Policy Paper July 2010

InterAction Food Security

and Agriculture Working Group --
Response to the Feed the Future
Guide
For more information, InterAction’s Food Security and Agriculture Working Group (FS/Ag WG) wel-
please contact:
comes Feed the Future, the U.S. government’s global hunger and food security
Vanessa Dick initiative, and we offer our partnership as the Feed the Future Guide is trans-
Manager for Int’l Development lated into actions on the ground. By and large, we support the five principles
Policy guiding its implementation – 1) country-owned plans that support results-based
Public Policy and Outreach
InterAction programs and partnerships; 2) strategic coordination; 3) a comprehensive ap-
vdick@interaction.org proach; 4) the use of multilateral institutions; and, 5) sustained and accountable
commitments. We respectfully offer this response to the Feed the Future Guide
Brian Greenberg
and recommend the following next steps as a means of ensuring that these prin-
Director for Sustainable Devel-
opment ciples are realized in effective implementation.
Strategic Impact
InterAction 1. More must be done to directly evaluate the scope and adequacy of
bgreenberg@interaction.org
stakeholder participation in the development and implementation of country-
led strategies.
We strongly agree that, “meaningful engagement with key stakeholders increas-
es the likelihood that the country’s food security strategy will be effective,
equitable, and sustainable.” We applaud those tools currently integrated within
the Feed the Future Guide – 1) in order for a country to move from Phase I to II,
a country must illustrate evidence of quality coordination and consultation with
key stakeholders, including those that represent the needs of women; and, 2) a
commitment by the U.S. to “provide financial and technical support to stake-
holders to increase their influence and participation in the planning process and
to carry out the development activities envisioned in the country investment
plan.” Presently, the development of country investment plans is happening at
an impressive speed. However, we are concerned that such haste will inadver-
tently exclude some stakeholders from participating in the creation, implemen-
tation, and monitoring of country investment plans. To achieve the goals out-
lined in the Feed the Future Guide, everyone will need to have a role. More
needs to be done to ensure that all stakeholders are recognized as partners
www.InterAction.org throughout this process, from the drafting of the country investment plan to its
monitoring and evaluation. We would be pleased to assist by providing any fur-
1400 16th Street, NW ther in-country connections to help with the engagement process.
Suite 210
Washington, DC 20036
202.667.8227
zz

We recommend that:
 The U.S., with other donors, should require each focus country to appoint an individual to develop
and implement a comprehensive communications/outreach strategy. The individual must have
demonstrated experience planning and managing participatory, community level, stakeholder con-
sultations that include outreach outside the country capital and the strategy should outline the
process to develop the country investment plan, including participatory mechanisms that engage
key stakeholders (including marginalized populations), and provide a timeline of key milestones for
stakeholder participation. This would encourage governments to approach the process in a syste-
matic and transparent way, while providing adequate notice to stakeholders on specific mechanisms
and processes for engagement. In addition, the U.S. should encourage national governments to
budget for civil society engagement within their country investment plans.
 In addition to regular outreach meetings hosted by national governments, the U.S. should arrange
regular (at least quarterly) meetings in-country with civil society (international NGOs, local NGO
partners, faith based groups, farmers organizations, and other pertinent members of civil society)i to
discuss the country investment plan, the extent of civil society’s engagement, and ways to improve
the process. In addition, these meetings should be used to:
o Establish partnerships with civil society for implementation, including methods to identify
best practices and means of scaling up successful projects; and,
o Identify means for incorporating public/private partnerships with civil society into country
investment plans, including funding mechanisms, and expanding the reach to more vulnera-
ble children, and families and communities in need.
 We also recommend that Feed the Future draw on the expertise of the Millennium Challenge Cor-
poration and the Global Fund for AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria to identify consultation best prac-
tices. The MCC requires regular reporting on the consultation process and tools to ensure a trans-
parent process.ii Similar safeguards should be incorporated in Feed the Future. In addition, specific
criteria to measure stakeholder consultation will be necessary in order to judge the quality and
depth of the process, and make necessary corrections.

In addition to in-country stakeholder engagement, InterAction’s member have appreciated USAID’s efforts
to involve international civil society by inviting its feedback in the headquarter review of the country in-
vestment plans.

To help facilitate the participation of both field and headquarters staff in the reviews, we ask:
 For the creation of an advance schedule with adequate notice on the timeline for a review process.
 At least three weeks to review the document and provide feedback.
 Clarity on USAID staff and contact points assigned to lead the organization and planning for each
country review.
 Clarity on the status of the documents being reviewed, where our input will be sent, and how it will
be incorporated into USAID dialogue with host country governments and other donors.

In addition to the regular meetings with civil society in-country, a parallel process involving well-organized
periodic meetings should be established in Washington, DC, also on a consistent timetable (preferably at
least quarterly). We ask for the establishment of a US-based NGO advisory committee that meets regularly
for information sharing and formally interacts with the USG on Feed the Future activities.

2
zz

2. USAID must be empowered to implement Feed the Future.

The success of Feed the Future will require a whole-of-government approach that better coordinates the
various U.S. agencies that currently have food security-related responsibilities. We acknowledge the tre-
mendous improvements that have resulted from the interagency process and applaud this progress. As
noted in the Feed the Future Guide, harnessing each agency’s comparative advantage makes it easier for
partners to coordinate their programs. Nonetheless, Feed the Future is a development program and should
be led by the U.S. government’s development agency, USAID. This leadership should include the Global
Hunger and Food Security Coordinator in Washington, DC and the Feed the Future Country Coordinators
that will be designated by the U.S. Ambassador within each focus country.

