Presentation on theme: "USDA International Food Assistance Presented by Members of the Office of Capacity Building and Development Foreign Agricultural Service U.S. Department."— Presentation transcript:
USDA International Food Assistance Presented by Members of the Office of Capacity Building and Development Foreign Agricultural Service U.S. Department of Agriculture August 2, 2010
Welcome Roger Mireles Assistant Deputy Administrator Office of Capacity Building and Development Foreign Agricultural Service
Introductions and Agenda Welcome and Introductory Remarks Roger Mireles, Assistant Deputy Administrator, Office of Capacity Building and Development (OCBD) Food Assistance Division Overview Ron Croushorn, Director, Food Assistance Division (FAD) Food for Progress Programming for FY 2010 & Beyond Judy Phillips, Chief, Food for Development Branch, FAD McGovern-Dole Program Erika Beltran, Senior Analyst, School Feeding and Humanitarian Assistance Branch, FAD Local and Regional Food Aid Procurement Pilot Project Jamie Fisher, Chief, Local and Regional Procurement, FAD Transportation and Logistics Amy Harding, Acting Chief, Transportation and Logistics Branch, FAD Questions and Answers
USDA Objectives to Increase Food Security Overseas Ensure U.S. agricultural resources contribute to enhanced global food security Support sustainable agriculture production in food-insecure nations
USDA’s Unique Toolbox Tools that promote agricultural development Food Aid Programs Trade and Scientific Exchange Programs USDA Technical Expertise Partnerships Overseas Representation
Priorities for Food Aid Programs Linkage with Feed the Future Initiative and other development plans Improvements in grants management in areas of finance, monitoring and evaluation, and compliance Full implementation of new regulations in FY 2010 food aid agreements
Food Assistance Division Ron Croushorn Director, Food Assistance Division Office of Capacity Building and Development Foreign Agricultural Service
Program Overview – Food for Progress – McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program – Local and Regional Food Aid Procurement Pilot Program
Key Topics Food aid quality Monitoring and evaluation Sustainability of projects Changes in regulations Food Aid Information System
FY 2010 Focus Areas During today’s session, FAS will provide information on: –Program Management –Strategic Framework & Indicators –Procurement Practices
Food for Progress Presented by: Judy Phillips Branch Chief Food for Development Branch
Program Overview FY 2010 Awards Priority Countries FY 2011 Solicitation Food for Progress (FFPr)
Authorized by the Food for Progress Act of 1985 Targets developing countries Supports the expansion of private enterprise in the agricultural sector Commodities are usually monetized to fund development activities FFPr Program Basics
FFPr Resources Until 2012 Funding authorized by the Farm Bill $40 million cap on transportation costs Commodity value not restricted $15 million for administrative costs Residual Title I funds for government agreements
FFPr Program Value and Tonnage Fiscal Year Value ($) **Tonnage (MT) 2007$ , $ , $ , $ ,080 ** Includes prior FY carry over and Title I-funded FFPr programs.
