blog logo image

Posts Tagged ‘country ownership’

InterAction Releases Paper Exploring Country Ownership

Thursday, January 12th, 2012
Bookmark and Share

Identified as a key principle of effective development, country ownership has become an ever-present part of the foreign assistance reform debate. While the Obama administration has embraced country ownership in the Presidential Policy Directive on Global Development (PPD) and other executive initiatives, it remains unclear how to put this principle into practice on the ground. On December 15th, MFAN Partner InterAction released a paper titled “Country Ownership: Moving from Rhetoric to Action,” which aims to address the wide range of explanations and varying methods of promotion that have led to the issue’s unorganized discussions and approaches. Country ownership is defined by the InterAction Aid Effectiveness Working Group as “The full and effective participation of a country’s population via legislative bodies, civil society, the private sector, and local, regional and national government in conceptualizing, implementing, monitoring and evaluating development policies, programs and processes.” InterAction gathered a number of the top development practitioners to produce a list of recommendations for the U.S. government on how to define its core elements, which include:

  • Develop a clear definition and operational guidelines for inclusive ownership.
  • Create a transparent, consistent plan to ensure civil society engagement in consultations.
  • Expand the State Department’s diplomatic support for an enabling environment for civil society organizations.
  • Initiate a policy dialogue with U.S. NGOs on country ownership.
  • Ensure transparency of all U.S. foreign assistance by publishing aid data to the Foreign Assistance Dashboard.

InterAction believes that by coming to a consensus on what country ownership means, how it is achieved and how it can be measured will vastly increase local ownership of development programs in countries. To achieve this goal, InterAction suggests the administration first and foremost set a common definition: “As the fundamental foundation for effective and sustainable long-term development, the U.S. should move from rhetoric to practice and establish a common and inclusive definition of country ownership, supported by guidelines and criteria to implement and track its progress.”

Download a PDF of the full report here.

 

The Missing Link: Private Sector Involvement in Aid for Trade

Wednesday, March 16th, 2011
Bookmark and Share

On Tuesday, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the World Bank hosted an event, Building Capacity for Trade in Developing Countries: Fostering Public and Private Cooperation in Aid for Trade. Supporting organizations included MFAN Partner the U.S. Global Leadership Coalition, the Trade, Aid, Security Coalition, the Business Civic Leadership Center and the Business Council for Global Development. Tom Donohue, President of the Chamber, noted that more than half of US exports go to developing countries and reaffirmed the Chamber’s commitment to doubling US exports over the next 5 years, in support of Obama’s National Export Initiative (NEI).

The Aid for Trade (AFT) agenda was officially launched at the World Trade Organization’s Hong Kong Trade Ministerial meeting back in 2005. According to MFAN Co-Chair Jim Kolbe who moderated the first panel with Pascal Lamy, Director-General of the World Trade Organization and Robert Zoellick, President of the World Bank Group, there are 4 main components of aid for trade: technical assistance, infrastructure building to link markets, productive capacity and adjustment assistance. In the private sector, the aid for trade agenda is often referred to as value chain management or sustainable management. In other words aid for trade is official development assistance for building developing countries’ capacity for trade. Lamy noted that the increased political energy around aid for trade has led to more funding for trade capacity building in developing countries over the past several years. He also said there has been progress in making sure developing countries better streamline their trade and development policies and identify clear priorities. Lamy emphasized the need for countries to “own” their priorities and for donors to match their requests – a concept many in our community know as country ownership. As for areas of improvement, Lamy said there need to be more impact assessments that can in turn help make the case that public funds for trade capacity building are a good investment. Finally, he noted that businesses are more or less focusing on the same agenda but there is not a strong connection between the official AFT agenda and the private sector.

Zoellick described the World Bank’s role in capacity building in 3 main ways: improving the overall competitiveness in countries (policy context), finding ways to help cut the costs (both hard and soft infrastructure), and through trade finance. He said it is important for multilaterals to recognize when they can play a supportive role in helping build coherence among the many players, identifying gaps, and supporting the developing countries’ role in the “driver’s seat.” Zoellick built on Lamy’s point about the importance of impact assessments and said that all across the field of development we are looking to connect with the results agenda, and this is a critical  component.

The high level panel was followed by brief presentations by 6 major companies – Cargill, FedEx, Google, IBM, Kraft Foods and WalMart – highlighting capacity building projects they are spearheading around the world, some focusing on telecommunications and logistics and others focusing on the promotion of intellectual property rights and innovation. John Murphy, Vice President of the Chamber, noted that bringing private sector voices into the AFT discussions along with multilaterals would be incredibly beneficial to all involved. The long term goal would be to transition from Aid for Trade to Investment for Trade.

