in sound resource governance and evidence-based management practices, can help producers and communities conserve and enhance the natural environment and limit harmful land-use conversions, which benefits humans and the species that live in these areas. Among the many benefits natural ecosystems provide are support for soil formation and conservation, pollination, pest suppression, floodwater storage, improved water quality and quantity, and habitats for micronutrient-rich wild foods. By working with environmental investments, we can jointly improve management and governance of natural resources and habitat conservation with investments in food systems that foster sustainable food security among food-insecure populations living in or near areas with biodiverse ecosystems. More purposeful integration of sustainable intensification and conservation in food systems development will help reduce ecosystem degradation caused by extensification, which is exacerbated by changes in climate and is widely viewed as contributing to conflict, instability, and displacement of communities.103 In the terrestrial context, land degradation has reduced agricultural productivity across nearly a quarter of the global terrestrial area, and pollinator loss puts at risk between $235 billion and $577 billion in annual global crop output.104 Similarly, in the marine context, the percentage of stocks fished at biologically unsustainable levels increased from 10% in 1974 to 34.2% in 2017, with IUU fishing being a key area to address for restoring the sustainability of many fishery resources.105 These unsustainable practices—including deforestation, destruction of mangroves, overgrazing of rangelands, as well as IUU fishing and overfishing—threaten many traditional production systems and food security. Feed the Future programs mitigate or avoid these risks and lead in partnerships toward environment- and climate-friendly development pathways. Given growing stresses and increasing competition over land, freshwater, marine, and other resources, as well as higher temperatures, drought, and increased rainfall variability, new approaches and information systems 103 Population Reference Bureau. (2001). Environmental Scarcity and the Outbreak of Conflict. https://www.prb.org/resources/environmental-scarcity-and-the-outbreak-of-conflict/ 104 IPBES. (2019). Summary for policymakers of the global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, p. 11. 105 Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (2020). The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2020. Sustainability in action. Rome. U.S. Government Global Food Security Strategy 53 are needed to help small-scale terrestrial and marine producers and communities thrive. Science, combined with sound, inclusive natural resource governance that creates incentives for careful management of agriculture and wider food-system investments also aligns with better economic outcomes, especially over the longer term. For example, Indigenous peoples and local communities own, manage, use, or occupy as much as 25% of the global land area, including important primary forests and intact forest landscapes. There is far less terrestrial degradation and high rates of biodiversity in these areas compared to other lands, providing substantial benefits to the global community.106 FTF will continue to focus in major, densely populated, and highly productive settled agricultural ecosystems, pursuing sustainable productivity in ways that also reduce pressure on more fragile landscapes. Across all contexts important to food security, we will work with partner countries to collaborate with, respect, and empower Indigenous peoples, local communities, and other groups living in vulnerable situations to achieve their goals in ways that build their resilience and enhance food security, livelihoods, and conservation of ecosystems. Examples of activities that contribute to this result include: ● Supporting research and implementation of policies, practices, and technologies that best advance sustainable agricultural productivity, food security, resilience, and nutrition, through effective natural resource management and biodiversity conservation, including sustainable fisheries management; ● Enhancing and strengthening governance and science-based resource management, including by partnering with Indigenous peoples, women, youth, and marginalized or underrepresented groups; ● Promoting clear, secure, and transparent land, freshwater and marine, and resource tenure rights, particularly those of women, small-scale producers, and communities; ● Advancing information systems that enable producers and consumers to make informed choices that support food security; ● Advancing sustainable approaches to food security that integrate resilience and economic and environmental goals in global fora focused on food security, climate, and the environment; ● Fostering partnerships with the private sector to develop and scale cost-effective and practical tools for small-scale producers and others to respond to climate- and weather-related impacts; and ● Investing in innovative, environmentally sustainable, and productivity-enhancing technologies and applied science. Land, Freshwater and Marine, and Resource Tenure Tenure is characterized by the bundles of formal and informal rights, rules, and institutions that define individual, institutional, or community access to, and use of, resources such as land and water. Land, freshwater and marine, and resource tenure is a particularly important governance and policy issue in the context of food security and sustainable fisheries. Tenure security, including marine and freshwater tenure, is critical for women, who produce a significant amount of food grown in the developing world. Women play an important role in small-scale fisheries, and protecting their tenure rights and encouraging their active participation in this dynamic and evolving sector is important for employment, food security, and 106 IUCN. (2021). IUCN Policy Statement on Primary Forests Including Intact Forest Landscapes U.S. Government Global Food Security Strategy 54 conservation purposes.107 Evidence shows that when land and resource rights are secure, agricultural productivity improves and incomes rise.108 As agricultural investment in developing countries increases, it is also critical that policies and institutions create positive incentives for sustainable and equitable land and resource uses. As agricultural investment in developing countries increases, it is critical that policies and institutions promote positive incentives for sustainable and equitable land uses. We will prioritize support to partner countries and communities to respect and promote land, freshwater and marine, and resource tenure of local sedentary and migratory communities, particularly those of women and small-scale producers. In all our work, especially in partnerships to enable responsible private-sector investment, we will support implementation of and alignment to the Voluntary Guidelines on the Responsible Governance of Tenure of Land, Fisheries, and Forests in the Context of National Food Security.109 The Guidelines provide a framework for countries to use for the establishment of laws and policies, strategies, and programs that clarify and secure tenure rights. Cross-Cutting Intermediate Result 6: Improved water resources management The world faces daunting challenges managing increasingly scarce water resources and ensuring that food system actors, people, and ecosystems have reliable access to the quantity and quality of water they need. Multi-sectoral WRM is critical for ensuring water is available and sustainably managed to support increased agricultural and aquatic productivity, food processing, and nutrition-sensitive outcomes including access to WASH services and improved hygienic environments. Promoting WRM that addresses future uncertainties due to shifting demands and climate change is also critical to strengthening resilience among people and systems. The agriculture sector is the largest user of freshwater globally, with 70% of withdrawals supporting the production, processing, and distribution of food, fiber, and forage.110 Demand for water to support agriculture is only likely to increase along with aspirations to expand irrigation as a strategy for increasing productivity and driving economic growth, climate resilience, and food security. The production of blue (or aquatic) foods, a crucial component of sustainable food systems, is not always reflected in agricultural water use, despite its heavy reliance on effective upstream WRM for functioning freshwater and marine systems. Rising water demand from the agriculture sector is coupled with growing water requirements from rapid and unplanned urbanization, decreasing water quality, and changes in water availability driven by climate variability and change. These trends underscore the need for more efficient agricultural water use that is coupled with strong WRM and governance that incorporates future uncertainties in availability and works to promote more equitable allocation of available resources to support food security, economic growth, and the environment. 107 Courtney, C.A. & Jhaveri, N.J. (2017). Marine Tenure and Small-Scale Fisheries: A Sourcebook on Good Practices and Emerging Themes, USAID Tenure and Global Climate Change Program, https://land-links.org/wp- content/uploads/2017/02/USAID_Marine_Tenure_Sourcebook_2017.pdf 108 Lawry, S., Samii, C., Hall, R. et al. (2014). The impact of land property rights interventions on investment and agricultural productivity in developing countries: A systematic review. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 10(1). https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.4073/csr.2014.1 109 The Voluntary Guidelines are an internationally negotiated document adopted in 2012 by the Committee on World Food Security under the Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN after nine months of negotiations, chaired by the United States, involving 96 member countries and over 30 civil society organizations. 110 Gleick, P.H et al. (2014). The World’s Water: The Biennial Report on Freshwater Resources. Washington, DC: Island Press. U.S. Government Global Food Security Strategy 55 The United States will invest with partner countries in improved WRM to address rising water stress, adapt to climate change, and enhance resilience in support of food security and resulting broad-based, sustainable economic growth. Water resources are important for advancing each of the Strategic Objectives and are particularly important to CC Intermediate Result 5 (Improved natural resource management), Intermediate Result 4 (Increased sustainable productivity), and Intermediate Result 9 (More hygienic household and community environments). Furthermore, CC Intermediate Result 6 also provides strategic and policy alignment with the U.S. Government Global Water Strategy (GWS), which under Strategic Objective 2 seeks to: “Encourage the sound management and protection of freshwater resources.” As CC Intermediate Result 6 helps to reduce global poverty, hunger, and malnutrition, it will help advance the vision of the GWS to: “Support a water- secure world where people have sustainable supplies of water of sufficient quantity and quality to meet human, economic, and ecosystem needs while managing risks from floods and droughts.”111 Approaches to improve WRM will focus on improving on-farm water management and efficiency and expanded use of sustainable irrigation approaches, including multiple-use dimensions, as part of broader water resources planning, governance, and finance. This includes incentivizing and expanding access to profitable and efficient irrigation practices and technologies; promoting on-farm soil, land, and water conservation practices; and supporting improved and equitable WRM within sustainable food production systems. Working to integrate multiple USG investments, we will also advance policies, planning, and practices that balance ecosystem health and equity in access with the economic optimization of water allocation within basins. Without such holistic investments into WRM, food systems are more vulnerable to water-related shocks and competition. Such interventions should seek to enhance agricultural productivity, sustainability, and resilience by improving water quality, quantity, and flow, while reducing vulnerability to flooding, drought, and chronic water insecurity. These may include in some cases watershed protection and restoration, advancing sustainable land-use practices coupled with efforts to secure tenure, and the use of both green and grey infrastructure (“grey” infrastructure refers to structures such as dams, seawalls, roads, pipes, or water treatment plants). While frequently underused, green infrastructure and improved land-use practices can offer lasting, cost-effective improvements, with multiple co-benefits for water resources, food security, climate change adaptation, communities, and ecosystems. Durable solutions also require data-informed flexible and adaptive management and increased knowledge and institutional capacity for water management. Participatory approaches that engage a broad range of stakeholders, including underserved groups, and create constructive dialogue among competing water users is also crucial for effective water resources planning and equitable resource allocation. Thus, work under this CC Intermediate Result will promote inclusive planning and an enabling environment that reduces barriers to entry in decision-making for marginalized populations. Women, youth, and Indigenous peoples are often the most vulnerable to water risks yet are often underrepresented in decision-making. Examples of activities that contribute to this result include: 111 U.S. Government. (2017). U.S. Government Global Water Strategy. https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1865/Global_Water_Strategy_2017_final_508v2.pdf U.S. Government Global Food Security Strategy 56 ● Supporting sustained investment into holistic WRM to support food systems by strengthening public finance and developing private-sector and civil-society partnerships; ● Supporting governments to develop and coordinate institutional and regulatory strategies, policies, and frameworks to improve WRM; ● Developing and implementing stakeholder-driven water allocation and integrated WRM plans in important food-producing basins and systems that enhance efficiency and equity, including for underserved groups; ● Improving data collection, information sharing, and decision-support tools that enhance WRM and resilience; ● Supporting watershed conservation and restoration efforts that improve water quality and retention and strengthen natural systems and ecosystem services to support food systems and productivity; and ● Increasing access and the efficiency of multi-use affordable irrigation systems, especially small-scale schemes and multiple-use systems where appropriate. Cross-Cutting Intermediate Result 7: More effective governance, policy, and institutions Food-systems governance, policy, institutions, social norms, and constructs such as gender roles comprise the bedrock on which inclusive development rests. Governance, policy, and institutions are crucial in ensuring that countries, regions, and their key stakeholders invest boldly, ambitiously, and strategically in their own sustainable development, strengthening the enabling environment, and building inclusive, science- and evidence-based processes for food systems, disaster-risk management, social protection, and other resilience policy formulation and implementation. These actions will accelerate progress toward sustainable reductions in global hunger, malnutrition, and poverty and will build resilience in line with the SDGs. They are also important for shifting incentives toward more sustainable land uses that limit agriculture’s harmful impacts on climate and biodiversity. Effective, inclusive food-policy systems enable larger and more effective public and private investments in the food system and ensure that all people, regardless of their identity, benefit from such investments. Improved governance, policy, and institutions directly embrace the third Rome Principle for Sustainable Global Food Security of addressing the root causes of hunger and poverty.112 They are also necessary for fostering interministerial coordination to support multisectoral resilience programming and building self- reliance. We will work with stakeholders to strengthen governance, policy and policy systems, and institutions at the global, regional, national, and sub-national levels, while supporting the transformation of agriculture and food systems and building resilience at scale. Improved governance includes the consistent application and enforcement of policies and regulations, respect for the enforcement of contracts, inclusive and transparent policy, resource control, and allocation processes including implementation and efficient, effective, and transparent delivery of public services. Strengthened policy systems comprise inclusive, evidence-based processes for policy formulation and implementation. These lead to a portfolio of development policies that are responsive to stakeholder needs and include mutual accountability across all stakeholders for their unique contributions and shared outcomes. Strengthened institutions, which are the social and legal norms and rules that underlie economic activity, underpin good governance, effective policy systems, and inclusive food- 112 Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (2009). Declaration of the world summit on food security. Rome, Italy. http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/wsfs/Summit/Docs/Final_Declaration/WSFS09_Declaration.pdf U.S. Government Global Food Security Strategy 57 system transformations. To achieve this CC IR, we will support the development of improved policy systems, governance, and institutions in individual partner countries and at the regional and global levels, in collaboration with government, civil society, the private sector, and other stakeholders. This support comprises three essential components: ● A prioritized policy agenda of key actions needed to promote inclusive, sustainable agriculture-led growth, resilience, and improved nutrition while also addressing agriculture’s relation to climate change and the continuing challenges created by the COVID-19 pandemic, informed by evidence and committed to by partner-country governments; ● An institutional architecture for policy formulation and implementation that is predictable, transparent, inclusive, and based on evidence; and ● Mutual accountability through a transparent, inclusive, evidence-based, and continual process of managing for development results. Recognizing that achieving our Goal and Objectives requires the inclusion of marginalized and underrepresented populations in food-policy systems to access economic opportunities, illustrative examples of activities that contribute to this result include: ● Creating space for inclusive, transparent, and evidence-based dialogue among governments, civil society, and the private sector to accelerate sector progress; ● Amplifying the voice of stakeholders facing exclusion in these dialogues, through local capacity development and the use of evidence and analysis; ● Supporting women, youth, and other underserved groups to gain greater access to inputs, extension, and other services, skills, resource-management capacity, networking, bargaining power, financing, technologies, and innovations as well as market connections needed to sustain their long-term economic prosperity and to expose them to all aspects of the value chain; ● Engaging with governments and all stakeholders to listen to and consider the voices of marginalized and underserved groups; ● Supporting country-owned mutual accountability processes based on verifiable stakeholder commitments to endorsed, inclusive development plans; ● Bolstering the private-sector enabling environment, especially around employment and entrepreneurship for women and youth; ● Strengthening land, freshwater and marine, and resource tenure rights and systems, especially for women and small-scale producers; ● Developing capacity to improve food-safety policies, guidelines, and enforcement; ● Improving access for all to modern inputs both on the farm and throughout the food system; ● Helping promote free and fair trade in food and agricultural products; ● Helping countries and regions to strengthen institutions and institutional processes, such as those related to the development of national agricultural, food security, and nutrition investment plans; ● Helping governments strengthen the development of national resilience policies and programs and support interministerial coordination to achieve multi-sectoral outcomes and self-reliance; and ● Helping countries conduct policy-effectiveness analysis to inform design and support efficient, effective, and transparent implementation mechanisms and resource management to support food systems and resilience objectives. U.S. Government Global Food Security Strategy 58 Cross-Cutting Intermediate Result 8: Improved human, organizational, and system performance Strong local capacity at the human, organizational, and system levels is foundational for achieving the Goal and Objectives of this strategy. Capacity encompasses the knowledge, skills, and motivations, as well as the relationships, that enable an actor—an individual, an organization, or a network—to take action to design and implement solutions to local development challenges, to learn and adapt from that action, and to innovate and transform over time. However, capacity is a form of potential that is not visible until it is used, so performance will be the key consideration in determining whether capacity has changed. We will root our approach to improving human, organizational, and system performance in local capacity development. Local capacity development is an investment in local actors—individuals, organizations, and networks—to jointly improve the performance of a system in producing valued development outcomes. Decisions about which actors to support must start with understanding the local system and by jointly making sense of what we perceive with local actors. Expectations about the types of performance improvement that our programming is likely to catalyze and support at the individual, organizational, and systems level also must be guided by the local actors we accompany in the development process. There are many kinds of capacity and approaches that may be relevant to improve the performance of individuals, organizations, and systems. While approaches that support the development of hard skills, or those that are related to specific technical areas, may be important, evidence has demonstrated that technical skills may not always be the most critical for fostering change at the systems level. Thus, we also will strive to foster functional and relational skills that lead to improved performance in the areas of leadership, problem- solving, social capital, and adaptive capacities, for example. Ultimately, we will partner and support efforts that go beyond producing short-term results and support those that contribute to resilient systems and sustainable outcomes. Examples of activities that contribute to this result include: ● Engaging with our partners and local communities to shift agenda-setting, decision-making power, leadership, and ownership into the hands of local actors; ● Centering local knowledge and priorities, increasing a locally-led approach, and promoting locally- led solutions in the design and implementation of programming; ● Targeting local capacity-development interventions to strengthen strategic organizational actors, including research and education institutions, cooperatives and producer groups, governmental agencies, private-sector firms, faith-based and other nongovernmental organizations through processes to define their desired performance improvement objectives; ● Scaling demand-driven capacity-development approaches, including peer-to-peer learning; coaching and mentoring; shared accountability, risk, and responsibility with local partners; cash on delivery for benchmarked accomplishments; brokering and convening to foster internal and external social capital; strategic partnering; leadership development; and custom training; ● Supporting mutually beneficial partnerships among U.S. and partner-country universities and other higher education institutions to support training and fellowships, research priority setting, and institutional development; ● Addressing harmful power dynamics or other incentives that limit local actors’ abilities to change or U.S. Government Global Food Security Strategy 59 identifying ways to unlock financial resources needed for the local system to function better; and ● Facilitating multi-stakeholder networks in target countries to strengthen relationships and social capital, jointly identify development challenges, develop partnerships and alliances to coordinate their actions, and achieve collective impact. Cross-Cutting Intermediate Result 9: Enhanced integration of conflict sensitivity, peacebuilding, and social cohesion Hunger is on the rise for the first time in decades with conflict as a key driver. Nearly every country in a protracted food crisis was also engaged in violent conflict in 2019,113 and over the past four years conflict has become one of the largest drivers of food crises worldwide, especially in countries affected by major crises and where there is a confluence of conflict and climate shocks.114 Food-security programming takes place in areas inherently characterized by increased tension among and within social and socioeconomic groups, social marginalization, and in some cases, outright violence. The effect on acute food security is even more severe where conflict and climate shocks occur together.115 All of these factors can degrade the effectiveness of assistance, as well as increase tension and provide flashpoints for both structural and physical violence, which in turn further compound assistance challenges. Importantly, conflict prevention is also a national security priority for the USG, and is a shared responsibility of all USG agencies and stakeholders. Integrating activities that promote conflict sensitivity and resolution, peacebuilding, and social cohesion in risk analysis and programs as relevant to the FTF program context and scope contributes to supporting humanitarian- development-peace coherence, achieving food security and nutrition outcomes, and building resilience.116 This priority is reflected in USAID’s organizational structure, which includes the Bureau for Humanitarian Assistance and Bureau for Conflict Prevention and Stabilization, as well as at the State Department as reflected by the Bureau of Conflict and Stabilization Operations. Each of the choices made by implementers risks exacerbating the conflict dynamics, fragilities, and risks of violence that exist within host communities—but can also create or make use of opportunities to reinforce positive dynamics. Building on these opportunities can strengthen resilience, foster collaboration, and mitigate the risks of future violence and conflict. To best advance food security, deliberate programmatic choices that integrate conflict sensitivity and resolution and social cohesion are critical. In the food systems and resilience contexts, this may mean addressing structural violence, such as access and control over productive assets and cultural barriers that affect women’s empowerment and agency, fostering dialogue and inclusive growth strategies to resolve land and water conflicts, and strengthening communities to resolve rangeland management issues and conflicts caused by migration. In some places, FTF programs integrate risk analysis and adaptive strategies that pivot between humanitarian and development assistance functions to support food security, nutrition, and resilience in contexts of ongoing violent extremism or military conflict. These types of interventions help humanitarian and conflict-prevention programs to align with food-security 113 Intergovernmental Authority on Development. (2020). Global Report on Food Crises. https://reliefweb.int/report/south-sudan/2020-global-report-food-crises-regional-focus-intergovernmental-authority 114 Food Security Information Network reports. (2016-2020). Global Report on Food Crises. https://www.fsinplatform.org/sites/default/files/resources/files/GRFC_2019-Key_Messages-EN.pdf 2020: Ibid. 2019: https://www.fsinplatform.org/sites/default/files/resources/files/IGAD%202019%20online.pdf 2018:https://docs.wfp.org/api/documents/WFP-0000069227/download/?_ga=2.218157145.1517513090.1626359822- 1455967985.1626359822 2017: http://www.ipcinfo.org/fileadmin/user_upload/ipcinfo/docs/Global_Report_FoodCrisis_2017.pdf 115 Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (2018). State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World. 116 Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations, BIFAD 180th Public Meeting, Agriculture and Food Security in Fragile and Conflict-Affected Contexts, October 19, 2019. U.S. Government Global Food Security Strategy 60 objectives and plan more effectively to reduce conflict dynamics, guard against further exacerbation, and strengthen community cohesion, which in turn help to ensure that interventions have their intended effects. Examples of activities that contribute to this result include: ● Leveraging agriculture activities—for example, group farming, savings groups, rangeland and watershed management committees, and strengthening natural resource governance systems and structures—to bridge differences between communities in conflict and build social cohesion; ● Incorporating conflict sensitivity into FTF activities, for example by facilitating conflict resolution dialogue among food systems stakeholders, supporting participatory land-use planning, and strengthening collective action activities related to natural resource use and management; ● Using the results of political economy analysis and conducting research on conflict sensitivity, peacebuilding, and social cohesion to inform the design of FTF food security and resilience activities—for example, by identifying the root causes and triggers of conflict and violence in countries and regions, along with opportunities for building peace and social cohesion. This includes a context-specific lens on cross-cutting factors such as gender, age, land and water resources, livelihoods, migration, and pressure on natural resources, systems that support social cohesion, local governance, and others as applicable; ● Integrating inclusive development and conflict analysis into activities and helping to ensure safety from physical and structural violence against women, youth, LGBTQI+, and other marginalized groups—for example, by applying a “do no harm” analysis, and ensuring that these groups have equal access to productive land and water resources, market access, financial services, improved technologies, and that safety and security measures are considered in program design and risk mitigation and response strategies; ● Integrating women’s empowerment into analysis and programming as leaders and positive actors for change—for example, by supporting women’s participation in policy and leadership roles, preventing and reducing gender-based violence and exploitation of women and girls in agriculture and food systems, and ensuring their exposure to risk associated with conflict and violence is considered in risk mitigation and response strategies; ● Supporting the implementation of the Global Fragility Act of 2019 by contributing to the development of country and regional plans and ongoing leadership for designated priority areas, and integrating associated activities relative to food security, nutrition, and resilience into activities; and ● “Ensuring humanitarian-development-peace coherence through interagency collaboration, joint planning, and supporting a common USG agenda; developing context-specific programming strategies to integrate conflict prevention, peacebuilding, and social cohesion across the HDP nexus— for example by integrating shock-responsive mechanisms relative to conflict, sequencing, and layering—integrating humanitarian and development programming in a conflict-affected environment; strengthening local systems; and ensuring that development programming does not undermine humanitarian principles.”. Cross-Cutting Intermediate Result 10: Enhanced integration of digital technologies The global economy is increasingly intertwined with digital technologies, with one estimate predicting that U.S. Government Global Food Security Strategy 61 the digital economy will be roughly a quarter of the entire global GDP by 2025.117 While that growth is not evenly distributed, and digital investments may lag in the agriculture sector in some target countries, failure to capitalize on the potential that digitization of food systems brings will lead to an increase in global disparity. This is more pressing in the face of emerging technologies, which will potentially transform parts of the food system through dramatic efficiency gains, unparalleled predictive capacity, and reduced waste. Moreover, while mobile ownership and access to the internet are growing around the world, many people are still not digitally connected. Barriers around cost, network coverage, and digital literacy are key factors limiting uptake in developing countries. These barriers tend to be highest among rural, low-income, less- educated populations. Additionally, some people choose to opt out of digital use, due to considerations like privacy and safety. Globally, women are less likely than men to own a mobile phone and to access the internet. In many households, men are the primary holder of technology, even if it is given to women to use. The underrepresentation of women as users may lower commercial interest in designing for them, limiting the relevance of tools to their lives. As a result, they may realize fewer benefits from digital technology, while their critically important experiences and perspectives may be underrepresented in data collected on digital tools. Addressing these gaps and ensuring that all food-system actors can reap the potential economic benefits that digital technologies can enable requires strategic thinking and deliberate actions. Digital technology must play an integral role in the USG’s work in food systems, rather than being treated as an add-on or an afterthought. This will require an ecosystem approach that considers the benefits, drivers, barriers, and risks of digital technology for all stakeholders in food systems, while prioritizing financial viability of digital products and services, rather than one that is driven predominantly by individualized project needs without longer-term planning. Examples of activities that contribute to this result include: ● Addressing barriers and risks associated with digital access and usage that disproportionately affect certain populations, such as women; persons with disabilities; ethnic, linguistic, and religious minorities, and others; ● Promoting legal, regulatory, and policy frameworks that enable inclusive economic growth, equitable benefit from the digital economy, and strengthened user privacy, security, rights, and sovereignty; ● Encouraging and supporting the use of financially viable and user-centric digital products and services; ● Promoting the use of shared and open standards and protocols to facilitate interoperability between digital technologies and data in food systems; ● Engaging with and building the capacity of local actors to support the design and deployment of contextually appropriate digital products, services, and content with potential to benefit food systems, including traceability platforms for terrestrial and aquatic food value chains; ● Piloting and scaling emerging technologies with potential application in food systems; ● Supporting consumer education that promotes digital literacy and digital hygiene; ● Conducting digital ecosystem analyses to understand individual and organizational structures and their cultural and political economy context, and how investments in the digital ecosystem can help drive change; 117 Inter-American Development Bank. (2018). Exponential Disruption in the Digital Economy. https://publications.iadb.org/publications/english/document/Exponential-Disruption-in-the-Digital-Economy.pdf U.S. Government Global Food Security Strategy 62 ● Strengthening local digital ecosystems through capacity development and investment in local innovators, startups, and innovation hubs; and ● Facilitating networking among diverse actors in target countries to identify development challenges that can potentially be supported through digital technology as well as promoting interactions, alliances, and partnerships for context-driven problem-solving. Complementary Results Reducing global poverty and hunger and achieving food security, resilience, and nutrition requires aligning with and leveraging other U.S. strategies, investments, and programs to maximize results. We will not report results from these investments against this strategy, but they are highlighted in this section to show how development outcomes are interconnected. Inclusive economic growth in complementary sectors Complementary investments from the public and private sectors can catalyze inclusive economic growth in agriculture and non-agriculture sectors. This includes investments in trade, transport, energy, water security, sanitation and hygiene, financial services, education, real property markets, information systems, communication services, and infrastructure. Access to affordable, reliable, and sustainably produced electricity, for example, enables small-scale producers to increase their productivity; small and medium enterprises to power their businesses; larger domestic and international investors to finance agriculture; and all of these groups to add value throughout the food system. An improved and expanded transportation network, for example, allows producers to access markets and enables businesses to reach producers with inputs and cold-storage facilities for perishables and irrigation systems. Inclusive economic growth in other sectors can also contribute to reducing hunger, malnutrition, and poverty, providing sources of income that may substitute or complement livelihoods based in the food system. Growth in the manufacturing and services sectors in particular can provide valuable employment opportunities, especially in urban areas, and act as a complement to growth in the food system. Agricultural economies often grow larger and more diverse as industrial and other urban-based activities play an enhanced role.118 119 Healthy ecosystems and biodiversity Healthy ecosystems and biodiversity play a key role in reducing global poverty and hunger and improving food security and nutrition. They are critical to developing community and producer resilience to adverse shocks. This extends beyond on-farm natural resource management practices. Ecosystem goods and services include natural resources that are both intentionally managed and unintentionally affected, such as land and soil, water, forests, wild fisheries, pollinators, wild food sources for people and livestock, and biodiversity. The USG has a strong record of strengthening ecosystem services and conserving biodiversity both on land and at sea throughout the world. Complementary investments focus on ocean and coastal resources management, climate mitigation, ecosystem-based adaptation, watershed management, forest and rangeland management, land and resource governance, and biodiversity conservation. 118 Badiane, O. & Makome, T. (2015). Beyond a middle income Africa: Transforming African economies for sustained growth with risking employment and incomes. ReSAKSS Annual Trends and Outlook Report 2014. International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI). http://dx.doi.org/10.2499/9780896298927 119 USAID. (2019). Getting Employment to Work for Self-reliance, a USAID Framework for Programming. https://www.usaid.gov/documents/1865/getting-employment-work-self-reliance-usaid-framework-programming U.S. Government Global Food Security Strategy 63 Stable, democratic societies that respect human rights and the rule of law Strong democratic institutions, respect for human rights, and accountable governance are crucial elements for making progress toward food security and nutrition. Through democracy, human rights, and governance (DRG) programs, the USG: ● Promotes participatory, representative, and inclusive government institutions, including political processes that engage civil society and other stakeholders, including youth and women; ● Fosters greater accountability of institutions and leaders to citizens and enforcement of the law; ● Protects and promotes universally recognized human rights; and ● Integrates DRG principles and practices across the USG’s development portfolio.120 Through collaboration and complementary programming, we aim to strengthen local systems and governance, while enabling people to reach their full potential, accelerating economic growth, and advancing human dignity. A reduced impact of disease A reduced impact of disease is an essential contributor to inclusive economic growth, education, participatory governance, and overall prosperity, all of which are necessary for the achievement of this strategy. However, preventable diseases—including malaria, HIV, and tuberculosis, and illnesses such as diarrhea—continue to plague much of the developing world. In pregnant women and young children, especially, illness and malnutrition can become cyclical. Child undernutrition is the attributable cause of 45% of under-5 mortality and also causes preventable disabilities such as blindness and developmental disabilities, including with respect to cognitive development.121 Further, even mildly poor health in young children is thought to contribute to problems in nutrient absorption, in turn affecting physical and cognitive development.122 We cannot meet child survival and development goals without improved nutrition. While access to safe water and sanitation, appropriate hygiene practices, and nutrition-specific services (actions supported under Objective 3) are clear contributors to reducing the impact of disease, provision of broad health services through complementary USG programs is crucial to reap the nutritional benefits of food-security efforts. Most specifically, maternal and child health programs, the President’s Malaria Initiative (PMI), the U.S. President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), and resources leveraged through USAID’s Neglected Tropical Diseases efforts will continue to support the effective prevention and management of illness and infectious disease. Well-educated populations Inclusive, equitable, high-quality education for all, especially for girls, is vital to achieving the goals of this strategy, particularly Objective 3 (A well-nourished population, especially women and children). Notably, a mother’s education is associated with her children’s better health and nutrition. Moreover, good nutrition supports cognitive development and therefore positions children to better benefit from education. USG investments span the continuum of early childhood, primary, secondary, and higher education, educating the 120 USAID. (2013). USAID strategy on democracy, human rights and governance. https://www.usaid.gov/democracy/democracy- human-rights-and-governance-strategy 121 Black, R E., Victora, C.G., Walker, S.P. et al. (2013). Maternal and child undernutrition and overweight in low-income and middle-income countries. Lancet, 382(9890), 427–451. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(13)60937-X 122 Lunn P.G., Northrop-Clewes, C.A., & Downes, R.M. (1991). Intestinal permeability, mucosal injury, and growth faltering in Gambian infants. Lancet, 338(8772), 907-910. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1681266 U.S. Government Global Food Security Strategy 64 next generation of female and male leaders, entrepreneurs, policymakers, and other professionals necessary to lead the food and agriculture system. These investments empower people with the basic knowledge and skills to contribute to a knowledge-driven global economy, which includes applying scientific findings and data for advancing global food security and nutrition. Likewise, critical thinking, problem solving, and entrepreneurship skills developed through education can enhance research, uptake of technology, and product development and innovation, which in turn drives productivity gains, economic growth, new market creation, and employment.

