blog logo image

Archive for the ‘State Department’ Category

MCC Added to the Foreign Assistance Dashboard

Monday, November 28th, 2011
Bookmark and Share

Last week, budget and appropriations information from the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) was added to the Foreign Assistance Dashboard. This is a positive step toward the expansion of this user-friendly tool that allows for policymakers and the American public to track and analyze investments in foreign assistance while holding the Administration accountable for returns on these investments. Still, as Will McKitterick of the Center for Global Development points out in a new blog post, the MCC data was already available on the agency’s website. McKitterick writes:

“Based on what it sets out to provide, the website is an impressively ambitious tool, and the government should be applauded for moving quickly to get in line with international standards on aid transparency (see IATI). Nevertheless, the tool is only as useful as the information it stores, and currently, it stores very little. Sure it includes both State and USAID foreign assistance request and appropriations data, but this information was made available at the original release of the Dashboard nearly a year ago, and both agencies have yet to publish data for obligations and spent resources. The recent release of MCC information is certainly a plus, but since that information was already readily available on the MCC’s website, it hardly counts as progress.”

The “What’s Coming” section on the Dashboard, complete with a matrix (below), shows the slow progress that has been made in updating and expanding the content since the Dashboard launched in December 2010. Yet with momentum for transparency through the International Aid Transparency Initiative (IATI) and this week’s High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness, as well as the Foreign Aid Transparency and Accountability Act from Rep. Ted Poe, there is a great opportunity for the government to fulfill this critical element of reform.

Posted in MCC, Obama Administration, State Department, USAID | No Comments »

CGD Asks, “Is USAID Being Set up to Fail on GHI?”

Tuesday, November 1st, 2011
Bookmark and Share

Nandini Oomman, the Center for Global Development’s director of the HIV/AIDS monitor, co-wrote a blog piece with Rachel Silverman raising several important questions about the Global Health Initiative (GHI). The State Department-led Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review (QDDR) – which next month will be one year into its implementation – stipulates that the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) assume leadership of GHI in September 2012, contingent upon fulfilling a set of 10 benchmarks. But what the QDDR does not make clear is exactly what leadership of GHI means. Oomman leaves the administration with three options going forward: move PEPFAR to USAID; keep the GHI at State; or remove PEPFAR from GHI. Read the full piece here and see below for details on the three options:

We know the deadline for the GHI’s transition to USAID is still a year away, but the administration has some difficult decisions to make, and quickly.  The President’s global development legacy is at stake if one of his biggest development initiatives is seen to fail. Here are the options, as we see them, along with their respective trade-offs–constraints, costs, and benefits:

1)  Move PEPFAR to USAID. Perhaps this option makes the most sense programmatically (unified leadership, horizontal integration with reproductive health, etc)., but it’s a non-starter politically. PEPFAR is protected as an independent structure until its authorizing legislation expires in 2013, and there is no political will to challenge that status quo.

2)  Keep the GHI at State. Under this scenario, the State Department would renege on its highly public QDDR plans to move the GHI to USAID, and would maintain control of the initiative under an executive director. State holds some authority over OGAC and could realistically serve as a coordination point between the GHI agencies, as it has done thus far. But there are two good reasons why this scenario doesn’t make sense: 1) global health is not the State Department’s area of technical expertise and the creation of another global health entity in State will be inefficient when plenty of expertise lies elsewhere in the USG. 2) This option could also be a public relations nightmare; the State Department would need to do serious damage control and protect USAID’s reputation. It will need to be clear about its rationale for the decision, emphasizing the structural considerations and why it’s best for the success of the GHI. However, this option will damage the administration’s efforts to build USAID as the premier U.S. development agency.

3)  Remove PEPFAR from the GHI. If USAID is to lead the GHI but not PEPFAR, then PEPFAR, operationally, will cease to be a part of the GHI, especially because it has its own reporting line to Congress. If we continue down this path, the administration should formally remove PEPFAR from the GHI portfolio and eliminate the targets for HIV/AIDS treatment and prevention as GHI targets. Under this “efficiency” scenario, USAID would be able to focus its energy on the remaining GHI programs and goals – those which it actually controls – and could be realistically accountable for the corresponding results. However, this course of action would fundamentally alter the original intent and design of the GHI to build on PEPFAR’s “platform” and would demonstrate the unfortunate reality that funds appropriated in a siloed, vertical structure don’t really lend themselves to policy and program level integration . Forfeiting the opportunity to integrate HIV/AIDS programs with reproductive health efforts, for example, will unfortunately turn the GHI in to a more “business as usual” health program approach to global health.

 

Posted in Community, MFAN News, Obama Administration, State Department, USAID | No Comments »

Judge Ted Poe and his bipartisan posse lay down the (foreign aid) law

Friday, October 21st, 2011
Bookmark and Share

This blog post was written by MFAN Partner Archana Palaniappan, aid effectiveness policy and advocacy advisor at Oxfam America. The post originally appeared on Oxfam America’s Politics of Poverty blog.