Devry Boughner, the Director of International Business Relations for Cargill, shared their Global Food Safety Initiative (GFSI) where after a series of trainings, the companies involved would meet international certification standards in food safety and hygiene, and therefore could be competitive in the global marketplace. Boughner said that this process not only led to higher standards for food safety across the board, but led to cost efficiency in the supply chain. Chris Padilla, Vice President of Governmental Programs for IBM said trade facilitation is important to the bottom line and summed up his remarks in 2 words: “trusted partnerships.” Padilla talked about AEO’s or authorized economic operators. He said that through AEO’s, large volume importers can build special relationships with countries and their customs authorities leading to eligibility for faster clearance of goods.

Representatives from USAID, the State Department, the US Trade and Development Agency, and the Millennium Challenge Corporation were in attendance. This Chamber and World Bank event was a great first step leading up to the July 18-19 Aid for Trade Global Review in Geneva – over 260 case studies have already been collected and best practices will be shared. The goal of many of these case studies is to show that the sum is greater than all the individual parts, which will hopefully lead to better coordination and partnership with the private sector moving forward.

As Tom Donohue said when he opened the afternoon’s event, “There have never been so many opportunities for business and government to break down barriers to trade as now.”

Click here to watch a webcast of the event.

Feeding Hungry People While Feeding the Future

Friday, March 11th, 2011
Bookmark and Share

Below is the second installment of MFAN’s blog series highlighting the reform aspects of Feed the Future, the United States Government’s global hunger and food security initiative. Feed the Future incorporates many key reform principles such as components of country ownership, strong monitoring and evaluation, and leveraging partnerships for enhanced results. To read the first blog in the series, Feed the Future: A Promising New Model of Development, click here. In this week’s post, Rick Leach, President and CEO of World Food Program USA focuses on both the short and long-term goals for food security as well as the importance of a comprehensive approach.

As Mr. Leach says, “This comprehensive approach makes foreign assistance more effective and leads to increased economic growth, which can open new markets for U.S. products and create new jobs at home.”

A Guest Blog Post by Rick Leach, President and CEO

World Food Program USA

The United States has been a long-standing leader in providing emergency food assistance to people in need around the world. From the food assistance provided under the Marshall Plan, which helped ensure prosperity for a generation of Europeans, to the lifesaving food provided in the wake of last year’s devastating earthquake in Haiti, U.S. food assistance has enjoyed decades of bipartisan support.

In recent years, support for food assistance has been unprecedented, as its efficiency and effectiveness continues to improve. Food is now reaching hungry people in need more quickly and more efficiently than ever before. The United States has increased the flexibility of food assistance by expanding prepositioning, so food is nearby when emergencies strike. And with U.S. cash-based assistance food also can be purchased locally, helping to revive and support local economies.

Now, with the administration’s new Feed the Future Initiative, the United States has matched its longstanding commitment to saving and rebuilding lives during emergencies with robust support for efforts to tackle an underlying cause of hunger.

AFG_200306_WFP-Alejandro_Chicheri_0014WFP/Alejandro Chicheri

During the 2008 food price crisis, the world witnessed the destabilizing effects that food insecurity had on the world’s poorest people, causing riots in 40 countries. In response the United States and G8 leaders issued a call to action: improved global food security would require a comprehensive approach, one which combined short-term food assistance with long-term development initiatives. This call to action has resulted in an unprecedented consensus on how to effectively address global hunger, from government leaders to recipient countries and international development organizations. The U.S. response to this call to action is Feed the Future, which complements U.S. food assistance with investments in nutrition and agricultural development to comprehensively address the short and long-term impacts of hunger.

The United States and its partners are now employing this multifaceted approach to solve hunger in countries around the world, including Afghanistan where the United States is tailoring its assistance to meet diverse needs on the ground. In cities, such as Kabul, where markets continue to function, the most food insecure families receive vouchers, which enable them to purchase food from local retailers, thereby bolstering local markets. In order to maintain food security and rebuild lives and communities after emergencies, vulnerable populations are provided with food in exchange for their participation in training programs or infrastructure projects, which helps strengthen the capacity of the Afghan people and build the Afghan economy.

U.S. anti-hunger initiatives also provide children in Afghanistan with food assistance specific to their needs. If children do not receive proper nutrition during the first 1,000 days of life (from conception to two years of age) they can suffer permanent mental and physical damage. Therefore, young children and mothers receive nutrient-rich food and nutritional products to ensure proper early development. In support of national efforts to strengthen the education system, school-age children are also encouraged to attend school with the promise of a meal. This not only increases enrollment, especially for girls, but also improves cognition so children are able to learn and retain information.

Finally, the United States and its partners are now embarking on a global effort to expand agricultural and rural development. One example of an innovative program is the World Food Program’s (WFP) Purchase for Progress initiative, supported by the United States and other donors, which has begun purchasing wheat directly from small-scale Afghan farmers. This initiative is increasing the productivity and income of small-scale farmers, improving their long-term food security. In turn, the wheat purchased by WFP has been used to provide assistance to Afghan families affected by flooding and to produce fortified biscuits for school meals programs.