FFPr Focus Improved Agricultural Production Improved farming methods Soil and water conservation Animal and plant health Agribusiness Development Processing, storage, marketing Roads and other infrastructure Cooperative development Financial Services Microcredit Business training
Active FFPr Agreements ( ) 40 Countries 116 Agreements Agreement Value = $850 Million
FFPr Agreements ( ) Country and Number of Agreements Afghanistan (10)Ethiopia (3)Mauritania (1) Armenia (2)The Gambia (1)Mongolia (3) Bangladesh (1)Georgia (2)Mozambique (7) Bolivia (4)Guatemala (4)Nicaragua (4) Burundi (1)Guinea (1)Niger (5) Cameroon (2)Honduras (6)Pakistan (5) Cen. African Rep. (2)Iraq (1)Philippines (7) D. R. Congo (2)Jamaica (1)Senegal (3) Rep. of Congo (1)Kenya (2)Sri Lanka (3) Dominican Rep. (3)Lebanon (1)Tajikistan (1) East-Timor (2)Liberia (4)Tanzania (3) Ecuador (2)Madagascar (3)Uganda (2) El Salvador (3)Malawi (3)Yemen (1) Mali (4)
FY 2010 FFPr Proposals 10 Proposals Approved Approved Programs: - 7 PVOs - 2 Governments 10 countries Total value = $146 million 89 Proposals Submitted Proposals from: - 47 PVOs - 3 Governments 19 countries Total value = $1,390 million
FFPr Priority Country Criteria Income - Per capita below $3,855 (World Bank) Malnutrition - >20% of children under age 5 are stunted (WHO) Political Freedom - Free or partly free (Freedom House) USDA Post Coverage - Ability to monitor
Other FFPr Determining Factors Security concerns Potential market disruptions Other donor activity
FFPr Priority Countries FY 2011FY 2012** Afghanistan Bangladesh Benin Burkina Faso Haiti Kenya Liberia Malawi Mongolia Philippines Uganda El Salvador Guatemala Honduras Mali Mozambique Nicaragua Pakistan Senegal Tanzania Timor Leste **Preliminary
FY 2011 Solicitation Proposals Due: October 15, 2010 at 5:00 PM ET Online Solicitation Resources: –Considerations for FY 2011 Programs –Guidelines for Introductory Statement –Guidelines for Plan of Operation –Sample Introductory Statement –Sample Plan of Operation Available:
FFPr Proposal Evaluation Criteria Focus on private sector agricultural development Organizational capability and experience Program coordination with host government and other USG strategies (Feed the Future) Ability to quantify program impact Commodity management and appropriateness Overall proposal quality
FFPr Indicators Improved Agricultural Productivity Outputs Number of trainings on improved practices Number of distributions of fertilizers, improved seeds, completed irrigation projects acreage Other such measures of activities related to expanded production Outcomes Increase in net revenue attributed to participation in trainings Increase in yields and/or production Change in hectares under improved practice Number of farmers using improved practices
FFPr Indicators Agribusiness Development Outputs Number of trained farmers Number of total trainings provided Number of individual consults Number of treatments for livestock Number of applications of improved technologies for crops or livestock Completed business plans Outcomes Increase in net revenue attributed to participation in trainings Increase in yield/production Number of jobs created Number of new businesses created Increase in value of beneficiary assets Increase in adoption of improved technology
FFPr Indicators Provision of Financial Services Outputs Number of trainings provided Number of loans provided Number of credit cooperatives formed Number of credit unions formed Percent increase in community bank deposits Outcomes Increase in employee wages of those receiving financial services Revenue at companies receiving financial services New jobs created in communities where the financial services were offered Trained participants demonstrating ability to use financial services Increase in daily per capita expenditure by micro credit beneficiaries
Contact Information Judy Phillips (Branch Chief)……………………….....(202) Debbie Pfaff (West Africa)……………………… (202) Al Ersoz (Southern Africa, Middle East)……………. (202) Shohreh Kermani-Peterson (Lat Am & Caribbean)..(202) Nicola Sakhleh (Central Asia)……………………......(202) Echo Domingues (SE Asia, Europe, Caucuses)…...(202) Jane Wilkins (East Africa)……………………… (202) Colin Miller (Close Out Coordination)……………….(202)
McGovern-Dole International Food for Education & Child Nutrition Program Presented by: Erika Beltran, Senior Program Analyst
Presentation Overview Program Overview FY 2010 Resources and Awards Priority Country Determination and Lists Proposal Evaluation Criteria Awards Coming Later FY 2010
Authorized by the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 Targets developing countries Focuses on improving the education (attendance, literacy, and graduation rates) and nutrition of beneficiaries, especially girls Strengthen community linkages and increase capacity of government to implement school feeding activities Commodities are primarily used for direct distribution Program Basics Guatemala
Project Areas School Feeding –School Meals (breakfast, lunch) –Food for Work (cooks, teachers) –Take-home Rations Nutrition Improvement –In addition to the nutritional value provided through the school feeding activities, many projects provide vitamins and implement de-worming activities Capacity Building and Development –Teacher/Parent Training –Increase capacity of government to implement activities –Promotes creation of PTAs as well as other community groups
