1. International Food Assistance in USDA
Presented by Members of the Office of Capacity Building and Development
Foreign Agricultural Service
U.S. Department of Agriculture
April 6, 2009 1 1

2. Welcome Ross Kreamer Assistant Deputy Administrator
Office of Capacity Building and Development
Foreign Agricultural Service 2

3. Introductions and Agenda
Welcome and Introductory Remarks
Ross Kreamer, Assistant Deputy Administrator, Office of Capacity Building and
Development (OCBD)
Global Food Security and FAS Programs
Roger Mireles, Director, Policy Coordination and Policy Staff
Food Assistance Division Overview
Ron Croushorn, Director, Food Assistance Division (FAD)
Food for Progress Programming for FY 2010 & Beyond
Nicola Sakhleh, Senior Analyst, Food for Development Branch, FAD
McGovern-Dole Program
Dorothy Feustel, Chief, School Feeding and Humanitarian Assistance Branch, FAD
Transportation and Logistics
Amy Harding, Senior Analyst, Transportation and Logistics Branch, FAD
Monitoring and Evaluation
Brenda Freeman, Director, Monitoring and Evaluation Staff, OCBD
Delphine Hamlin, Senior Analyst, M&ES
Questions and Answers 3 3

4. Role of the Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS) in Development
Primarily responsible for USDA’s international activities
Provide food aid and technical assistance to foreign countries
Help increase income and food availability in developing nations
Support trade-capacity building and creating new markets 4

5. OCBD Mission
OCBD advances international agricultural trade and U.S. national security by strengthening the institutions and economies of developing countries through trade capacity building and
agricultural development
Lebanon 5

6. GLOBAL FOOD SECURITY: The USDA Approach
Roger P. Mireles
Director
Policy Coordination and Planning
Office of Capacity Building and Development
Foreign Agricultural Service/USDA
USAID and State have given us a good overview of the causes of food security. Food insecurity is caused by many factors. According to FAO, the primary cause in 20 out of 34 countries needing external support to meet food security needs is the direct or indirect effects of conflict. Much of the focus regarding food insecurity has been on sub-Saharan Africa and southern Asia.
Latin America has been the most successful region in terms of reducing hunger, with 10 out of 12 countries well on their way to achieving their Millennium Development Goals and some have already achieved them. But rising food prices are reversing this trend after decades of progress.
Agriculture is the engine of growth, but self sufficiency in food is not the answer to food insecurity. Countries in Latin America are at different stages of development – for some the best approach will be to increase productivity, while for others, it will be to stimulate economic growth in other sectors to earn foreign exchange to import food. Therefore, effective trade policies achieved through multilateral and bilateral trade agreements will be critical to ensuring access to food and to increasing countries’ confidence that they can rely on international markets for food. 6

7. Food Insecurity Makes the Headlines
Food prices increased 45 percent, April 2007-April 2008
Demand surged
Energy soared
Global grain supplies dropped
U.S. dollar weakened
Biofuels production increased
Prices tumbled from peak
Improved crop outlook
Easing export restrictions
stronger dollar
Lower oil prices and freight costs
Prices expected to remain above historical average

8. USG Tackling the Issue Policy environment Trade and market investment
Research, training and technology transfer
Sound natural resource management
Global market information and monitoring systems
Social safety nets
Market-based risk management

9. Goal BE EFFECTIVE
Develop targeted programs to maximize resources and achieve results

10. Today’s Challenging Environment
The Right Approach
A Common Strategy
Public/Private Partnerships
Host Nation Involvement
Coordinate to match priorities to maximize resources and achieve maximum results
There are ongoing international economic and security challenges that defy the traditional modes of promoting development and achieving global food security.
These challenges are a catalyst for moving from stovepipe development assistance approaches to inter-sectoral collaborative relationships that will not only integrate military and civilian agency efforts to enhance national security, but for USDA, generate opportunities to create additional partnerships to support agricultural development initiatives.
Development assistance is evolving from silo or project-based approaches to integrated strategies that utilize partnerships to create synergies, share risks, and multiply the benefits of the technical expertise and financial resources of each partner.
Funding resources for development assistance are shifting away from the traditional government sources (i.e., State and USAID) to include other public agencies (e.g., Department of Defense) and private organizations.
Despite public funding becoming more limited, the need for development assistance continues to be virtually unlimited. For this reason, it is critical that government, multilateral, and private resources be leveraged to collaboratively achieve the goals of global stability and national security. (CITE EXAMPLES OF RECONSTRUCTION AND STABLIZATION, WORK WITH Africom AND OTHERS, AND NEW PRIVATE PARTERNSHIPS THAT WE HOPE TO DEVELOP)
Host Nation Involvement is critical to achieving sustainability. Ex: CAADP

