blog logo image

Archive for the ‘White House’ Category

Statement: MFAN Applauds Important Reform Elements in the Global Food Security Act of 2015

Wednesday, March 25th, 2015
Bookmark and Share

March 25, 2015 (WASHINGTON) – This statement is delivered on behalf of the Modernizing Foreign Assistance Network by Co-Chairs George Ingram, Carolyn Miles, and Connie Veillette:

MFAN is pleased to see that the Global Food Security Act of 2015 (H.R. 1567), recently reintroduced by Reps. Chris Smith (R-NJ) and Betty McCollum (D-MN), includes important reform elements that would help strengthen accountability mechanisms and promote greater country ownership of U.S. foreign assistance programs related to food security and global agricultural development.

MFAN believes that accountability is best achieved through transparency, evaluation and learning, which is why it is encouraging to see the Global Food Security Act of 2015 incorporate components of all three areas. The legislation promotes transparency by requiring that indicators and benchmarks be established to measure progress, and that results and spending information be reported publicly in a transparent and timely manner. It also calls for a whole-of-government approach to establishing coherent and coordinated monitoring and evaluation systems; and it states that strategies, partnerships, and programs be regularly reviewed and updated and that lessons learned be shared with a wide range of stakeholders.

The legislation also demonstrates a commitment to principles of country ownership. It requires that U.S. government agriculture, nutrition, and food security strategies align with country-owned strategies, and that plans be developed with input from relevant stakeholders in partner countries. It also calls for a USG strategy on building local capacity in order to support the long-term success of programs.

We applaud the bill sponsors for the inclusion of these elements as they are crucial to ensuring greater effectiveness and sustainability of U.S. global food security and agriculture programs. However, we believe the legislation could be made even stronger in several ways. First, the coordinating function within the U.S. government should lie with the United States Agency of International Development (USAID), our principal development agency, rather than the White House. USAID has been leading the development programming for the Obama Administration’s Feed the Future initiative since its inception and has the requisite expertise and experience to lead coordination across U.S. agencies. Second, reporting on spending and project data should be done in accordance with the International Aid Transparency Initiative (IATI), which the U.S. has already committed to implementing, and measures should be included to ensure that this data is accessible by all development stakeholders, especially the beneficiaries. Third, the legislation should specify that local, developing country institutions be the first option for implementing programs where appropriate capacity and conditions exist.

We look forward to working with Congress to ensure the reform elements in the bill are strengthened.

USAID and PEPFAR: Institutionalizing Local Ownership for Sustainability

Thursday, March 12th, 2015
Bookmark and Share

See below for a guest post from Justin Fugle, Senior Advisor for Policy and Program Outreach for Plan International USA. This piece originally appeared on Plan’s blog on March 9.

***

Although the United States Agency for International Development (USAID)’s Local Solutions is often associated with recently-departed Administrator Raj Shah, a panel discussion at Plan International USA’s office in Washington DC on March 3 made it clear that localization has deeper roots in the Agency and will continue. This is good news for aid effectiveness and for USAID itself, for Local Solutions is critical to USAID’s renewed influence in the wider development community.

As Counselor to the Agency, Susan Reichle acknowledged as much when she said, “For USAID to be the lead development agency, we need to put partnering locally front and center.”

Within the U.S. government, both the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS relief (PEPFAR) and Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) continue to break new ground on local ownership for sustainability. In the wider world, the same principles have been embraced and implemented by the Department for International Development (DFID), other European aid agencies, and in the consensus documents from Paris, Accra, and Busan. Increasingly, partner country governments are insisting that donors align with local priorities, and the in-country USAID Missions hear them. Local ownership is a central assumption of the new Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) as well. With all this in mind, the institutionalization of Local Solutions must be seen as a top USAID priority.

If Plan’s experience is any guide, institutionalizing local ownership requires a significant change in business practices and a radical shift in mindset. As donors and INGOs, we have to be willing to transfer our power to capable local actors and to be driven by their agendas. 

By doing so, we greatly increase the chances that the work will be scaled-up and sustained. Plan’s ex-post evaluations have found that when programs are jointly designed, implemented, and financed by Plan and local actors, the chance of sustainability increases significantly. During the panel, PEPFAR’s Director of Sustainability and Development Dr. Janis Timberlake agreed. 

“Our goal is programs that are locally managed, funded and implemented,” she said.

USAID Local Solutions Coordinator Liz Warfield further outlined the principles at work.

“Local Solutions is not just about [Implementation and Procurement Reform] it is using, strengthening, and partnering with local actors to achieve sustainable impact…. To fulfill USAID’s Mission of ending extreme poverty, we need to work with existing systems and not around them or against them…. In fragile states, they may need capacity development first, but even in fragile states, there are systems and we should use them…. [T]here is a clear role for international partners, but that is moving from a direct service delivery mentality to the role of broker and facilitator,” she said.

