blog logo image

Archive for the ‘Community’ Category

USGLC Report Finds Consensus on U.S. Development Policy

Wednesday, June 5th, 2013
Bookmark and Share

Partisanship in Washington seems to be at an all-time (and ever escalating) high these days. But when it comes to international development, there is a strong consensus across the ideological spectrum that it is something the U.S. must do and do well. Both Republican and Democratic administrations have taken important steps toward reforming U.S. development policy and practice. The establishment of the Millennium Challenge Corporation by President Bush, with strong bipartisan support from Congress, paved the way for other important reforms by the Obama Administration including the first-ever Presidential Policy Directive on Global Development and the USAID Forward agenda.

In 2011, MFAN released From Policy to Practice—a set of reform principles to help guide U.S. development policy. The principles include modernizing legislation, incorporating local priorities, and strengthening and empowering USAID. In the two years since the release of From Policy to Practice, we have seen the Obama Administration and Congress make strides and the development community rally behind the importance of reform. But there is still more work to be done, and at a time when budgets are shrinking, finding more effective and efficient approaches to solving development challenges is something everyone can get behind.

Today, the U.S. Global Leadership Coalition released their second Report on Reports, which analyzes over 30 reports, including MFAN’s From Policy to Practice, from across the political spectrum. Despite analyzing a diverse range of work from groups like the left-leaning Center for American Progress and the right-leaning Heritage Foundation, USGLC finds there’s more of a consensus on U.S. development policy than we might expect. The Report on Reports highlights six key areas of agreement, including ensuring results-driven development, improving coordination, and maintaining sufficient resources, that many groups in the development community are highlighting as priority areas for improving U.S. policy.

The elevation of development alongside diplomacy and defense, the continuing implementation of the USAID Forward agenda, the introduction of legislation like Rep. Gerry Connolly’s (D-VA) Global Partnerships Act and Rep. Ted Poe’s (R-TX) Foreign Aid Transparency and Accountability Act, and President Obama’s proposal to reform U.S. food aid are all positive signs that the reform agenda is making headway. However, the Administration and Congress must work together to institutionalize these important reforms so that progress is not lost as political winds shift in Washington.

Click here to see USGLC’s helpful infographic on the road to a “smart power” approach to national security issues.

High Level Panel Releases Report on Post-2015 Development Agenda

Tuesday, June 4th, 2013
Bookmark and Share

In less than two years, the clock on the Millennium Development Goals will run out. Recognizing that on the December 31, 2015 deadline many of the MDGs will not be met, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon appointed a 27-person panel to help design a new global development agenda. Following meetings in New York, London, Bali, and Monrovia, the High Level Panel (HLP) on the Post-2015 Development Agenda delivered its report to the UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon last week. The report, A New Global Partnership: Eradicate Poverty and Transform Economies through Sustainable Development, outlines an ambitious universal agenda to eradicate extreme poverty by 2030.

The Post-2015 agenda as outlined by the HLP seeks to not only “finish the job the MDGs started,” but to also go beyond the MDGs to reach the poorest and most marginalized populations. The report takes into account how the world has changed since the 2000 Millennium Declaration and how it is likely to continue to change by 2030, noting population growth, the role of private investment, technological advances, and climate change as particularly impactful.

Based on the panel’s meetings and consultations, they are recommending that the agenda be universal and driven by five fundamental shifts, including: leave no one behind; put sustainable development at the core; transform economies for jobs and inclusive growth; build peace and effective, open and accountable institutions for all; and forge a new global partnership. In addition to these broader principles, the panel put forth a set of 12 measurable goals to give more clarity to what they envision. The goals include:

  • End poverty
  • Empower girls and women to achieve gender equality
  • Provide quality education and lifelong learning
  • Ensure healthy lives
  • Ensure food security and good nutrition
  • Achieve universal access to water and sanitation
  • Secure sustainable energy
  • Create jobs, sustainable livelihoods, and equitable growth
  • Manage natural resource assets sustainably
  • Ensure good governance and effective institutions
  • Ensure stable and peaceful societies
  • Create a global enabling environment and catalyze long-term finance

US Representative to the High Level Panel, John Podesta, notes that the report seeks to build on the accomplishments of the MDGs and that “to make these gains permanent, we must address the root causes of poverty and better connect the very poor to the economic, social and political lives of their countries.” The release of the report by the HLP is just the first of many steps in the process of formulating the agenda. The United Nations will begin debating the post-2015 agenda at the General Assembly in September.