3. Targeting Approach We must take a strategic and focused approach to maximize our impact. This includes focusing our investments on interventions that will be most effective at achieving outcomes at scale and concentrating our efforts and resources in countries—and in targeted areas and communities within those countries—where our investments have the greatest potential to achieve sustainable improvements in food security and nutrition. This requires that our interventions deliberately sequence, layer, and integrate across funding streams, programs, agencies, and departments. While we seek to focus our resources, we will still provide assistance outside our target countries, areas, and communities where more limited investments can play a critical role in supporting food security, nutrition, and achieving climate change adaptation or mitigation.123 We will select our target countries based on the following criteria outlined in the GFSA, although some target countries may not meet each criterion:

1. Level of need: We will focus USG investments where there are high levels of food insecurity that are marked by extreme poverty and a high prevalence of stunting and where the cost of not investing may also be great, such as where it might lead to continued or growing reliance on emergency food assistance. This will also include evaluating the vulnerability of regions, countries, and communities to the impacts of accelerating climate change and how that affects the level of need.

2. Potential for agriculture-led growth: We will prioritize areas where there is significant potential to accelerate inclusive economic growth in agriculture and food systems to reduce hunger, malnutrition, and poverty.

3. Opportunities for partnership: We will focus efforts in areas where we can leverage complementary resources and expertise and support capacity development through partnerships with the private sector, other donors, producer organizations, cooperatives, civil society, faith-based organizations, and agricultural research and academic institutions.

4. Opportunities for regional economic integration: We will focus work in areas that present strong opportunities to promote and strengthen regional trade and development corridors, integrate markets, and accelerate regional growth as well as increase urban/rural links both within and across countries.

5. USG resource availability: A central tenet of our strategy is that creating lasting progress in food 123 Statutory requirements shape the specific targeting approaches and implementing models of individual agencies, as outlined in agency-specific implementation plans in Annex 1. For example, MCC’s governing statute establishes criteria around partner country eligibility, as well as specific implementation elements required to be included in each of its compacts. U.S. Government Global Food Security Strategy 65 security and nutrition will require significant investments across the relevant sectors with support from a number of USG agencies. Robust investments require management and oversight capabilities. Therefore, our food security and nutrition efforts will be concentrated in areas where our financial and human resources are adequate for us to achieve our goals. This includes focusing in areas where we can align with and jointly leverage existing USG food security, nutrition, and complementary programs.

6. Government commitment to food security investment and policy reform: We seek to work in countries whose governments are actively prioritizing food security and nutrition for all of their people, such as through national food security and nutrition investment plans, policy reforms, and mobilization of domestic resources for food security and nutrition. We may also prioritize countries where policy reforms are needed that can advance poverty and food-security goals while concurrently adapting to climate change and reducing emissions from land-use change and deforestation to ensure longer-term food-security goals can be met. As an example of when a target country may not meet all the criteria, some of the areas with the highest levels of need, such as fragile states, may fall on a continuum of operating environments that includes elements of weak government commitment and limited opportunities for partnership. However, these countries may present opportunities to reach populations living in highly vulnerable contexts and put them on a more sustainable development path and, in so doing, mitigate the need for recurrent, costly outlays of humanitarian assistance by the U.S. taxpayer. In addition to country-specific programs, we will also invest in regional programs to support limited presence countries or address significant challenges to food security that require cooperation across national borders. Target countries: While the United States remains the largest bilateral food security donor, our resources are limited and must be targeted to achieve maximum, long-term, sustainable impact. Within our target countries, our assistance will benefit people who are hungry, malnourished, and/or poor, including groups in the most vulnerable situations, with a focus on women, the extreme poor, youth, and small-scale producers. To accomplish this, we will designate zones of influence (ZOI) where we will focus and concentrate our resources in discrete geographies and measure progress over time at the population level. While we will target specific beneficiaries for short- to medium-term outcomes, our strategy seeks to drive long-term agricultural transformation and inclusive economic growth. Our strategy is to improve the institutions, markets, choices, and opportunities faced by much larger numbers of poor and hungry people now and in the future to help them move along a sustainable path to better lives. Therefore, to maximize long- term impact on our ultimate beneficiaries in our target countries, we will engage a wide variety of actors in our programs who may also benefit from this engagement to achieve objectives effectively and sustainably. These actors may include: ● Public-sector actors, including policymakers, agriculture and health extension agents, health and education-system actors, and national agricultural research institutions; ● Private-sector actors, such as producer associations, small and medium enterprises, entrepreneurs, lenders, insurance providers, and multinational corporations; and ● Civil-society and community-based actors, including faith-based and civil-society advocates for the poor and hungry as well as women’s and youth organizations. U.S. Government Global Food Security Strategy 66 Selection process: The interagency will revisit its current list of target countries within the first year of this updated strategy. Building on the lessons learned from the last round of target country selection, the interagency will use a range of publicly available and transparent quantitative and qualitative data to evaluate the six selection criteria, which can be broadly grouped into the categories of “need” and “opportunity for impact.” Throughout implementation, we will periodically monitor the global context to assess changing environments and will periodically review the list of target countries to determine if changes are necessary. Countries that receive interagency funding beyond those that are selected as target countries represent FTF’s broader spectrum of global engagement across diplomatic, trade, and development efforts. Graduation: In 2018, the interagency community developed a policy and review process for graduating target countries from “target country status.” The annual review process uses quantitative and qualitative data to evaluate a target country’s readiness to graduate from target country status into a different, less resource- intensive form of partnership with the USG. The process was piloted in 2019 and then suspended in 2020 due to the severe global poverty and hunger caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. The interagency will continue to monitor both the global and individual contexts of GFSS target countries to determine the appropriate time to resume target country graduation reviews. A country’s relationship with relevant U.S. federal departments and agencies will change as it progresses toward greater food security and nutrition. For example, countries emerging from conflict or crisis may transition from humanitarian assistance to development assistance. After a country has achieved improved resilience capabilities and an enabling environment, USG assistance will be better able to target support for the private sector to develop a more competitive agriculture sector. The graduation policy and review process provide an opportunity to identify how USG assistance can support long-term agricultural transformation and inclusive economic growth leading to sustainable reductions in malnutrition, hunger, and poverty.