Bipartisan. Remember that word? It’s been a while since we heard a tale of true bipartisan support in Washington. In a time when it feels like politicians care more about their party line than the people’s bottom line, one bill is finding support across the aisle for values we can all get behind.

The bill is being introduced by Congressman Ted Poe (R-TX-2nd district), a former judge, who’s embarked on reforming foreign aid to work better for poor people and US taxpayers. Last week, he introduced a House bill to shine the light on how US development dollars are spent and improve its effectiveness dollar for dollar. Judge Poe has identified a good idea that everyone can agree on and is moving this idea forward in legislation. Instead of just cutting development assistance, he’s breaking the mold and improving how the US delivers assistance.

Known as H.R. 3159, The Foreign Aid Transparency and Accountability Act of 2012, the Poe bill has 30 original co-sponsors at its introduction and is set to have the most bipartisan support seen since frontier days–or at least since last Congress’ H.R. 2139 where Rep. Howard Berman (D-CA-28th district) and 127 co-sponsors called for foreign assistance reform. Building on that momentum, Congressional Members from Tea Party Republicans to progressive Democrats are calling for more transparency of US aid dollars, and a common set of monitoring and evaluation guidelines for USAID, MCC, State, and DoD.

Judge Poe’s bill couldn’t come at a more important time. The Foreign Assistance Dashboard, a recently established government website showing how USAID and State development dollars are spent, could disappear in a heartbeat if another administration chose not to carry it on. But Judge Poe and his bipartisan group have the power to make it stick. In fact, they’re expanding the role of the Dashboard to include country-level data from all 12 departments and 26 agencies that deliver foreign assistance. This kind of transparency gives Congress more effective oversight. It’s also powerful in the hands of people living in poor countries: citizen watchdog groups, journalists, and local businesses can use this data to blow the whistle on aid dollars that disappeared or weren’t used to meet their needs, which helps them wage a homegrown fight against corruption.

The bill also lays down a marker on doing aid well. USAID’s recent Monitoring and Evaluation Policy has set the standard for how impact evaluation should be done. Thanks to Judge Poe and his co-sponsors’ mandate in the bill, this policy would ensure that the US keeps up the good work, and establishes common guidelines for how all US government agencies administer development assistance effectively.

With these bold steps in transparency and accountability, Judge Poe and his bipartisan posse are reforming foreign aid for beneficiaries and taxpayers alike. These reforms are garnering broad Congressional support, but the next step is to make sure H.R. 3159 becomes the law of the land.

 

Posted in State Department | No Comments »

They know how to fight poverty, they just need a partner

Thursday, October 13th, 2011
Bookmark and Share

See below for a guest post from Gregory Adams, Director of Aid Effectiveness at Oxfam America. This post originally appeared on Oxfam’s Politics of Poverty blog.

Let me let you in on a secret; the United States needs help. In fact, as rich and powerful as the United States is, we still have problems we can’t solve on our own. In a world where violence, scarcity, and poverty ignore borders, we need the help of people living in other countries to help make our world better, safer, and more prosperous.

The good news is that there are a lot of people out there who want to work with us. They don’t work with us out of charity or because they necessarily like us. They work with us because we want the same thing: a world that can fight back against problems like poverty, injustice, and disease.

Jacqueline Morette is a Haitian farmer and a partner in fighting poverty. Photo by Sarah Peck/Oxfam America

Jacqueline Morette is one of these people. Jacqueline is a farmer from rural Haiti. She co-founded an organization that helps poor women farmers grow more food and reach new markets to sell their products. Under her leadership, members are earning more, feeding their families, and becoming self-sufficient.

Another is Kim Nay Heang, a 57-year-old entrepreneur from Cambodia who learned how to transform her household fishpond into a profitable business venture. With this income, Heang helped her family survive a spike in food prices—and provided an education for her five grandchildren.

Or Jose Ordoñez, a Honduran corn farmer who struggled to provide for his three children. After learning to plant more profitable crops like papaya and transporting the fruits to a market where they fetch a good price, he is now earning enough to secure his family’s future.

All these people are working hard and taking risks, trying to make their communities, their countries, and the world, better. And all three of these people—Jacqueline, Kim, and Jose—have partnered with the US government to fight poverty and injustice.

The US is right to invest in partners like Jacqueline, Kim, and Jose. Real development depends on hard work by people like these, trying to change their own societies for the better. But every few years, Congress has second thoughts; they slash foreign aid to the bone, and yank the rug out from under the very people who are busting their tails to help us build a better, safer, more prosperous world.

It doesn’t have to be this way. US development assistance programs are less than one percent of the US federal budget. As one advocate put it, “Cutting foreign aid to address the budget crisis is like getting your hair cut in an effort to lose weight.” And while cutting development assistance won’t even begin to solve our fiscal problems, it will devastate people like Jacqueline, Kim and Jose who are trying to do the right thing. And it will cost lives.

