**FOOD FOR PEACE**

**CONFERENCE REPORT**

JUNE 24 -- 26, 2002

# 1.0 Introduction

# 

The Food For Peace Conference was held June 24 -- 26, 2002 at the
National Conference Center in Lansdowne, Virginia. 216 participants
attended the three-day conference, representing and array of
stakeholders: Food Aid Managers; FFP/Washington and overseas mission
USAID Staff; Title II PVOs and NGOs; commodity and industry groups;
other government agencies; and representatives of International
Organizations. Lauren Landis, the Director of the Food For Peace Office,
led the conference.

The purpose of the Conference was to bring together Title II partners
and stakeholder representatives. The objectives of the conference, as
expressed by Lauren Landis, were to:

1.  Provide a forum to discuss current and evolving issues related to
    Title II food aid;

2.  Update the Food For Peace community on the many changes affecting
    Title II operations; and

3.  Consult with the Food For Peace community on evolving Title II
    issues.

# The structure of the conference included general sessions and presentations as well as breakout groups to discuss issues of interest. The afternoon of the third day was devoted to a dialogue between FFP senior management and both field and home office USAID staff. Elise Storck was the conference facilitator.

# 2.0 Day One

1.  [Welcoming Remarks]{.underline}, Lauren Landis

Lauren Landis, Food For Peace Director, opened the conference. She
briefly summarized her first six months in office and outlined some
major changes that have taken place. She stated that the conference will
provide FFP the opportunity to consult with the stakeholders about FFP
goals and responsibilities and join forces to better implement the Title
II program. In addition, the conference will apprise FFP partners on the
reorganization of the Democracy, Conflict and Humanitarian Assistance
Bureau (DCHA) and on USAID's perspective on the 2002 Farm Bill.

"What's new with Title II," asked Landis. It is not about metric tons of
commodities, but how to mobilize and leverage resources to meet the
global goals set by the World Food Summit of cutting world hunger by 50%
by 2015. She cited the Southern Africa Drought Action Team as a good
example of how FFP is stepping up to the challenge. However, she added,
FFP is at a crossroads and needs to address questions such as: What will
the world look like in 2015? What tools will FFP need to meet its goals?
Will monetization still be needed? What strategy and what technologies
are needed?

Landis acknowledged that FFP needs to streamline its procedures to
better reach beneficiaries and achieve the goals of the Millennium
challenge. What is desired, she stressed, is to walk away from this
conference with "actionable items to build the future of Title II." She
concluded saying that the conference will be a success if there is
common understanding and vision over what needs to be done to further
streamline actions and enhance implementation of Title II over the next
five years.

2.  [View From the Field]{.underline}, Carla Barbiero, USAID/India
    Director of Social Development

As a longtime employee of USAID ( 26 years) Carla Barbiero presented the
perspective of the overseas Mission as a counterpoint to the perspective
from the Potomac. Barbiero underscored the importance of food aid as a
tool for development as well as humanitarian relief.

The presentation focused on the fact that although food is important, it
is rarely sufficient; programs depend on food, but also cash resources.
Abrupt reduction of monetization would have dramatic implications at
both the government-to-government and the "people" levels. Barbiero
advocated a team approach between USAID missions and FFP/Washington,
emphasizing that "DC is about supporting the field."

Regarding issues such as transition between emergency and development,
and hybrid programs, these interventions require a unique set of
strategic elements, not all of which are within FFP, and may include
such agencies as the State Department. Other points raised include the
need to: (1) provide employees managing food aid programs with a wider
experience beyond FFP and OFDA; (2) create regional programming
centers**;** (3) increase collaboration within the PVO community; and
(4) avoid being dogmatic and complacent.

In closing, Barbiero underlined the need to seize this opportunity to
think outside the box to improve Title II programs and operation. She
stressed the importance of "moving beyond bean counting" and hoped "this
would not be business as usual," and that "harebrained, crazy ideas
would be welcome."