Warfield outlined a number of steps underway and planned within USAID to institutionalize this major shift. Among them is the revision of the ADS 200 Series, which is the mandatory and best practice guidance to the Missions on planning, programming, evaluation, and other key topics that significantly influence the final shape of USAID’s funding and management decisions. Other steps include staff training, staff incentives, and collecting evidence of the lasting impact of local ownership.

This last aspect is essential if Local Solutions is to survive into the next administration and beyond. Evidence is critical to support the assertions that local ownership truly increases sustainability, providing lasting benefits to the population. In that sense, one of the most significant announcements during the panel at Plan was Warfield’s explanation that USAID will collect evidence of the results of Local Solutions through mid-term evaluations, meta-evaluations, and ex-post evaluations three to five years after close-out.

As Warfield said, “The idea of ex-post evaluations will influence the way we do programming.” Rather than being satisfied with positive results at close out, USAID will move towards measuring success through sustainability. Quick but rootless gains will be exposed and practices that strengthen local systems will be favored. The axiom that what gets measured gets done mandates that if sustainability is the goal, then ex-post evaluations must join baselines, mid-terms, and finals as a standard part of USAID and PEPFAR’s program designs.

MFAN Statement: President Obama’s FY16 Budget Shows Continued Support for Foreign Assistance Reform

Wednesday, February 4th, 2015
Bookmark and Share

February 4, 2015 (WASHINGTON) – This statement is delivered on behalf of the Modernizing Foreign Assistance Network by Co-Chairs George Ingram, Carolyn Miles, and Connie Veillette:

MFAN welcomes the Obama Administration’s FY2016 budget request, which includes several important reform elements and increased resources for initiatives that will improve aid effectiveness.  The $54.8 billion request, which allocates $47.8 billion for base funding and $7 billion for Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO), is a 7.7% increase from current spending, not including supplemental spending for the Ebola crisis. The base funding request is $6.1 billion higher than current spending levels, a 14.7% increase, as funds are shifted from the OCO fund back to the base budget.

In addition to the strong base funding request, MFAN is pleased to see the inclusion of key provisions that would help advance reform and overall effectiveness of U.S. foreign aid in the request.

  • MCC Funding Gets a Boost: The MCC request comes in at $1.25 billion, a 39% increase over FY15. The MCC’s innovative approach to development prioritizes transparency and country ownership, which are key pieces of MFAN’s policy agenda, to reduce poverty and promote economic growth.
  • Increase in USAID Operating Expenses: Operating Expenses are essential for providing adequate personnel and training to implement and monitor programs and institutionalize USAID Forward reforms. In this request, OE receives a 17% boost, which is expected to help offset projected decreases in other sources of funding to maintain current operations.
  • Authorization for a USAID Working Capital Fund: The establishment of a USAID WCF would help increase procurement flexibility, in line with the USAID Forward agenda.
  • Additional flexibility for International Food Aid: While the overall Food for Peace Title II request is down from FY15, the request includes the authority to use up to 25% (or $350 million) of Title II resources for cash-based food assistance for emergencies. With this increased flexibility, USAID can reach approximately 2 million more emergency beneficiaries a year.
  • More Funding for Foreign Assistance Program Evaluation in State’s F Bureau: Within the Economic Support Fund (ESF), State has requested $2.4 million for Foreign Assistance Program Evaluation in the F Bureau, an increase of $900,000 from FY14 spending. This increase in funding can help ensure better training for staff and better quality evaluations to help inform program decision-making.
  • PEPFAR Impact Fund: The request includes $300 million to be set aside for a new PEPFAR Impact Fund, aimed to support more targeted efforts to combat HIV/AIDS. The fund would be allocated to countries with “the greatest need and ability to realign resources based on evidence to reach epidemic control, increase their own share of HIV budgets, and take greater ownership of data collection and expenditure analysis.”

While MFAN believes that the FY16 international affairs budget request demonstrates a continued commitment to aid effectiveness, we were concerned to see a decrease in the funding request for the Foreign Assistance Dashboard from FY14 levels. Given the U.S. commitment to the International Aid Transparency Initiative (IATI) and the amount of work left to meet that commitment by the end of this year, a decrease in funding for the Dashboard could hurt our efforts for greater aid transparency. We will be watching closely for these reform elements as the request moves through Congress.

State of the Union 2015: What “Smart Development” Means for Reform as the Clock Winds Down

Thursday, January 22nd, 2015
Bookmark and Share

See below for a post by MFAN Co-Chairs George Ingram, Carolyn Miles, and Connie Veillette.

***

On Tuesday, President Obama delivered his next-to-last State of the Union address in which he laid out an ambitious, and largely domestic, agenda for his last two years of office. While the foreign policy pieces of the address were more concerned with defense (mostly) and diplomacy (occasionally), we were pleased to hear the President highlight the importance of development and ending extreme poverty.