Project Areas Infrastructure Activities –Build/Rehabilitate school kitchens, classrooms, etc… –Increase access to water School Environment Improvement –Provide educational supplies (books, writing utensils, paper, etc…) –Establish school gardens Create Partnerships –Public –Private –Community Senegal
Current Active Agreements Currently, 32 active agreements are being funded with 14 cooperating sponsors in 28 countries, assisting more than 5 million beneficiaries To date, the McGovern-Dole Program has provided meals to more than 23 million children
Current Active Agreements Country and Number of Agreement Angola (1)Guatemala (2)Malawi (1) Afghanistan (1)Guinea (1)Mali (1) Bangladesh (1)Guinea-Bissau (1)Mozambique (1) Benin (1)Honduras (1)Niger (1) Bolivia (1)Kenya (1)Pakistan (1) Cambodia (3)Kyrgyzstan (1)Rwanda (1) Cameroon (1)Laos (2)Senegal (1) Chad (1)Liberia (1)Sierra Leone (1) Congo, Rep of (1) Ethiopia (1) Madagascar (1)Uganda (1)
FY 2010 Resources and Awards 54 proposals received; valued at $700 million –35 PVOs –27 Countries 13 proposals awarded to 7 PVOs 9 continuing multi-year programs 18 countries Total funding for FY 2010 is $166 million ***Total amount of funding is used to pay for: transportation, purchase commodities, Inland Transportation Shipping and Handling (ITSH), and activity and administration costs
Priority Country Determination Priority Country Determination Factors: –Income – Per capita below $3,885 (World Bank) –Malnutrition – > 20% of children under age 5 are stunted ( WHO ) –National literacy rate – Adult literacy rate < 80% Other Considerations during review process: –Government commitment to education –Absence of civil conflict –USDA Post coverage and ability to monitor agreements
Priority Country Lists 2011 Countries2012 Countries * Preliminary List AfghanistanLao PDRAfghanistanMalawi BangladeshMaliCambodiaMozambique BeninNepalGuatemalaPakistan Burkina FasoNicaraguaHaitiSenegal EthiopiaPakistanKenyaTanzania HaitiRwandaLiberiaUganda
FY 2011 Solicitations Expected Funding – $209.5 million Deadline for FY 2011 Proposals October 15, 2010 at 5:00 PM ET Online Resources Available
Proposal Evaluation Criteria Proposal Quality – Addresses goals of the program, implementation, and situational analysis Experience and Organizational Capacity Factors – Organization’s capability and effectiveness in implementing previous food aid programs, particularly school feeding and maternal child health Program Coordination – Host government and other USG strategies and activities (Feed the Future)
Proposal Evaluation Criteria Graduation/Sustainability – Enables either a national government, local government, or community to continue the program beyond USDA funding Commodity or Funds Appropriateness – Commodities and tonnages are appropriate; Experience with distribution methods, process, storage and handling of commodities
Program Objectives Improved Nutrition Outputs Number of meals served Number of hygiene trainings Number of immunizations, de- worming Outcomes Changes in height/weight Measure of soap and latrines use Measure of attendance
Program Objectives Improved Educational Quality Outputs Number of teacher trainings Number of new schools supplies Improved student/teacher ratio Outcomes Number of teachers adopting new techniques Measure of student performance, tests
Program Objectives Sustainability Outputs Number of PTAs formed Formation of advocacy group Number of PTA trainings Outcomes Changes in school feeding budgets Improved school system legal framework Expanded local procurement of meals
Awards Coming Later in FY2010 Haiti/Afghanistan – $20 million –FAS will provide commodities and resources to approved programs in order to implement school feeding activities Micronutrient Fortified Food Aid Pilot Project (MFFAPP) – $10 million –Under the MFFAPP Program, participants will have access to resources to develop and field test new or improved micronutrient-fortified food aid products
McGovern-Dole Food for Education Contact List Dorothy Feustel, Branch Chief…………………..(202) Erika Beltran, West Africa…………………….…..(202) Wentzel Mitchell, Southern Africa…………...….(202) Jennifer Wenger, East Africa…………………….(202) Alessandra McCormack, Asia…………………...(410) Mary Allen, Asia…………………………………....(202) Richard Chavez, Latin America & Caribbean…(202) Paul Alberghine, Health and Nutrition…...….....(202) Kate Ivancic, Program Assistant………… (202) Damien Singh, Economics Assistant………......(202)
USDA Local and Regional Food Aid Procurement Pilot Project Updates and Next Steps Presented by: Jamie L. Fisher, Chief, Local and Regional Procurement
History of the USDA LRP Project The Food, Conservation and Energy Act of 2008 (the Farm Bill) directs the Secretary of Agriculture to implement a five-year local and regional procurement pilot program in developing countries from Fiscal Years 2008 thru The purpose of the pilot program is to examine the timeliness, efficiency and cost-effectiveness of using local and regional procurement as a tool to respond to food crises and disasters around the world.