## View from Capitol Hill, Garrett Grigsby, Deputy Assistant Administrator/DCHA

Garrett Grigsby provided the participants with the view from Capitol
Hill. Prior to joining USAID, Grigsby was Deputy Chief of Staff on the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He expressed his great appreciation
for the people in the field; they are the "heart and soul of what we're
all about." He said that despite some lack of understanding of foreign
aid, basically Americans believe that feeding hungry people is the right
thing to do. He added, "And let me assure you, it does not hurt one bit
that our program also benefit U.S. farmers."

Grigsby addressed the rumor of moving USAID to the State Department. At
present with Mr. Natsios as Administrator, USAID will continue to be a
separate agency, but if USAID does not perform, then this issue might be
revisited in five to ten years. He concluded by saying, " we are
committed to change the way we operate so that you can spend more time
and energy where it counts: on your projects in the field."

[]{.mark}

One of the major points Grigsby covered was President Bush's \$5 billion
Millennium Challenge Account and the new \$500 million HIV/AIDS
initiative.

Grigsby concluded, "Our efforts will benefit your organizations and your
programs. It is going to benefit the World Food Program. And it's going
to help Andrew Natsios and his team restore USAID to a place of respect
and prominence in the U.S. foreign policy arena."

3.  [Key Note Address]{.underline}, Andrew Natsios, USAID Administrator

Andrew Natsios began his speech by discussing the Agency reorganization
of the DCHA Pillar Bureau, one of four pillar bureaus within USAID. He
pointed out that President Bush's speech, prior to the Monterrey Summit,
constituted the third major speech given by a U.S. President on foreign
policy. In the first, Harry Truman outlined modern humanitarian aid as
we know it today. In the second, John F. Kennedy announced the creation
of the Agency for International Development. After the events of
September 11^th^, President Bush's speech presented a three-pronged
approach to the situation in Afghanistan: diplomacy, defense and
humanitarian relief. Natsios said that the President's speech focused on
providing aid to countries with good economic policies and solid
democratic processes.

The Administrator elaborated on the concept of *failed* and *failing
states*. He said that DCHA's strategic vision centers around this
concept. He defined a *failed state* as one where the central government
governs the capital and little else, such as Afghanistan during the
Taliban regime and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, which in fact
was reduced from a state to a city-state. Sierra Leone is an example of
a *failed state* that is recovering, but is still not a functional
state. A *failing state* is one with a weak national government, such as
Zimbabwe.

The Administrator then explained how food aid fits into the context of
DCHA's reorganization. Food Aid is an important resource for both
long-term development and humanitarian relief. Food For Peace addresses
food insecurity in stable, developing countries as well as countries in
conflict. He remarked that there is a direct connection between food
insecurity and state failure. In more explicit terms, food insecurity
drives conflict and increases political instability. The Office of Food
For Peace should strive to stabilize the situation in such countries so
that they do not slide towards state failure.

He concluded by saying that there are three important ideas that should
be incorporated in food assistance proposals:

1.  Food security

2.  Development relief, which should be an integral part of every
    emergency response proposal

3.  Better resource and program integration away from stove piping

2.5 [USAID Reorganization and the new DCHA Pillar and
Bureau]{.underline}, Roger Winter, Deputy Administrator/DCHA

Although Roger Winter is relatively new to DCHA he had worked during the
Carter Administration to resettle refugees in the U.S. and served as the
Director of the U.S. Committee for Refugees for 21 years. He admitted
that he accepted this new position because of his close friendship and
respect for Andrew Natsios and his interest in OFDA.

