MS. SHEERAN: Well, we’ll give you your chance now. Secretary
Clinton, I know that you want to listen and not speak, but before we let
you off the hook, this is the 50
th anniversary of the
creation of the World Food Program. It was created with the idea that
peace cannot be built on an empty stomach, after the experience of a
war-ravaged Europe was stalked by hunger and malnutrition, and the power
of interventions to transform countries and stability. And it’s still
going strong, but it’s been rare in our history that we’ve seen a
foreign minister, and then presidents and prime ministers, get behind
the fight for the hungry, and then such transformational business
leaders as this. So the powerful alliance here on the stage really marks
a moment in time here, and we want to thank you for bringing us all to
the State Department and for bringing the fight to hunger right here. So
thank you. (Applause.)
SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you for that. Thank you.
MS. SHEERAN: And I would just like to ask each of you, to
open, why should this be the business of foreign ministers, presidents,
and prime ministers, G8s and G20s? And why are you hopeful, why did you
personally get involved in the fight against hunger?
Maybe Bill?
MR. GATES: All right. (Laughter.) Well, Howie’s the farmer here, so he can speak the knowledge. I’m the city boy on the panel. For me --
MR. BUFFETT: He’s done okay – (laughter).
MR. GATES: For our foundation, as we looked at what the great
inequities are, we really kept coming back to health and agriculture as
the two that topped the list. Whether you look at the nutrition needs
that, if they’re not fully met, mean that a child doesn’t develop their
full potential and the kind of economic impact that has, or if they have
childhood diseases, and that tends to interact with – if you have
diarrhea, you have malaria fevers, you’re not getting enough food, that
makes things even tougher. It raises the chance of dying. It raises the
chance that you’ll have some lifelong disability. And we were able to
see that if you can raise these incomes, then farmers will choose to
send their kids to school. And it changes livelihoods very quickly. I
think it’s a World Bank study that said that of all the different
development dollars, the one that has the most immediate impact on
poverty reduction is investment in agriculture.
Now, of course there’s a time scale here. There’s the acute needs,
like we’re seeing in the Horn of Africa right now, that are very, very
important. And WFP takes the lead on those and does a fantastic job.
Then there’s the longer-term issues of creating the seeds, the soil
improvements, the delivery systems so that farmers can have this
increased productivity. And I was pretty stunned to see the gap in
productivity between different locations within Africa or between Africa
and the United States. And so the potential really is there.
For the urban poor, our food productivity is going to mean more food
security, less volatility in prices. And food is a major part of their
budget, unlike in rich countries where we sort of – food is such a small
percentage. For them, not only are they not able to buy as much as they
want, but instability is actually one of the results when you have food
price spikes coming along.
So the idea that we could back some scientists, we could back people
in country – particularly in Africa, which is where the focus of our
work is – it looked like an intervention that had big payback. Some of
it’s been dairies, some coffee. The bulk of it has been staple crops
because those are quite important. There had been some underinvestment
in this area. About four years ago, the world sort of looked around and
said that food aid and agriculture investment had come down, and that
really was a mistake. World Bank and others decided, okay, we need to
rev that back up. And so a lot of energy’s been put into it.
Unfortunately, it comes at a tough time for increasing these amounts,
but some new money is – has come into it. And I’m quite optimistic that
we can raise productivity and have pretty dramatic effects because of
that.
MS. SHEERAN: Howard.
MR. BUFFETT: I think when you ask the question why would a
prime minister or president care about this, it’s pretty simple:
self-interest. A hungry country doesn’t do very well. And so I think
that at some point, anybody that has much of an IQ in a leadership
position figures out that they’re going to have a problem. And we’ve
seen it really surface in the last two or three years with 30 countries
having food riots. We’ve seen a lot of activity even more recently –
again recently. And I think it’s just self perseveration at some point.
So I think there’s a self interest that drives it.
How we got involved in agriculture is a little less sophisticated
than how Bill got involved it. But I remember back in 1992, Dennis Avery
said to me, “Howard, no one’s going to starve to save a tree.” And I
thought about that for a little bit. And I had been going around the
world very engaged in conservation, and all of the sudden, I stopped
looking – when I was on the Sarengeti, I thought I’m going to go meet
these leaders of the villages and I’m going to see what their problems
are. And so Dennis’s statement drove me in a very different direction.