Four Phases of the USDA LRP Project 1.Study of prior local and regional purchases (FYs 2008 thru 2009) 2.Development of guidelines (FY 2009) 3.Implementation of field-based projects (FYs 2009 thru 2011) 4.Independent evaluation (FY 2012)
Available Funding $60 million will be available to USDA under the LRP pilot program, including $5 million in FY 09, $25 million in FY 10, $25 million in FY 11 and $5 million in FY 12. In FY 09, USDA provided $4.75 million for LRP projects in Sub-Saharan Africa. In FY 10, USDA will provide a total of $23.5 million to eligible organizations for LRP projects in developing countries around the world. To date, $11.5 million has been committed to LRP projects in Sub- Saharan Africa, Asia and Central America. $12 million is still available to fund additional projects in FY 2010.
FY 2009 USDA LRP Project Grants Organization Recipient Country Program Type Value World Food Program MaliDevelopment$1.05 million World Food Program MalawiDevelopment$1.7 million World Food Program TanzaniaDevelopment$2.0 million Total$4.75 million
FY 2010 USDA LRP Project Grants Organization Recipient Country Program Type Value Mercy CorpsNigerEmergency$4.5 million Land O'LakesBangladeshDevelopment$2.6 million Catholic Relief Services GuatemalaEmergency$1.8 million Catholic Relief Services MaliDevelopment$100,000 Catholic Relief Services BeninDevelopment$1.5 million Catholic Relief Services Burkina Faso Development$1.0 million Total$11.5 million
Types of Programs Receiving Funding Emergency: Emergency Family Rations for Drought- Affected Households Food for Work Cereal Bank Restocking in Drought-Affected Areas Development: School Feeding Food for Work Food for Training
Commodity Safety and Quality Assurance All commodities purchased with USDA LRP Project funding must meet the specifications, and the nutritional, quality and labeling standards, of the recipient country. If the recipient county lacks standards, the commodities must meet the standards of the Codex Alimentarius.
Commodity Safety and Quality Assurance cont’d. Participants must also ensure that commodities purchased through voucher programs meet the specifications and the nutritional, quality and labeling standards of the recipient country, or the standards of the Codex Alimentarius. Prior to distribution, participants must hire a professional commodity inspection service to survey and report on the safety and quality of all commodities purchased under a USDA LRP Project agreement. All commodities must be tested for aflatoxin, and have moisture content certified at the time of inspection.
Proposal Evaluation Criteria A successful proposal: Identifies a genuine need for food assistance; Provides a strong justification as to why local or regional procurement is more appropriate than in-kind food aid; Explains how the proposed intervention supports the host-country food security strategy;
Proposal Evaluation Criteria cont’d. Indicates how the proposed intervention will complement and not overlap food security programs implemented by other actors in the area of distribution; Identifies the criteria and methodology to be used to target the beneficiaries; Identifies the methodology to be used to assess the impact of the purchase before, during and after it is made to ensure that it causes no harm to low-income consumers, or market systems; and Includes a plan to ensure commodity quality and safety.
Planning for FY 2011 PVOs interested in receiving funding for development programs are strongly encouraged to submit their proposals no later than August 31, Proposals for development programs that are received after September 30, 2010 will not be considered for funding. Emergency programs will be prioritized in FY 11.