Winter explained that the name Democracy, Conflict and Humanitarian
Assistance denotes both a pillar bureau and a "non-pillar" bureau. As a
pillar bureau, DCHA provides technical support to other USAID bureaus
and overseas missions and as a non-pillar bureau it provides direct
services and programs. Thus, DCHA is "somewhere in between." He noted
that reorganization plans are not yet approved, particularly the
personnel and budgetary components

He next discussed the strategy and resources of DCHA. The strategy
focuses on conflict management and mitigation. For him, the combination
of State/"Real Politik" and USAID/"Kumbaya" (Peace and Harmony)
approaches is a winning package. It results in major USAID investments
undertaken with DCHA initiatives such as the collaboration with the
Africa Bureau in agriculture and education. He believes that even in the
absence of a set strategy, DCHA has accomplished a lot. He then remarked
that non-presence countries -- such as Burundi, Sudan and Somalia -- are
not well represented and many failed or failing states are indeed
non-presence countries, hence, the need to concentrate efforts on
providing services to these entities. "Disaster assistance of food is
essentially not a solution," Winter stated. He then asked how do we make
a "Gigantic Leap" with available, limited resources given that the
levels for 2003 are confirmed, and that USAID is requesting upward
adjustments in the future?

Turning to resources, Winter recognized that DCHA/FFP is the most
understaffed office in the agency. He isolated three problems impinging
on the program:

1.  Implementing the Food Aid Review

2.  The paucity of resources

3.  Determining what is our manageable interest

The Assistant Administrator reminded the audience that the Administrator
is action-oriented and that USAID's approach to deal with emergencies
incorporates on multi-lateralism. There is a willingness to do what is
necessary as viewed through the prism of the national interest. Winter
concluded by stating that the highest priority of USAID is "No famine on
my watch" and dealing with failed and failing states.

##  2.6 Impacts of the 2002 Farm Bill and Interagency Food Aid Review on FFP policy and operations over the next five years. Panel discussion led by Don Gressett, USAID Office of the General Counsel.  {#impacts-of-the-2002-farm-bill-and-interagency-food-aid-review-on-ffp-policy-and-operations-over-the-next-five-years.-panel-discussion-led-by-don-gressett-usaid-office-of-the-general-counsel. .unnumbered}

##  {#section-1 .unnumbered}

## Panelists included Mary Chambliss from USDA, Michael Knipe from the Senate Agriculture Committee and Daniel Heath from the National Economics Committee.  {#panelists-included-mary-chambliss-from-usda-michael-knipe-from-the-senate-agriculture-committee-and-daniel-heath-from-the-national-economics-committee. .unnumbered}

After a brief introduction by Don Gressett, Dan Heath discussed
initiation of the Interagency Food Aid Review. At its inception, the two
concerns regarding food aid were that it existed to prop up farm income
and feed the hungry. The Administration decided that direct feeding was
an appropriate use of resources and made the following changes:
increased the President's FY03 request for Title II resources**;**
reduced use of 416 (b) mandatory authorities; increased reliance on the
Emerson Trust; rationalized agency functions; created reliable sources
that are not affected by price/supply fluctuations; strived for
transparent funding mechanisms; provided strong support to farmers; and
managed the program with integrity, demonstrating that USAID does not
simply dump farm surpluses.

Regarding The Global Food For Education Initiative, Heath remarked that
the Bush Administration decided to continue the pilot activity in order
to evaluate its efficiency. The goal is to combine genuine care with
practical reality to create reliable sustainable programs.

Mary Chambliss from USDA began with a few comments on Heath's
presentation. She noted that regardless of the beginnings of the Section
416 (b) surplus determination, there were a significant number of
emergency programs.

She recalled that the 1996 Farm Bill removed price controls and
increased tonnage to provide 2,025,000 metric tons in Title II which,
Chambliss noted, is the primary tool for the USG to respond to food
needs around the world. "The international community is against some of
our food aid processes," she said. The USG will try to resolve the issue
through the World Trade Organization. It probably will not affect Title
II, but "The WTO might crack down on monetization," added Chambliss.

Looking to the future, she sees 7 years of the present Farm Bill; more
flexibility in Title II; more ITSH payments; and an increase in 202(e).
Chambliss concluded by noting that the Administration's response to food
aid is giving greater importance to performance measurements, adding
that it will make OMB happy. Regarding The Global Food For Education,
she believes that in July 2002 the White House will decide who will
administer the program. The question for Food For Progress, a
discretionary program, is can it depend on Title I resources?