4. U.S. Approach Through FTF, the USG leverages the comparative advantages and programs of all relevant U.S. federal departments and agencies to promote a comprehensive whole-of-government approach in a cost-effective manner. The USG coordinates closely with host-country governments, businesses, smallholder producers, research institutions, universities, and nongovernmental and civil-society organizations. Localization and Country Ownership FTF’s approach emphasizes local ownership and capacity development, alignment with a country’s development strategy, and collaborative partnerships among development partners and local actors inspired by the values of the High-Level Fora on Aid Effectiveness and outlined in the Paris Declaration and related partnership agreements.124 While the 2017-2021 GFSS set the foundation for local and country ownership, the updated GFSS will further empower individuals and their communities in the design, implementation, execution, and ownership of development activities. Lasting solutions to development challenges require local organizations that have the insights to develop 124 Of particular note, the GFSS aligns with and complements regional policies and strategies, including the 2003 Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP) and the 2014 Malabo Declaration on Accelerated Agricultural Growth. U.S. Government Global Food Security Strategy 67 tailored solutions and the credibility to implement them, as well as social and professional networks invested in the community. We are centering local knowledge and priorities, increasing a locally-led approach, and promoting locally-led solutions, for example by using a co-creation process when designing FTF programs to bolster local participation and ownership. These efforts will enhance the effectiveness of our work, ensure sustainability and resilience of progress, and address concerns of equity and inclusion. The USG will continue to help partner countries fulfill their obligations and commitments to their people, and will support individuals and communities in understanding and exercising their roles in development, in order to contribute to sustainable development solutions led by the people we are committed to helping. In addition, the USG commits to increasing the number of local partners over the life of the strategy125 to prioritize local knowledge and locally-led solutions to development challenges. We will track the number of local partners serving as FTF implementers. In addition, we will continue to measure host country ownership by analyzing and measuring policy systems and other key metrics of commitment such as the level of investment in key sectors and progress made against national agriculture and nutrition plans. The USG recognizes that the SDGs cannot be achieved without the active and sustained participation of all segments of society—individuals and their families most of all. In particular, and as noted earlier in the Strategy, effectively and sustainably reducing hunger, poverty, and malnutrition is not possible without integrating all marginalized populations throughout the food system, including through gender equality and women’s inclusion and empowerment. A critical step forward is strengthening inclusion of marginalized populations, including Indigenous peoples, in food-systems policy formulation and implementation, including formulating local and country concepts of successful development that are truly representative of and responsive to the needs of all societal segments. Global food security and nutrition require steadfast country leadership at all levels of government, as well as political will, commitments to results, evidence-based action, and accountability. We continue to partner with countries and regional actors that are committed to improving their investments in food security and nutrition; creating an enabling environment for strong economic growth and nutrition outcomes; and supporting the public goods and services needed to drive that growth and make the private sector more efficient. We commit to holding ourselves and other actors accountable for effective development, including providing support for local, regional, and global mutual accountability systems. Where this policy environment does not exist, we will seek to reform the food system by engaging governments and civil society to build public and political will to achieve inclusive development outcomes. Comprehensive, evidence-based national investment plans, developed in consultation with a wide range of citizens and stakeholders, will outline each country’s agricultural development, nutrition, climate change, and food-security priorities, which in turn will guide our investments. These plans provide a foundation for harmonized support and help countries accelerate progress toward achieving the SDGs. Where governments are inactive, we will provide support for tailored approaches to community-owned and locally-led development processes to catalyze agricultural food systems transformation, while offering capacity building for communities and local governments. 125 A partner is considered a local entity if it meets the following criteria: (1) is legally organized under the laws of a country that is receiving assistance from the USG; (2) has its principal place of business or operations in a country receiving assistance from the USG; (3) is majority-owned by individuals who are citizens or lawful permanent residents of a country receiving assistance from the USG; and (4) is managed by a governing body, the majority of whom are citizens or lawful permanent residents of the country receiving assistance from the USG. U.S. Government Global Food Security Strategy 68 Based on the first decade of FTF implementation, we recognize that local stakeholders––the citizens, civil society, private sector, academia, and institutions of developing countries––are and need to be the drivers of development. FTF results indicate greater success and growth when planned, led, implemented, and owned by local communities.126 Therefore, the USG commits to partnering more robustly with actors and stakeholders throughout the food system. Effective non-state actor participation in policy dialogue and other development processes not only increases the legitimacy of a given policy, process, or even local government, but also produces more sustainable results by creating constituencies for reform. By promoting effective platforms for inclusive dialogue and mutual accountability, our assistance will strengthen the local stakeholders and systems through which agricultural transformation ultimately takes place. Whole-of-Government Coordination The relevant U.S. federal agencies and departments charged with implementing this strategy provide diverse and complementary technical, programmatic, in-kind, and financial contributions. This strategy aligns with, is complementary to, and leverages other U.S. strategies and investments (see text box on page 68 for a list of illustrative complementary USG strategies).127 Additionally, the U.S. Global Change Research Program, which has 13 federal member agencies and is mandated by Congress to coordinate federal research and investments in understanding the forces shaping the global environment and their impacts on society,128 provides a potentially powerful avenue for convening interagency research focused on FTF priorities and intersections between FTF priorities and connected areas of global change research. Over the past decade, we have implemented several methods to coordinate relevant USG agencies and departments, including holding monthly interagency meetings, collaborating via interagency FTF working groups, and coordinating with interagency staff at post. We will continue to build on this foundation to strengthen our collaboration at the global, regional, and country levels.129 At the global level, USAID continues to lead interagency coordination efforts, taking into account resources and expertise across the interagency and lessons learned. USAID facilitates robust coordination among 126 Michigan State University; Feed the Future Innovation Lab for Food Security. (2019). FSP Synthesis Report IV: Building Locally Led Agricultural Policy Analysis Capacity: Lessons from Experience in Developing Countries. https://www.canr.msu.edu/resources/synthesis_report_iv 127 Specifically, the GFSS aligns with and complements the U.S. Government’s Global Nutrition Coordination Plan, the Global Water Strategy, and the U.S. International Climate Finance Plan (2021), as well as other Agency- and Department-specific strategies and plans, including but not limited to DFC’s Roadmap for Impact (2020), USAID’s Building Resilience to Recurrent Crisis Policy and Program Guidance (2012), USAID’s Multi-Sectoral Nutrition Strategy (2014), USAID’s Gender Equality and Women’s Empowerment Policy (2020), USAID’s Vision for Ending Extreme Poverty (2015), USAID’s Strategy on Democracy, Human Rights, and Governance (2013), and USAID’s Private Sector Engagement Policy (2018). 128 The U.S. Global Change Research Program is steered by the Subcommittee on Global Change Research of the National Science and Technology Council’s Committee on Environment, which is overseen by the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. Member departments / agencies are as follows: Department of Health and Human Services; Department of Commerce; Department of Energy; U.S. Agency for International Development; Department of Agriculture; Smithsonian Institution; National Aeronautics and Space Administration; Department of Transportation; Environmental Protection Agency; Department of Defense; Department of Interior; Department of State; and National Science Foundation. 129 The Global Food Security Act defines “relevant Federal departments and agencies” as the United States Agency for International Development, the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Commerce, the Department of State, the Department of the Treasury, the Millennium Challenge Corporation, the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (now the U.S. International Development Finance Corporation), the Peace Corps, the Office of the United States Trade Representative, the United States African Development Foundation, and the United States Geological Survey. The President may specify other departments and agencies as applicable and relevant for the purpose of implementing the strategy. U.S. Government Global Food Security Strategy 69 federal agencies and departments through an interagency working group as well as ad hoc congressional and external stakeholder consultations. Each relevant federal department and agency has designated a representative to participate in the interagency working group and serve as a communication and coordination focal point. Since the issuance of the first GFSS, FTF has established several working groups that meet regularly and are centered on thematic areas including private-sector engagement; communications; monitoring, evaluation, and learning (MEL); research; global engagement; and policy. Topics are added or eliminated on an as-needed basis. For example, the USG seeks to catalyze engagement from local, regional, and global private-sector partners through the FTF Private-Sector Engagement Working Group (USAID/DFC co-led) and addresses IUU fishing issues through the congressionally created Maritime Security and Fisheries Enforcement (M-SAFE) Act Interagency Working Group on IUU Fishing (rotating leadership among Department of State, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [NOAA], and U.S. Coast Guard). We also facilitate collaboration and information sharing of interagency bilateral and regional priorities between Washington and the field. Engagement at a regional level strengthens coordination between Washington policymakers and field implementation agencies. As not all USG agencies have presence at the bilateral level, larger embassies with a strong interagency presence are well placed to connect Washington and country-based efforts on regional issues. The USG sees an opportunity to elevate our existing partnerships with regional actors, such as the African Union. Regional engagement could involve, for example, cross-border food trade, market and supply chain issues, and the collection of regional data. Given the elevation of the food systems approach— representing the range of actors, systems, and stages of food production, processing, distribution, and consumption—partnerships with regional and global actors are more critical than ever in achieving global food security. Lastly, partnering with global and regional actors will help ensure the sustainability, cost- effectiveness, and resilience of FTF food-security and nutrition programs. Country-level coordination varies depending on USG assistance and investment interests. In FTF target countries, the Chief of Mission, in consultation with the USAID Mission Director and agencies with the largest equities in country,130 are required to identify an interagency FTF Coordinator to facilitate a whole-of- government strategy/plan with country-specific targets and objectives, coordinated implementation, and a collaborative approach to MEL. The Coordinator facilitates regular interagency meetings with the support of the Ambassador no less than once per quarter. Posts should regularly report to all relevant agencies131 on food-security progress, any strategic adjustments to USG engagement, and emerging opportunities based on these meetings. The interagency community at headquarters will approve suggested responsibilities and guidelines and share them with posts to be further tailored to meet the in-country needs. In FTF target countries and regional Missions, interagency teams at post should work together to update existing or develop new plans in alignment with this strategy and other relevant USG strategies that build on experience to date. To further facilitate interagency information sharing, staff from each relevant agency with investments and/or presence in-country should participate in interagency food-security working groups and provide readouts from these meetings. As with the first GFSS, USAID’s Bureau for Humanitarian Assistance and USDA’s Foreign Agricultural Service will consult with the FTF Coordinator in the planning of non- emergency food-assistance programming to promote coordination. 130 This may include U.S. Government agencies without a presence at-Post, including those whose technical expertise would be beneficial to address particular country-level needs. 131 Relevant agencies include Departments/Agencies with investments and/or presence in-country. If FTF Coordinators are unsure which Agencies are active in their country, they should contact their Agency’s headquarter FTF lead. U.S. Government Global Food Security Strategy 70 In non-target countries that have significant U.S. interests and funding in food security and nutrition-related issues, the interagency community at post, or USAID as the coordinating FTF agency, should identify a USG FTF Coordinator to execute appropriate coordination functions. Engagement with congressional staff occurs at all levels, including regular briefings on strategy implementation and results in Washington, briefings by USG leadership based in priority countries when they are in Washington, and visits to FTF countries and regions by members of Congress or staff. Leveraging Other U.S. Government Strategies and Investments The U.S. Global Food Security Strategy aligns with several complementary USG strategies, initiatives, and investments that will be leveraged, as appropriate, to contribute to global food security. For example: ● The Global Nutrition Coordination Plan (GNCP) targets healthy nutrition outcomes for populations in vulnerable situations, especially women and children. The GNCP complements the GFSS focus on food systems and access to affordable, safe, and nutritious diets by spanning a broad continuum of nutrition policies and programs. ● The Global Water Strategy (GWS) targets WASH, sustainable WRM, and water security. The GWS complements the GFSS through its focus on sustainable access to WASH services, water and sanitation finance and governance, and improved WRM. ● The Strategy to Prevent Conflict and Promote Stability targets social cohesion, peacebuilding, and good governance, especially among populations that are vulnerable to violent conflicts. ● The Strategy on International Basic Education targets expanded access to high-quality basic education for all, especially populations in vulnerable situations. ● The National Biodefense Strategy targets prevention of and preparedness for biological threats, like pests and diseases, through multisectoral One Health approaches. Sustainability Sustainability refers both to: (1) achieving balanced and integrated progress toward the three dimensions of sustainability (economic, environment, and social), and (2) the ability of FTF programs and investments to facilitate and catalyze processes that produce sustainable food-security outcomes in a way that reduces and ultimately takes away a continued need or reliance on USG assistance. FTF supports sustainability through: (1) robust private-sector engagement that advances development of the local, regional, and international market systems that drive economic sustainability and growth processes, as well as (2) broader and complementary governance, planning, and multi-stakeholder engagement and empowerment efforts (including at the household and community levels) that similarly help drive and steward progress toward both inclusive economic outcomes and non-economic outcomes that support environmental and social health, prosperity, resilience, and efforts to address climate change and reduce inequality. U.S. Government Global Food Security Strategy 71 Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility The USG is committed to a diverse, equitable, inclusive, and accessible workplace where everyone has an opportunity to thrive. We aspire to fully embrace, prioritize, and advance diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility (DEIA) among our people, partners, and programs—at home and abroad. We recognize that a lack of diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility impedes our efforts to effectively carry out our development work and sustainably achieve our goal to end hunger and reduce poverty. This means we must continue to create a culture and operational system that fosters inclusion and values and leverages the unique strengths of diverse working styles and backgrounds, as well as builds the capacity of staff and partners to diversify and broaden our partner base. We aim to promote collective responsibility for DEIA among USG staff, leadership, and implementing partners. This includes setting an example through good policies and practices, as well as strengthening the capacity of all partners to embed diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility in their workforce and within their programs. Key examples of how we will operationalize DEIA across the Feed the Future initiative include efforts to broaden and diversify our partner base to work with more Minority Serving Institutions (MSIs), particularly in our research investments, and promote more diversity in key leadership roles within our implementing partner community. To do this, we will remove overly restrictive criteria that may eliminate qualified candidates with diverse backgrounds, as well as identify personnel with diverse experience and backgrounds, integrating issues such as gender equality, women’s empowerment, and disability within agriculture and food system activities. Partnerships Partnerships are critical for the USG as it seeks to leverage substantial political, financial, and institutional contributions to attain longer-term objectives and greater synergy with this strategy and U.S. programs. These partnerships will allow us to bring together governments, regional organizations, multilateral development institutions, international donors, civil society, the global research community, U.S. universities (including minority-serving institutions [MSIs]), faith-based organizations, and the private sector to leverage our capabilities in a way that enhances food security, combats climate change, promotes resilience and nutrition, and prepares for future emergencies. We will also embrace technology and free and fair trade as we seek to further economic development while creating a more food-secure world. The process of identifying and assessing partners will be transparent, simplified, and inclusive, emphasizing open and streamlined competition to ensure a broad range of partners. These partners will increasingly share our vision in advancing the implementation and use of policies and technologies that allow us to sustain our development efforts. Our approach to working with this diverse set of partners will be strengthened through heightened political focus and our facilitation of communication and knowledge-sharing to coordinate efforts between the USG, our partners, and other donors. Operating during a global pandemic has further demonstrated the need for these robust and effective systems of communication, and we will work with partner-country governments and other stakeholders to advance local priorities, support coordination and accountability mechanisms, promote the adoption of science-based and data-driven solutions, and sustainably build and advance agriculture, food, and water systems. We will also seek to build resilience, nutrition, inclusive development, and climate mitigation/adaptation across the results framework of partners. U.S. Government Global Food Security Strategy 72 Partnership approaches for key stakeholder types are outlined below. Research and education organizations Partnerships with research and academic organizations are crucial to achieving our goals. Thought leaders from these organizations can help shape the food systems policy environment and support the growth of human capital at international, regional, national, and local levels. Building on the decades of experience of U.S. universities and other organizations that are a part of national agriculture research systems in developing countries, our approach to engaging these organizations will be based on supporting mutually beneficial partnerships that promote innovation networks capable of producing cutting-edge, collaborative research and ensuring a capable workforce ecosystem in support of food security and nutrition goals. Through our partnerships with these organizations, we will strive to shift leadership, decision-making, and ownership of the research agenda-setting process to local actors. To achieve global impacts, the USG will leverage its investment in domestic agricultural research, education, and extension across the U.S. land-grant university systems and with other U.S. universities and colleges, including MSIs, which bring diverse expertise and perspectives to our work. The work of research and education institutions has been and continues to be vital in promoting evidence-based solutions and harnessing the full power of science and technology that have long been at the forefront of increasing productivity, promoting resilience, mitigating factors that contribute to food insecurity, such as drought and pests, and advancing climate-smart technologies. The broad and enduring partnerships among the USDA, USAID, other USG agencies, and the U.S. higher education community will serve as a means through which findings and experiences can be shared with other countries. These partnerships will also promote values that underpin a successful global research and development (R&D) enterprise. Values include openness, transparency, reciprocity, and merit-based competition. The U.S. university-led FTF Innovation Labs—collaborative research programs among U.S. universities and research organizations in target countries—and other U.S. university-led research and capacity-development programs will continue to leverage the best of U.S. science to advance novel solutions in support of reducing global hunger, poverty, and malnutrition. The Board for International Food and Agricultural Development (BIFAD) is a seven-member, presidentially appointed advisory board to USAID established by the Foreign Assistance Act to ensure that USAID brings the assets of U.S. universities to bear on development challenges in agriculture and food security. FTF Innovation Labs draw on the expertise of top U.S. colleges and universities in collaboration with developing-country research and educational institutions to tackle some of the world’s greatest challenges in agriculture, food security, and nutrition. Led by U.S. universities, the FTF Innovation Labs are on the cutting edge of research and training to address current and future challenges, including the climate crisis and the need to feed a growing global population. Multilateral development institutions A key component of this strategy is our leadership in multilateral financial and development institutions, as well as UN specialized and technical agencies, such as: ● The World Bank; ● Regional development banks; ● Regional scientific organizations; U.S. Government Global Food Security Strategy 73 ● The UN, including the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC), the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), the WFP, the World Health Organization (WHO), the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), UNICEF, UNDP, the Committee on World Food Security; and the Scaling Up Nutrition movement; ● Regional governmental organizations concerned with trade, climate, and agriculture; and ● The Global Agriculture and Food Security Program (GAFSP). Our investments in these institutions represent an opportunity to leverage significant resources to address food-insecurity challenges. Strong U.S. leadership and continued engagement with multilateral institutions and mechanisms will support developing countries’ efforts to facilitate trade and base measures to protect human, animal, or plant life or health on science; address climate change; alleviate poverty; and spur economic growth. We will use the historic agreements made within the UN system––the SDGs, the Addis Ababa Action Agenda, and the Paris Agreement––to turn our attention to achieving the SDGs. We will also continue to consider the geographical and thematic overlap of our efforts with those of other international donors or multilateral organizations to help ensure that we identify opportunities for complementarity and leverage the comparative USG advantage in coordination. As a leader in the food-systems space with a greater global mandate, FAO, IFAD, and WFP are well poised to support our longer-term strategic efforts both within the developing world and the broader international community. Regular political and institutional engagement through the U.S. Mission to the UN Agencies in Rome and New York will seek greater like-mindedness with U.S. goals and approaches. Private sector The local and international private sector, including entrepreneurs and producers, is also a critical contributor to development progress and key to achieving the goal of this strategy. Individuals and organizations within the private sector have often driven implementation of advanced procedures and technologies that align with our developmental goals. We will continue to partner with the private sector to mobilize domestic resources and other private-sector investments in support of food security and nutrition where there is strong alignment between business interests and development objectives, including investing USG capital through agencies like DFC. The USG has many long-established cooperative relationships with the private sector that can be built on in the future. We will continue to operate and deliver shared value to all parties around shared goals, risks, and responsibilities while also looking to broker fair, long-term, and productive relationships between corporate shareholders and smallholders. Lasting partnerships with the private sector will leverage unique core capacities and resources, such as financial contributions, donated services or property, advancements in science and technology, and intellectual property and contribute to many results of the strategy. This strategy will allow us to embrace science-based and data-driven policy and decision-making while also promoting inclusive and equitable development. Inclusive agricultural and food-systems value-chain development partnerships will help small- scale producers, especially women, gain greater access to the inputs, skills, resource-management capacity, networking, bargaining power, financing, and market connections needed to sustain their long-term economic prosperity. Nongovernmental organizations and civil society Civil-society partners, including faith-based organizations, play an integral role in our work to end hunger, U.S. Government Global Food Security Strategy 74 malnutrition, and poverty around the world. These stakeholders include affected populations, producer associations, nongovernmental organizations, cooperatives, foundations, local civic and faith-based organizations, labor unions, and women- and youth-focused organizations. Civil-society partners not only elevate the voice of the poor and advocate for disadvantaged and marginalized groups, but they also build local capacity and promote rural and urban development and sustainable agriculture practices. Supporting civil-society partners to lead the policy and implementation efforts will strengthen our programs and help make our efforts sustainable. Engaging civil-society partners in a collaborative manner will strengthen our programs and help make our efforts sustainable. Building on the FTF Civil Society Action Plan,132 and drawing from civil-society consultations that informed this strategy, we will continue to promote the participation of civil society in planning and implementation and consult with representative groups as we move forward and refine our approach, embracing and deploying their expertise and seeking their technical assistance. We will demonstrate and promote inclusive engagement through deliberate outreach to marginalized and underrepresented groups and by ensuring that civil society, including producer organizations and faith-based groups, both within the United States and in target countries, has clear and simple ways to inform priority- setting processes, provide input as programs are designed and evaluated, and participate as partners on the ground. Science, Technology, and Innovation (STI) Investments in science, technology, and innovation (STI) are critical for developing improved products and practices, strengthening local capacity, and incorporating science and data into policy and decision-making processes. In the midst of a climate crisis, science and research are essential to the development of solutions that provide an environmentally and socioeconomically sustainable way forward. The United States is uniquely positioned to lead innovation that leverages our public- and private-sector capabilities to achieve the goals of GFSA. The law recognizes that STI are critical in reducing global hunger, malnutrition, and poverty, and to sustain advances in the face of new threats to sustainable agricultural production and food systems. STI—and the change that comes with it—can foster equity and inclusion, provide the means for working across sectors (e.g., environment, nutrition, and health), promote the adoption of healthy social behavior to improve nutrition and resilience, and are key for addressing climate change. Innovations accelerate progress, improve the efficacy of our interventions, and leapfrog over existing approaches to accelerate progress toward GFSA goals. Agricultural research, development, and extension Agricultural R&D provides the pipeline of new technologies, data, products, information, and practices that underpin agriculture-led economic growth and contributes to a country’s ability to respond to emerging challenges and circumstances. When supported by improved business-enabling environments, inclusive finance, and government effectiveness, agricultural research, development, and extension (R&D&E) is a key driver of sustainable economic transformation.133 It is critical that increased agricultural production results from increased productivity (increased output per unit input) rather than being achieved through increased 132 Feed the Future. (2014). Feed the Future civil society action plan. https://www.feedthefuture.gov/resource/feed-the-future-civil- society-action-plan/ 133 Jayne, T.S., Fox, L., Fuglie, K., & Adelaja, A. (2021). Agricultural Productivity Growth, Resilience, and Economic Transformation in Sub-Saharan Africa: Implications for USAID. Report Commissioned by the Board for International Food and Agricultural Development. Association of Public and Land-Grant Universities, Washington, DC. https://www.usaid.gov/bifad/documents/agricultural-productivity-growth-resilience-and-economic-transformation-sub-saharan-africa U.S. Government Global Food Security Strategy 75 land area.134 The efficiencies that lead to increases in sustainable agricultural productivity can support conservation of natural areas and biodiversity and reductions in GHG emissions per unit of production, while at the same time driving inclusive economic growth (see Objective 1). We will support R&D&E to improve efficiencies and address key constraints in the food system, including increased and less variable yields, better harvesting, and improved storage and processing that reduce loss and add value. In an era of climate change, rapidly evolving pests and diseases of both crops and livestock require strategic, focused investments to sustain higher yields and poverty-reducing, nutrition-enhancing economic growth. Agricultural R&D&E is essential to meeting and reconciling food-security, nutrition, environmental, biodiversity, and climate change challenges, as these are integrally linked in both local and global contexts. Science uncovers tradeoffs and bridges multiple sectors in seeking solutions to global challenges across widely differing local contexts. New approaches, especially those that are critically needed to adapt to and mitigate climate change, can be promoted through increased investments in agricultural R&D&E, as well as through incentivizing investment by fostering trade for the end products of the innovations. We will work to increase and accelerate global innovation and R&D in agriculture and food systems in support of climate solutions through the Agriculture Innovation Mission for Climate (AIM for Climate). AIM for Climate participants intend to catalyze greater investment in agricultural R&D and innovation to help to raise global ambition, underpin more rapid and transformative climate action in all countries, and support adaptation and resilience efforts, including by enabling science-based and data-driven decision- and policy-making. In undertaking agricultural research partnerships, the United States is uniquely positioned to leverage its extensive federal, state, university, and private-sector science capacities in addressing the most pressing problems hindering the achievement of sustainable food security in areas where FTF works. Precisely because of U.S. strengths and diversity of capabilities and our agriculture and food systems, all consumers can benefit from our collaborative science partnerships. By addressing pests, diseases, or climatic stresses before producers at home encounter them, we can contribute to “win-win” strategies that benefit farmers and food systems across Africa, Asia, and Latin America, as well as here at home. Behavioral Science Critical to GFSS implementation is behavior change interventions that reduce hunger, poverty, and malnutrition. For example, virtually all the immediate and underlying causes of malnutrition are behavioral— influenced by individuals, households, and other actors. To address malnutrition using a social and behavior change (SBC) approach, we work to identify targeted behaviors, understand how behaviors change, and integrate this approach into our design process.135 Effective nutrition SBC promotes the adoption of healthy behaviors and reduces barriers to maintaining those behaviors over time. We will use cutting-edge behavioral science insights to continually improve our SBC approaches across the Feed the Future initiative. Behavior change also plays an important role in resilience. Social cohesion, for example, and the ability to lean on others during times of need is a powerful predictor of individual and household resilience. Inclusion, women’s and youth empowerment, infrastructure, and community organizations that support cultural, recreational, and civic engagement are elements of social cohesion that build resilience, when paired with 134 Jayne, T.S. & Sanchez, P.A. (2021). Agricultural productivity must improve in sub-Saharan Africa. Science 372 (6546), 1045- 1047. 135 USAID. (2021). Effective At-Scale Nutrition Social and Behavior Change Communication: Technical Guidance Brief. https://www.usaid.gov/global-health/health-areas/nutrition/technical-areas/effective-scale-nutrition-social-and-behavior U.S. Government Global Food Security Strategy 76 strengthening economic growth, nutrition, food security, education, health, and other types of services. These sources of resilience contribute to a sense of self-efficacy, aspiration, and confidence in the future. People with a higher sense of control over their lives are less likely to engage in negative coping strategies that damage their ability to absorb and recover from shocks, such as limiting investments and planning for the future, selling household assets, or selling on-farm production to meet immediate cash needs.136 Studies conducted by FTF Innovation Lab for Assets and Market Access on Mozambique and Nepal showed that understanding how aspirations are developed could be key to designing interventions that are meant to encourage future-oriented behavior, such as savings and investments. The research in Nepal illustrated that higher aspirations among women, up to a point, meant higher savings and greater expenditures on their children’s education. The research also found that the women’s aspirations were socially driven and linked to personally knowing other women with higher levels of income or other families with children who had achieved higher levels of education than their own children.137 The study in Mozambique studied farmers’ ability to plan into the future and found that helping farmers temporarily subsidize the costs of inputs enabled them to develop savings and plan from year to year.138 Science, Technology, and Innovation capacity We will support the development of STI capacity of individuals, organizations, and networks to collectively contribute to strong research and innovation ecosystems. The GFSS approach to capacity development is rooted in listening to and understanding local systems and recognizing that successful innovation is the result of complex multi-stakeholder interactions. Innovation is stronger when stakeholders have improved functional capacities, such as the ability to navigate complexity, collaborate, reflect and learn, and engage in strategic processes, in addition to the technical capacities needed for successful performance in a field or discipline (e.g., soil science, crop improvement, economics, and business). Functional and technical capacities will be advanced through multisectoral programming with Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM) education, which is critical to achieving self-sustainability and advancing STI for economic benefit. STI capacity advances STI values. STI is stronger in research environments that are free of political interference and underpinned by core values of openness, transparency, reciprocity, and merit-based competition. Core values are reflected and advanced through the capacities of individuals, organizations, and networks and are critical for a strong global science and technology enterprise. The GFSA stresses the need to strengthen and expand collaboration between U.S. universities and higher education institutions in target countries to increase their effectiveness and relevance to promote agricultural development through the creation of human capital, innovation, and cutting-edge science in the agricultural sector. Emerging technologies Application of emerging technologies,139 such as advanced sensing, artificial intelligence, autonomous systems and robotics, biotechnologies, Earth-observing satellites, and communication and networking technologies can make agriculture more sustainable, productive, resilient, profitable, and financially inclusive. 136 Resilience Links. Social & Cultural. https://resiliencelinks.org/impact-areas/social-cultural 137 Janzen, S., Magnan, N., Sharma, S., Thompson, W. Higher Aspirations, to a Point, Can Lead to Greater Investment in the Future. Innovation Lab for Assets and Market Access Policy Brief 2017-12. (2017). https://resiliencelinks.org/system/files/documents/2020- 06/ama_brief_-_janzen_aspirations_-_2017-12_0.pdf 138 Steinmetz, T. How Considering Aspirations Can Shape Better Development Interventions and Policy. Innovation Lab for Assets and Market Access Success Story. (2017). https://resiliencelinks.org/system/files/documents/2020- 06/AMA%20Success%20Story%20-%20April%202017%20Aspirations.pdf 139 Emerging technologies are technologies which are not yet widely used in a given geographical area but offer significant promise to sustainably reduce hunger, malnutrition, and poverty. U.S. Government Global Food Security Strategy 77 We will continue to support and promote the appropriate and environmentally and socially responsible application of new and improved technologies in agriculture and food systems to improve food security and nutrition, while also taking steps to mitigate technological divides and reduce disparities. Continued support to data-driven, intensive, hyper-local agriculture requires an integrated set of digital approaches to be successful, such as linking artificial intelligence systems, big-data crop models, targeted weather forecasting, and specific variability in soils to provide localized information on production inputs and practices. Those insights must also be complemented by financially viable and producer-centric information and communication technology (ICT)-enabled extension services, as well as innovations in improved seed availability, distribution, logistics, and storage to turn these analytics into good practice on farms and in market systems. At the same time, we recognize that when emerging technologies are not yet relevant, due to factors such as infrastructure gaps, cost, regulatory hurdles to development, and/or capacity, among others, more established digital technologies and ICT, such as mobile phones and radio, will continue to be supported and promoted, as appropriate, in accordance with local contextual factors. Uptake of technologies For STI to drive economic development, improve food security and nutrition, and increase resilience, technologies must be relevant and adopted at scale. Facilitating widespread adoption of technologies (including practices) is complex and involves diverse actors and constraints, starting with local consultations to ensure the technologies being developed meet the needs of women and others. To ensure the relevance of innovations for local actors, a systems approach that considers the interaction of capacities among diverse actors and the economic, political, and social drivers that contribute to the scalability of new and improved technologies is critical. Considerations include the characteristics of technologies/practices that are known to facilitate adoption (e.g., relative advantage, compatibility, profitability, complexity, trialability, and observability140) and identifying appropriate delivery pathways, approaches, and actors. To increase the impact of GFSS research, investments take these factors into consideration and are guided by a prioritization framework and a Product Life Cycle framework to evaluate adoption potential as part of an investment strategy (see Annex 3). We will define and cultivate appropriate public and private delivery pathways based on the nature of the innovation and the context in which it is being scaled. By increasing the efficiency of market transactions, fostering innovation-friendly regulatory environments, facilitating institutional arrangements, and introducing a range of tools, including credit guarantees, innovation challenges, and prize competitions, we will incentivize the private sector to transform research into marketable technologies with viable business models.

5. Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning USG agencies and implementing partners use appropriate MEL practices to continually assess the performance of programs and approaches, integrate lessons learned, and adapt and make course corrections based on evidence and new findings. Measuring progress toward sustainably reducing global hunger, malnutrition, and poverty ensures the effective use of U.S. taxpayer dollars for meeting development objectives.141 Therefore, we are committed to rigorous MEL to track progress, facilitate performance-based and adaptive management, remain accountable to our commitments, and promote effective and evidence- 140 Rogers, E.M. (1983). Diffusion of Innovations, Third Edition. The Free Press, A Division of Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc.; New York, NY. 141 See published Feed the Future result here: https://www.feedthefuture.gov/results/ U.S. Government Global Food Security Strategy 78 based approaches to sustainably reduce global poverty, hunger, and malnutrition. We implement a balanced approach that enables the comprehensive tracking of progress across the Results Framework but strategically focuses on key results to ensure the approach is manageable and not overly burdensome, acknowledging that USG agencies work across different levels of the agri-food system. To accomplish that, we coordinate our global food-security and nutrition efforts under a common approach entailing transparency, accountability, and learning that includes:

1. A common Results Framework;

2. A performance monitoring process and standard performance indicators, including sex- and age- disaggregated indicators, as applicable;

3. An evaluation approach that employs impact and performance evaluations;

4. A common learning framework that prioritizes key evidence gaps to be addressed through MEL;

5. A focus on strengthening partner-country data systems and processes; and

6. Liaising with other donors, country governments, and other actors in the sector to align and harmonize around methods and measurement. The foundation of our MEL efforts is the Results Framework (Section 2) that maps connections between activities, Intermediate Results, and Cross-Cutting Intermediate Results as they relate to the three Objectives and the overall Goal of sustainably reducing global hunger, malnutrition, and poverty. This Framework assists us in designing effective programs, geared to generate meaningful intermediate results and measure progress in a coordinated way, by providing a structure against which to plan country-specific programs and by outlining causal pathways toward our end goal. These causal relationships have been identified through multidisciplinary research focusing on the reduction of global hunger, malnutrition, and poverty through inclusive and sustainable agriculture-led growth, strengthened resilience among people and systems, and a well-nourished population. To align investments under the Results Framework, we use a range of indicators associated with the Framework to track the progress of our programs. Across the Framework, at least one indicator is associated with each Intermediate Result, Objective, and Goal. The full list of standard FTF indicators, including their definitions and how they are associated to the components of the Results Framework, can be found in the FTF Indicator Handbook.142 The Importance of Open Data Data are vital to sustainably reducing global hunger, malnutrition, and poverty because they support evidence-based investments, accountability, and transparency and enable the measuring of progress toward the SDGs and other global, regional, and local voluntary commitments. Well-crafted data collection, management, and analysis are key elements to protecting the accuracy and confidence of results that inform policy and project activities. Data, temporal and spatial, provide the building blocks for modelling, which in turn builds credible evidence about current situations, program facilitation and results, and decisions on future development investments. 142 USAID. Feed the Future. (2019). Feed the Future Indicator Handbook. https://agrilinks.org/post/feed-future-indicator-handbook U.S. Government Global Food Security Strategy 79 Data on programmatic results, climate, poverty, demographics, health (including nutrition), and many other issues are also essential for managing our own programming. Real-time data feedback loops, for example, provide insights that can inform programmatic adjustments. Geospatial analysis provides visualization that helps focus our efforts where they are most needed. Monitoring climate and agricultural production data can help us anticipate and prepare for food shortages and other emergencies. Open, accurate, timely, accessible data are essential assets that provide a foundation of evidence for scientists and decision-makers globally and help fuel entrepreneurship, innovation, and scientific discovery in food security and nutrition. The Open, Public, Electronic, and Necessary (OPEN) Government Data Act, as part of the Foundations for Evidence-Based Policymaking Act, requires federal agencies to publish their information online as open data, using standardized, machine-readable data formats, with their metadata included. For example, USAID publishes FTF data on the Development Data Library (DDL) in machine-readable format. OPEN and related USG laws and policies around data shape the policies around collection, stewardship, quality, and use of data and inform global efforts to build and strengthen local and country-owned data systems. The USG also recognizes the potential risks associated with widely available and open data. Examples include the risk of identification or reidentification of individuals when data include precise geolocation coordinates, mobile identifiers, or indirect personal information, such as age, birthdate, race, etc., which when combined with other data, may lead to revealing an individual’s identity. We follow responsible data practices and policies to ensure that data risks are minimized, data quality is maximized, and data transparency and accountability are optimized to balance both the benefits and the risks of open data. Across the Results Framework, we aim to achieve results through our programs that move from outputs (tangible and intended products or consequences of an activity, such as number of people trained), to outcomes (the short-term results of those products and consequences, such as value of sales generated), and eventually to sustained impacts (medium to long-term effects to which a project or program contributes that change the development situation of a country, such as the poverty rate). We monitor progress across these levels through a combination of performance and tracking indicators. Performance indicators are those for which we hold ourselves accountable, while tracking indicators are those that measure outcomes in alignment with the aims of FTF but are not within our direct control to influence fully. In addition to indicators directly related to our Results Framework, we monitor context indicators, which provide information that helps to interpret performance results, i.e., to assess external factors that have the potential to affect the achievement of expected results. Federal departments and agencies collect and report annually on a set of standard FTF indicators relevant to their programs. Whole-of-government reporting occurs through a web-based data system managed by USAID. To strengthen interagency coordination in this area, all relevant federal departments and agencies should report on as many indicators and associated disaggregates as applicable under the Results Framework each year. Select indicators, and sex disaggregates where applicable, that more than one agency reports on each year are included in the annual report on progress. These indicators help demonstrate the breadth of our global food security and nutrition efforts and the outcomes achieved. Examples of indicators on which multiple agencies report include: EG.3.2-24 Number of individuals in the agrifood system who have applied improved management practices or technologies with U.S. Government assistance; and EG.3.2-27 Value of agriculture-related financing accessed as a result of U.S. Government assistance. U.S. Government Global Food Security Strategy 80 An interagency working group finalized the set of USG food security, resilience, and nutrition indicators before the start of the FY 2018 reporting season. To the degree possible, these indicators aligned with indicators used for the SDGs, particularly SDG 1 (end poverty) and SDG 2 (end hunger) and took into account the World Health Assembly targets. This alignment facilitated coordination with other development partners and optimized potential availability and use of existing data. For all indicators, we prioritized appropriate disaggregation. Specifically, to advance our commitment to empowering women and youth, many relevant individual-level indicators are sex- and age- (i.e., youth/non-youth) disaggregated. Moreover, FTF and partners pioneered the Women’s Empowerment in Agriculture Index (WEAI) to ensure accountability to our goals on women’s empowerment. Our MEL system will continue to use the WEAI to identify economic constraints that limit women’s contributions to households and communities, to track gender equality, and to measure empowerment and women’s inclusion in the agriculture sector. We recognize other priorities may arise, and the interagency working group will again lead the process of making relevant updates to the set of common indicators, if deemed necessary. USG interagency teams in each target country will determine which components of the Results Framework are most applicable in the country context, based on available evidence from current programming and other secondary data sources, and which causal linkages will have the greatest potential for change, after which the teams will then build a country-level Results Framework. Federal agencies encourage implementing partners to collect and report on all standard indicators and disaggregates that are applicable to their programs and useful for adaptive management. Agencies and implementing partners are encouraged to use proven, cost- effective, and real-time digital or mobile tools to collect and analyze data to the degree possible, while ensuring the responsible use of these tools and robust privacy protections. In addition to applicable standard indicators, programs are encouraged to collect data for custom indicators that are essential for monitoring performance and supporting adaptive management of the specific program. For each performance indicator selected for activities/programs, country teams and partners establish baselines, set targets, and routinely track progress toward them. While routine indicator data are central to maintaining accountability of our investments to stakeholders, they are also critical for enabling sound performance-based management practices that maximize our resources. The USG will track changes in our indicators that are aligned to the goal-level of our Results Framework (i.e., food insecurity, stunting, and poverty), both at the overall GFSS-level and in the targeted geographic areas, called ZOIs, where FTF programs aim to achieve the greatest impacts in target countries. We will also track changes in our indicators that are aligned to the Strategic-Objective-level of our Results Framework, (i.e., agriculture-led economic growth, strengthened resilience, and a well-nourished population), both at the overall GFSS-level and in our ZOIs. Although we will track changes in these indicators aligned to the higher-level components of our Results Framework, we will not set performance targets for them. This aligns with USG best practice, which acknowledges that goal- and Strategic-Objective-level indicator targets are not useful for performance management because changes in these indicators are not within our direct control, making it difficult to determine why targets are not being met, to link any lack of progress to activities, and to identify what adaptive-management changes are needed. Instead, we will set performance targets for ZOI indicators at the IR-level of the GFSS Results Framework, U.S. Government Global Food Security Strategy 81 led by country teams and after baseline data are collected in the ZOIs through population-based surveys. Because we are in a better position to link these indicators to FTF activities, setting targets for indicators at this lower IR-level is more useful for performance management and in better alignment with USG best practices. We will also collect data on participation in the types of interventions and systems that the USG supports to strengthen our ability to link performance to activities. Our target-setting approach for these ZOI indicators at the IR-level of our Results Framework will be based on factors such as: ● The implementation strategy and size of the USG global food-security and nutrition programs in country; ● Size and characteristics of the population in the targeted geographic areas (ZOIs); ● Baseline situation and past trends of the intermediate result-level indicators; ● Performance, challenges, and opportunities related to the agriculture and food systems; ● Economic growth conditions; regions and populations subject to recurrent crises; and ● The capacity of the health sector to address nutrition. GFSS-wide targets will depend on, and will be built from, the targets set at the country level. Thus, we will adjust strategy-wide targets as new target countries complete their baselines and set their performance targets. We may also adjust strategy-wide targets as countries adjust their targets during the adaptive management process. We will ask target country teams to set IR-level ZOI indicator targets within six months of finalizing their baselines. We will collect data through population-based surveys to verify the achievement of the targets within six years of the baseline and publish our findings once available. We will also collect data three years after the baseline to check in on progress toward the six-year targets. While monitoring results through indicators is important for managing performance, we recognize that the purpose of performance monitoring in general is not to establish causal linkages, but rather to provide a way to plausibly associate our interventions/activities with the outcomes/changes we observe. This means that evaluations are needed to provide an external examination of programs to thoroughly understand any resulting changes and ultimately improve program overall effectiveness and cost effectiveness. In alignment with the Foreign Aid Transparency and Accountability Act143 and relevant department and agency policies, we use both impact and performance evaluations strategically across programs for those purposes. Performance evaluations can provide key insights to improve the management of programs or inform the design of future ones. Impact evaluations help increase our understanding of what works and in which circumstances, thus providing evidence that is useful across all programming. Ex-post evaluations, done after a program has been completed, can also provide valuable education, particularly on the sustainability of program activities and results. To optimize the utility of evidence generated from analysis of monitoring data and evaluation findings, we will periodically review findings against a common learning framework. Based on experiences from FTF, a common learning framework helps coordinate learning from monitoring and evaluation efforts across federal 143 One Hundred Fourteenth Congress of the United States of America. (2016). Foreign Aid Transparency and Accountability Act of 2016, (Public Law 114-191). Page 130 Stat. 666). https://www.congress.gov/114/plaws/publ191/PLAW-114publ191.pdf U.S. Government Global Food Security Strategy 82 departments and within agencies to strategically answer the most critical questions and fill in major evidence gaps related to food security and nutrition. Through the Interagency MEL Working Group, much work has occurred in recent years to harmonize MEL efforts between USG partners working in food security. In addition to evaluations, we also use other types of evidence-generating tools, such as meta-analyses, gender and social assessments, and other assessments and research to help drive evidence-based decision-making. We will hold routine reflections on the implications of forthcoming evidence on the GFSS Results Framework to inform the GFSA reauthorization process. We will assess the status of evidence generated by all relevant federal departments and agencies under the strategy and the conclusions that we can draw to inform future work. National Data Systems Strengthening As part of our programming, the USG will continue to support countries’ capacities to collect, analyze, and use open, timely, and high-quality data. Using a strategic approach to strengthening national data systems for evidence-based decision making, we are working to leverage its comparative advantages to address the most pressing capacity and data-availability gaps in national data systems. Key investments have been made in household survey programs that build the capacity to collect, analyze, and use population-based data for accountability and decision-making (50x2030 Initiative to Close the Agricultural Data Gap, Surveys for Monitoring in Resilience and Food Security); in programs that build capacity to analyze and use data from Earth-observing satellites for food security and agriculture (50x2030, SERVIR, NASA Harvest, AGRA Regional Food Balance Sheets); and in programs that enhance the ability of local policy research organizations to conduct high-quality, policy-relevant food-security research, develop effective technical and institutional capacities to guide agricultural policy, and promote evidence and outcome-based policy planning and implementation (FEWS NET, 50x2030, AKADEMIYA2063, the IFPRI Regional Strategic Analysis and Knowledge Support System, and the FTF Innovation Lab for Food Security Policy, Research, Capacity, and Influence). For example, the 50x2030 Initiative to Close the Agricultural Data Gap was co-created in 2018 by USAID’s Bureau for Food Security (now the Bureau for Resilience and Food Security), and bilateral and multilateral development organizations to address the problem of poor agricultural data by strengthening data systems in 50 low- and lower-middle-income countries by 2030. The Initiative builds country capacity by directly supporting National Statistics Offices and/or Ministries of Agriculture to design and implement agricultural and rural survey programs. With an explicit focus on data use, the Initiative supports decision- makers to use data, strengthen data producers to align with decision-maker needs, and improve data sharing and open data. USAID supports the 50x2030 Initiative as an important and cost-effective vehicle for advancing open, reliable, and transparent data systems and supports FTF’s topline goal of sustainably reducing global hunger, malnutrition, and poverty. MEL efforts are and will always be essential to ensuring our global food security and nutrition programs are effective overall, cost-effective, and performing well. Over time, however, we aim to contribute to the sustainability of our MEL efforts by strengthening target country data systems, MEL processes, and mutual accountability systems to the degree possible. We leverage USG investment for bigger impact through coordinated multi-donor initiatives, where we support countries in data collection and analysis and use efforts related to food security, agriculture, and nutrition that provide data for SDG monitoring processes, and aid our own MEL data needs. We support countries in owning their data-collection processes and systems. We provide technical assistance and support investment in national data systems and local capacity to collect, U.S. Government Global Food Security Strategy 83 analyze, and use high-quality data to inform policy and program design and implementation as part of a country-led approach to development. Under the components outlined above, we implement MEL approaches that reflect international best practices for transparency and accountability. We select and use MEL tools that are practical, appropriate, and cost- effective for our food security, resilience, and nutrition programs. We encourage the participation of local experts in data collection and analytical processes to strengthen capacity, ownership, and local leadership in MEL. At the same time, we provide intellectual leadership within the broader food security and nutrition community to develop new tools and approaches for measurement and learning where they are lacking. Priorities include, but are not limited to, testing and evaluating new metrics, innovative data collection techniques, and new analytical tools in support of FTF objectives and programming. Our MEL leadership continues to close remaining evidence gaps within the food security and nutrition sector. U.S. Government Global Food Security Strategy 84 Glossary of Key Terms Adaptation Adaptation in the context of resilience is the ability of people, households, and systems to learn and adopt new approaches, technologies, and livelihoods in the face of shocks, which results in maintaining or improving well-being. Agriculture The science and practice of activities related to production, processing, packaging, transporting, trade, marketing, consumption, and use of food, feed, fiber, and other outputs, including aquaculture, farming, wild fisheries, forestry, and pastoralism. Agriculture and food systems The intact or whole unit made up of interrelated components of people, behaviors, relationships, and resources that interact in the production, processing, packaging, transporting, trade, marketing, consumption, and use of food, feed, fiber, and other outputs through aquaculture, farming, wild fisheries, forestry, and pastoralism. The food and agriculture system operates within and is influenced by social, political, economic, and environmental contexts. Animal-sourced foods Includes milk, dairy, poultry, eggs, meat, and fish. Appropriate congressional committees Appropriate congressional committees as defined in the GFSA include: the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate; the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry of the Senate; the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate; the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives; the Committee on Agriculture of the House of Representatives; and the Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives. Basic sanitation service The technical term for a sanitation facility that hygienically separates human excreta from human contact. This is an SDG indicator. A safely managed sanitation service also ensures that fecal waste is removed for treatment or safely disposed of in situ. Blue foods Blue, or aquatic, foods include marine and freshwater fish, shellfish, aquatic plants, and algae captured or cultivated in freshwater or marine environments. Climate-smart agriculture An integrative approach to address the interlinked challenges of food security and climate change that explicitly aims for three objectives: (1) sustainably increasing agricultural productivity to support equitable increases in farm incomes, food security and development; (2) adapting and building resilience of agricultural and food security systems to climate change at multiple levels; and (3) mitigating climate change by increasing carbon sequestration or reducing GHG emissions associated with agriculture (including crops, livestock, and fisheries), either in absolute terms or by reducing emissions intensity in the context of Low Emissions Development. U.S. Government Global Food Security Strategy 85 Conflict sensitivity The understanding that all programs, regardless of sector or type, interact with the social and political dynamics around them, thus programmatic choices can exacerbate existing conflict dynamics, create new ones, or strengthen resilience and mitigate conflict. Conflict-sensitive programs are adaptively managed and flexibly funded to allow for mid-course correction and employ frequent conflict analysis to keep ahead of dynamic conditions, along with complexity-aware monitoring and evaluation—using conflict indicators—to ensure positive effect. Context indicator A means to monitor/assess external factors outside the control of the activity or program that have the potential to affect the achievement of expected results. Context indicators provide information that helps to interpret performance results and may be tracked at any level of a Results Framework or logic model. Context indicators may be used to track country/regional context; programmatic assumptions of strategies, projects, and activities; and operational context. Context indicators do not directly measure the results of activities. Digital technology Digital technology refers to both the type of technology as well as to the platforms, processes, and range of technologies that underpin modern information and communications technologies, including the internet and mobile-phone platforms, as well as advanced data infrastructure and analytic approaches. Ecosystem services The benefits that flow from nature to people; for example, nature’s contributions to the production of food and timber; life-support processes, such as water purification and coastal protection; and life-fulfilling benefits, such as places to recreate. These services may require people to sustainably manage or conserve them to deliver benefits. Evaluation The systematic collection and analysis of information about the characteristics and outcomes of strategies, projects, and activities conducted as a basis for judgments to improve effectiveness and cost-effectiveness and timed to inform decisions about current and future programming. Evaluation is distinct from assessment or an informal review of projects. Extreme poverty The inability to meet basic consumption needs on a sustainable basis. People who live in extreme poverty lack both income and assets and typically suffer from interrelated, chronic deprivations, including hunger and malnutrition, poor health, limited education and marginalization, discrimination, or exclusion. The extreme poor often lack the resilience to cope with economic setbacks, natural disasters, or illnesses. Feed the Future Innovation Labs Research programs led by U.S. universities in collaboration with target country research institutions that advance science-based solutions to reduce global hunger, poverty, and malnutrition. These programs were formerly known as the Collaborative Research Support Programs (or CRSPs). Food security and nutrition Access to––and availability, utilization, and stability of––sufficient food to meet caloric and nutritional needs for an active and healthy life. U.S. Government Global Food Security Strategy 86 Gender The socially defined set of roles, rights, responsibilities, entitlements, and obligations of females and males in societies. The social definitions of what it means to be female or male vary among cultures and change over time. Gender analysis An analytic, social science tool that is used to identify, understand, and explain gaps between males and females that exist in households, communities, and countries, and the relevance of gender norms and power relations in a specific context. Such analysis typically involves examining differences in the status of women and men and their differential access to assets, resources, opportunities, and services; the influence of gender roles and norms on the division of time between paid employment, unpaid work (including subsistence production and care for family members), and volunteer activities; the influence of gender roles and norms on leadership roles and decision-making; constraints, opportunities, and entry points for narrowing gender gaps and empowering females; and potential differential impacts of development policies and programs on males and females, including unintended or negative consequences. Gender equality Concerns fundamental social transformation, working with men and boys, women and girls, to bring about changes in attitudes, behaviors, roles, and responsibilities at home, in the workplace, and in the community. It means expanding freedoms and improving overall quality of life so that equality is achieved without sacrificing gains for males or females. Healthy diets Diets that are of adequate quantity and quality to achieve optimal growth and development of all individuals and support functioning and physical, mental, and social well-being at all life stages and physiological needs. Healthy diets are safe, diverse, balanced, and based on nutritious foods144 and help to protect against malnutrition in all its forms, including undernutrition, micronutrient deficiencies, and overweight and obesity, and lower the risk of diet-related non-communicable diseases. The exact makeup of healthy diets varies depending on an individual’s characteristics (e.g., age, gender, lifestyle, and degree of physical activity); geographical, demographical, and cultural patterns and contexts; food preferences; availability of foods from local, regional, and international sources; and dietary customs. Humanitarian-development-peace coherence Humanitarian-development-peace coherence, also called the humanitarian-development-peace nexus, aims to promote complementary collaboration, coordination, and collective outcomes among humanitarian assistance, development assistance, and peacebuilding. Its goal is to build resilience through protecting productive assets and promoting peace and stabilization for people who are vulnerable to shocks and stresses resulting from humanitarian disasters and conflict. Additionally, humanitarian- development-peace coherence aims to transition to long-term assistance focused on reducing risk and root causes of poverty, improving food security, nutrition, social cohesion, and well-being outcomes, while also reducing the need for humanitarian assistance. 144 FAO. (2021). CFS Voluntary Guidelines on Food Systems and Nutrition. http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/cfs/Docs2021/Documents/CFS_VGs_Food_Systems_and_Nutrition_Strategy_EN.pdf U.S. Government Global Food Security Strategy 87 Hygienic Conducive to maintaining health and preventing disease, especially by being clean; sanitary. Illegal, unreported, and unregulated (IUU) fishing Although there is not an internationally agreed definition for IUU fishing, the 2011 United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) International Plan of Action to Prevent, Deter, and Eliminate Illegal, Unreported, and Unregulated Fishing145 characterizes each element of IUU fishing as follows:

1. Illegal fishing refers to activities: ● conducted by national or foreign vessels in waters under the jurisdiction of a State, without the permission of that State, or in contravention of its laws and regulations; ● conducted by vessels flying the flag of States that are parties to a relevant regional fisheries management organization but operate in contravention of the conservation and management measures adopted by that organization and by which the States are bound, or relevant provisions of the applicable international law; or ● in violation of national laws or international obligations, including those undertaken by cooperating States to a relevant regional fisheries management organization.

2. Unreported fishing refers to fishing activities: ● that have not been reported, or have been misreported, to the relevant national authority, in contravention of national laws and regulations; or ● undertaken in the area of competence of a relevant regional fisheries management organization that have not been reported or have been misreported, in contravention of the reporting procedures of that organization.