And then we spent about a decade funding programs a certain way, that
is more the traditional development way. And Jerry Steiner, who may be
here somewhere – Jerry took me down to a project that they have in
Chiapas, Mexico, and I realized just kind of like what I’d heard 15
years earlier. What I saw there was that there was a better way to do
this. I always kid Bill because he’s always got a book under his arm and
he reads more books than I could ever read, and he figures it out by
reading it, and sometimes I have to see it. And Jerry took me and saw
this, and I thought we have to do this differently. Our money, our
investment, can be leveraged in a different way, and we can get better
results than what we’re getting. And we just weren’t doing it the way we
needed to do it. And it was a great opportunity for me to say we need
to change how we do it.
But agriculture to me has been – I mean, it’s been most of my life.
And my mom always says I didn’t have enough Tonka Toys when I was a
little boy, and so I have big tractors now, I guess. I don’t know.
(Laughter.)
MS. SHEERAN: And Secretary Clinton.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Josette, I think that what Bill and Howard
said is really at the core of it. I mean, for a country like our own, I
think there are four baskets of considerations, basically; one, the
moral and humanitarian. It is the right thing to do. If you come from a
country as blessed as ours, with the resources we have and the food we
take for granted, it is an obligation to try to help those who are in
need.
Secondly, the security and strategic considerations that are
certainly evident as you listen to both Bill and Howard, the fact that
hungry people and hungry countries and poorly managed agricultural
systems lead to all sorts of problems that not only cause misery within
but very often without as well. So you have refugee flows; you have poor
agricultural practices that destroy top soil, create erosion,
accelerate the impact of climate change, cause conflict; as the Vice
President said earlier, Darfur, which is a classic conflict between
pastoralists and herders. And so strategically, you have a ripple effect
and repercussions that keep rolling and don’t stop in one localized
place where people are suffering and hungry and where their land is
poorly managed or not producing, or where whether is not cooperating.
Thirdly, there are historic reasons. I’m very proud of the role that
the United States played in the ’60s and ’70s with the Green Revolution
in India and elsewhere, which had a tremendous impact on creating the
conditions for people to take care of themselves with the right
investments and the right inputs and tools. And then we moved away from
those front-end investments and really moved a lot of our agriculture
and hunger and food investments to the back end, where we kind of waited
for disasters and crises and failures to occur. And when this
Administration came in, we thought that doesn’t add up. I mean, we ought
to get back into the business of helping to improve agriculture, focus
on who produces most of the food, recognizing that we’re going to have
to produce about – last figure I saw – 70 percent more food in the next
20 or 30 years to keep up with population growth and to make it
affordable and accessible.
And then the final considerations are the pragmatic, practical ones,
is we know how to do this. I mean, we do have a lot of really good
knowledge and skills that can be shared if we go about it in the
appropriate way. So I think for all those reasons the Obama
Administration really, right off the bat, decided that we wanted to take
a look at our food and nutrition programs, our agriculture programs,
and try to begin to sort out what worked, what didn’t work, emphasize
the former, not the latter, build a broader international consensus.
I mean, Josette has done a terrific job at the World Food Program,
sort of making the case, being an advocate for the program. Yes, it was
born of the disasters of World War II and the great hunger that swept
across so much of Eurasia and killed many millions of people. But it’s
also true that this institution needed more partners. It needed a better
international consensus about what could be done and what would work.
So I’m very proud of the fact that we’ve made this decision, we have
realigned our priorities and programs, and I think we’re better
positioned to be effective in our efforts.
MS. SHEERAN: Thank you. And today we’re honoring the
commitment that both Bill and Howard have made to Purchasing for
Progress, which was really a simple idea to say if we’re purchasing 80
percent of the food we purchase, WFP and other partners in the
developing world, can we involve the very farmers who would be hungry
and dependent on food aid because they can’t connect to markets to help
supply that food and help feed the world? It requires very patient –
it’s a more patient market, P for P, and that it can work with these
farmers.