Coordinators at all levels will need the buttress of adequate staff, which we know that USAID is in the
process of recruiting, training, and deploying. It is our understanding that space limitations constrain the
capacity of country missions to absorb this critical infusion of human capital. The success of Feed the Future
has a direct relationship to the number of technical staff in the field and at headquarters that will be availa-
ble for guiding its implementation. We hope this issue can be resolved soon and look forward to working
with the interagency committee to find an appropriate solution. In particular, it will be critical to increase
the number of gender specialists, as well as, the number of other technical experts to conduct gender ana-
lyses. We applaud USAID’s recent strengthening of ADS 201.3.3.3 on planning and programming gender re-
quirements and encourage USAID to adopt substantive gender training that all new foreign service officers
(FSOs) that are brought into Feed the Future are required to attend. We commend recent and ongoing ef-
forts to incorporate gender specialist in the newly created global food security office at USAID headquarters.
Steps must also be taken to formalize gender expertise on the ground. If each USAID mission cannot have a
dedicated gender specialist, identify a regional specialist who can provide the needed expertise, technical
assistance and guidance to FSOs.

3. The administration must work with Congress to ensure the sustainability of Feed the Future.
Effectively partnering with Congress will be crucial to institutionalize Feed the Future, ensuring its sustaina-
bility across administrations. Without strong congressional buy-in, political support for Feed the Future
could lapse when the Obama administration ends. For that reason, the power of Congress as an authorizing
body and a generator of political will must be leveraged. An important first step will be active administra-
tion support for the passage of the revised Global Food Security Act.

4. Feed the Future’s emphasis on sustainable agricultural development, including the recognition of
environmental degradation and climate change as critical cross-cutting issues, is welcome and ne-
cessary. However, further explanation on how Feed the Future plans to integrate and measure
the spectrum of hunger fighting tools, including improved emergency response, safety net sys-
tems, and nutrition, is needed.
The Feed the Future Results Framework is comprehensive in covering all elements of food security, including
availability, access, utilization, and stability. However, the offices at USAID and within other USG agencies
generally do not address the relationships between availability, access, utilization, and reduction of risk. It is
possible to increase productivity and incomes in poor households without improving nutrition or building
capacity to mitigate risk. At the same time, it is possible to reduce malnutrition and chronic hunger via food
or cash safety-nets, but not sustainably improve food supply or livelihoods. These approaches are currently
implemented separately, and the offices and the funding streams they manage are also separate. Thus,

3
zz

clarification is needed on how these various offices and partners with different agendas, specializations, and
funding mechanisms will work together and develop collaborative strategies to achieve the required degree
of integration for this comprehensive approach without significantly diluting effectiveness or strategic focus.
As part of this process, NGOs that have successfully implemented integrated approaches addressing agricul-
tural productivity, livelihoods, and nutrition should be consulted to identify lessons learned and best prac-
tices that can be promoted in the development of integrated approaches.

Host governments may also need assistance to ensure that different government ministries, and their vari-
ous stakeholders, are empowered to work together to address the various aspects of food security. Clarifi-
cation on how the USG will support governments to integrate their approaches and empower ministries,
personnel, and stakeholders with different specializations to work together, is needed. Once again NGOs
may have a role to play in advising on the coordination of these strategies

Finally, in order to ensure the effectiveness of Feed the Future, a robust Performance Management Plan will
be necessary. Clarification is needed regarding tools and methods to measure the impacts of the different
aspects of this strategy, particularly those indicators that measure household impacts, without adding un-
due burdens and costs to governments and implementation partners. Monitoring and evaluation specialists
that implement integrated food security programs should be consulted regarding their experiences measur-
ing a range of indicators to identify the best indicators or best combination of indicators to measure the
elements of this strategy. Standard indicator measurement guides should be made available in local lan-
guages, and trainings should be provided for governments and for stakeholders on their use as and when
required.

i
It is critically important that Feed the Future reach those populations who have previously lacked a voice in the devel-
opment of policies and programs, in particular women. In order to reach women for meaningful consultation, we en-
courage Feed the Future to think beyond farmer’s organization to those groups that represent the interest of women
specifically, for example, women’s self-help groups in South and South East Asia.
ii
Within the Guidelines for the Consultative Process, V. Reporting on Consultations, it states:
Because the consultative process is not a stand-alone phase of the compact, reporting on these efforts is inte-
grated into the other documents and products delivered to MCC by country core teams or MCA units. MCC asks for:
 An appendix to the Constraints Analysis that briefly describes how, following the completion of the CA exer-
cise, country partners consulted with a broad range of individuals and groups to solicit feedback on whether
the identified constraints generally reflected their views on key barriers to economic growth and poverty re-
duction. The appendix should note the extent to which these consultations presented new information or led
to alternative analysis. As part of this review, countries should describe how analysis of social/ gender differ-
ences informed the consultation design and their plans to ensure the meaningful participation of women and
men as the Compact is further developed and implemented.
 As part of the Project Concept Paper, there are several sections in which the country core team should de-
scribe how their work has been shaped by the consultative process.
 As part of a commitment to transparency in implementation, MCC expects MCA units to develop and use
regular mechanisms to solicit public feedback. MCC will monitor these efforts by looking at the information
and events that MCA units make public.
http://www.mcc.gov/mcc/bm.doc/guidance-2010001005001-consultativeprocess.pdf
4