3. Unregulated fishing refers to fishing activities:146 ● in the area of application of a relevant regional fisheries management organization that are conducted by vessels without nationality, or by those flying the flag of a State not party to that organization, or by a fishing entity, in a manner that is not consistent with or contravenes the conservation and management measures of that organization; or ● in areas or for fish stocks in relation to which there are no applicable conservation or management measures and where such fishing activities are conducted in a manner inconsistent with State responsibilities for the conservation of living marine resources under international law. Inclusion Refers to supporting programs that engage people across societies and benefit whole communities and countries. Inclusive development The concept that every person, regardless of identity, is instrumental in the transformation of their own societies and their inclusion throughout the development process leads to better outcomes. 145 FAO. International Plan of Action to prevent, deter and eliminate illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing. Rome, FAO. 2001. http://www.fao.org/3/y1224e/y1224e.pdf 146 FAO notes that some of the activities described as unregulated fishing may take place in a manner that is not in violation of applicable international law, and may not require the application of measures envisaged under the International Plan of Action. U.S. Government Global Food Security Strategy 88 Interagency community Refers to the U.S. government agencies and departments identified in the GFSA to implement the GFSS and the whole-of-government FTF initiative. In certain cases, this community includes agencies and departments not identified in the GFSA when their participation can further the goals and objectives of the GFSS. Intersectionality Refers to the interconnected nature of social categorizations such as race, class, and gender as they apply to a given individual or group, regarded as creating overlapping and interdependent systems of discrimination or disadvantage. Key stakeholders Actors engaged in efforts to advance global food-security programs and objectives, including relevant federal departments and agencies; national and local governments in developing countries; other bilateral donors; international and regional organizations; international, regional, and local financial institutions; international, regional, and local private voluntary, nongovernmental, faith-based, and civil-society organizations; the private sector, including agribusinesses and relevant commodities groups; agricultural producers, including producer organizations, cooperatives, small-scale producers, and women; and agricultural research and academic institutions, including land-grant universities and extension services. Land, freshwater and marine, and resource tenure The political, economic, social, and legal structures that determine how individuals and groups access, use, and benefit from land, freshwater and marine, and other resources—including trees, minerals, fish, aquatic resources, and pastures. Tenure rules, which can be defined by legislation, case law, or customary rules and principles, define how rights to access, use, control, and transfer land and resources are allocated within societies or communities. Malnutrition Poor nutritional status caused by nutritional deficiency or excess. Malnutrition is a condition resulting when a person’s diet does not provide adequate nutrients for growth and maintenance or if a person is unable to fully utilize the food eaten due to illness; this consists of both undernutrition and overweight or obesity. Marginalized groups People who are typically denied full access to legal protection or social and economic participation and programs (such as police protection, political participation, access to health care, education, employment, etc.), whether in practice or in principle, for either historical, cultural, political, or other contextual reasons. Such groups may include but are not limited to women and girls; persons with disabilities; LGBTQI+ persons; displaced persons; economic migrants; Indigenous individuals and communities; youth and older persons; religious minorities; ethnic minorities; people suffering lower status in a caste system; and people of diverse economic classes and political opinions. These groups often suffer from discrimination in the application of laws and policy and/or access to resources, services, and social protection, and may be subject to persecution, harassment, and/or violence. They may also be described as “underrepresented,” “at-risk,” or “in vulnerable situations.” Market system A dynamic space—incorporating resources, roles, relationships, rules, and results—in which private and U.S. Government Global Food Security Strategy 89 public actors collaborate, coordinate, and compete for the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services. Mitigation Mitigation in the context of climate change refers specifically to reducing anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions causing climate change or preventing the destruction or degradation of natural systems that regulate, store or sequester carbon. Monitoring The ongoing and systematic tracking of data or information relevant to U.S. government strategies, projects, and activities. Relevant data and informational needs are identified during planning and design and may include output and outcome measures that are directly attributable to or affected by U.S. government interventions, as well as measures of the operating context and programmatic assumptions. Multiplier(s) The rate at which direct agricultural (or other) income or employment outcomes result in additional indirect income or employment outcomes in the overall economy. In general, small-scale producer agricultural investments have been documented to have significantly higher multipliers than investments in other sectors. One job in agriculture often results in the creation of additional jobs and income through producer purchase of farm inputs, jobs in downstream processing, and producer expenditure on other locally supplied goods and services. One Health A collaborative, multisectoral, and transdisciplinary approach—working at the local, regional, national, and global levels—with the goal of achieving optimal health outcomes recognizing the interconnection of people, animals, plants, and their shared environment. Performance indicator A means to monitor expected outputs and outcomes of strategies, projects, or activities based on a Results Framework or a project’s or activity’s logic model. Performance indicators are those for which we hold ourselves accountable and are the basis for observing progress and measuring actual results compared to expected results. They help answer the extent to which an activity is progressing toward its objective(s), but alone cannot explain why such progress is or is not being made. Performance indicators are also sometimes known as performance metrics. Protected area A clearly defined geographical space, recognized, dedicated, and managed, through legal or other effective means, to achieve the long-term conservation of nature with associated ecosystem services and cultural values. This includes wildlife areas, national parks, water recharge zones, and marine protected areas, among other examples. Relevant federal departments and agencies According to the Global Food Security Act, “relevant” federal departments and agencies include: the United States Agency for International Development; U.S. Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, State, and the Treasury; Millennium Challenge Corporation; Overseas Private Investment Corporation (now the U.S. International Development Finance Corporation); Peace Corps; Office of the United States Trade Representative; United States African Development Foundation; United States Geological Survey; and U.S. Government Global Food Security Strategy 90 any other department or agency specified by the President. Resilience The ability of people, households, communities, countries, and systems to reduce, mitigate, adapt to, and recover from shocks and stresses to food security in a manner that reduces chronic vulnerability and facilitates inclusive growth. Risk mitigation Risk mitigation in the context of resilience refers to a broad range of strategies to reduce vulnerability and exposure to shocks based on an assessment of the risk environment. For example, these could include developing disaster-risk management; early warning and response plans; accessing insurance; increasing emergency savings; increasing sustainable productive assets, sustainable natural resource management, and landscape design; diversifying livelihoods; and maintaining optimal health and nutrition. Shock(s) An acute, short- to medium-term episode or event that has substantial, negative effects on people’s current state of well-being, level of assets, livelihoods, or their abilities to withstand future shocks. A shock’s onset may be slow or rapid and may affect select households (idiosyncratic shocks) or a large number or class of households (covariate shocks) at the same time. Shock-responsive systems Approaches and mechanisms that enable system-level actors, households, or individuals to plan for shocks and stresses and proactively use disaster management, early warning, and flexible response mechanisms in a rapid and more efficient and effective way. Shock-responsive systems enable actors at all levels to mitigate, adapt to, and recover from shocks, while also reducing losses, preventing a downward spiral of divestment, enabling faster recovery, and protecting hard-won development gains. Small and medium enterprises / Micro, small, and medium enterprises Non-subsidiary independent firms, which can include farmers, pastoralists, and fishers. Under FTF, micro enterprises are those that employed fewer than 10 people in the previous year, small enterprises employed 10 to 49 people in the previous year, and medium enterprises employed 50 to 249 people in the previous year. Small-scale producer Farmers, pastoralists, foresters, and fishers that typically hold five hectares of land or fewer or equivalent units of livestock or fisheries. These farmers, pastoralists, foresters, and fishers tend to have limited resources, including land, capital, skills, and labor. Social protection A set of policies and programs aimed at preventing, reducing, and eliminating economic and social vulnerabilities to poverty and deprivation. Social protection can be integrated into sector-specific and multi-sectoral approaches and can be sequenced, layered, and integrated with national social protection systems. Stress(es) A longer-term pressure that undermines current or future vulnerability and well-being, including—but not U.S. Government Global Food Security Strategy 91 limited to—climate variability and change, population pressure, and environmental degradation. Stunting Being short relative to one’s age—a height more than two standard deviations below the World Health Organization Child Growth Standards median. Stunting is generally associated with socioeconomic factors. Stunting in early life, especially during the 1,000-day window from pregnancy to a child’s second birthday, is associated with long-term future health and development. Sustainability Refers to the ability of a local system to produce desired outcomes over time. Target country A developing country that is selected to participate in agriculture and nutrition programs under the GFSS pursuant to the selection criteria described in the “Targeting Approach” section of this document. Activities under this strategy will not be limited to target countries. Tracking indicator A means to measure outcomes that are in alignment with the aims of FTF but are not within our direct control to fully influence and therefore for which we will not set targets. Undernourishment When a person is not able to acquire enough food to meet the daily minimum dietary energy requirements, over a period of one year. Chronic undernourishment is an indicator for hunger. Undernutrition The various forms of poor nutrition caused by a complex array of factors including dietary inadequacy, infections, and sociocultural factors. Underweight, stunting, wasting, and micronutrient deficiencies are manifestations of undernutrition. Value chain The set of actors and activities required to bring products from production to consumption, including processing, storage, transportation, marketing, distribution, and retail. As a product moves through a value chain, each step adds monetary value to the product. Wasting Low weight-for-height, defined as more than two standard deviations below the median of the World Health Organization Child Growth Standards and/or mid-upper arm circumference (MUAC) of <125mm. Wasting is usually the result of a recent, acute deprivation and/or illness and is strongly linked to mortality. Wasting is also referred to as acute malnutrition, and is classified as moderate or severe. Water security The capacities to access the quantity and quality of water supplies to meet basic human needs, support economic growth, enhance food security, and maintain ecosystems and daily life. Youth For the purposes of this strategy, youth means a life stage that starts in adolescence and continues through young adulthood. The specific age range associated with those stages may vary by the sociocultural U.S. Government Global Food Security Strategy 92 context, programmatic context, and the organization funding or implementing the program. U.S. Government Global Food Security Strategy 93 Annex 1. Agency Implementation Plans The anticipated financial and in-kind contributions the U.S. government will use to implement this strategy are summarized in the department- and agency-specific implementation plans below. These plans reflect each relevant federal department and agency’s unique set of tools and expertise for achieving our collective Goal and Objectives. These implementation plans present anticipated financial contributions based only on the FY 2022 Congressional Budget Justification submitted to Congress in May 2021. U.S. Government Global Food Security Strategy 94 U.S. Agency for International Development Global Food Security Implementation Plan USAID Overview On behalf of the American people, USAID promotes and demonstrates democratic values abroad and advances a free, peaceful, and prosperous world. In support of America's foreign policy, USAID leads the U.S. government's international development and disaster assistance through partnerships and investments that save lives, reduce poverty, strengthen democratic governance, and help people emerge from humanitarian crises and progress beyond the need for foreign assistance. As part of this mandate, USAID leads Feed the Future (FTF), the U.S. government’s global hunger and food-security initiative and continues to coordinate with partner agencies to implement the whole-of-government Global Food Security Strategy (GFSS). USAID’s Bureau for Resilience and Food Security (RFS) and the Bureau for Humanitarian Assistance (BHA) are the primary USAID Bureaus responsible for coordinating food-security assistance. RFS is the lead USAID entity for FTF and coordinates closely with BHA on the implementation of Title II Non- Emergency Assistance (which is BHA-led). USAID’s Bureau for Global Health is the primary Bureau responsible for direct nutrition interventions, health services and systems strengthening, and complementary health-related water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) programming. Coordination occurs throughout the USAID Program Cycle and includes strategic planning, budgeting, project and activity design, and monitoring, evaluation, and learning (MEL). In addition, RFS’ Office of Country Support coordinates multidisciplinary technical support for food security, nutrition, and resilience with USAID regional Bureaus, Missions, and regional platforms. Technical, Programmatic, and In-Kind Contributions to the GFSS USAID will provide the following support to implement the GFSS: Objective 1. Inclusive and sustainable agriculture-led economic growth: USAID will continue to focus on helping women, youth, small-scale producers, and micro-, small-, and medium-sized enterprises (MSMEs) overcome barriers to entry and improve participation, productivity, and profitability. USAID spurs inclusive and sustainable agriculture-led growth by investing in agricultural research capacities and innovation; helping producers leverage products, services, and practices through public and private channels; increasing financing for the agriculture and food system; and making local markets and trade more effective and efficient so that producers and MSMEs can thrive and households have access to nutritious and affordable food. We use market-systems approaches to facilitate lasting, systemic change led by local system actors to strengthen and expand agricultural markets, connect farmers to markets, and strengthen MSMEs. Objective 2. Strengthened resilience among people and systems: USAID will enable people, households, communities, systems, and countries to build resilience and adapt to shocks, stresses, and large-scale threats including COVID-19, climate, and conflict. USAID will prioritize integration of resilience into Agency programming. Interventions include strengthening disaster-risk mitigation and management systems and services, shock-responsive mechanisms, early U.S. Government Global Food Security Strategy 95 warning monitoring, and adaptive social protection systems. We will strengthen coordination between humanitarian, development, and peace actors and mechanisms to protect livelihoods and assets and a transition to long-term sustainable growth. This will include strengthening multi-sectoral resilience capacities and productive assets that promote sustainable economic development, natural resource management and climate resilience, on- and off-farm livelihoods diversification and rural-urban linkages, human capital, and strengthening diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), especially focused on women, girls, and youth empowerment. Objective 3. A well-nourished population, especially among women and children: USAID activities will improve nutrition to enhance human potential, health, and productivity. As outlined in the U.S. government’s Global Nutrition Coordination Plan, nutrition investments will concentrate efforts on improving the nutrition status of women and children, particularly during the critical 1,000-day window from pregnancy to a child’s second birthday. In particular, the USG will focus on improving safe and nutritious diets, reducing child wasting, improving micronutrient status, and reducing child stunting. Interventions will focus on increasing consumption of nutritious and safe diets; increasing use of nutrition-specific services; ensuring that women and men have the time, space, and support to feed and care for their children; creating more hygienic household and community environments through WASH interventions; and increasing the use of other nutrition-sensitive approaches. In addition to the three Objectives above, USAID investments will also support the Cross-Cutting Intermediate Results and Complementary Results described in Section 2 of the GFSS. Timely and Integrated Non-Emergency Food Assistance: Under FTF, USAID sequences, layers, and integrates Title II Non-Emergency Resilience and Food Security Activities with its long-term development investments to create sustainable pathways out of extreme poverty for chronically marginalized populations. MEL & Research and Development: USAID leads the whole-of-government MEL effort, including: the coordination of population-level results in FTF target countries; the management of an online reporting system that captures whole-of- government and activity-level data; a learning framework that coordinates evaluation and analytic efforts across the interagency; and performance indicator standards. USAID will also support a robust and targeted research and innovation portfolio to address major global, regional, and national food security and nutrition challenges. This will include collaboration and leveraging of wider U.S. government research investments with the Department of Agriculture, National Science Foundation, and National Institutes of Health. A diverse set of public and private partners will support the effort, including the U.S. university-led FTF Innovation Labs. RFS plans on coordinating a process to update the guidance and tools for global food-security programs. Impact and Sustainability: USAID will promote numerous approaches to maximize effectiveness and impact and sustainably reduce global hunger, malnutrition, and poverty. Private-sector-led inclusive food and agriculture systems will create jobs and provide small-scale producers (especially women and youth) with access to inputs, markets, financial services, information, proven innovations, and climate-smart approaches beyond the life of our projects. We will concentrate our resources on countries, regions, and communities where we can be most effective in achieving results and will support country-led policies, strategies, and processes U.S. Government Global Food Security Strategy 96 that strengthen local ownership of investments. USAID will strengthen resilience and promote the sustainability of our efforts by reducing risks to the world’s most marginalized people and help them prepare for and recover from external shocks and stresses. Where humanitarian assistance is relied on to meet chronic and/or recurrent needs, we will work to implement durable solutions. Resources Requested and Budget Table: USAID is planning the following funding in FY 2022 to support the GFSS, based on Congressional Budget Justification (CBJ) levels: Sector and Account Expected FY Narrative Explanation 2022 Financial Contribution Agriculture Resources presented in this table are limited to funding Development Assistance $902,810,000 requested explicitly for food security; agricultural Economic Support Fund $126,700,000 development; nutrition; and water sanitation and hygiene Assistance for Europe, $20,920,000 in the FY 2022 CBJ. A wide range of complementary investments across multiple sectors also contribute to Eurasia and Central Asia food security. However, complementary investments are Food for Peace (FFP)– $285,000,000 not listed in the financial contributions table because the Non-Emergency causal relationship to reductions in global hunger, SUBTOTAL $1,335,430,000 malnutrition, and poverty is complex and difficult to measure. WASH Development Assistance $214,042,000 USAID provides emergency food assistance to Economic Support Fund $221,100,000 populations in vulnerable situations affected by natural Assistance for Europe, $2,000,000 disasters, such as droughts and floods, and in response to Eurasia and Central Asia conflict, which may complement other food security SUBTOTAL $437,142,000 programs. However, these funds are not included here as they are programmed on a contingency basis (i.e., based on unexpected events) and are not requested for food security development efforts. This aligns with the Global Nutrition Food Security Act, which is primarily focused on food Global Health Programs $150,000,000 security development. The FFP Non-Emergency total Economic Support Fund $4,000,000 represents the minimum of what is authorized in the FFP Reauthorization Act and is presented here as an estimate. Assistance for Europe, $750,000 Eurasia and Central Asia Nutrition programming under the Global Health Initiative SUBTOTAL $154,750,000 and Feed the Future agricultural projects, as well as FFP Title II development food assistance, aims to improve the nutritional status of women and children. Programs work across humanitarian and development contexts with an emphasis in health, agriculture, and resilience. U.S. Government Global Food Security Strategy 97 U.S. Department of Agriculture Global Food Security Implementation Plan U.S. Department of Agriculture Overview USDA provides leadership on food, agriculture, natural resources, rural development, nutrition, and related issues based on public policy, the best available science, and effective management. We have a vision to provide economic opportunity through innovation and to promote agriculture production that better nourishes Americans while also helping feed others throughout the world. USDA actively assists countries to fulfill trade obligations and make trade-related decisions that are based on evidence, science, and international rules and standards for safe, sustainable trade and food security. USDA’s extensive science and technology enterprise, including research, education, and extension, result in innovations that support a safe, sustainable, and competitive U.S. food system with co-benefits that span the globe. Technical, Programmatic, and In-Kind Contributions to the GFSS Programmatic: USDA intends to align implementation of its international food assistance and international trade and scientific exchange and fellowship programs with the GFSS, among other initiatives and authorities, specifically the: Food for Progress Program, McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program, Faculty Exchange Program, Borlaug International Agricultural Science and Technology Program, and Cochran Fellowship Program. USDA plans to deliver additional, international food security, climate change, and resilience programming through existing or new project-specific agreements with USAID, U.S. Department of State, and other U.S. agencies, and in collaboration with public and private-sector stakeholders and partners. Technical and In-Kind: USDA plans to provide U.S. technical expertise to advise, guide, and implement international food security capacity building activities, depending upon the specific programmatic needs, availability of resources, and mutual benefit to the USDA mission. USDA’s market information on and analyses of the global production, supplies, and demands of agricultural commodities are publicly available and can help U.S. and foreign stakeholders to make data-driven business and policy decisions to support global food security and nutrition, and for maintaining efficient markets and conservation practices and productive farms. USDA regulatory and technical experts contribute U.S. representation to international plant health, animal health, and food safety standard-setting bodies, and to multi-lateral forums for innovation, food security, sustainability and resilience, food systems, climate change, and natural resources management. In countries with Foreign Service Officers and Locally Employed Staff, USDA intends to participate in Embassy teams that communicate, plan, implement, and monitor the Strategy. USDA science and technology efforts are critical for advancing American agriculture and are U.S. Government Global Food Security Strategy 98 strengthened by mutually beneficial, international engagements, including those with low- and middle- income countries, that can accelerate progress in research, practice, and agricultural science policy through information sharing, data metrics standardization, leveraging resources, and priority setting through global forums. Financial: The estimated Fiscal Year (FY) 2022 financial contributions from aligned USDA programs to the GFSS are: ● Food for Progress: $150 million ● McGovern-Dole: $230 million147 ● International Trade and Scientific Exchange and Fellowship Programs: $5.4 million148 Impact and Sustainability USDA’s international programs follow regulations and processes for high-quality planning, monitoring, risk management, and evaluation and learning. Several USDA international programs emphasize capacity building objectives at the institution- and system-levels where relatively high potential exists to sustain and amplify downstream, beneficial outcomes. These programs promote stakeholder engagement that fosters inclusion and agricultural trade facilitation that incentivizes stakeholder partnerships, market growth, innovation, natural resource management, and leveraging other investments in sustainable food security and nutrition. USDA international programs can build capacities for analyzing agricultural pest and disease risks and developing appropriate mitigation measures while aligning with sanitary and phytosanitary standards for international trade. These efforts bolster USDA’s ability to protect U.S. agriculture from transboundary threats. USDA and its partners include climate vulnerabilities and resilience among considerations when planning and implementing USDA international development programs and, as appropriate, USDA will integrate and promote climate-smart agriculture approaches through those programs. USDA promotes efficient markets and stable, modernized agricultural economic governance that enable countries to conserve their natural resources to improve productivity and fulfill their trade obligations and mitigate market-distorting programs and policies that can make farmers less competitive and reduce availability and access to nutritious foods. Through our international engagement, USDA advances science and evidence-based policies and measures, supports the establishment of school meals programs, facilitates the acceptance of new technologies and innovation, and advances trade liberalization, including building coalitions with like-minded countries to achieve common food security-related policy goals. 147 Under the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018, the McGovern-Dole legislation was updated to allow up to 10 percent of the annual appropriation to be used for local and regional procurement of commodities. 148 Total estimate for Borlaug, Cochran, and Faculty Exchange Program. U.S. Government Global Food Security Strategy 99 U.S. Department of Commerce Global Food Security Implementation Plan U.S. Department of Commerce Overview The Department of Commerce (DOC) contributes to the Global Food Security Strategy through its National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and International Trade Administration (ITA) bureaus. NOAA provides its global partners access to comprehensive oceanic, atmospheric, and geophysical data. It offers direct capacity building assistance to address food insecurity through improved weather forecasting, drought early warning systems, and climate change resilience and adaptation. NOAA additionally provides policy-focused capacity building associated with sustainable fisheries, including ecosystem-based management, fisheries monitoring and enforcement, halting/mitigating illegal, unregulated, and unreported (IUU) fishing, and U.S. food safety and Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HAACP) regulations. ITA’s mission is to strengthen the competitiveness of U.S. industry, promote trade and investment, and ensure fair trade through rigorous enforcement of U.S. trade laws and agreements. The open trading system that this work advances can help drive economic growth abroad, including at the individual, community, and country levels and help populations in vulnerable situations to become more economically secure and better trading partners with the United States. The Senior Level Commerce Department Point is the Assistant Secretary for Industry and Analysis (I&A) within ITA. The implementation lead for ITA resides within the Office of Consumer Goods (OCG) in ITA’s I&A Unit. OCG coordinates efforts and draws cross-cutting expertise from multiple Offices within ITA, including Office of Africa and Office of Supply Chain, Professional and Business Services, as well ITA’s domestic and global Commercial Service network. NOAA’s seven Line Offices work in partnership through integrated program areas (e.g., weather, climate, satellites, and research) to contribute scientific and policy expertise to U.S. Government efforts to address domestic and global food security. Technical, Programmatic, and In-Kind Contributions to the GFSS Although DOC lacks dedicated programming specifically designed and funded to promote global food security, NOAA and ITA indirectly contribute to GFSA goals through existing, ongoing workstreams that carry out the individual Bureau mandates. These DOC workstream activities contribute to the GFSS objectives. More specifically, NOAA contributes towards GFSS objectives through its National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service, Climate Program Office, National Marine Fisheries Service, and National Weather Service activities: ● The National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service (NESDIS) facilitates U.S. Government Global Food Security Strategy 100 domestic and international access to NOAA satellite and in situ data in support of weather forecasting, climate prediction, economic sectors such as agriculture, and the global research community. NESDIS contributes to many international initiatives and partnerships including Global Drought Information System; Global Historical Climate Network (GHCN); global Climate Data Record (CDR) inventory; International Comprehensive Ocean-Atmosphere Data Set (ICOADS); and World Climate Research Programme activities. ● The NOAA Climate Program Office (CPO), within the Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR), manages competitive research programs through which NOAA funds high- priority climate science, assessments, decision support research, outreach, education, and capacity-building activities designed to advance understanding of Earth’s climate system. It fosters the application of this knowledge in risk management and adaptation efforts. CPO- supported research is conducted in regions across the United States, at national and international scales, and globally. ● The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), in partnership with the National Ocean Service (NOS) and Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR), seeks to increase sustainable marine aquaculture production through a more efficient and predictable permitting process, science-based management, and technology development and transfer. ● The National Weather Service (NWS) provides global capacity building for (among other things) weather forecasting, hydrologic modeling and prediction, and drought early warning. ITA bolsters trading relations with GFSA countries through support of open and fair markets which sustain supply chains that allow free flow of U.S. goods and services to contribute to global food security. Increased trade strengthens GFSA countries’ business infrastructures and trade capacities, leading to inclusive and sustainable agriculture-led economic growth and well-nourished populations. Specific ITA activities include Business to Business matching through ITA’s Foreign Commercial Service and trade missions/shows to increase market openness and strengthen local trade; introduction of relevant U.S. new technologies and services that address food insecurity and supply chain development, including cold chain; production and analyses of data that contribute to general understanding of market landscapes in U.S. and food insecure countries, leading to increased market access to the benefit of all partners; injection of U.S. private sector perspective into trade research on technologies that address global food insecurity including financial inclusion, supply chain resiliency, etc. Impact and Sustainability NOAA’s workstreams will continue to ensure impact and sustainability by sharing satellite and other data for use in weather forecasting; environmental assessments; hydrologic modeling and prediction; drought early warning; and climate change impact-mitigation-adaptation, both bilaterally and through our international commitments with global entities such as the World Meteorological Organization and others. NOAA is also committed to its mission to provide high-quality science, services, and policies to support expansion of sustainable wild fisheries and marine aquaculture. NOAA continues to engage in these international capacity building activities to enhance our partners’ abilities in service of global food security. ITA’s established, ongoing workstreams will continue to ensure impact by supporting the trading U.S. Government Global Food Security Strategy 101 capacities and enabling business environments of GFSA countries with the ambition that the countries will continue to strengthen into strong and permanent U.S. trading partners. Robust trade and well- functioning markets at the local and international levels are recognized as effective means to bolster food security by spurring countries’ economic growth, expanding local income opportunities, stabilizing food supply, and improving dietary diversity and nutrition. Towards those goals, ITA will continue to facilitate expanded U.S. food/agriculture private sector participation in foreign markets consistent with USG food security efforts, spearhead trade missions and reverse trade missions to increase knowledge exchange and adoption of newest agriculture and food processing technologies, and continue to contribute ITA expertise to further GFSA goals. Resources Requested and Budget Table Account Expected FY 2022 Financial Narrative Contribution Explanation Please See Explanatory Notes Below ITA conducts food security activities as part of its overall trade promotion efforts. Funding is not directly assigned to global food security activities’ implementation, nor is the level of effort––such as number of hours per employee devoted to the strategy––readily available. ITA’s appropriation is subdivided into an administrative program unit and three business units (Global Markets, Industry and Analysis, and Enforcement and Compliance). Activities related to the GFSS primarily take place within the I&A unit. NOAA conducts activities identified in the Department of Commerce GFSS implementation plan as part of its overall capacity-building efforts. While these activities contribute to the GFSS, funding is not directly assigned to GFSS implementation. These activities are primarily funded through NOAA’s Operations, Research, and Facilities appropriation, which is subdivided into NOAA’s seven Line Office units. Each Line Office supports activities that contribute to the GFSS, such as capacity building for drought warnings and science-based aquaculture production. Funding, however, is not specified for that particular purpose. ITA Budget: ITA conducts the activities identified in the narrative as part of our overall trade promotion efforts. Funding is not directly assigned to GFSA implementation from our appropriated funds, nor is the level of effort such as number of hours per employee devoted to the GFSA readily available. NOAA Budget: NOAA conducts the activities identified in the narrative as part of our overall capacity building efforts. While these activities contribute to the GFSA, funding is not directly assigned to GFSA implementation. U.S. Government Global Food Security Strategy 102 U.S. Department of State Global Food Security Implementation Plan U.S. Department of State Overview The Department’s mission is to shape and sustain a peaceful, prosperous, just, and democratic world and foster conditions for stability and progress for the benefit of the American people and people everywhere. The Department prioritizes food security as an issue of national security, and the Department’s officials both in Washington and based at our embassies and missions worldwide, engage with foreign governments and in international fora to promote policies to improve global food security and nutrition. The Secretary of State is responsible for the continuous supervision and general direction of assistance programs under 22 U.S.C. § 2382, and has the lead role coordinating U.S. assistance under 22 USC § 6593. Technical, Programmatic, and/or In-Kind Contributions In the context of the U.S. Global Food Security Strategy (GFSS) 2022-2026, the Department of State promotes global, regional, national, and sub-national policies that foster sustainable reductions in hunger and malnutrition, and support sustainable food systems. Under the mandate of the Secretary of State, the Office of Global Food Security (S/GFS) leads the Department’s global food security efforts. S/GFS office collaborates closely with the offices included in this implementation plan and others, and with other agencies and departments, to promote long-term global food security, nutrition, and sustainable food systems. The Secretary’s Office of Global Food Security (S/GFS) leads diplomatic engagement and coordinates U.S. policy on food systems, food security, and nutrition in bilateral, multilateral, and regional fora. S/GFS leads U.S. Government global food security and nutrition diplomatic efforts and supports efforts to identify, monitor, and advance global food security policy priorities with interagency colleagues at post, in coordination with USAID and State functional and regional bureaus. S/GFS leads U.S. diplomatic and multilateral engagement for the Sustainable Development Goals related to food systems and nutrition. S/GFS identifies, analyzes, and takes action on emerging food systems and nutrition issues, develops new initiatives, and fosters U.S. interagency cooperation on these issues. S/GFS forms partnerships with the private sector, civil society, research institutions, and other donors to address food security and nutrition, particularly in light of these emerging issues. S/GFS heads the Department’s nutrition work, through leadership in multilateral fora such as the Scaling Up Nutrition Movement, Nutrition for Growth, and the UN Decade of Action on Nutrition. S/GFS coordinates with the offices detailed below as well as S/GWI, PRM, Regional Bureaus, SPEC, and legislative offices in the Department. The Bureau for Intelligence and Research, Office of the Geographer and Global Issues (INR/GGI) U.S. Government Global Food Security Strategy 103 provides timely, independent research and analysis on food security to support foreign policy objectives at the Department of State through coordination with the IC and outside experts. INR/GGI builds partners’ technical capacity and creates open geospatial data to support sustainable development and humanitarian efforts worldwide. In terms of in-kind contributions, INR/GGI provides intelligence, analysis, and briefings as warranted on issues of concern to policy makers regarding global food security. In particular, the Humanitarian Information Unit (INR/GGI/HIU) and its Cities’ COVID-19 Mitigation Mapping (C2M2) program prepares analytic reports and briefings on the impacts of COVID-19 on global food security (although the C2M2 program will formally end at the end of FY 2021). The Office continues to provide intelligence analysis and briefing books upon request, and the HIU continues to produce infographics on food security and related humanitarian issues. The Bureau of International Organizations Affairs, Office of Economic and Development Affairs (IO/EDA) addresses food security within the context of the United Nations system, including U.S. government engagement with the Rome-based food security agencies, and when food security is addressed at the UN in New York. IO/EDA coordinates U.S. policy across other departments and agencies with regard to the management, functions, and programmatic work of the UN food agencies. IO/EDA advances U.S. national interests while promoting efficiency, effectiveness, transparency, sustainability, and accountability in the UN food security agencies, manages the negotiation of food security related resolutions during the UN General Assembly, and coordinates the larger UN interagency process to ensure that U.S. priorities are addressed. The Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs, Office of Agricultural Policy (EB/AGP) promotes agricultural biotechnology as a tool to increase long-term agricultural productivity, improve food security and nutrition, raise farmer incomes globally, and address climate adaptation and mitigation. EB/AGP works with international organizations and encourages countries to adopt transparent and science-based regulations and standards that enable them to improve food security and food safety. EB/AGP works with other U.S. agencies on the development and advancement of U.S. policy for sustainable food systems to improve global food security. OES’s Office of Conservation and Water (OES/ECW) drives foreign policy and international cooperation to promote the good governance, conservation and sustainable management and use of land, ecologically and economically important ecosystems, vital ecosystem services, and the species and genetic resources associated with those ecosystems. These efforts contribute to a range of U.S. agricultural and environmental policies, including the aims of the U.S. Global Food Security Strategy, to encourage sustainable agriculture, strengthen resilience, and support nutrition and health. As co-lead of the Interagency Water Working Group under the U.S. Global Water Strategy, ECW works to promote the sound management of freshwater resources that are essential to both food and water. ECW leads U.S. engagement in FAO bodies focused on conservation and sustainable use of genetic resources for food and agriculture, including in the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture. The Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs, Office of International Health and Biodefense (OES/IHB) advocates through bilateral and multilateral engagement greater awareness of the threat that zoonotic disease and antimicrobial resistance (AMR) pose to food security and of the interactions between the agriculture sector and AMR. OES/IHB engages civil society, research institutions, and other stakeholders to promote the availability of sustainably effective antimicrobials for agriculture (terrestrial and aquatic) use. OES/IHB works to bring together human, animal, and environmental health actors (the “One Health approach”) to lower zoonotic disease risk and improve the U.S. Government Global Food Security Strategy 104 health of humans and other animals. OES/IHB also addresses preparedness and response to epidemics and pandemics, which can have grave impacts on food security. The Bureau of Oceans, Environment, and Science, Office of Marine Conservation (OES/OMC) negotiates bilateral and multilateral fisheries agreements and participates in international fishery commissions and international organizations and arrangements dealing with conservation and management of living marine resources and combating IUU fishing. OES/OMC advocates for science-based and transparent international fisheries governance, regulations, and management, as well as sector-based international development strategies, to maintain the sustainability and productivity of fish stocks. OES/OMC represents the United States at the Food and Agricultural Organization Council’s Committee on Fisheries, supports the Voluntary Guidelines for Securing Sustainable Small-Scale Fisheries, participates in the Maritime Security and Enforcement Act (M-SAFE) working group to address IUU fishing issues, and supports the implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, in particular Goal 14. Impact and Sustainability The Department of State promotes global, regional, national, and sub-national policies that foster sustainable reductions in hunger and malnutrition, and sustainable increases in agricultural development. S/GFS and other offices and bureaus engage with our chiefs of mission to emphasize the role of food security and nutrition in the stability and development of the countries in which they serve. The Department is committed to using sound, data-driven best practices in addressing these goals, and consistently evaluates the sustainability and impact of these efforts. U.S. Government Global Food Security Strategy 105 U.S. Department of the Treasury Global Food Security Implementation Plan U.S. Department of the Treasury Overview The U.S. Department of the Treasury–Office of International Affairs (Treasury) represents the United States on the governing bodies of the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), the Global Agriculture and Food Security Program (GAFSP), and the multilateral development banks (MDBs). In this capacity, Treasury provides oversight of U.S. government contributions and shapes the development agendas of these institutions with the objective of improving their impact in several areas, including addressing hunger, poverty, and malnutrition. In addition, Treasury, through bilateral dialogues with foreign Ministries of Finance, may encourage developing countries to increase domestic spending on agriculture, food security, and nutrition, as appropriate, and work to improve the quality of such spending through the development of well-targeted, evidence-based agriculture and food security spending plans. Finally, Treasury may also encourage countries to undertake necessary policy reforms to increase domestic resource mobilization and attract greater levels of private financing to support food security activities. Technical, Programmatic, and/or In-Kind Contributions to the GFSS As a participating GFSS department, Treasury will seek to ensure that IFAD, GAFSP, and the MDBs’ investments in agriculture, nutrition, and food security are well aligned with the objectives of the GFSS. IFAD, GAFSP, and the MDBs’ food-security related investments actively support inclusive and sustainable agriculture-led economic growth, strengthened resilience among people and systems, and a well-nourished population, especially women and children. Treasury will also advocate for IFAD, GAFSP, and the MDBs to urgently prioritize efforts to address climate change—both through investments in adaptation and mitigation—as well as programming that supports an inclusive and resilient economic recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic. Impact and Sustainability Treasury will seek to ensure that IFAD, GAFSP, and the MDBs address hunger, poverty, and malnutrition with careful attention to development impact and sustainability of results, in line with their institutional priorities as outlined below. IFAD aims to transform rural economies and food systems by making them more inclusive, productive, resilient, and sustainable. As an international financial institution and specialized, non-bank UN agency, IFAD supports rural, small-scale producers and subsistence farmers to increase their agricultural productivity, incomes, and access to markets and promotes job creation and rural economic growth in developing countries, including in countries with conflict-affected and fragile situations. GAFSP supports food security investments in IDA-only countries. As a multilateral financial mechanism, U.S. Government Global Food Security Strategy 106 GAFSP allows multiple donors to pool their funds and channel financing for investments that fill gaps in the national agriculture and food security investment plans of the poorest countries. GAFSP provides an incentive for countries with limited borrowing envelopes from the MDBs to use concessional resources to do more in food security. GAFSP has five operational priorities, which support sustainable development impact, including raising agricultural productivity, linking farmers to markets, reducing risk and vulnerability, improving non-farm rural livelihoods, and providing support for technical assistance, institutional building, and capacity development. The MDBs’ primary mission is to reduce poverty and spur economic growth. In addition to other sectoral priorities, the MDBs invest billions of dollars on an annual basis to support food security-related projects in emerging markets and developing countries. These investments support the objectives of the GFSS and a broader sustainable development framework. Resources Requested and Budget Table149 Account Expected FY 2022 Financial Narrative Explanation Contribution IFAD $43,000,000 This figure represents the FY 2022 request for a U.S. core contribution to IFAD and is expected to be the first of three payments to the IFAD- 12 replenishment cycle, which runs from 2022-2024. TOTAL $43,000,000 149 Note: Expected FY22 contributions to MDBs are not included in the table because of the difficulty of knowing in advance the proportion of a USG contribution to an MDB that will be allocated to food security projects. U.S. Government Global Food Security Strategy 107 The Millennium Challenge Corporation Global Food Security Implementation Plan Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) Overview The MCC transforms lives and creates opportunities by partnering with the best-governed low- and medium-income countries to reduce poverty through economic growth. MCC, an independent U.S. Government agency, provides development assistance through a competitive selection process to countries that demonstrate positive governance and social and economic performance. MCC’s partner countries develop programs (compacts and smaller threshold programs) to address their most significant barriers to economic growth and poverty reduction. Program design is informed by economic analysis and in consultation with civil society and the private sector. Decisions are based on best available data and rigorous analysis, and the results are monitored, measured, and publicly shared. Since 2004, and as of June 2021, MCC has signed 38 compacts with 29 countries totaling more than $14.1 billion.150 To date, MCC has invested more than $5 billion to strengthen agricultural and rural economies in poor countries and to address the many sources of food insecurity. These investments include rehabilitating and expanding large-scale irrigation systems; improving and constructing farm to market roads and ports; attracting private sector investment into post-harvest infrastructure; reforming policies, laws, and institutions to increase security of land rights and improve land administration and management; training farmers’, fishers’, and producers’ organizations; increasing access to finance; and improving nutrition, natural resource management, and sanitation. Countries are responsible for implementing the MCC-funded programs with strict oversight of procurements and disbursements, as well as strict requirements for comprehensive monitoring and evaluation as measured by independent evaluators. Technical, Programmatic, and/or In-kind Contributions to the GFSS MCC takes an integrated, market-led approach to addressing the key constraints to food security, including strengthening agricultural and rural economies and promoting reliable access to sufficient, safe, and affordable food in the countries where it invests. MCC is also focused on ensuring its investments are climate smart, inclusive, catalytic for private sector investment, and bring measurable economic benefits to women, youth, and the poor. In addition, MCC’s leadership and technical expertise in infrastructure, including farm to market roads and other key transportation links, will allow MCC to continue to address food security issues in a time of shifting demographics from rural to urban areas. 