But I’d like to ask each of you why you decided to support P for P and what you think its promise and potential is?
MR. BUFFETT: Well, patience isn’t in my vocabulary. But I
think for me it kind of evolved, spending a little time in Guatemala
with Villam, spending a time in Zambia with David Stevenson, both
country directors at WFP, seeing very similar activity to this. And as I
said earlier, Josette, it took the leadership at the top of WFP to make
it happen. And it wasn’t very hard for me to figure out that this was a
great idea. And it didn’t take me too long to see that this was
something that we should support.
One of the things that we’ve struggled with for a long time was, as
we supported projects, we could never see or figure out what’s the exit
strategy, I mean what gets us – when we leave, we go home, the money’s
gone. And slowly I realized that – I’m a slow learner – but I realized
that the market is an incredible exit strategy. And with WFP’s ability
to leverage the purchasing, we could really have an impact on not just
large numbers of farmers, but we might be able to set up a model that,
with certain modifications, could be transferred to different parts. And
it truly moves farmers into a competitive environment with the tools so
that they can compete long-term. So when I saw all of that, it wasn’t
very hard for me to think this is something we really should be
supporting.
MR. GATES: Yeah. I totally agree with that. The thing we saw
is that when you look at food aid, you want to be as responsive as
possible, and so having all of it come many thousands of miles away
isn’t going to be – shouldn’t be your only source for that food, and
increasing aggregate demand in Africa for the farmers who were doing
well seemed like a very positive thing. But I think the biggest thing is
more qualitative, which is that a lot of the small holders, in terms of
how they store their output, how they maintain the quality of that
output, have not – nobody has worked with them so that they can sell
into the bigger markets.
If you take the rice market in Nigeria – Nigeria is a gigantic
importer of rice. They actually have a goal over the next four years to
not – to be able to be self-sufficient in rice, and they should be if
you just looked at the acreage they have. But a lot of is that the
post-harvest processing, the kernels get broken, they get a lot of dirt
and sand in with the rice, and compared to the almost perfect rice
coming out of Asia, there’s not a willingness to buy it.
And so having a sophisticated buyer like WFP, who because of the
funds from the Buffett Foundation and ourselves could go in there and
take the time to help either create cooperatives or to work with them,
make a commitment so that they can buy the equipment or invest in new
storage techniques, even when WFP’s not there as a buyer, these people
have learned how to sell into a much broader market. And that’s a great
thing for Africa. It’s a great thing for these farmers. And we certainly
have seen even in these first few years some significant success in
drawing farmer into commerce that were not participating before.
MS. SHEERAN: Secretary Clinton, it has always struck me that
hunger can either be seen as a huge problem or a huge opportunity,
because everyone has to eat, and it creates jobs up and down the value
chain. And one thing that you have done with Raj Shah and others is to
really focus on the private sector partnerships. I’m just looking at
BCG’s work and Yum! and so many others here in the audience. We have –
private sector, raise your hand. (Laughter.) We have so many partners
here that now are being brought into the fold. But what is the power –
the transformative power that you think and potential of these new
alliances to tackle age-old challenges like hunger and malnutrition?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I think it builds off of what Howard
just said. I mean, you want to create a market. You want to be able to
create enough demand and quality supply so that people are able to move
forward themselves. And for a lot of reasons that the experts in the
audience know far better than I, there have been so many disruptions and
difficulties in so many places in the world in doing just that. So I
think our private sector companies, some of whom are represented here,
have expertise, have the skills, have the investment, to really help the
whole supply chain improve. And I don’t think there’s any way we can
anticipate meeting the needs of the current and future population unless
there’s a heavy, market-driven component.
So much of what we’ve tried to do is to latch up the aid and
investment sides of the equation. And what both Howard and Bill do so
well is they straddle that. They’re able to bring both sides together.
We’ve been working in so many countries to persuade them to open up
their own markets to our large companies that will bring expertise,
which they currently do not have. And Bill mentioned the whole issue of
storage. I mean, it’s a nightmare in so many countries. I mean, you have
the problems that Bill talked about in Nigeria. Well, India, 40 percent
of the harvest is lost because there is no storage system, both either
dry or cold storage.