Michael Knipe focused his presentation on streamlining program
management, which was requested by the PVO community and adopted in the
Farm Bill conference in consultation with PVOs, WFP, FAS and USAID. A
year after the Bill is enacted into law, USAID is required, by May 13,
2003, to streamline Food For Peace procedures and guidelines. This,
Knipe said, means:

1.  Shorter timeframes for project review and approval

2.  Less information required of PVOs

3.  Simplification of report procedures

4.  Identification of critical information needs, distinguishing between
    new entrants and PVOs implementing continuing programs, and

5.  Requiring USAID to report to Congress by Fall 2002

Knipe underlined the fact that USAID has a fiduciary duty to approve and
monitor all projects funded by USAID. He noted a number of issues that
will surface in the future. Some of these are: encouraging USAID to
facilitate the sharing of information between the Agency and the PVO
community, and the need for a better environment between FAS and USAID.

## 2.7 Food Aid and Food Security in the New Millennium. Panel moderated by Lauren Landis  {#food-aid-and-food-security-in-the-new-millennium.-panel-moderated-by-lauren-landis .unnumbered}

##  {#section-2 .unnumbered}

## Panelists included Debbie Herold (ADRA), Anne Sellers (CRS), Allan Jury (WFP) and Lee Thompson (Africare). The objective of the panel was to evoke partners' views and discussions on issues that USAID sees as central to future strategy, policy development, and operations under the new Farm Bill. {#panelists-included-debbie-herold-adra-anne-sellers-crs-allan-jury-wfp-and-lee-thompson-africare.-the-objective-of-the-panel-was-to-evoke-partners-views-and-discussions-on-issues-that-usaid-sees-as-central-to-future-strategy-policy-development-and-operations-under-the-new-farm-bill. .unnumbered}

2.7.1 [Role of Food Aid in Response to the HIV/AIDS
Pandemic]{.underline}, Debbie Herold, ADRA

Herold started by citing some statistics: a total of 40 million people
are infected, including 28.1 million in Africa and 6.1 million in South
and Southeast Asia. The prevalence is 8.4% in Sub-Saharan Africa and
2.2% in the Caribbean. She reported that more than two-thirds of the
population of the 25 most-affected countries in Africa are rural and
about 7 million agriculture workers have died from HIV/AIDS since 1985
in the 25 hardest-hit African countries. About 16 million more could die
before 2020.

Herold then explained the positive impact of adequate nutrition on
victims saying that it prevents malnutrition and wasting; achieves and
maintains optimal body weight and strength; increases the body's ability
to fight opportunistic infections; improves the effectiveness of drugs
and the quality of life; and may help delay the progression of HIV.

Concerning effective responses to the pandemic, Herold cited education
and prevention to reduce the risk of HIV infection; mitigation to
measure the decrease or avert the impact; and care to aid those already
affected. She concluded that HIV/AIDS is already a crisis in many
Southern African countries. So we need to identify, in close
collaboration with the HIV infected and affected, strategies that:

-   Don't just "feed"

-   Will assist families and communities preserve and strengthen their
    capital base, and

-   Improve overall well-being

2.7.2 [Role of Food Aid in Educational Systems]{.underline}, Anne
Sellers, CRS

After the wake up call by Debbie Herold, Anne Sellers discussed the
current situation in food aid and educational systems. She stated that
USAID/FFP has 8 projects in five countries with total funds for FY00 of
\$39.95 million reaching 1.175,883 children. The USDA/GFEI program has
60 projects in 38 countries with total funds for FY2002 of \$228.5
million reaching 8,300,000 children. Sellers said that there is a trend
of broadening the benefits of Food Aid in Education (FAE) by expanding
from school feeding to food-assisted education leading to food security.

Sellers explained how FFP can increase the impact of Food-assisted
education through continued support of FAE for long-term food security;
prioritizing programs to show synergies and/or leveraging; support
development of practical M&E tools; and encourage innovation. The
presentation included an interesting history of FAE and policy changes
from 1976 to the present.