150 In addition to compacts, MCC funds smaller threshold programs to assist countries to become compact eligible by supporting their efforts to implement key policy and institutional reforms and thereby demonstrate their commitment to MCC’s eligibility criteria for compacts. As of March 2021, MCC has signed 28 threshold agreements with 26 countries, totaling over $660 million. U.S. Government Global Food Security Strategy 108 Prior and ongoing programs provide a foundation for MCC’s contribution to the Global Food Security Strategy through the country-owned model. Examples of current and planned MCC interventions aimed at strengthening food security in the developing world include: ● In Morocco, the $33 million Rural Land Activity under the Land Productivity Project (2017- 2022) is developing a faster and more inclusive process for granting titles on irrigated collective lands to individual men and women smallholder farmers and their families who currently farm the land. In addition, the $10.5 million Land Governance Activity is supporting legal, policy, and institutional reforms that will improve land governance generally, including the environment for investment in agriculture and food security. This project aligns directly with Intermediate Result 1 and CC Intermediate Result 7 as part of the Food Security Results Framework. ● In Niger, the $257.7 million Irrigation and Market Access Project (2018-2023) is designed to improve irrigation to boost crop yields and livestock productivity. The project will also upgrade road networks to improve access to markets and services and provide technical support for farmers––with a focus on women and youth––to enable farmer organizations and agribusinesses to profitably incorporate new value-added opportunities through the more effective marketing of increased irrigated agricultural production. A land governance activity is strengthening local government capacity to avoid land conflict and sustainably secure land rights. Furthermore, MCC is supporting the reform of the fertilizer sector, to ensure farmers have timely access to high- quality affordable fertilizer and that the fertilizer subsidy program is well targeted, transparent, and cost effective. This aligns directly with IRs 1, 2, and 3 and CC IRs 4 and 6 of the Food Security Results Framework. ● Also in Niger, the $98.6.million Climate-Resilient Communities Project (2018-2023) aims to increase incomes for small-scale agriculture-dependent and livestock-dependent families in rural areas by improving crop and livestock productivity, through recovery and restoration of over 70,000 hectares of agriculture and pasture land, strengthened capacity of local governments to clarify and formalize rights to improved land, development of small scale irrigation, rehabilitation or construction of livestock markets, and supporting animal health interventions critical to long- term productivity, and increasing market sales of targeted commodities. This aligns directly with IRs 1 through 6 of the Food Security Results Framework. ● In Togo, the $35 million Togo Threshold Program began implementation in November 2020. The program includes the $8 million Land Reform to Accelerate Agricultural Productivity Project that will support the establishment of the regulatory framework to implement the new Land Code and field-test cost effective methodologies for formalizing rural land rights. The policy reforms to be achieved during the four-year Threshold Program target greater land tenure security in rural areas and increased investment in agricultural production. ● In Tunisia, the $7.9 million Innovation and Inclusion Activity’s Cooperative Productivity and Private Sector Support Sub-Activity (not entered into force), under the Tunisia compact’s Water Demand Management and Productivity (WDMP) Activity, will promote economic growth and advance the sustainability of irrigation and policy investments by facilitating private investment to address climate and promote improved natural resource management. This project aims to increase farmers’ revenues through trade and value-add opportunities along with productivity increases resulting from private investment in new water-saving technologies. Technical U.S. Government Global Food Security Strategy 109 assistance will be provided to strengthen agricultural support services through cooperative development with a linked private sector innovations mechanism. This aligns directly with IRs 1 through 6 and CC IRs 3 and 8 of the Food Security Results Framework. ● In Senegal, the $57.3 million Increasing Access to Electricity in Rural and Peri-Urban Areas Project (not entered into force) will extend the electrical grid in selected areas in Senegal’s south and center regions that have high economic potential but low connection rates. The Project will also support electricity adoption and facilitate the market for electric equipment and appliances including for irrigation and agricultural processing of rice, cashew, millet, and bananas. Better access to electricity is anticipated to increase land values, underlining the importance of secure land rights to food security and stronger rural economies. This project envisions opportunities for collaboration with Feed the Future and other donors that are providing complementary support to agricultural value chains in MCC’s areas of assistance. As MCC continues to develop and implement projects to advance its food security objectives, the agency will coordinate with stakeholders and ensure alignment and contribution to the Food Security Results Framework. Organization and Structure Country-driven project development and implementation is one of MCC’s guiding principles. MCC’s partner countries develop compact proposals to address their most significant barriers to economic growth and poverty reduction. Compact development begins with an analysis of the constraints to economic growth and poverty reduction in conjunction with an initial gender and social inclusion assessment and an investment opportunity assessment, as well as consultations with key stakeholders in civil society and the private sector. Compacts are implemented through an independent accountable entity established by the partner country with the financing of the Compact and overseen by a local Board of Directors. Technical expertise at MCC resides within practice groups, led by a Practice Lead and Senior Director. The practice groups with the most responsibility for implementing this strategy include Land and Agricultural Economy (LAE), which includes investments in the agricultural economy from inputs to market along programs supporting improved property rights and land policy. Other key practice groups include Human and Community Development (HCD), which includes nutrition, health, and social and behavior change; Gender and Social Inclusion (GSI); Water, Sanitation, and Irrigation (WSI); Transportation and Vertical Structures (TVS); Finance, Investment, and Trade (FIT). MCC’s Monitoring and Evaluation team is also deeply involved in compact development, implementation, and evaluation. Recognizing that there is no “one size fits all” solution to food security, each MCC compact is supported by the appropriate mix of technical staff drawn from across the practice groups and the rest of the agency. This team oversees the projects from development to implementation and monitoring to ensure target outcomes are optimized. MCC also rigorously evaluates the impact of its investments after the compact has closed. Impact and Sustainability MCC has and will continue to strive to maximize the impact and sustainability of its food security-related investments by––first and foremost––prioritizing country ownership. Beneficiary countries are responsible for generating results and sustaining them. To ensure the capacity of partner countries to deliver long-term project results, MCC’s interventions will maintain focus on strengthening local U.S. Government Global Food Security Strategy 110 institutions that are responsible for operating and maintaining compact-financed infrastructure post- compact, as well as investments in behavior change among impacted community members. For food security, this may include: ● Using blended finance mechanisms to leverage private sector investments in agriculture and agribusiness and technologies to maximize financial, social, and environmental objectives. ● Supporting policy, regulatory and institutional reforms to improve the business enabling environment for agriculture. ● Investing in critical infrastructure including roads, energy, and water to increase agricultural productivity and induce growth in rural areas. ● Increase resilience of agricultural systems to climate risks by improving natural resource management, especially of water and soil. ● Ensuring that investments in the agricultural economy are targeted to the poor, especially women and other disadvantaged groups. ● Strengthening water-use associations and farmers’ organizations as part of irrigated and other agriculture projects. ● Strengthening the capacity of local and national land administration institutions for more efficient and inclusive land allocation and improved security of land rights to ensure sustained incentives of rights-holders to invest in and benefit from their land. As in the past, MCC will consider the donor landscape in the countries where it invests and will work collaboratively with other U.S. Government agencies and other donors to ensure complementary investments. For example, in Niger MCC is collaborating with the World Bank on an animal vaccination program and with the U.S. African Development Foundation on a grant program. In Lesotho, a proposed second compact includes an irrigation project designed to promote the market-driven production of horticultural products. To support this project, MCC will collaborate and learn from the on-going efforts of the World Bank that may support project activities such as ICT-based extension. Furthermore, MCC investments are designed with a specific program logic that includes, from the outset, an identification of the appropriate indicators by which to monitor and evaluate success. MCC commits to the continued monitoring and evaluation of food security-related project outputs and outcomes to allow for course correction, measurement of impacts, as well as generation of lessons and sharing of best practices. Our indicators are and will continue to be consistent with U.S. Government food security metrics. MCC’s evaluations are shared publicly here: https://data.mcc.gov/evaluations/index.php/catalog The impacts of MCC’s investments in food security include the following: ● Agriculture and irrigation projects in 19 compacts, have trained more than 405,000 farmers, brought 203,963 hectares under improved irrigation and 42,252 hectares under U.S. Government Global Food Security Strategy 111 improved agricultural practices, and distributed over $87 million of agricultural and rural loans to more than 1,000 borrowers. A recently completed impact evaluations in Burkina Faso showed the following results: ○ In Morocco, the Olive Plantation Expansion in Rain-Fed Areas Activity had a potentially positive impact on farmers’ income, food security, and on reducing poverty and generated the equivalent of 5.6 million person-days of employment opportunities. Moreover, planted trees are expected to generate 4,700 to 5,000 permanent seasonal employment opportunities per year at full development. ○ The evaluation of the Agriculture Development Project in Burkina Faso found that cultivated land more than doubled in the rainy season and increased 20-fold during the dry season, generating higher production, profits, incomes, and food security for farmers. Incomes of farmers that received land were up to 50% higher than a randomized group of farmers that did not receive land. Although farmers’ profits increased substantially because of irrigation and land tenure, these increases were not high enough to justify the project costs. ● Land projects and activities in 18 compacts and threshold programs leading to the adoption of 135 legal and regulatory reforms, formalizing land rights for over 300,000 households, as well as commercial and other legal entities, and mediating over 12,000 conflicts. Completed evaluations for these activities have revealed: ○ In Benin’s rural communes, impacts on cultivation have been found from the village-level land use plans and establishment of village and commune-level land institutions that were part of the Access to Land Project. Clear land boundaries from demarcation of land parcel boundaries and village landholding plans led to an increase in planting trees and perennials over the shorter-term. Over the longer-term with issuance of individual rural land use certificates, investment in perennials persisted. Despite increases in household investment, there were no effects on self-reported output or farm yields. ○ For Ghana’s Land Tenure Facilitation Activity within the Agriculture Project, beneficiaries in a peri-urban area outside of Accra reduced and consolidated landholdings via smaller and fewer parcels, increased land purchases and decreased sharecropping. As land tenure improved, farmers moved their labor from agriculture to non-farm activities with off-farm business. As a result, women saw higher enterprise profits and reduced their livestock holdings while seeing large increases in individually owned, durable goods. U.S. Government Global Food Security Strategy 112 Resources Requested and Budget Table Account Estimated FY 2022 Narrative Explanation Financial Contribution Millennium TBD The President’s FY 2022 Budget Request Challenge includes a request of $912 million for MCC. Corporation Almost $650 million of this amount is for compact and threshold programs and, depending on the outcome of MCC’s diagnostic constraints analysis process, a portion of that may be spent on food security-related projects and activities. The timing of the disbursement of this assistance to partner countries will depend on several factors, such as country capacity, Board approval, when the agreement is signed, and when it enters into force. TOTAL TBD U.S. Government Global Food Security Strategy 113 U.S. International Development Finance Corporation Global Food Security Implementation Plan U.S. International Development Finance Corporation Overview U.S. International Development Finance Corporation (DFC) is the U.S. Government's development finance institution. DFC partners with the private sector to finance solutions to the most critical challenges facing the developing world today, including confronting the climate crisis. DFC invests across sectors including agriculture and food security, energy, healthcare, critical infrastructure, and technology. DFC also provides financing for small businesses and women entrepreneurs in order to create jobs in emerging markets. All DFC investments adhere to high standards and respect the environment, human rights, and worker rights. DFC advances American foreign policy and American commercial competitiveness. The investments DFC mobilizes serve as stabilizing forces in developing countries around the world, including some of the world’s poorest countries as well as regions affected by conflict. Investment in these markets also helps American businesses gain footholds in many of the world’s fastest-growing markets. DFC has more than 400 employees that allow it to carry out its mission. To carry out its financing and insurance programs, DFC is organized into offices supporting its four main product lines: Structured Finance & Insurance, Development Credit, Investment Funds, and Equity Investment, each of which contribute to supporting food security projects. As a commitment to advancing the goals of the GFSS, DFC also has a unit exclusively dedicated to originating and executing investment projects focused on agriculture, nutrition, and food security within the Office of Development Credit. The Office of Development Policy ensures that DFC projects meet the highest impact and development standards. DFC’s internal working group on Food Security and Agriculture meets regularly to discuss the DFC project pipeline for the food security sector, strategize about new products, and facilitate interagency collaboration. Technical, Programmatic and/or In-Kind Contributions DFC is a self-sustaining agency that provides debt and equity financing, credit guarantees and political risk insurance to private investments in a broad range of sectors, including agriculture and other food security projects. Most active DFC food security and agriculture projects include financing for microfinance and other bank and non-bank financial institutions to support smallholder farmers, farming cooperatives and agriculture- based SMEs/MSMEs for working capital for various agri-inputs (seeds, fertilizer, crop protection chemicals, etc.), agribusiness equipment and leasing, services and agricultural training. DFC’s current portfolio includes projects focused on farming and fishing, food processing and manufacturing, warehousing and storage, transportation and cold storage, food distribution, retail supermarkets, digital technologies and mobile payments, marine conservation and other parts of the agriculture and commodity U.S. Government Global Food Security Strategy 114 supply chain. DFC is also pursuing opportunities to increase the number of investments in climate mitigation, resilience, and adaptation across the food security and agriculture sector, as part of DFC’s cutting-edge diversified climate portfolio. DFC supports projects in emerging markets with the following tools: ● Debt Financing: Direct loans and guaranties of up to $1 billion for tenors as long as 25 years, with specific programs targeting small and medium U.S. businesses ● Equity Investments: DFC direct equity investments can provide critical support to companies committed to creating developmental impact ● Feasibility Studies: Support for the analysis of a potential DFC project ● Investment Funds: Support for emerging market private equity funds to help address the shortfall of investment capital ● Political Risk Insurance: Coverage of up to $1 billion against losses due to currency inconvertibility, government interference, and political violence including terrorism. DFC also offers reinsurance to increase underwriting capacity ● Technical Assistance: Support to increase the developmental impact or commercial sustainability of existing DFC projects or develop potential DFC projects DFC will coordinate with other U.S. Government agencies such as USAID and USDA to leverage different U.S. Government resources into the same food security projects, including support for early project evaluation by independent experts for highly developmental food security projects. Impact and Sustainability DFC’s impact is best measured by the volume of private capital it mobilizes that supports food security in emerging markets. In addition, DFC’s Office of Development Policy collects development data for each private investment DFC supports, and ensures compliance with all Congressionally-mandated statutory requirements and DFC’s stringent environmental and social impact criteria, and assesses development impacts over the life of the project. DFC evaluates every project using its performance measurement tool, Impact Quotient (IQ), to measure, monitor, and evaluate its developmental impact around the world. IQ enables DFC to classify projects into three categories: highly developmental, developmental, and indeterminate. Additionally, projects are evaluated across three key indicators: ● Growth: Contributes to economic growth through infrastructure improvements, contribution to local income, trade benefits to the local economy, and job creation ● Inclusion: Advances inclusion by providing products or services, diversified workforces, and inclusive supply chains that benefit underrepresented groups including low-income populations, U.S. Government Global Food Security Strategy 115 smallholder farmers, young adults, women and women-owned enterprises, people with disabilities, Indigenous peoples, refugees, and ethnic or religious minorities ● Innovation: Supports innovation through the advancement of new products or services, the use of innovative financial structures to mobilize private capital, knowledge or technology transfer, and environmental sustainability Evaluations also account for potential negative environmental, social, or development risks. DFC tailors its investment tools to the needs of individual projects and helps clients meet or exceed minimum performance standards. By offering financing and insurance to projects that incentivize sustainable environmental and social outcomes, DFC projects contribute to a positive development impact and economic stability. For example, DFC actively seeks to support projects that provide essential services, including food security, particularly for groups in vulnerable situations, or in post-conflict environments where private investment contributes to public health improvements by encouraging development and economic stability. From the time that DFC receives a request for support, it applies its full suite of policies to ensure each client complies with DFC’s environmental, economic, labor, human rights, and social impact requirements throughout the duration of DFC’s involvement. From early client engagement to approval through post-disbursement monitoring, DFC promotes economic, social, and environmental sustainability. Resources Requested and Budget Table A portion of DFC’s portfolio every fiscal year is expected to support global food security investments. The exact amount of support for these investments is dependent on private sector demand for DFC’s products and project compliance with DFC policy requirements. All investments are required to pass through DFC’s internal approval process, with some projects requiring approval by DFC’s Board of Directors. By 2025, DFC aims to achieve the following investment targets (commitments) and development goals (projected outputs) in the agriculture and food security sector: ● Commit $1 billion over 60 projects focused on food security and agriculture supply chains. ● Commit 75% of food security investments in LICs, LMICs, fragile states or Feed the Future countries. ● Support at least 1 million smallholder farmers. U.S. Government Global Food Security Strategy 116 Peace Corps Global Food Security Implementation Plan Peace Corps Overview Peace Corps’ (PC) development programming, implemented by Peace Corps Volunteers (PCV), reaches into thousands of food and nutrition insecure households in vulnerable, at-risk situations and last mile, resource limited communities in more than 60 countries. Guiding PC food and nutrition security-related programming, training, monitoring, and reporting is a comprehensive strategy to reduce food and nutrition insecurity and increase resilience of individuals, households and communities reached. After analyses of participatory assessments, PCVs and their community counterparts design and implement relevant capacity building activities and evidence-based behavior change interventions to promote sustainable local solutions and build local capacity that contributes to one or more of the four pillars of food and nutrition security, i.e., availability, accessibility, utilization, and stability. These same outcomes contribute directly to the GFSS goal of reducing hunger, malnutrition, and poverty. The PC food and nutrition security strategy has four focal areas: climate resilient sustainable agriculture; sustainable natural resources management; improved nutrition and health-related behaviors and outcomes; and improved livelihoods and increased resilience. Climate change considerations, gender equity and youth engagement cut across all programmatic areas. Over the next five years, and particularly in light of the impact of COVID-19, PC will continue to contribute to the GFSS Results Framework goal and objectives by strengthening focus and building on successes in addressing food and nutrition insecurity and resilience while continuing to incorporate and promote appropriate, sustainable, and proven-effective methods, approaches, and innovations. Organization and Structure Wherever considered a national and community priority, PC’s country-level programs design and implement projects that directly contribute to the agency’s global food and nutrition security efforts and to the GFSS. PCVs are placed in requesting communities where they live side by side with their host country counterparts, immerse in the local culture, learn to speak the local language and learn, firsthand, about local assets, aspirations as well as needs and barriers to food and nutrition security. At PC headquarters, the Office of Overseas Programming and Training Support (OPATS) coordinates with three regional offices to provide leadership and post-level food and nutrition security programming, training and evaluation support. The OPATS agriculture sector specialist collaborates directly with PC food security points of contact and coordinators in each host country to align, support, monitor, and report on PCV food and nutrition security related activities. OPATS Monitoring and Evaluation staff support capacity building of post-level staff and PCVs to report on food and nutrition security activities, and support quality assurance, analysis, and reporting. The PC Office of Strategic Partnerships (SPIGA) oversees management and implementation of country-level USAID Participating Agency Program Agreements and negotiates any new partnership agreements focused on food and nutrition security programming. U.S. Government Global Food Security Strategy 117 Technical, Programmatic, and/or In-kind Contributions to the GFSS Objective 1: Inclusive and sustainable agriculture-led economic growth PC, along with its host country partners, will continue to provide direct technical assistance and build capacities of people in underserved, mainly, rural agricultural communities to sustainably increase their incomes, economic opportunities, livelihood assets and resilience. In these communities, PCVs, typically, work with smallholder farming households, particularly with women, and will be well placed to identify households whose food or nutrition security has been impacted by COVID-19. Agriculture-related activities are designed to increase productivity, diversity, and sustainability through dissemination of appropriate, climate resilient agricultural and natural resource management practices and technologies that also address climate change by intensifying agricultural production, adapting production to less predictable and more intense weather events and storing carbon and decreasing greenhouse gas emissions (GHG). Promotion of improved production systems and practices including bio-intensive home gardens, agroforestry, conservation agriculture, beekeeping and fish farming along with improved post-harvest management practices increase food availability including by producing marketable surpluses. Promotion of high-value, more profitable varieties of nutrient-rich crops such as Vitamin A-fortified orange-fleshed sweet potatoes, iron-rich beans, mushrooms, moringa, cashew and shea along with value-added transformation increases household availability of nutrient-rich foods and increases incomes. Economic development activities designed to improve rural livelihoods and resilience by generating and/or increasing incomes and household assets target households, micro, small and medium-sized businesses and community-based organizations and include introduction or improving entrepreneurship, basic business skills, farm system and organizational management. Objective 2: Strengthened resilience among people and systems PC’s programming across sectors will continue to promote improved livelihood strategies and resilience to increasing and often unexpected shocks and stresses, including the impact of COVID-19. In poor, rural communities where agricultural production-related activities are typically the main source of livelihoods and economic opportunity, PCVs will continue to promote climate adapted, resilient and sustainable agricultural and natural resource management practices and technologies in support of smallholder farming households. PCVs will also continue to assist individuals and community-based organizations, both informal and formal, to identify new income-generating opportunities or to improve or diversify existing livelihood activities that build individual and household-level assets and resilience. Additionally, PCVs will continue to promote improved water management, sanitation, and hygiene as well as healthy behaviors to decrease risks of communicable disease outbreaks, such as COVID-19, and non- communicable diseases. PCVs will continue to engage youth to promote life skills and to teach English and employability skills that open economic opportunities. Objective 3: A well-nourished population, especially among women and children PC’s programming will continue to address nutrition through evidence-based approaches and interventions. PCVs supporting Maternal, Newborn and Child Health (MNCH) programming will continue to employ the Essential Nutrition Actions framework to target and improve behaviors and nutrition outcomes of mothers and their children during the first 1,000 days. PCVs working in agriculture will continue to employ a nutrition-sensitive approach targeting women, particularly those of reproductive age, and promoting horticulture production of nutrient-dense foods, especially in home gardens, and encouraging household consumption of more nutritionally diverse diets. All PCVs will continue to promote healthy household behaviors related to sanitation and hygiene, particularly hand washing with soap, while sensitizing and modeling appropriate COVID-19 mitigation strategies, e.g., wearing masks, U.S. Government Global Food Security Strategy 118 social distancing, and reducing size of group training or sensitization events. Impact and Sustainability PC ensures impact and sustainability by promoting community-led capacity building activities that address community-identified development priorities. For example, PCVs use participatory assessment and analysis tools and techniques to engage community members and civil society in identifying a specific need, desire, or aspiration and in identifying community assets available to address these. These findings are then used to define a goal and objectives and set targets to achieve the desired outcomes. Specific activities or interventions are, then, planned and implemented in collaboration between the PCV and host counterparts that contribute to achievement of the objectives and goal. Outputs and outcomes of the activities are monitored and reported back to PC and all project stakeholders, and the overall results are monitored. PC’s capacity building and evidence-based development approaches help lay the foundation for sustainable and resilient food systems at the community level. To ensure all programs involved in PC’s food and nutrition security efforts are achieving desired project-level outcomes as defined in HQ endorsed sector project logical project framework objectives, PC uses a global database to monitor and report measurement of a suite of food and nutrition security-related i.e., Feed the Future, outcome-level indicators. Strategic partnerships play a key role in augmenting PCs’ effectiveness. Partner organizations such as host country ministries or non-governmental organizations (NGOs) often have greater resources combined with a mandate to cover large geographical areas within a host country, but may not have adequate human resources on the ground. PCVs are widely and strategically placed throughout the host countries in which they serve. Where portfolios match and support is available, this combination can amplify both PC’s and its partners’ food security activities. As community mobilizers who have fully integrated into remote villages, PCVs serve as a bridge between rural communities and other public or private development-related programs, expanding the effectiveness and reach of other U.S. investments to address hunger, malnutrition and poverty. U.S. Government Global Food Security Strategy 119 Resources Requested and Budget Table: Account (Peace Posts Expected FY 2022 Narrative Explanation Corps Region) Financial Contribution) Africa 22 $15,490,000 Represents estimated amounts of the Peace Corps FY 2022 request to support Volunteers working in Europe, 6 $1,824,000 agriculture, environment, health Mediterranean, and (nutrition and water/sanitation), Asia community economic development, youth development, and education programs. Funding is attributed to Inter-America and the 16 $5,343,000 Volunteer activities in all sectors Pacific related to food security programming indicators. Totals: 44 $22,657,000151 151 Due to the FY20 and FY21 impacts as a result of the evacuation of volunteers in response to the COVID pandemic, the FY22 estimated amount is based on full reentry of volunteers to service and target of 1,000 volunteers reporting each year on food and nutrition security activities. U.S. Government Global Food Security Strategy 120 Office of the United States Trade Representative Global Food Security Implementation Plan * Note: While the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) is not an implementing agency for GFSS, it participates and collaborates in the Washington-based interagency working groups. The USTR works to develop and maintain open markets globally through its trade initiatives and participation in international organizations. USTR participates extensively at the World Trade Organization (WTO), including the Committees on Agriculture, Import Licensing, Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS), and Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT), to raise questions with other countries regarding domestic support, market access, export competition, technical regulations, import licensing, and animal and plant health and food safety. Beyond these activities, the USTR continues to promote trade facilitation and support multiple trade initiatives and U.S. preference programs, including the Generalized System of Preferences (GSP), the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act (CBERA), the Nepal Trade Preference Act, and the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA). In addition, USTR conducts direct bilateral engagement with other country governments through free trade agreements, trade preference programs, and trade and investment framework agreements (TIFAs). U.S. Government Global Food Security Strategy 121 U.S. African Development Foundation (USADF) Global Food Security Implementation Plan USADF Overview The U.S. African Development Foundation (USADF) is an independent U.S. government agency established by Congress to invest in African grassroots organizations, entrepreneurs, and small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). USADF’s investments promote African-designed and African delivered local economic development by increasing incomes, revenues, and jobs and by creating pathways to prosperity for marginalized populations and underserved communities. Working through a community-led development model, USADF provides grant capital of up to $250,000, capacity-building assistance, and convening opportunities to develop, grow, and scale African enterprises and entrepreneurs. These investments improve lives and livelihoods while addressing some of Africa's biggest challenges around food insecurity, insufficient energy access, and unemployment, particularly among women and youth. USADF utilizes an all-African staff and local partners on the ground across Africa, making it an agile, impactful, and innovative foreign assistance provider that can operate in areas that are often too remote or fragile to be reached by other U.S. government development agencies. Over the last five years (FY 2016–FY 2020) throughout Africa, with an emphasis on the Great Lakes, Horn, and Sahel regions, USADF has invested more than $117 million directly into over 1,000 African owned and African-operated entities and impacted more than seven million lives. USADF is aligned with U.S. national security and economic priorities for Africa and creates new markets and shared prosperity for Africans and Americans alike by reaching communities that are often left behind in Africa’s growth. USADF’s transformative programs focus on three key programmatic areas: 1) agriculture and food security, 2) off-grid energy access, and 3) employment through job training and placement and entrepreneurship grants for women and youth. The investments USADF makes directly into African enterprises and social entrepreneurs generate sustainable economic growth opportunities to increase incomes and revenues, create jobs, expand intra-African trade, and promote two-way trade between the United States and Africa. USADF’s activities help local communities, associations, and enterprises become self-sufficient and better integrated into local economies. This in turn provides a peaceful and productive alternative to the violence that is often found in conflict and post-conflict regions across Africa as well as helped many of them respond to the challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. Agriculture & Food Security Nearly 57% of people in sub-Saharan Africa face food insecurity. USADF helps foster food security by investing in and developing agribusinesses. Accordingly, the majority of USADF grant investments are focused on supporting agriculture-led economic growth for smallholder farmers who are the backbone of African economies. USADF grants assist agricultural cooperatives to develop better enterprise management skills, improve U.S. Government Global Food Security Strategy 122 production and distribution capabilities, access larger markets, improve marketing capabilities, and increase revenues and incomes for smallholder farmers as well as SMEs in the various value chains engaged in production input supply, processing, and distribution of food products. USADF is a participating agency in the U.S. government’s Feed the Future (FTF) global hunger and food security initiative and has active programs in six of the 12 FTF target countries: Kenya, Mali, Niger, Nigeria, Senegal, and Uganda. Additionally, several of USADF’s other country programs in Africa are aligned with Global Food Security Strategy goals. Technical, Programmatic, and In-Kind Contributions to the GFSS Global Food Security Act and FTF Over the past five years, USADF has provided more than $61 million to help approximately 3.4 million people overcome food insecurity. USADF is an interagency partner of the U.S. government’s FTF global hunger and food security initiative and improves food security in six of the 12 FTF target countries: Kenya, Mali, Niger, Nigeria, Senegal, and Uganda. As an example of how USADF funding has built resilience and improved livelihoods, USADF awarded Natiira Ateni Self Help Group $95K to enhance food security in Turkana County, Kenya. Natiira Ateni was formed as a savings group in August 2014 by former pastoralists who had lost their livelihoods after their herds were diminished by cattle raiders. After initial training from the Kenyan ministry of agriculture, the pastoralists began practicing rain-fed agriculture, which was not sustainable in the arid region. Natiira Ateni used the USADF funding to drill and equip a borehole and set up a drip irrigation system which provided the group a regular water supply throughout the year for crop production. Now the group is providing vegetables to the surrounding community, which previously sourced vegetables from 500km away. The increased incomes have allowed the new farmers to meet other basic needs, such as improving their shelter, sending their children to school, and meeting medical expenses, as well as to improve nutrition thanks to a diversified diet. Communities that once fled the area after being raided are now inspired to return to their homes. Impact and Sustainability In the agriculture and food security sector, through a partnership with Mastercard Inc.’s Lab for Financial Inclusion, USADF established a pilot initiative in Uganda that will guide it to provide digital access to smallholder farmers and assist food and cash crop purchasers to buy from the smallholder farmers more efficiently. As an extension of the pilot, in FY 2021 USADF is leveraging its experience and expertise to extend the reach of the Mastercard Farmer Network (MFN) platform to provide nearly 300,000 smallholder farmers digital access to markets, inputs, financial services, and real-time pricing information. USADF proposes to continue activities supporting the GFSS as an integral player on the interagency whole of government team to global food security. The collaborative approach has given rise to a clearinghouse of best practices. An important benefit of the USG interagency approach is the opportunity to identify areas of improvement and resource deficits. We can support, bolster, and remedy gaps in our efforts to eradicate food insecurity by way of our interagency all-government collaborative approach. In keeping with the opportunity to improve and enhance the collaborative interagency approach, USADF can best maximize its ground presence in the 21 sub-Saharan African countries with greater and more regular interagency coordination at the country level. Oftentimes collaborative efforts reflect regional U.S. Government Global Food Security Strategy 123 secretariats, and while regional actors provide expediency and big picture activities, country level collaboration provides a micro-level perspective where USADF can identify (and quickly respond with) best practices and those activities to promote food security which may need additional resources. This implementing plan proposes to continue USADF’s commitment to the collaborative effort and dedication of resources toward the global food security challenge. U.S. Government Global Food Security Strategy 124 U.S. Geological Survey Global Food Security Implementation Plan Department / Agency Overview The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) contributes to the Global Food Security Strategy in its role as a long-standing implementing partner of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). Activities include supporting the Famine Early Warning Systems Network (FEWS NET) as well as resilience activities in West Africa. By characterizing agro-climatological conditions, land use, and resource conservation practices in the past, present, and future, USGS work supports objectives of the Global Food Security Strategy framework. The Earth Resources Observation and Science Center in South Dakota leads FEWS NET agro- climatology activities under an interagency agreement with the Bureau for Humanitarian Assistance, including support from the Sahel Regional Office. A USGS cooperative agreement with the University of California, Santa Barbara, brings in the expertise of the Climate Hazards Center located at the university. USGS integrates important FEWS NET scientific and technical contributions from the NOAA Climate Prediction Center, NOAA Physical Sciences Laboratory, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, and University of Maryland. Technical, Programmatic, and/or In-Kind Contributions to the GFSS ● Under a series of interagency agreements with USAID Office of Food for Peace (in the past) and Bureau for Humanitarian Assistance (in the present), USGS has supported FEWS NET since the 1980s by applying its expertise with satellite remote sensing, modeling, and geospatial methods to characterize climate variability, climate change, and vegetation conditions in countries with sparse and late reporting surface instrument networks. ● USGS assists FEWS NET food security analysts in the interpretation of the agro-climatological significance of anomalous climatic events so that potential impacts can be factored into food security assessments and scenario development. ● USGS engages local experts, where appropriate, to serve as FEWS NET regional and country scientists alongside their counterpart FEWS NET food security analysts in select countries where FEWS NET has a presence. These scientists provide regional, custom support in the use of observational and forecast products. They can also reach back to colleagues at USGS and at science centers and universities in the U.S. ● USGS, along with regional and country scientists, routinely organize workshops and training sessions (in-person or virtual) for their counterparts in national ministries of agriculture and meteorological services. These activities build and update national capacity to use FEWS NET agro-climatological monitoring data and software tools. U.S. Government Global Food Security Strategy 125 ● USGS and the University of California, Santa Barbara, apply their climate diagnostic capacity and machine learning skills in: i) support of improving current-season yield and production estimates, using current year planted area and relating climate/vegetation variables to yield and production statistics; and ii) developing extended agricultural outlooks, i.e., converting long-term climate forecasts into crop condition forecasts for 18-24 months into the future. The latter will inform USAID of potential for synchronous droughts (simultaneous droughts in different geographic locations) and/or consecutive droughts (droughts spanning two or three seasons in a row). ● USGS supports the “Resilience in the Sahel-Enhanced” (RISE) program by mapping and monitoring land use, tree cover density, and soil/water/vegetation conservation practices across RISE focus zones in West Africa. This evidence base supports RISE decision-making on where to make investments in improved soil and water conservation practices. Impact and Sustainability ● To promote impact and sustainability of its agro-climatological activities in FEWS NET countries, USGS works with NOAA, NASA, the University of California, Santa Barbara, and the University of Maryland to support and populate a unique suite of software tools and web mapping services, and to expand national and regional climate services in food insecure areas of Africa, Asia, and Latin America. USGS helps national meteorological services and other partner institutions improve their agro-climatological forecasting and monitoring capabilities; this empowers these nations to better anticipate and mitigate weather-driven shocks to the food system. ● USGS FEWS NET capabilities ally with efforts of the USAID-NASA SERVIR and NASA Applied Sciences Program to improve water model outputs, including incorporation of two-week to multi- month forecasts for water availability in pastoral regions of interest to FEWS NET. ● USGS supports the building of climate baselines (and develops agro-climatology knowledge bases at the regional and country levels) to assist in identifying: 1) standard climate regimes quasi-globally; and 2) current-year anomalies and/or longer-term hot spots of change. ● USGS provides RISE with geographic data on land use, land cover, vegetation, soils, topography, land productivity, and general patterns of soil, water, and conservation practices by assembling best available data and producing new thematic maps to provide valuable information on these themes. The results provide an evidence base for selection of priority local administrative units within the RISE focus zones and for targeting specific areas for scaling up best practices going forward. U.S. Government Global Food Security Strategy 126 Resources Requested and Budget Table Account Expected FY 2022 Financial Narrative Explanation Contribution FEWS NET $3,300,000 Funds provided via interagency agreement with USAID Bureau for Humanitarian Assistance TOTAL $3,300,000 U.S. Government Global Food Security Strategy 127 Inter-American Foundation Global Food Security Implementation Plan Inter-American Foundation Overview The Inter-American Foundation (IAF) is an independent U.S. foreign assistance agency that directly invests in community-led development across Latin America and the Caribbean. The agency engages local leaders, innovators, and entrepreneurs in underserved areas to build prosperity, peace, and democracy. The IAF awards demand-driven, competitive small grants (averaging $300,000 over four years) to grassroots groups, civil society organizations, and networks fostering community development. About half of the IAF’s 335 grantee organizations use sustainable agriculture and natural resource management to improve food security and strengthen local economies. The agency’s active FY 2021 portfolio of food security-related grants totals $122 million, $55 million in IAF funding matched by $67 million in counterpart resources mobilized by grantees. IAF-supported grants improve crop production and diversification, access to markets, dietary diversity, water availability, and environmental resilience. By training farmers and strengthening their organizations, the IAF increases their ability to generate income, feed their families, enhance resilience, and involve women, youth, and other historically marginalized populations in agriculture. By reducing food insecurity, IAF investments also address a root cause of irregular migration from the region. The IAF coordinates its support to GFSS, albeit as a non-statutory member, through its Offices of Programs, Learning & Impact, and External Affairs. It reports on its region-wide investments in sustainable agriculture and natural resource management to the DIS. The agency’s Programs Office coordinates as appropriate with FTF coordinators at post, with support from small in-country teams that provide management, technical, and monitoring and evaluation services. Technical, Programmatic, and/or In-Kind Contributions to the GFSS Inclusive and Sustainable Agricultural-Led Economic Growth The IAF will invest in community-led sustainable agriculture. It will help groups analyze and address challenges such as how to meet higher quality standards, expand, and enter new markets. The agency will enable grantees to better control the timing of their sales, obtain higher prices, and meet the stricter standards of buyers by helping them improve storage and processing. The IAF will support farmers in enhancing food security in their local environment by producing seeds that are drought-resistant and/or carry high nutritional value. Farmer-led research efforts will evaluate the properties of native seed varieties, which may be more resilient to water and climate fluctuations. U.S. Government Global Food Security Strategy 128 The agency will also continue supporting low-risk approaches to testing and learning, including farmer schools and demonstration farms. Farmers who attend such schools replicate the techniques learned—such as drip irrigation, greenhouses, and producing organic inputs—on their own plots of land and share their knowledge with others in their communities. Strengthened Resilience Among People and Systems IAF grants will build the capacity of local farmers and their organizations to identify and address challenges, adapt to changing conditions, engage strategic partners, and plan for the future. With IAF support, farmer groups will develop reserve funds to address future needs and partner with local savings and loans associations to ensure access to credit. These groups will also provide technical assistance to schedule production to meet targets, register small businesses and acquire licenses, set prices, negotiate with buyers, and certify their products as organic or fair trade to yield a higher price. Improved technical training and organizational capacity among historically marginalized populations—including women, youth, African descendants, and Indigenous peoples—will strengthen their decision-making and ability to effectively adapt to emerging challenges. The IAF will also support grantees that manage watersheds to conserve soil and ensure long-term water access for communities. This includes initiatives to strengthen water administration boards and associations, organize environmental education programs, protect key recharge zones, certify forested lands, and invest in small-scale infrastructure to ensure efficient water use. A Well-Nourished Population, Especially Women and Children The IAF will continue to support communities’ access to healthy, nutritious food by helping small-scale farmers to diversify production through sustainable agriculture, agroforestry, and vegetable gardens. It will also invest in grantees’ efforts to develop local farmer networks and markets, link producers and consumers, and train households in preparing healthy foods. Many IAF grantees partner with local schools to provide students—many of whom face food insecurity—with nutritious lunches. Based on its current programmatic efforts, the IAF expects to invest in improved food security that will benefit more than one million people across at least 23 countries in Latin America and Caribbean over the next five years. Grantee organizations will include participants from a wide variety of historically marginalized populations, including women, youth, Indigenous peoples, and African descendants. The groups vary in size and level of market participation, ranging from local producers in remote areas to larger associations that produce for national markets or export. Impact and Sustainability The IAF’s high-touch, responsive, and adaptive grantmaking approach prioritizes impact and sustainability by ensuring that our investments advance the visions and needs of community organizations. Their ideas advance many GFSS objectives, including the following: ● Farmers and their organizations will build capacity in increasing production yields and quality and administering finances and partnerships. They will also expand market access to ensure better prices by helping farmers eliminate intermediaries that undervalue their products. Farming families that sell surplus products will use their increased income to access food and clean water, improve their homes, and pay for education and health care. U.S. Government Global Food Security Strategy 129 ● IAF grantees will participate in new or diversified activities of the value chain, strengthen or expand membership in their organizations, accumulate savings and assets, and strategically plan the use of their resources over longer periods of time. ● Grant participants will conserve natural resources and manage watersheds to ensure the long-term availability of water. The IAF’s funding model will continue to generate impact and sustainability: ● The IAF will continue working with grantees to unlock additional resources to expand and sustain the impact of their investments in food security. Grantees mobilize, on average, an additional $1.26 from the public and private sectors for every $1 invested by the IAF. ● The agency will multiply its impact by facilitating peer-to-peer exchanges among grantees. Grantees and their participants will also share information and best practices throughout their communities and social circles, and via IAF’s learning platform, RedColaborar. ● The IAF will conduct regular monitoring and evaluation of food security-related project outputs and outcomes to ensure grantees are learning and meeting their target goals. Resources Requested and Budget Table Account Expected FY 2022 Narrative Explanation Financial Contribution Inter-American Minimum $10 Estimated amount of the Foundation million in new President’s FY22 request for the grant funding IAF to be obligated for new grants or amendments in support of food security-related grants. U.S. Government Global Food Security Strategy 130