Application Deadlines Eligible organizations may submit applications for qualification for emergency programs until April 1, Proposals for emergency program funding may be submitted until June 1, Pre-award letters authorizing participants to begin incurring reimbursable costs prior to the receipt of a signed agreement will be made available upon request. The procurement and distribution of commodities for all LRP programs must be completed by September 30, 2011.
Evaluation of the USDA LRP Project In early FY 11, USDA will hire a qualified organization to conduct an independent evaluation of the pilot project. The Office of Capacity Building and Development monitoring and evaluation staff will lead this process. The evaluation will examine the timeliness, efficiency and cost-effectiveness of local and regional procurement in various geographic regions. It will take into account the market impact of the USDA-funded purchases, as well as the impact of purchases funded by other USG and non-USG donors relative to the supply and availability of food. In addition, it will examine any actions taken by the host country and purchase country governments before, during and immediately following a USDA-funded purchase. The evaluation report will be submitted to Congress in late May of At that time it will also be made available to the public.
USDA LRP Project Team Contact List Jamie Fisher, Chief, USDA LRP Project, Tel: , John Lamm, Program Analyst, West and Central Africa, USDA LRP Project, Tel: , Erin Means, Program Analyst, Southern Africa and Latin America, USDA LRP Project, Tel: , Seth Miller, Program Analyst, East Africa and Asia, USDA LRP Project, Tel: ,
TLB’s Role Operational branch of the Food Assistance Division (FAD) Management of the Food for Progress and McGovern-Dole transportation budgets Represent FAD in communications regarding commodity and freight issues
TLB Objectives Development of food aid agreements with respect to commodity selections, packaging, and freight terms and conditions Development of non-standard, cost- savings commodity and freight procurement scenarios
TLB Objectives Maintain detailed tracking reports for commodity and freight purchases for the Food for Progress and McGovern-Dole programs Process ocean and inland freight payments for the Food for Progress and McGovern-Dole programs Manage compliance with cargo preference requirements
TLB’s Relationship with Program Participants Point of contact for commodity and freight purchases Point of contact for commodity quality issues, such as commodities out of specification Facilitate the resolution of documentation issues, customs clearance issues, service interruptions, and other transportation related issues
Impact on Proposal Submission Proposal submissions for FY 2011 should support the strategic objective of the framework Food for Progress McGovern Dole Food for Education Proposals received that do not support the strategic objective of the framework will not be approved
“Tying what we do to specific articulated results is a very important function of what the management side of this agency has to do..” – Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack It’s still our priority!
Roadmap for Develop thematic frameworks Establish measurable objectives Link performance indicators Collaborate to build final product Publish guidance for indicator use
Conducted Internal Assessment of Food Assistance Program Readiness for ROM Completed ROM Orientation Training of Food Aid and M&E Staffs Status of ROM Food Aid Project
Impact on Proposal Submission Proposal submissions for FY 2012 must support a strategic objective of the framework Food for Progress McGovern Dole Food for Education Proposals received that do not support a strategic objective of the framework will not be approved
Stakeholder Involvement Opportunities to Offer Comment on ROM Frameworks and Indicators: Electronic Comment - March 2011 Federal Register Notice - March 2011 Formal Public Meeting - March 2011
Thank you for listening. Delphine Hamlin (202)
Measurement Criteria Clear and Meaningful Measures of Project Achievement Brian Goggin, Deputy Director Food Assistance Division Office of Capacity Building and Development Foreign Agricultural Service
Measurement Criteria for FY2011 Proposals What you can do to ensure that your proposal will receive serious consideration? –Show us that you have done your homework; that you understand the value chain, the credit market, ag production situation, the school system and it students –Write well-designed and coherent outputs and outcomes in “Criteria for Measuring Progress”
FY 2011 Proposals: Measuring Progress Measurements must reflect sound causal thinking –Show us a casual chain; that by undertaking such activities with specific outputs, what can you expect the to achieve? –Examples: If you are training someone in post harvest handling (PHH), your outputs would relate to the number of farmers trained, and outcomes related to reduction in post harvest losses
FY 2011 Proposals: Measuring Progress If you are training farmers in fertilizer use, then: –Your output would describe the completion of trainings by farmers –Outcomes would relate to the overall objective and the actual results? –Measures of proper application? A test of their knowledge. –Better/Best: A measure of yield increase?