11. USDA’s Unique Toolbox Tools that promote agricultural development
Food Aid Programs
Trade and Scientific Exchange Programs
USDA Technical Expertise
Partnerships
Overseas Representation
USDA brings many tools into one arena, creating a holistic and integrated approach
Examples of Current FAS Programs
AgLink: A program for small U.S. agribusinesses in the NIS, Baltics and Poland.
Agricultural Technology Utilization and Transfer Project: AID-funded collaborative research with Egypt.
The Baltics & Poland Agribusiness and Development Program: An applied research program to enhance trade opportunities.
Middle East Peace Process: Projects which bring together Israeli and Arab experts to address mutual problems through research and technical cooperation.
Central European Joint Funds: Bilateral research initiatives in Poland, Hungary, Czech and Slovak Republics, Slovenia, Macedonia, and Croatia.
The Scientific Cooperation Program: A small grants program which supports research world- wide.
Sustainable Agriculture Video Project for China: RSED has collaborated with China NGO Global Village of Beijing to produce a sustainable agriculture video series for Chinese Central Television. The nine-segment series focuses on economically viable small-scale U.S. farms that have adopted environmentally innovative agricultural techniques. In addition to the broadcast on Chinese television, the series will be used as a teaching supplement in Chinese agricultural universities. 
Trade Barrier Workshops: Targeted activities to address constraints to U.S. exports.
Ukraine Cooperative Programs: Activities in beef and dairy production, production management and seed policy to build capacity and enhance trade opportunities.
Water Quality Programs: Cooperative projects in China, the Middle East and Mexico to demonstrate U.S. drinking water and other environmental technologies.

12. TEAM Together Everyone Achieves More
PVOs/NGOs
U.S. Agribusiness, Trade Associations
USG Agencies
Land-Grant Universities
Multilateral Organizations
Foreign Governments
Agricultural development
Credit guarantee programs
Rural credit, microfinance
Regulatory and policy capacity building
Educational Improvement
Trade missions
Scientific research
Economic analysis
Post Harvest/Marketing Systems
Through public and private partnerships USDA will continue to combine and leverage resources to achieve benefits in:
Agricultural development
Credit guarantee programs
Rural credit, microfinance
Technical assistance programs
Regulatory and policy capacity building
Educational Improvement
Trade missions
Scientific research
Economic analysis
Post Harvest/Marketing Systems

13. “To the people of poor nations, we pledge to work alongside you to make your farms flourish and let clean waters flow; to nourish starved bodies and feed hungry minds.” President Obama January 20, 2009

14. Food Assistance Division
Ron Croushorn
Director, Food Assistance Division
Office of Capacity Building and Development
Foreign Agricultural Service
Now I would like to present Ron Croushorn, the director of the Food Assistance Division. 14

15. Program Overview
McGovern-Dole Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program
Food for Progress
Section 416(b)
Title I of the Food for Peace Act
Local and Regional Purchase Pilot Program 15

16. Status of the USDA Local and Regional Purchase Pilot Program
On January 16, 2009, the USDA study on local and regional purchase was sent by the Secretary of Agriculture to the House and Senate Agriculture Committees.
The USDA study found that local and regional purchases:
Are a tool that enables quick food aid responses during and after food crises and disasters
Can be a timely and effective complement to in-kind food aid programs
Require appropriate methods at the correct time to meet emergency food aid needs while avoiding harm to low-income consumers, producers and fragile market systems. 16

17. Pilot Program Guidelines
USDA is drafting program implementation guidelines
During the summer, a draft of the guidelines will be made public for comments
The public is encouraged to review and provide feedback
During this conference, local and regional purchase will be discussed on Wednesday afternoon with an FAS participant 17

18. FY 2009 Focus Areas
During today’s session, FAS will provide information on:
Program Management
Regulations
Strategic Framework & Indicators
Procurement Practices

19. Food for Progress
Presented by:
Nicola David Sakhleh
Senior Analyst

20. Food for Progress Overview FY 09 Proposal and Award Cycle
Priority Country Criterion and Selections
Resources
Proposal review
This is my colleague Erika who traveled to Bolivia last year to look at our projects there.