Annex 2. Index of Global Food Security Act Strategy Requirements The following table shows Global Food Security Act requirements and where they are addressed in the Strategy. Act Requirements Strategy Index Section 3 (a) Statement Of Policy Objectives. It is in the national interest of the United States to promote global food security, resilience, and nutrition, consistent with national food security investment plans, which is reinforced through programs, activities, and initiatives that— (1) place food insecure countries on a path toward self-sufficiency and economic freedom U.S. Approach through the coordination of United States foreign assistance programs; (2) accelerate inclusive, agricultural-led economic growth that reduces global poverty, Objective 1 hunger, and malnutrition, particularly among women and children; Cross-Cutting (3) increase the productivity, incomes, and livelihoods of small-scale producers, Intermediate Result 2 especially women, by working across agricultural value chains, enhancing local capacity to manage agricultural resources effectively and expanding producer access to local and international markets; (4) build resilience to food shocks among populations in vulnerable situations and Objective 2 households while reducing reliance upon emergency food assistance; (5) create an enabling environment for agricultural growth and investment, including Objective 1 through the promotion of secure and transparent property rights; Cross-Cutting Intermediate Result 7 (6) improve the nutritional status of women and children, with a focus on reducing child Objective 3 stunting, including through the promotion of highly nutritious foods, diet diversification, and nutritional behaviors that improve maternal and child health; (7) demonstrably meet, align with, and leverage broader United States strategies and U.S. Approach investments in trade, economic growth, national security, science and technology, Monitoring, Evaluation agriculture research and extension, maternal and child health, nutrition, and water, & Learning sanitation, and hygiene; Annex 3 (8) continue to strengthen partnerships between United States-based universities, Objective 1 including land-grant colleges, and universities and institutions in target countries and Cross-Cutting communities that build agricultural capacity; and Intermediate Result 8 U.S. Approach Annex 3 (9) ensure the effective use of United States taxpayer dollars to further these objectives. U.S. Approach Monitoring, Evaluation & Learning Section 3 (b) Sense Of Congress. It is the sense of the Congress that the President, in providing assistance to implement the Global Food Security Strategy, should— (1) coordinate, through a whole-of-government approach, the efforts of relevant Federal U.S. Approach departments and agencies to implement the Global Food Security Strategy; Annex 1 (2) seek to fully utilize the unique capabilities of each relevant Federal department and agency while collaborating with and leveraging the contributions of other key stakeholders; and (3) utilize open and streamlined solicitations to allow for the participation of a wide range of implementing partners through the most appropriate procurement mechanisms, which may include grants, contracts, cooperative agreements, and other instruments as necessary and appropriate. U.S. Government Global Food Security Strategy 131 Section 5 (a) Strategy. The President shall coordinate the development and implementation of a United States whole- of-government strategy to accomplish the policy objectives set forth in section 3(a), which shall— (1) set specific and measurable goals, benchmarks, timetables, performance metrics, and Monitoring, Evaluation monitoring and evaluation plans that reflect international best practices relating to & Learning transparency, accountability, food and nutrition security, and agriculture-led economic growth, consistent with the policy objectives described in section 3(a); (2) establish clear and transparent selection criteria for target countries, communities, Targeting Approach regions, and intended beneficiaries of assistance; (3) describe the methodology and criteria for the selection of target countries; (4) support and be aligned with country-owned agriculture, nutrition, and food security U.S. Approach policy and investment plans developed with input from key stakeholders, as appropriate; (5) support inclusive agricultural value chain development, with small-scale producers, Objective 1 especially women, gaining greater access to the inputs, skills, resource management Cross-Cutting capacity, networking, bargaining power, financing, and market linkages needed to sustain Intermediate Result 5 their long-term economic prosperity; (6) support improvement of the nutritional status of women and children, particularly Objective 3 during the critical first 1,000-day window until a child reaches 2 years of age and with a focus on reducing child stunting, through nutrition-specific and nutrition-sensitive programs, including related water, sanitation, and hygiene programs; (7) facilitate communication and collaboration, as appropriate, among local stakeholders Objective 3 in support of a multi-sectoral approach to food and nutrition security, to include analysis U.S. Approach of the multiple underlying causes of malnutrition, including lack of access to safe drinking water, sanitation, and hygiene; (8) support the long-term success of programs by building the capacity of local Objectives 1 & 2 organizations and institutions in target countries and communities; Cross-Cutting Intermediate Results 7 & 8 U.S. Approach (9) integrate resilience and nutrition strategies into food security programs, such that Objectives 1 & 2 populations in chronically vulnerable situations are better able to build safety nets, secure Cross-Cutting livelihoods, access markets, and access opportunities for longer-term economic growth; Intermediate Results 2 & 3 U.S. Approach (10) develop community and producer resilience to natural disasters, emergencies, and Objective 2 natural occurrences that adversely impact agricultural yield; Cross-Cutting Intermediate Result 5 (11) harness science, technology, and innovation, including the research and extension U.S. Approach activities supported by relevant Federal Departments and agencies and Feed the Future Annex 3 Innovation Labs, or any successor entities; (12) integrate agricultural development activities among food insecure populations living Cross-Cutting in proximity to designated national parks or wildlife areas into wildlife conservation Intermediate Result 5 efforts, as necessary and appropriate; (13) leverage resources and expertise through partnerships with the private sector, farm U.S. Approach organizations, cooperatives, civil society, faith-based organizations, and agricultural research and academic institutions; (14) strengthen and expand collaboration between United States universities, including Objective 1 public, private, and land-grant universities, with higher education institutions in target Cross-Cutting countries to increase their effectiveness and relevance to promote agricultural Intermediate Result 8 development and innovation through the creation of human capital, innovation, and U.S. Approach cutting-edge science in the agricultural sector; Annex 3 (15) seek to ensure that target countries and communities respect and promote land tenure Cross-Cutting U.S. Government Global Food Security Strategy 132 rights of local communities, particularly those of women and small-scale producers; Intermediate Results 2 & 7 (16) include criteria and methodologies for graduating target countries and communities Targeting Approach from assistance provided to implement the Global Food Security Strategy as such Monitoring, Evaluation countries and communities meet the progress benchmarks identified pursuant to section & Learning 8(b)(4); and (17) demonstrably support the United States national security and economic interest in Global Context the countries where assistance is being provided. Targeting Approach U.S. Approach Section 5 (b) Coordination. The President shall coordinate, through a whole-of-government approach, the efforts of relevant Federal departments and agencies in the implementation of the Global Food Security Strategy by— (1) establishing monitoring and evaluation systems, coherence, and coordination across Monitoring, Evaluation relevant Federal departments and agencies; & Learning;