This comprehensive approach makes foreign assistance more effective and leads to increased economic growth, which can open new markets for U.S. products and create new jobs at home. And by more effectively addressing emergency needs and transitioning countries to stable, productive societies, the United States is also building peace around the world. This means improved national security and as Defense Secretary Robert Gates has said, “development is a lot cheaper than sending soldiers.” These investments are small but the reward is great. Providing food for hungry people today while growing food to feed future generations is not just the right thing to do, it’s the smart thing to do.

Feed the Future: A Promising New Model of Development

Thursday, March 3rd, 2011
Bookmark and Share

A Guest Blog Post by Mannik Sakayan,

Senior Policy Analyst, Bread for the World

Every day, troubling data suggests that the ranks of hungry and poor people around the world are again expanding. For organizations who work to shed light on global hunger and poverty, the data is not news. Yet we hold in our policy cache smart, sustainable solutions to addressing the root causes of persistent global hunger and poverty.

Over the years, Bread for the World has joined forces with other global hunger advocates in calling for sustainable solutions to a path out of hunger and poverty for millions of men, women, and children in developing countries. We have done so by calling for focused agricultural development investments that take into consideration local needs and wants. And we have called for efforts to scale up and replicate the programs that work in order to get the most for our investments.

Fortunately, Feed the Future, the administration’s comprehensive food security and agricultural development initiative that launched in 2009, holds the promise to re-establish U.S. leadership in global agricultural development. It also holds the promise to address the root causes of global hunger through sustainable economic growth. It aims to achieve this through inclusive agricultural sector growth and improved nutritional status of women and children.

We have seen successes. New and innovative approaches to agriculture have helped save hundreds of millions of lives in Asia and Latin America. Yet the promise of alleviating hunger and poverty for people throughout the developing world should have served as an impetus to do more and to commit targeted resources to the programs that worked well. Instead, over the last few decades, changing global circumstances and priorities resulted in a gradual decrease in funding for agricultural development. With declining investments came diminished capacity in U.S. technical expertise. Rebuilding our technical capacity and recommitting the necessary resources will certainly be a heavy lift, but not an impossible one.

Feed the Future takes an innovative approach to bilateral assistance and offers a new model of development that takes stock of global needs as well as our own strengths in order to maximize the impact of the investments. Through country-led investment strategies, the United States will work in partnership with developing country governments to strengthen their agricultural capacity, with particular focus on smallholder farmers. Feed the Future calls for a consultative process with national stakeholders that best understand local needs and wants.

Feed the Future also includes a multilateral component, the Global Agriculture and Food Security Program (GAFSP), housed at the World Bank, to leverage donor contributions from other governments, foundations, and the private sector. Similar to Feed the Future, GAFSP allocates resources based on country-led proposals.

Both Feed the Future and GAFSP offer a new model of development that holds substantial promise. It is a sound development strategy based on targeted investments and measurable results. It has the all-important elements of reform—rigorous standards for monitoring and evaluation, accountability and transparency, country-led programming, and consultation—that are greatly needed to bring U.S. development policy into the 21st century.

Now is not the time to squander the momentum for lasting change. Hunger has never been a partisan issue. Now is not the time to make it one. Our leadership and commitment to save lives and prevent political instability around the world are at stake.

The way forward is to build broad, bipartisan support for enacting legislation that would codify the goals of Feed the Future so that it lives beyond this administration and truly becomes the cornerstone of U.S. global development policy.

A Look Back at USAID’s Major Reforms: Shah Talks to David Lane

Wednesday, January 19th, 2011
Bookmark and Share

In mid-September, USAID Administrator Raj Shah joined MFAN Principal and then President and CEO of ONE David Lane as part of the State Department’s “Conversations with America” series. The discussion, which aired just days before the Millennium Development Goals summit, centered on the development challenges and opportunities facing the US today. Still, Shah used the conversation as an opportunity to list the internal reforms USAID would be undertaking to help reform the overall aid structure.

At one point Shah said, “We have spent a lot of time listening and learning about how we can do this work better, more effectively. And the number one thing we’ve learned is we need to be more capable of supporting country-owned efforts and building real capacity through our investments around the world. So there are three good examples of this. One is in Feed the Future in our Global Health Initiative, frankly, across all the rest of the things we’re doing. We are moving much more towards a model a little bit pioneered by the Millennium Challenge Corporation where we’re saying, “We want to see strong country plans, we want to be supportive of those plans, and we don’t want to do things in parallel in a way that’s not visible to and in partnership with country governments, civil society organizations, private sector organizations.”