21. Food for Progress Commodities are usually monetized
Food for Progress Act of 1985
Targets developing countries and emerging democracies
Supports the expansion of private enterprise in the agricultural sector
Commodities are usually monetized

22. Food for Progress Expected Resources Until 2012
Funding authorized by the Farm Bill
$40 million cap on transportation costs
$15 million for administrative costs
Commodity value not restricted by Farm Bill
In the past, we funded FFP out of both CCC and Title I. Govt. programs were usually funded out of Title I. PVO programs were usually funded out of CCC- funded FFP. With no new Title I, Govts. And PVOs compete for the same funding source.
2 versions of Farm Bill – House version allows Govts & WFP; the Senate version does not.
House version has $40 million freight cap; Senate version has $48 million freight cap.

23. Food for Progress Projects
Soil and water conservation
Improved farming methods
Agricultural extension
Animal and plant health
Processing, storage and marketing
Roads and other infrastructure
Cooperative development
Micro-credit and business training

24. Food for Progress Active Agreements (2005-2009)
Afghanistan 9
Armenia 2
Azerbaijan 1
Bangladesh
Bolivia 4
Burundi
Cameroon 3
Central African Republic
Democratic Republic of Congo
Dominican Republic
East Timor
Ecuador
El Salvador
Ethiopia
Gambia
Georgia 2
Guatemala 5
Honduras 6
Iraq 1
Jamaica
Kenya 3
Lebanon
Liberia
Madagascar
Malawi
Mali 4
Mauritania
Mongolia
Mozambique
Nicaragua 3
Niger 4
Nigeria 1
Pakistan 2
Philippines 7
Republic of Congo
Senegal
Sri Lanka
Tajikistan
Tanzania
Uganda
Yemen
41 Countries
109 Agreements
$660 Million in Agreement Value
Number of Agreements per Country

25. Food for Progress FY 2009 Proposals
67 Received
62 proposals from 37 PVOs
2 WFP proposals
3 government proposals
24 countries
Total value of $2.3 billion
15 Approved
1 government
14 PVO programs approved
Total value of $164.5 million

26. Food for Progress Priority Country Determination
Per capita incomes below $3,705 (World Bank)
Percent (>20) of children under the age of 5 that are stunted (WHO)
Positive movement in political rights or civil liberties (Freedom House)
USDA Post coverage and ability to monitor
We used the first three criteria last year.
Freedom House ratings – had to be free or partly free to qualify
This year we added USDA post coverage and ability to monitor as a criteria. We feel it’s important that our posts have the ability to monitor these programs. Therefore, there were some countries that were on the priority list last year, but were dropped this year because of lack of post coverage.

27. Other Determining Factors
Security concerns
Potential market disruptions
Other donor activity

28. Food for Progress Countries Meeting All Criteria / Other Factors
Asia (5)
Afghanistan
Bangladesh
Pakistan
Philippines
Timor-Leste
Latin America (5)
El Salvador
Ethiopia
Guatemala
Honduras
Nicaragua
Africa (10)
Benin
Burkina Faso
Kenya
Liberia
Malawi
Mali
Mozambique
Senegal
Tanzania
Uganda
20 Countries
A few countries that met the 4 criteria were not included in this final list because of other factors such as commodity issues or security concerns. If asked, the countries and factors include:
Armenia – Needs for assistance have declined based on recent site visit
Haiti – UMR issues due to large USAID program
India – Net food exporter
Papua New Guinea – Not viable due to low PVO presence
Sri Lanka – Security concerns and UMR issues
Thailand – Likely UMR issues
Zambia – GMO issues

29. Food for Progress FY 2010 Priority Countries
Asia (2)
Timor-Leste
Pakistan
Latin America (4)
El Salvador
Guatemala
Honduras
Nicaragua
Africa (4)
Kenya
Liberia
Mozambique
Tanzania
10 Countries
11 Countries total:
2 - Asia
4 - Latin America
5 – Africa
We will accept proposals for non-priority countries. However, given funding constraints, it is unlikely that non-priority country proposals would get approved. An exception would be if the country has an ongoing program and a final program is necessary to make it sustainable. In this case, we would consider the proposal for programming.