Annex 1 (2) establishing linkages with other initiatives and strategies of relevant Federal Complementary Results departments and agencies; and Annex 1 (3) establishing platforms for regular consultation and collaboration with key U.S. Approach stakeholders and the appropriate congressional committees. U.S. Government Global Food Security Strategy 133

Annex 3. Global Food Security Research Strategy Introduction This Annex previews the forthcoming Global Food Security Research Strategy (2022-2026), which will launch after consultation with the scientific community, implementing partners, beneficiaries, and other critical stakeholders (see Consultation Plan below). The 2022-2026 Research Strategy will build on the U.S. government’s 2017-2021 Global Food Security Research Strategy,152 incorporating new developments and advances, and drawing on lessons learned since the inception of the FTF initiative. The Evolution of Global Food Security Research Under FTF In the wake of 2007/2008 global food price spikes, the USG launched the FTF initiative to reduce global hunger, undernutrition, and extreme poverty. FTF’s results and critical contributions to the U.S. economy, security, and leadership garnered broad bipartisan support and led to the enactment of the GFSA in 2016 and its reauthorization in 2018. In recognition of the indispensable role that research plays in achieving food security goals, the USG deployed the Global Food Security Research Strategy (GFSRS) soon thereafter. The GFSRS outlined a vision to bring U.S. scientific ingenuity to bear on the greatest global food security challenges, and it set forth an agenda focused on three broad research themes: I: Technologies and practices that advance the productivity frontier to drive income growth, improve diets, and promote natural resource conservation; II: Technologies and practices that reduce, manage, and mitigate risk to support resilient, prosperous, well-nourished individuals, households, and communities; and III: Improved knowledge of how to achieve human outcomes: generating evidence-based approaches that sustainably and equitably improve economic opportunity, nutrition, and gender equity. Research activities were organized around these themes to provide a flow of innovative, scalable products and practices that improve agriculture-led growth, resilience, and human nutrition in FTF partner countries and regions. The strategy characterized research programming in terms of an R&D pipeline, wherein new technologies advance through phases of basic, applied, and adaptive research before transfer to technology-scaling partners for dissemination to developing-country beneficiaries. The GFSRS laid out a framework for achieving development objectives through leverage of investments made by U.S. research funding agencies working at different stages of the R&D pipeline. In 2019, the FTF Interagency Working Group on Research (IWGR) was established to inform research investments to “align with and leverage broader United States strategies and investments in science and technology, agricultural research and extension” and to “harness science, technology, and innovation, including the research and extension activities supported by relevant Federal departments and agencies,” as outlined in the GFSA. All FTF agencies are IWGR members, as are other USG 152 USAID. (n.d.). The U.S. Government’s Global Food Security Research Strategy. https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1867/GFS_2017_Research_Strategy_508C.pdf U.S. Government Global Food Security Strategy 134 agencies and offices with significant and relevant research, science cooperation, and technology transfer portfolios. Research implemented under the GFSS has yielded promising outputs, and many of these technologies and innovations have had impact around the world. Importantly, over the last five years, new methods for measuring success were put in place, illuminating opportunities for better prioritization and scaling approaches. For instance, the performance indicator used to track the “number of technologies, practices, and approaches under various phases of research, development, and uptake as a result of U.S. Government assistance” was updated to disaggregate categories of research (e.g., production systems research) and include a fourth phase of development: “demonstrated uptake by the public and/or private sector.” Study of the quantitative data collected through this indicator—along with qualitative information gleaned from a new Research Rack-Up tool—revealed that in the first five years of FTF, about 81% of the technologies that FTF researchers reported as “available for uptake” were transferred to another entity for scaling. A Research Output Dissemination Study, focused on the scaling process for eight particular FTF innovations, found that active dissemination occurred in all cases, with a subset of those cases scaling at the national or regional level. Research Investment Frameworks It has become increasingly apparent over the last five years that robust research investment frameworks are critical for achieving impact. The 2022-2026 Research Strategy will set forth a framework for research investment prioritization as well as a product life cycle framework for managing technology development and dissemination. Research Investment Prioritization A structured, transparent, evidence-based, and coordinated system for setting research priorities is necessary to ensure success in achieving the GFSA objectives. Research investment allocation decisions should be informed by (1) the likelihood of advancing practices, policies, knowledge, or technologies; (2) the value to society of the outputs generated from successful research; and (3) the existence of a unique and compelling need for the USG to fund the research. Consultations with scientists can offer insights for advancing knowledge or technology; however, more formal economic analysis is also needed to evaluate tradeoffs among research investments. The resulting discernment is critical in determining a research portfolio that has the best chance of generating the largest impact on GFSA goals and objectives. Likewise, consultations with stakeholders, including innovation and technology end-users, ensure a demand-driven strategy with higher likelihood of technology uptake. Formal research priority-setting undertaken in collaboration with partner countries and other donors offers the USG an opportunity for more coordinated, integrated, and effective research. Enhanced Tools for Analysis Best practice principles for optimizing research resource allocation emphasize undertaking broad stakeholder engagement and expert consultation. Best practice principles also emphasize the need for at least an informal assessment of potential research impact, and where feasible and practicable, formal assessment of research costs versus potential research benefits. These include formal economic analyses of potential research impact, health impacts assessments, and cost-benefit U.S. Government Global Food Security Strategy 135 analysis. Product Life Cycle Research-for-development activities are designed with the intention of developing technologies for eventual widespread adoption at scale, to directly benefit agricultural market systems, especially smallholder producers. Unfortunately, new technologies and innovations are often not taken up as readily as would be beneficial for positive economic outcomes. To address adoption and scaling challenges, research must be demand-driven and focus on the specific preferences of producers, processors, and consumers. Such focused research investments begin with identifying target profiles for products, processes, or methodologies that are researched, developed, and advanced using a product life cycle framework. The product life cycle framework is an end-to-end management tool for advancing the research process from initial conception, definition, research, development, through to regulatory approval, commercialization, adoption, and eventual phase out of a product or technology. Stage gate criteria are used to determine whether a product merits advancement to the next stage. Using the Product Life Cycle as a management tool involves engagement with multiple collaborators in all stages of product development. It helps forecast time, resources, and collaborating partners needed for successful deployment of a product. As a result, products that are released are better aligned to market needs and more likely to achieve widespread adoption. From Research to Impact: A Vision to Mobilize U.S. Research Capacity to Advance Global Food Security Objectives and Address Emerging Needs The forthcoming Global Food Security Research Strategy will build on the GFSRS, leveraging new data and insights, while reflecting the urgency to address emerging challenges. Over the past five years, the world has faced devastating stresses—from the arrival of fall armyworm on the African continent to the unprecedented COVID-19 pandemic. These shocks compound ongoing crises, like conflict and global climate change, and threaten progress toward a more food-secure world. Sustained investments in research provide a steady stream of innovations that address current and future constraints and threats. These investments have helped buffer and reduce impacts of shocks as they arise, including secondary effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. Research partners, including U.S. universities, CGIAR research centers, the private sector, and national partners were key to rapid deployment of tools to address food system vulnerabilities and begin mitigative action. Likewise, long-term investments in research to develop climate-resilient crops and livestock provided ready technologies when recent climate crises occurred. For example, when drought hit Southern Africa in 2016, drought-tolerant maize hybrids yielded twofold more than key commercial hybrids in on-farm trials.153 The seeds of stress-tolerant maize varieties have reached an estimated 9.4 million households in 13 countries in sub-Saharan Africa, benefitting 64.8 million people.154 The USG will continue to invest in purpose-driven, climate-smart research, leveraging the collective 153 Prasanna, B.M., Cairns, J.E., Zaidi, P.H. et al. Beat the stress: breeding for climate resilience in maize for the tropical rainfed environments. Theor Appl Genet 134, 1729–1752 (2021) 154 https://www.cimmyt.org/content/uploads/2020/07/AGG-Year-1-Executive-Summary-and-Impact-Report.pdf U.S. Government Global Food Security Strategy 136 efforts of agencies. Shared core operating principles will continue to guide these research investments. Core Research Principles ● Embrace purpose-driven research. Research should ultimately maximize development outcomes in FTF partner countries. Upstream research should facilitate early identification and targeted acceleration of demand-driven technologies. Downstream research should prioritize the generation, piloting, adaptation, and scaling of technologies relevant in the geographies and associated farming systems where poverty and malnutrition are most concentrated. ● Research integrity. GFSS research collaborations will encourage research integrity by promoting values of openness, transparency, reciprocity, and merit-based competition. Openness and transparency are critical because they support reproducibility of results, promote accurate interpretation of findings, and help ensure appropriate disclosure of conflicts of commitment or interest. Reciprocity ensures all parties mutually benefit from contributing to the research. Merit-based competition provides support to the best ideas. ● Address climate change risks. Even in the face of increased agricultural productivity, the effects of climate change are more urgent than ever. Research needs to be responsive to climate challenges, addressing both climate adaptation and mitigation. ● Strengthen agricultural innovation systems. Research investments cannot simply generate research outputs that researchers see as valuable. To achieve our desired outcomes, research investments need to be made with input from a network of actors and in the context of supporting institutions and policies to bring innovations into use. ● Capacity development. To achieve lasting transformation, support must build the capacity of country partners to identify and address their own research needs and to take new technologies and practices to scale. ● Orient research efforts to support technology scaling. Research efforts only generate global food security gains if they are broadly adopted and utilized in partner countries. Consideration of adoption pathways, beneficiaries, and scaling partners must occur at the onset of a project to ensure local needs, preferences, and market demands are met. ● Promote empowerment and equitable participation in science. The research strategy seeks to increase the participation and empowerment of host-country women, youth, and disadvantaged minority groups in all levels of scientific research and innovation. ● Leverage data to accelerate research impacts. Coordination across U.S. agencies allows efficiencies of scale and leveraging of complementary skills and resources, particularly when it comes to aggregating, analyzing, and applying data. This research strategy provides a platform to share analytical tools, link disparate datasets, and apply data to make global agriculture more precise, productive, resilient, profitable, and financially inclusive. U.S. Government Global Food Security Strategy 137 ● Generate and sustain global public research goods. To maximize the long-term impact of research, investments will primarily emphasize the generation of global public goods. When applicable, the USG will seek to play a facilitating role to catalyze private-sector investment that generates food-security research outputs with the potential to lead to broad benefits. ● Continuous learning, adaptation, and communication through monitoring and evaluation. Tracking the long-term performance of public research investments is inherently challenging. The research strategy offers an opportunity for U.S. research funding agencies to better understand and communicate the long-term, interrelated impacts of their collective research investments. Consultation Plan Stakeholder input is critical for the design and ultimate success of a research strategy. The USG intends to engage with stakeholder communities through webinars, surveys, and other targeted outreach to gain insight into pressing technology needs in the field, promising cutting-edge science, and opportunities to fill research gaps. Input will be solicited from the development community, including USAID Mission staff; the scientific community, including researchers at U.S. universities and partner organizations; the private sector; innovation and technology end-users; local civil society, including community- and national-level actors; and other actors along the Product Life Cycle. U.S. Government Global Food Security Strategy