So what does the HLP report mean from a reform perspective?  It is too early to tell how the report will translate into a new round of MDGs, but it isn’t too early to begin thinking about how the U.S. approach to global development can better align with global goals.  In his 2013 State of the Union address, the President pledged that America would work with our allies around the world to eradicate extreme poverty in the next two decades.  Achieving this lofty—and vital—goal will require agreement not only on a new round of MDGs, but also a much more coordinated and collaborative approach to development among nations rich and poor around the world, an approach that recognizes the value that each stakeholder adds to the effort and uses resources to maximum effect and with maximum accountability.  We at MFAN look forward to working with the Administration and Congress to ensure that U.S. policy supports this aligned and collaborative approach.

Foreign Assistance Dashboard Adds Treasury and Defense Data

Tuesday, May 28th, 2013
Bookmark and Share

Last week, the Departments of Treasury and Defense added data to the Foreign Assistance Dashboard. See below for a guest post from MFAN Principal Sarah Jane Staats, coauthored by Will McKitterick, that explains what information has been added and what this means in terms of transparency. This post originally appeared on the Center for Global Development’s Rethinking US Foreign Assistance blog.

***

A Good Day to Bury Good News? US Foreign Assistance Dashboard Adds Defense and Treasury Data

The US Foreign Assistance Dashboard has a habit of quietly releasing good news just before Washingtonians leave for long holiday weekends. It added Millennium Challenge Corporation data two days before Thanksgiving in 2011. State and USAID announced aid data standards and a reporting schedule the Thursday before the 2012 Christmas holiday. And lest you miss it before skipping town for this Memorial Day weekend holiday, the Foreign Assistance Dashboard has new data from the departments of Defense and Treasury.

Five US agencies that have a role in US foreign aid now have some—but not all—data on the Foreign Assistance Dashboard. These five agencies accounted for roughly eighty-six percent of aid spending in  2011. The Foreign Assistance Dashboard expects twenty-two separate US federal agencies and departments to report data.

USFApercentages2011

Source:  U.S. Overseas Loans and Grants (Greenbook). FY 2011 economic assistance obligations. http://gbk.eads.usaidallnet.gov/ *Other includes: Peace Corps, Department of Interior, Department of Labor, United States Trade Development Agency, United States African Development Foundation, Inter-America Foundation, Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Justice, Department of Commerce, Department of Transportation, Federal Trade Commission, Department of Energy, Department of Homeland Security, Overseas Private Investment Corporation.

It’s great to see Defense and Treasury data on the Foreign Assistance Dashboard, including Treasury’s planned technical assistance and multilateral development and trust fund contributions over a nine year period plus obligated and spent data from FY2006-FY2012. Defense data is limited to FY2011 and FY2012, but includes planned, spent and obligated numbers. The State Department, by contrast, has posted planning data but no obligated or spent data. Treasury also joins MCC in providing forward-looking FY2014 budget numbers—an important feature if the Foreign Assistance Dashboard aims to inform current spending decisions.

We’ll dig into the data in more detail over the coming days. There is still a long way to go before the Foreign Assistance Dashboard has the complete picture of where and how the United States invests its aid dollars, but new Treasury and Defense data are good steps in the right direction. I’ll be on the lookout for more good news to sneak out just before the next holiday. July 3rd,  anyone?

 

MFAN Statement: Food Aid Reform Act Would Maximize Efficiencies and Save Lives

Thursday, May 16th, 2013
Bookmark and Share

May 16, 2013 (WASHINGTON) – This statement is delivered on behalf of the Modernizing Foreign Assistance Network (MFAN) by Co-Chairs David Beckmann, George Ingram and Jim Kolbe:

We strongly commend House Foreign Affairs Chairman Ed Royce (R-CA) and Africa Subcommittee Ranking Member Karen Bass (D-CA) for introducing the Food Aid Reform Act (H.R. 1983). The legislation includes common sense reforms that would improve the effectiveness and efficiency of U.S. food aid. If adopted, the reforms proposed in this legislation would more feed more people, more quickly while saving taxpayers $500 million over the next ten years.

Since its founding, MFAN has advocated for bold action on food aid, an area where better policies would maximize efficiencies and save additional lives. In 2011, MFAN committed itself to advocate for common sense reforms, including eliminating restrictions on the use of local and regional food procurement; repealing inefficient cargo preference provisions; and scaling down food aid monetization, which Government Accountability Office research has demonstrated is “inefficient and can cause adverse market impacts.” The wide-ranging reforms proposed by Chairman Royce and Ranking Member Bass would significantly advance these objectives. The Food Aid Reform Act eliminates superfluous costs by ending monetization, reducing U.S.-only procurement requirements, and exempting food aid assistance from cargo preference.