30. Food for Progress Future Programming
FY 2011 AND BEYOND
A more “strategic” approach to programming
How? Through prioritizing activities
Communication among USDA, implementing organizations, and governments to determine priority activities
WHY?
To facilitate Agency mission
To provide clear instructions to applicants

31. FYs 2011 & 2012 Priority Country Preliminary Lists
Afghanistan
El Salvador
Bangladesh
Guatemala
Benin
Ethiopia
Burkina Faso
Honduras
Malawi
Kenya
Mali
Liberia
Namibia
Mozambique
Philippines
Nicaragua
Senegal
Pakistan
 Uganda
Tanzania
Timor Leste
*Final 2011 priority country list, along with corresponding priority activities and guidance, will be announced through a press release in autumn of 2009
** Final 2012 priority country list, along with corresponding priority activities and guidance, will be announced at the 2010 IFAC

32. Key Sections of Proposal
Introductory Statement
Section 5(a) – Activity Objectives
Section 5(b) – Method of Choosing Beneficiaries
Section 5(h) – Criteria for Measuring Progress
Section 6(e) – Uses of Sales Proceeds
Although all sections of proposal are important, these are the sections that can either make or break a proposal. If these sections are complete and well written, the proposal has a much better chance of getting approved.

33. Commodities and Market Analyses
Appropriate commodity(ies) and tonnage in the proposal
Thorough Bellmon analysis MUST be conducted using consumption rather than nutritional requirements
Attaché concurrence is required

34. Food for Progress Proposal Feedback
-- Limited Agricultural Focus
-- Commodity / Monetization Issues
-- Organizational Capabilities and Experience
-- Proposal Quality
-- Weak Progress Measures / Outcomes
-- Lack of Coordination with Embassy / Govt

35. Food for Progress Program Guidelines
Guidelines for Introductory Statement
Guidelines for Plan of Operation
Sample Plan of Operation

36. Food for Progress

37. McGovern-Dole International Food for Education & Child Nutrition Program
Dorothy Feustel, Chief
School Feeding & Humanitarian Branch,
Food Assistance Division,
OCBD
Guinea-Bissau 37

38. McGovern-Dole Program Overview
Supports education, child development, and food security
Reaches poor children,
especially girls, in
developing countries
Encourages health and
nutrition complements
Guatemala 38

39. McGovern-Dole Overview
U.S. commodities are fed directly
Cash resources to fund activities; otherwise monetization only in extenuating situations
Strives for sustainability
Kyrgyzstan 39

40. McGovern-Dole Program Overview
What is sustainability?
A sustainable project is one that enables either a national government, local government, or community to continue providing an environment that is conducive to attracting children to school and providing them with an education; and, where possible,
Continuing some level of school feeding after the US government support ends

41. McGovern-Dole Program Overview
Creating Partnerships
Public
Private
Community level
Capacity Building & Training
Training PTAs
Vocational Training (teachers, cooks, students)
Creating Infrastructure

42. McGovern-Dole Program School Feeding
Albania
School Lunches
Food for Work (cooks, teachers)
Take Home Rations

43. McGovern-Dole Program Sample Activities
Improving Infrastructure
Training
School Environment
Improvement
Nutrition and Health
Education and Services
School Construction
Improved Access
to Water
Food Storage Units
Kitchen Construction
School Gardens & Fish Farms
Teachers & cooks
PTAs & communities
Government Officials
Text Books, Desks, and Chairs
Classroom Supplies
Didactic Materials
Vaccinations
De-worming
Vitamin A and Iron
Supplements
Health Education
Senegal 43