2.7.3 [Role of Food Aid in Urban Food Security]{.underline}, Allan Jury,
WFP

Jury reported that urban populations in developing countries have
increased five fold over the past 30 years, and that currently, over 40%
of the population of low and middle-income countries live in urban
areas. More than half the population of Africa and Asia, the continents
with the highest numbers of hungry people now, will be urban dwellers by
2020, leading to increasing poverty, food insecurity and malnutrition in
urban areas.

Jury then talked about program strategies for addressing urban food
insecurity.

In terms of WFP interventions, Jury indicated that maternal and child
health (MCH) activities are well-suited to urban areas. In emergency
situations, especially short-term economic crisis, subsidized food-based
social safety net programs can be a useful tool for addressing rapidly
expanding food insecurity caused by economic shock. He also mentioned
food for training for very specific targeted urban groups, such as
HIV/AIDS orphans or street children as successful WFP programs

Looking to the future and urban food insecurity for the next ten years,
Jury believes that rural areas will still be the primary location for
food aid programming in the next few years. In conclusion, the
demographic transformation in Africa and Asia nonetheless makes clear
that by the end of the decade, the needs of the urban hungry poor must
occupy a more central role in development planning of those seeking to
end poverty and hunger

2.7.4 [Role of Food Aid Monetization in Development Programs. Africare:
Monetization as a Development Tool]{.underline}, Lee Thompson, Africare

Thompson first talked about development of the local private Sector:

1.  Increasing participation, including advertising and information
    sessions in different parts of the country

2.  Upgrading business skills of participants

3.  Transparency and openness to raise visibility of fairness of the
    sale, and

4.  Working with buyers on payment terms

Thompson next elaborated on the urgency to correct the mistakes of the
past. PVOs, she argued, are often perceived of " as being poorly
informed do-gooders who have little understanding of the markets and the
private sector." She followed with some words of advice, distilled from
years of experience, to those working in the field:

1.  Be an Informed Seller \-- use everything at your disposal and get
    help on what is readily available to you -- hang out, understand the
    market, make friends, think like a buyer. Carry out market surveys.
    Sell the product for what it is worth in the local market and make
    sure the buyers will make a reasonable profit on their sales.

2.  Hold your ground -- Don't accept late bids/submissions or
    incomplete/incorrect documents. Activate bank guarantees if
    deadlines are not met. Be prepared to walk away from a sale if the
    terms are not what you need/want. Do not release commodities to
    buyers who have not paid for the food or who have not provided
    financial instruments guaranteeing the purchase, and make no
    exceptions.

3.  Be Professional -- conduct yourself in a way that respects the buyer
    and shows respect for yourself and who/what you represent. Be
    knowledgeable and current.

As a final word of advice, Thompson concluded that: " The long term goal
is for developing countries to be well-connected to external markets so
that consumers can purchase what they need *and* what they want.
Monetization can help facilitate this process of "connectedness" by
breaking down barriers between countries and dispelling myths about
"foreign markets."

## 2.8 USDA Food Aid Request Entry System (FARES): Nelson Randall, USDA Farm Service Agency {#usda-food-aid-request-entry-system-fares-nelson-randall-usda-farm-service-agency .unnumbered}

Nelson Randall presented a prototype of FARES. He pointed out that
USDA/FAS/KCCO is the procurement arm for both USAID and USDA's Foreign
Agriculture Service (FAS) and that USDA purchases the commodities for
food aid programs. The Electronic Bid Entry System was developed in 1997
for the commodity suppliers and was implemented in 1998. One of the
goals of the new FARES is to eliminate faxed calls forward which were a
problem in the past. He noted that FARES is universal; it can be
implemented by all PVOs and WFP with regard to Title II and Title III
food aid programs. "There will now be one system for everything," noted
Randall.