The bill is timely, coming shortly after the President’s FY2014 budget request’s bold proposal to improve the Food for Peace program that distributes emergency food assistance. MFAN joined much of the development community in support of the President’s plan to enhance the long standing commitment of the American people to respond to emergencies and reduce hunger and poverty around the world, by reducing inflated procurement and transportation costs, continuing shipping commodities from the U.S. while removing harmful restrictions on purchasing food locally and regionally, and funding more sustainable practices that encourage agricultural self-sufficiency and food security. The Food Aid Reform Act legislation acknowledges these reform priorities and would provide humanitarian organizations with additional flexibility to respond to food emergencies.

With improved coordination, U.S. development and agriculture policies have the potential to catalyze lasting change in countries that struggle with chronic food insecurity, ultimately terminating dependence on U.S. assistance in the long term. If adopted and implemented, this legislation would replace an antiquated system with a data-driven, evidence-based approach to sustainable food security while preserving the deeply valued connection between farming communities in the U.S. and the developing world.

MFAN applauds the introduction of this strong reform legislation by Chairman Royce and Rep. Bass and urges other members of Congress to work with them in passing needed changes to our food aid system. When budgets are under severe strain and global hunger afflicts so many, we cannot afford to delay these important reforms.

International aid groups support food aid reforms proposed by Chairman Ed Royce and Ranking Member Karen Bass

Thursday, May 16th, 2013
Bookmark and Share

Food aid reform statement

May 16, 2013 (Washington, DC)- This statement is delivered on behalf of the following endorsing organizations: American Jewish World Service, Bread for the World, CARE, Church World Service, The Modernizing Foreign Assistance Network, Oxfam America and Partners in Health.

The endorsing organizations listed above applaud bi-partisan legislation introduced yesterday by House Foreign Affairs Chairman Ed Royce (R-CA) and Ranking Member Karen Bass (D-CA). The Food Aid Reform Act (HR 1983) offers long overdue reforms to the U.S. food assistance program, similar to what was included in the Administration’s FY2014 budget submission to Congress. These reforms—if enacted—mean the U.S. would be able to deliver lifesaving food assistance more quickly, more efficiently and to millions of more hungry people every year with the same taxpayer resources.

More than 870 million people suffer from chronic hunger. With such considerable global needs, and our federal budget under significant pressure, our efforts to provide sustenance and nutrition to the poor must be designed to ensure the greatest impact using limited available resources. In the sixty years that the U.S. has provided food aid to the world’s most vulnerable populations, humanitarian organizations have identified best practices that can significantly enhance these programs’ efficiency and cost-effectiveness. While dozens of studies have identified reforms that would increase the reach of our aid, outdated statutes limit flexibility and impede progress toward this goal. In the words of U.S. Agency for International Development Administrator Rajiv Shah, “…we’ve learned that the current approach to food aid can become—at times—an impediment to its very own mission.”

Both the President’s proposal and this legislation address many long-standing concerns that have been raised about food aid. The Royce-Bass bill would end the wasteful practice of monetization. Additionally, it would remove restrictions on the shipping of food aid that slow its delivery and inflate the cost to U.S. taxpayers. “Cargo preference” was originally intended to maintain certain maritime capabilities necessary during the Cold War. Today, foreign-owned shipping companies exploit this “Buy America” loophole by operating U.S. flagged carriers and charging premium rates to the federal government. The practice restricts competition, increasing expenditures for ocean freight and costing U.S. taxpayers approximately $140 million each year. The U.S. Agency for International Development estimates that up to half of its spending on food aid can be attributed to ocean transportation costs.

This bi-partisan bill provides the government with additional flexibility to respond to food emergencies: it maintains the ability to purchase and ship US commodities when it is the most appropriate tool, and allows for local purchase of food when such purchases ensure that food reaches hungry people in need faster and at a lower cost. We believe this bill could be strengthened by explicitly maintaining the structure for non-emergency food aid that has helped millions of chronically hungry families around the world.  We urge that as the bill moves through the legislative process that these important authorities are included.

These evidence-based reforms will significantly enhance the effectiveness and efficiency of our food aid program.  Chairman Royce and Representative Bass’s plan is a balanced approach to delivering food assistance and maximizing efficiencies. We urge the House Foreign Affairs Committee to swiftly approve the proposal. Our organizations thank Chairman Royce and Representative Bass for their leadership and stand ready to work with members on both side of the aisle to ensure that taxpayers’ dollars are used more efficiently and feed the greatest number of hungry people possible.