Jacqueline, Kim and Jose, and millions of other people around the world working to fight poverty, hunger and injustice, don’t have fancy well-heeled lobbyists fighting for their interests in the craziness that is Washington today. But with their hard work, a little bit of our money, and both of our persistence, we can get there. We just need the courage to not give up the fight.

Posted in State Department | No Comments »

Sec. Clinton to Attend Busan Forum

Friday, September 23rd, 2011
Bookmark and Share

See below for a guest post from MFAN Principal Noam Unger, fellow and director of the Foreign Assistance Reform Project, and Homi Kharas, senior fellow and deputy director of the  Development Assistance and Governance Initiative, both of the Brookings Institution. They react to Secretary Clinton’s announcement that she will be attending the High-Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness in Korea and consider what the move signals for U.S. leadership in development. This post originally appeared on the Brookings Up Front blog.

Hillary Clinton to Attend Busan Forum: Demonstrating Development Diplomacy?

Noam Unger and Homi Kharas

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton just announced that she will attend the upcoming High-Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness in Busan, South Korea. Although this event will be the fourth such forum – following on Rome (2003), Paris (2005) and Accra (2008) – it will be the first time the U.S. is represented at such a high level.

We view Clinton’s attendance as a positive step, having made the case for it privately in meetings and openly in publications (see our policy paper and this recent brief). But how does her attendance fit into the context of reforms to elevate global development within the U.S. government? And how can her participation lead to a better High-Level Forum? Here are some of our thoughts:

The Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review (QDDR), issued at the end of 2010, focused in part on how the State Department can play a role in elevating development within U.S. foreign policy. It explicitly states:

“Elevating development as a core pillar of U.S. foreign policy requires not just rebuilding USAID into the world’s premier development institution, but also transforming the Department of State to support development. Secretary Clinton recognizes that while diplomacy and development are each critical in their own right, when they work together they are the basis on unrivaled civilian power to advance U.S. interests. For too long, however, the Department of State has not always been a willing and capable partner for USAID in supporting the development pillar of our foreign policy.”

The review goes on to note that State should systematically use diplomacy to advance development by negotiating and promoting international policy agreements in the context of multilateral forums in a way that complements USAID rather than treading on that agency’s expertise.

The transformation of the State Department to better support development makes many development assistance advocates and close observers nervous about further absorption and instrumentalization of operational assistance programming into the toolkit of diplomacy. The construct of the three “D’s” – development, diplomacy and defense – as distinct pillars of U.S. national security and foreign policy can quickly morph into a two-dimensional frame that blurs diplomacy and development while setting them apart from military efforts. Given USAID’s recent history of eroded independence, this is a legitimate concern especially with regard to increased roles for the State Department in operational aid programs and aid budget management.

But there are many ways the State Department can support development by drawing on its comparative advantages. For example, in conflict-affected states where an international military presence is required, State can use its expertise and influence with other departments, governments and international organizations to shape coherent stabilization efforts that are conducive to development.

A more obvious comparative advantage is the international prominence of the Secretary of State, which should be put to good use in Busan. So while USAID should naturally continue to lead in shaping U.S. positions for Busan— after all it’s a global development conference — Clinton’s participation should enable the U.S. to leverage her unique profile on the global stage. As one of us previously noted in reference to the OECD ministerial meeting in May 2011, “Secretary Clinton must continually use development diplomacy opportunities to empower USAID and its administrator, Rajiv Shah, in the eyes of other U.S. government and international officials. Secretary Clinton is certainly capable of using her star power in this way, but will she?”

With regard to the High-Level Forum itself, Secretary Clinton’s commitment to attend is already serving as a game-changer that could snatch a politically meaningful result from the jaws of an otherwise technocratic aid conference. Six years ago in Paris, at an earlier conference on aid effectiveness, rich countries committed themselves to make changes in the way they delivered aid to improve its impact. They have made some progress on this and the efforts are contributing to better development results, but the pace has been slow. As panelists at a recent Brookings conference argued, this is mostly because the necessary improvements in aid delivery require tough political support. In essence, the reforms would transfer more control over resources to beneficiaries in return for greater accountability on results. Persuading Congress and the public that that is a sensible approach to improving the “bang-for-the-buck” for U.S. taxpayers is essentially a political issue.

Busan will be a political event in other ways as well. There are now many international forums that deal with development in overlapping ways, including the United Nations and the G-20, and many more providers of development cooperation, including China and other emerging economies. Busan must reposition the aid industry to work better in this environment, taking the discussions beyond aid into a more systematic “development effectiveness” agenda. The attendance of Secretary Clinton, and the other foreign ministers who will now be encouraged to attend, can signal that this repositioning is underway. Maybe then new forms of aid partnerships can be built, including with the private sector, so that aid and other instruments of development cooperation can catalyze and accelerate improved living standards in the poorest parts of the world.

Lastly, as one of the world’s strongest voices on greater investment in women and girls, Secretary Clinton’s participation provides a new opportunity to add a focus on gender to the development agenda at Busan.

 

Posted in Community, Obama Administration, State Department, USAID | No Comments »

Page 5 of 40« First...34567...102030...Last »