The implementation target date for FARES is October 1, 2002. From that
day, all call forward and procurement requests should be sent directly
through the FARES system and users will each have their own log-on and
password. The good news Randall underlined is that implementation of
FARES will be at no cost to the Cooperating Sponsors. Information to be
captured in FARES include: Cooperating Sponsor; supplier; consignee;
freight forwarder information; commodity type; metric tons; shipping
instruction \# or project #; program type; fiscal year; load port; load
date; discharge port; and shipping requirements including fumigation
certificates, certificate of cleanliness, marking requirements, etc.

Another feature of the system is that there will be a "Modify Request"
screen, and another electronic form that will allow the Cooperating
Sponsors to add a commodity to their original call forward. He also
added that USDA is still working to set up training before FARES is
implemented and that training manuals will be distributed before October
1, 2002. He confirmed that the call forward due dates will remain the
same. The Food For Peace Information System (FFPIS) will not be merged
with FARES; FFP will continue to produce the FFPIS Call Forward Status
Reports. The session was followed by a number of questions on the
system.

## 2.9 FACG Standardization of the Booking Notes process, Keith Powell, Potomac Marine representing the Food Aid Consultative Group (FACG), Transportation Working Group (TWG) {#facg-standardization-of-the-booking-notes-process-keith-powell-potomac-marine-representing-the-food-aid-consultative-group-facg-transportation-working-group-twg .unnumbered}

Powell informed the audience that the idea to standardize the Booking
Notes originated at the 2001 USDA/KCCO Conference. The TWG, which
includes representatives from USAID, the PVOs, ship owners, shipbrokers,
freight forwarders, and the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is trying
to formulate a streamlining process for standard Booking Notes. Powell
noted that ship owners in particular are not happy with the current
Booking Notes, which is considered not very "commercial." On the other
hand, PVOs are concerned that the standardized Booking Notes will place
undue limitations on them and not be specific to their needs, such as
delivery requirements at the disport or contractual monetization
requirements. Powell remarked, "The PVOs' individual needs must be met
if there is to be a standardization of the Booking Notes."

A final draft of standard Booking Notes should be circulated to all
interested parties within a couple of months. Powell concluded by
saying, "If there is less ambiguity in the terms of the Booking Notes,
the ship owners will offer lower freight rates. Ambiguity leads to
higher freight rates."

The day ended with a reception where the participants continued the
debates and discussions in an informal setting. The North American
Millers Association provided fortified finger-food.

.

# 3.0 Day Two

1.  Overview of FFP Strategic Directions

The day started with a "Good Morning" recap of the day by Lauren Landis.
The objective of this session was to update FFP stakeholders on strategy
and vision work to date and the timeline for the elaboration of the new
FFP Strategic Plan over the next six months. Elise Storck facilitated
the debate by David Garms, FFP Team Leader for Vision and Strategy
development; Mara Russell, Director, Food Aid Management; and Tom
Marchione, DCHA/ Office of Program, Policy and Management.

David Garms made introductory comments expressing the view that a clear
vision will yield clear goals. He also stressed the need to get input
from field missions, the PVO community as well as other stakeholders in
order to produce the Strategic Plan.

Tom Marchione gave a synopsis of the steps leading to the present status
in the development of the Strategy. He reported that two sub-groups had
been created. The Vision sub-group, which he leads, collected new ideas
and worked on the drafting of a global vision that included a shared
mission and a shared set of principles. The second group, led by Samir
Zoghby, AMEX International, made an assessment of the present strategy
and reviewed existing processes. Marchione said that there was a need to
tap field expertise to be all-inclusive and set a process to develop a
transparent, collaborative relationship. This will help us work together
in a synergistic way to develop a Strategic Plan. FFP's vision, he
asserted, will be a shared vision with all the stakeholders and is
presently a "Work in progress."

Representing the PVO community, Mara Russell, described the parameters
the Vision and Strategy group is working on. These include:

1.  A Strategic Plan to be drafted in less than six months

2.  The Plan should not exceed 20 pages in length

The Vision/Strategy Group, she indicated, has developed Vision and
Mission statements that are working documents to guide us in defining a
broad program strategy and the role of FFP within that strategy. She
urged the drafters to make the strategy broad to include all
stakeholders in food aid, and not just FFP.