In discussing the Ebola crisis, which began spreading through West Africa this time last year, President Obama noted that we need to be investing “in smart development” and building “a more effective global effort to prevent the spread of future pandemics.” Countries hardest hit by Ebola are those lacking the domestic health systems to effectively deal with the disease — a problem that could be mitigated by focusing more resources on strengthening local systems and broadening health services.

President Obama also made the case for acting on climate change or we risk increasing “massive disruptions that can trigger greater migration, conflict, and hunger around the globe.” This need to address climate change and integrate climate resilience into our development work has been echoed by the discussions around the Post-2015 agenda and is likely to be a key theme in the forthcoming Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review.

We thank President Obama for pointing to the need for smarter, more effective development, and recognize that this administration has implemented a number of important reforms. Efforts like USAID Forward and the Local Solutions initiative are helping to ensure that we are looking for locally led solutions to development problems. The State Department and USAID have established and implemented evaluation policies to improve agency M&E practices. USAID’s reconstituted policy shop encourages learning. PEPFAR and the MCC have prioritized open data and transparency to drive better development programs.

We call on the administration to institutionalize these reforms so that their benefits are sustained. And we ask that commitments made with regard to transparency and country ownership are met. Above all, we call on the President to quickly appoint a capable development leader as USAID administrator in order to sustain and further these gains before he leaves office.

This Administration has made strides to change the narrative on U.S. foreign assistance, but as President Obama said last night, “the job is not yet done.” We look forward to working with the Administration over these final two years to institutionalize this important progress.

USAID’s Frontiers in Development Asks More Questions than It Answers…and That’s a Good Thing

Monday, September 29th, 2014
Bookmark and Share

See below for a guest post from Casey Dunning, Senior Policy Analyst at the Center for Global Development. This post originally appeared on CGD’s blog on September 23, 2014.

***

Last week USAID held its second Frontiers in Development conference, a two-day smorgasbord of keynotes, panels, roundtables, and an Innovation Marketplace all focused on Ending Extreme Poverty.  As the agenda can attest, USAID sought to explore its role (and that of foreign assistance, writ large) in ending extreme poverty from multiple angles. From ‘Can it be done?’ to ‘How will it be done?’ to ‘Who will do it?’, the notion of Ending Extreme Poverty received a 48-hour in-depth examination from some of global development’s leading thinkers and practitioners as over 600 members of the development community observed.

I applaud Frontiers for tackling tough questions directly related to ending extreme poverty, including inequality, fragility and instability, climate change, and the spread of Ebola. While I didn’t leave the conference certain USAID had the answers to ending extreme poverty as an agency, I did come away thinking it had at least asked the right questions and was pursuing this noble, and incredibly difficult, mission with eyes wide open.

Because ending extreme poverty looks to be a global vision around which the world will coalesce for the next 15 years through the post-2015 agenda, it’s encouraging that USAID is seeking to bring intellectual and policy firepower to what could easily become rhetoric with no real substance behind it.

Frontiers offered a substantive two days. Below are my additional takeaways, observations, and general points of interest. It should be noted that this list is completely subjective as I was not able to attend every session, not yet being able to be in two places at once.

  • The theme of ‘Ending Extreme Poverty’ pervaded every event. With 29 separate events and more than 86 speakers, I would have forgiven Frontiers for occasionally veering off-topic – but it didn’t. The conference maintained coherence in exploring multiple sectors, issues, and populations through the lens of extreme poverty.
  • It wasn’t only US voices doing the talking. President Jakaya Kikwete of Tanzania, former President John Kufuor of Ghana, Foreign Affairs Minister Tedros Ghebreyesus of Ethiopia, and Winnie Byanyima of Oxfam International (just to name a few) all spoke about country and context-specific approaches to ending extreme poverty.
  • Frontiers rightly focused on Africa. Some colleagues thought the conference should have had a more balanced global focus, but I disagree. If we’re talking about extreme poverty, that’s where the majority of the extreme poor will reside. What’s more, Sub-Saharan Africa receives the highest levels of USAID funding (by region). This is called focus, folks; we can’t call for it and then get miffed when everything isn’t included.
  • Peace and stability are integral to ending extreme poverty. From Secretary of State John Kerry to President Kikwete to former National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley, I was struck by how often and how stridently numerous speakers pointed to conflict as one of the greatest drivers of increased poverty. This is nothing new, per se, but it was instructive to hear the importance of stability and good governance emerge from various perspectives. My hope is that this bodes well for the inclusion of these issues in the post-2015 agenda.
  • The world doesn’t have the right tools to end extreme poverty…yet. In his address, Secretary Kerry noted that, “development tools have not kept up with a changing world…too many barriers still exist.” Likewise USAID Administrator Raj Shah declared the United States must “earn the right to lead every single day. And unless we seek to evolve and get better, many of our partners—including the countries we celebrate today—will simply look elsewhere for solutions.” The entireFrontiers conference seemed to be a starting answer to this challenge, with the Innovation Marketplace offering pioneering practical solutions and the many sessions offering new approaches and models for how the world might end extreme poverty.