44. McGovern-Dole Program Active Agreements
33 active agreements currently funded with 18 cooperating sponsors, in 28 countries, with more than 5 million beneficiaries
Country
Cooperating Sponsor
Afghanistan
World Vision
Bangladesh
World Food Program
Benin
Catholic Relief Services
Bolivia
Project Concern International
Cambodia
International Relief and Development
Salesian Missions
Cameroon
Counterpart International
Chad
Republic of the Congo
Internat’l Partnership for Human Development
Ethiopia
Guatemala
Food for the Poor
SHARE
Guinea
Guinea-Bissau
Honduras 44

45. McGovern-Dole Program Active Agreements – Cont.
Country
Cooperating Sponsor
Honduras
Samaritan's Purse
Kenya
World Food Program
Kyrgyzstan
Mercy Corps
Laos
Humpty-Dumpty Institute
Liberia
International Relief and Development
Madagascar
CARE
Malawi
Mali
Catholic Relief Services
Mozambique
Joint Aid Management
Nicaragua
Food for the Poor
Pakistan
Rwanda
Senegal
Counterpart International
Sierra Leone
Vietnam
American Red Cross
Yemen
Save the Children 45

46. McGovern-Dole Program FY 2009 Resources & Awards
$184 million received
48 proposals received; valued at $700 million
Three new programs funded; valued at $27.4 million
12 multi-year agreements continued; valued at $68.3 million
Additional awards pending!
Mozambique 46

47. McGovern-Dole Program FY2010 Resources
54 proposals received; valued at $760 million
$45 million exists under multi-year agreements
FY 2010 resources will become available through the President’s budget
Afghanistan 47

48. McGovern-Dole Program Proposal Review in FY 2010
Continuation of existing programs will receive highest priority
Limited funds will remain after these programs are funded
Vietnam 48

49. McGovern-Dole Program Priority Country Determination
Priority country determination factors under review
The following three criteria will remain:
Government commitment to education
USDA Post coverage and ability to monitor agreements
No concerns with security or market issues
Country Criteria Roundtable this afternoon 49

50. McGovern-Dole Program Timing
Proposal awards for FY 2010 will be announced in late Fall of 2009
FY 2011 Priority Country List will be released late Fall 2009
Next solicitation for new proposals at 2010 IFAC 50

51. Foreign Agricultural Service Food Assistance Transportation
Amy Harding, Acting Chief,
Transportation and Logistics Branch,
Food Assistance Division,
Office of Capacity Building and Development
Foreign Agricultural Service
Good morning. I am Amy Harding of the Transportation and Logistics Branch and I will be presenting a brief overview of the responsibilities of the Branch. 51 51

52. Transportation and Logistics Branch Responsibilities
Oversees the procurement of vessels under the Food for Progress and McGovern-Dole Food for Education programs
Assures compliance with the Cargo Preference Act (P.L. 664)
Furnishes technical advice and assistance to offices in USDA and participants on ocean transportation
The Transportation and Logistics Branch primarily focuses on the operational aspects of the Food for Progress and McGovern-Dole programs.
In doing so, TLB oversees the procurement of vessels while assuring compliance with cargo preference.
In addition, TLB provides technical advise and assistance on ocean transportation to offices in USDA and to participants.

53. Transportation and Logistics Branch Responsibilities, cont.
Maintains liaison with participants, freight forwarders, steamship companies, and government agencies in program implementation
Develops non-standard, cost-saving commodity and freight procurement scenarios
Primary point of contact for food quality issues
Coordinates commodity and freight procurements with the Kansas City Commodity Office
TLB works closely with freight forwarders, steamship companies and government agencies, such as USAID, in program implementation.
TLB monitors commodity and freight costs to make sure they do not exceed available funds.
Part of the effort to stretch the dollars is the development of cost-savings procurement scenarios.
With this in mind, FAS, in coordination with the Farm Service Agency, exchanged some 25,000 metric tons of commodities in stock for processed and packaged commodities valued at approximately $18 million for use in the McGovern-Dole program.
The cost of the commodity was not charged to the McGovern-Dole program therefore making these funds available for future purchases. TLB continues to explore arrangements such as this that benefit the program.
Finally, TLB acts as the main conduit between FAS and the Kansas City Commodity Office on issues related to commodity purchases and food quality.