So I think bringing in private sector partners, who understand what a
quality supply chain looks like and how a market can grow once you have
competitive products that are going to be affordable in the local
market and then maybe even available for export, is absolutely essential
to how we see the vision of Feed the Future.
MS. SHEEREN: We have come to a (inaudible) not just about
(inaudible) so what is the content of those kilocalories? And if we look
also at the face of hunger, it is very often a woman. If we look at the
face of small farming, it’s very often a woman. Are there ways to look
at the value-added production – I know this is – are issues that all of
you have looked at – in order to combine the cause of fighting hunger
and malnutrition? And I will just say that both these foundations put us
under great rigor. Ken Davies is here, who runs this program, to ensure
that at least half the beneficiaries were women. And they’re less
organized as farmers than others, but can we – you mentioned that in
your speech. Can we just touch on the special imperative, I think, to
address that particular aspect.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I recall when you started this
emphasis with P4P and both the Gates and the Buffett Foundations’
requirement that half the recipients be women, there were a lot of
people who say, “Why? Why would you make that? That seems like political
correctness.” And there was an enormous lack of knowledge, I guess is
the most polite way I can say it – (laughter) – about the fact that 60
to 70 percent of the people who labor in the fields are women. And they
are an invisible part of the economy and certainly of agricultural
production. I’m sure that Bill and Howard have had the same experience
I’ve had in talking with ministers of this, that, and the other in many
countries, and talk about focusing on women smallholder farmers. Why?
What does that have to do with producing enough food to feed our people
and keep the prices down and all the rest of it?
So I really give the three people up here and their able teams a lot
of credit for helping to push into greater visibility with those of us
who work and care about this area know, which is if you don’t focus on
women, if you’re trying to improve agricultural production, and really
the whole chain in access and affordability, we’re not going to be
successful. So it’s not only the smart thing to do, it’s the right thing
to do. And it is harder to empower women. Often they don’t own the land
that they farm. They’re often pushed off the land if their husband dies
and they have no stake in it, even though it was their sweat labor that
produced whatever was produced. They are not part of organizations.
They are often denied other rights, like for credit or other kinds of
support that are needed to be successful.
And so anything we can do to raise their visibility and make them be
seen as valued partners in countries where we are working is going to be
beneficial to the overall project’s possibility of success.
MR. BUFFETT: Somebody asked me today earlier, “What’s the game
changer on this issue?” And I’ll tell you, the game changer is, “Put a
woman in charge of every country.” (Laughter and applause.) That’s my
mother’s influence, and my sister’s. (Laughter.)
But the truth is there is no game changer in the end. I mean, this is
tough work. It’s a complicated problem. But women do look at this issue
differently than men. A mother will look at feeding her children in a
different way than a man does. That’s just a fact. So when you have the
personal experience of interacting with women that have children that
are dying – and Bill has seen this too – that you realize that that’s
the person you want to be the decision maker. And so empowering the
mother and the women in an environment like that is absolutely key to
success.
MS. SHEERAN: And, Bill, you have the last word.
MR. GATES: Well, definitely when you raise the income on the
crops that the woman’s involved in, it directly maps to improvement in
food for that household and the money is just spent in a better way. So
not only are they the majority of the actual agricultural hours, but
when you help them, you get a lot more impact. And we just need to
understand why there’s this separation of roles and how our
interventions can offset the tendency to focus on the male roles as
opposed to what the women do.
MS. SHEERAN: Well, I want to thank our awardees today.
Secretary Clinton, I remember when you called together foreign ministers
from over six countries two years ago at the United Nations. It was the
first time foreign ministers ever took on the first thousand days of
life, the ending malnutrition and hunger. I want to thank you for
bringing us into your home here today, thank the Vice President. And on
behalf of Rick Leach, Randy Russell, the head of the WFP-USA, and Hunter
Biden soon-to-be, and all of us, the whole board, we want to thank you
very much for making us feel so welcome. Thank you.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you all. Thank you. (Applause.)