FY2011 Proposals: Measuring Progress What about something less clear, like farmer organization? Or school system improvements? --Outputs could include trainings provided formations of organizations, --Outcomes: services provided by the organizations, the products processed, the beneficiaries that were served and how.
FY2011 Proposals: Measuring Progress The overall goal: show us how you intend to measure your own progress. –How do you know if you are achieving your objectives? What measures do you have in place? –Something must be measured, or your knowledge is incomplete –Explain what you will measure –A learning organization
Evaluating for Results “Helping to Build a Sustainable Culture of Program Accountability and Transparency”
Topics for Discussion Increased emphasis on evaluations Our vision for evaluations Our strategy for achieving our evaluation goals
Emphasis on Evaluations OMB commitment to examine program performance “Increased Emphasis on Program Evaluation” a 2009 OMB memorandum calling for “rigorous, independent program evaluation”
Our Vision All food aid programs are subject to a rigorous and independent evaluation. More frequent and transparent communication with our stakeholders. Assess the health of our programs at any point through monitoring. Provide effective training that results in reduced discrepancies that slow down agreement closure.
Our Strategy Create platform for conducting evaluations using Results Oriented Management Collaborate with FAD to provide timely feedback to stakeholders about monitoring issues Increase regular outreach visits Provide guidance to stakeholders on third party evaluations
Robert Miller Monitoring & Evaluation Staff (202)
“Helping to Build a Sustainable Culture of Program Accountability and Transparency” MONITORING and CLOSEOUT
MONITORING Collaboration Issues that FAD and MES collaborate on include: Revising the financial and logistic and monetization reports Working on the design and functionality of the new FAIS system Agreement violations
MONITORING Accountability Ensure the accountability of CCC assets: Commodities are lost, damaged or misused. CCC funds and monetization proceeds are misused or expenses are unsupported.
MONITORING Program Compliance Review OMB Circular A-133 to ensure: No major weaknesses were reported No findings were reported pertaining to FAS’s Food Aid programs.
CLOSEOUT USDA needs the following to close a Food Aid Agreement: Final, cumulative logistic and monetization report (log\mon) Accounting for all commodity received Accounting for all monetization proceeds and interest A review of agreement objectives against reported outputs and outcomes.
CLOSEOUT USDA needs the following to close a Food Aid Agreement: Final, cumulative financial reports A list of all equipment valued at over $5,000 All relevant Tax Certifications All relevant audits and any issue related to the agreement resolved
CLOSEOUT A closeout of an agreement includes: A financial analysis comparing expenses reported to both the CCC and monetization budget. A review of agreement objectives against reported outputs and outcomes.
CLOSEOUT Closeout red flags include: Budget line item movements Overspending the monetization administrative budget Spending funds on a budget line item not approved in the budget Significant differences between anticipated outputs and outcomes and reported outputs and outcomes
CLOSEOUT Closeout goal for fiscal year (FY) 2010 is to close 60% of the participants agreements for FY 2002 and 2003.
CLOSEOUT Closeout goal for fiscal year (FY) 2010 is to close 60% of the participants agreements for FY 2002 and 2003.
Barbara Shumar Monitoring & Evaluation Staff (202)
MES Outreach “Helping to Build a Sustainable Culture of Program Accountability and Transparency”
Outreach One of MES’s most important new efforts to reach out to PVOs in order establish positive working relationships.
Objectives 1.To meet with the PVO hands-on level staff, specially those who do not attend IFADC 2.To help us smooth the process of gathering information needed to close out the agreements 3.To answer closeout related questions
How are visits determined? By location. PVOs in the Washington area are more likely to be visited than those PVOs in other areas due to budget reasons. If there is a need. For instance, if there are many pending issues. By request from PVO.
What to expect We will notify you and make arrangements with you in advance The visits are short, 1-2 hours Topics discussed will vary on a case-by-case basis MES will provide a mini-tutorial on the closeout process Informal, not an audit and not to discuss any proposals
Conclusion Our goal is to make the closeout process as painless as possible, while increasing our transparency and accountability. If you would like to meet with MES during IFADC, please contact any MES staff.