54. Focal Points for FY 2009 and Beyond
Local and Regional Procurement
TLB is a key player in the development of the Local and Regional Purchase Pilot Program
Web-Based Supply Chain Management System
TLB is a participant in the design and implementation stages of this effort.
As we move through FY 2009, TLB continues to play a key role in the Local and Regional Purchase Pilot Program.
More information about this program will be available in a breakout session on Wednesday afternoon.
In addition, TLB is the main focus point for FAS in the design and implementation of the Web-Based Supply Chain Management System.
In summary, this system will replace the existing Commodity Operations System and will house information related to the FAS food aid programs from agreement to arrival of commodities in the destination country.

55. Focal Points for FY 2009 and Beyond, cont.
New McGovern-Dole and Food for Progress Regulations
Effective Date: May 26, 2009
Assessing how the new regulations will affect procurement specifics
FAS will implement the new regulations via the FACG consultative process
New USDA Food Aid Regulations – Impact on All Parties presentation 2:00 p.m. – 3:00 p.m.
Finally, as you are aware, the new McGovern-Dole and Food for Progress regulations were made final on March 26, and are effective on May 26.
FAS is assessing how the new regulations will affect the procurement of commodities and freight.
Please join us at 2:00 p.m. this afternoon in a session to discuss these new regulations.

56. Monitoring and Evaluation Staff (M&ES)
“Helping to Build a Sustainable Culture of Program Accountability and Transparency”
Brenda Freeman, Director, M&ES

57. What M&ES Does Closeout food aid agreements
Implement policies and procedures to close backlog of agreements
Develop policies and procedures to guide the closeout of newer agreements
Meet monthly with FAD to discuss new policies and procedures
Assist OCBD staff in developing and implementing strategic frameworks

58. What M&ES Does…continued
Design and conduct program evaluations that measure the impact of OCBD programs
Improve internal program reporting by reviewing current reports and reporting requirements

59. M&ES Activities that May Impact Your Organization
Closed 144 or 75% of the backlog of PVO and Government agreements signed from FY
Established New Policies and Procedures to Streamline the closure of current agreements
Developed strategic frameworks for OCBD programs, including Food Aid
Collaborating with FAD to conduct an internal review of Logistics and Monetization Reports

60. Monitoring and Evaluation Staff
Brenda Freeman
Director
(202)
Barbara Shumar
Lead Closeout
(202)
Angella Greaves
Government Closeouts
(202)
Liliana Bachelder
PVO Closeouts
(202)
Delphine Hamlin
Closeout Policy and
M&E of Food Aid Programs
(202)
Lita Echiverri
M&E of Technical Assistance Programs
(202)
first name.last

61. Forward-Looking Activities
FY 2009
Complete internal review of logistics and monetization report
Invite external stakeholder participation in review of report
Initiate development of strategic frameworks for all of OCBD’s programs
FY 2010
Plan an impact evaluation of a Food for Progress project

62. Using Results Frameworks in OCBD Food Aid Programs
“Helping to Build a Sustainable Culture of Program Accountability and Transparency”
Delphine Hamlin, Senior Analyst
Monitoring & Evaluation Staff, OCBD

63. Framework Discussion Overview
Purpose of Developing Frameworks
Expected Results
Sample Framework
Impact on Proposal Submissions
Next Steps

64. Purpose of OCBD Results Framework
Justify why the program is being implemented
Focus on the need for the program
Focus on results achieved
Evaluate results

65. Expected Results of Framework Development
Implementation will be a priority for OCBD
“Tying what we do to specific articulated results is a very important function of what the management side of this agency has to do…to do that not only requires a commitment by leadership to make that happen, the president has been very clear in his expectation in that respect.”– Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack

66. OCBD Strategic Framework [Program Name] [Project Type]
Strategic Objective
Intermediate Results
Initial Results
Activities & Outputs

67. 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

68. Next Steps in Framework Development
Invite external stakeholders to participate in the development of the frameworks
Conduct final technical review of frameworks
Implement in partnership with program participants

69. Thank you for listening
Questions?