Russell then explained the purpose of the day's discussion: to learn
from the participants and to hear what they have to say. The general
focus has been on household nutrition and agricultural productivity.
There is a need for more programs, like education but especially
cross-cutting issues, such as HIV/AIDS and the gender issue. She
concluded by stating that FFP does listen to the PVOs; is interested in
hearing about the stakeholders' experiences and believes in a
consultative, transparent process.

3.1.1 Breakout Groups

The participants were divided into 8 breakout groups to focus on the
four main categories of food aid and security contexts below:

1.  Sudden-Onset Emergencies. Facilitators: Lisa Witte (IRD) and Kathy
    Hunt (USAID/FFP)

2.  Complex Situations with Conflict and Population Displacement, such
    as the Sudan. Facilitators: Susan Bradley(USAID/FFP) and Beth
    Dunford (USAID/FFP) (Group A); and Tom Ewert (MCI) and David Garms
    (USAID/FFP) (Group B)

3.  Situations with Highly Vulnerable Populations Subject to Recurrent
    Shocks, such as Ethiopia. Facilitators: Steve Zodrow (FAM) (Group
    A); and Ina Schonberg (SCF)(group B)

4.  Situations with Relatively Stable but Food-Insecure Populations
    Subject to Occasional Shocks, such as Ghana. Facilitators: Roberta
    Vanhaeften (USAID/LAC) (Group A); and Carolyn Hughes (USAID/FFP),
    Rachel Grant (WV), and Curt Nissly (USAID/FFP) (Group B)

Due to the lack of participants, Group A and B of the first category
were merged into one Breakout Group.

The participants were given 4 questions (below) to focus their
discussions. A Parking Lot was provided for interesting ideas not
directly related to the subject at hand.

1.  Causes of Food Insecurity

2.  Priority Objectives for Title II

3.  Successful Interventions

4.  How to Measure Success/Indicators

5.  Parking Lot

During the lunch break, the 7 breakout groups posted the results of
their discussions and deliberations on flip charts in the plenary
conference room. Participants then had a chance to circulate around the
room and review the posters, developing questions and suggestions for
the plenary discussion. Three commentators and facilitator Elise Storck
reviewed the posters and prepared a brief synthesized presentation to
initiate and jump-start the plenary discussion[^1]. The panelists
included: Jeanne Markunas, FFP Deputy Director, Mary Lewellen,
USAID/Ethiopia, and Thoric Cederstrom, Counterpart International.

3.1.2 Panelist Jeanne Markunas, FFP Deputy Director

Jeanne Markunas started by saying the breakout group format was
enormously insightful. She believed that one of the greatest insights
derived from the poster session was the idea that agricultural
development involves an investment in human capacity development.
Markunas also noted that all of the breakout groups identified similar
base or root causes of food insecurity, namely access to land, water,
sanitation, and the need for a strong and stable national government.
She concluded by stating that this should just be the beginning of a
continuing dialogue between those involved in food aid.

3.1.3 Panelist Thoric Cederstrom, Counterpart International

Thoric Cederstrom called for the forging of a coherent framework from
the results of the breakout groups. As a PVO representative, he said
that the PVO community appreciated being part of the process. He
extracted from the various scenarios a number of norms:

1.  PVOs should participate more fully in influencing the policy debate

2.  There was not enough discussion on how to use Title II resources
    successfully to address HIV/AIDS problems

3.  Agricultural productivity is essential for development

4.  More emphasis should be put on capacity-building

5.  More negotiations are needed on the length of projects

6.  The need for cash is crucial. We must find ways to leverage Title II
    resources to get cash. Thus, monetization is very important for the
    PVO community.

Cederstrom indicated that a common theme is that food is a great
resource to have on hand, but cash is also necessary and monetization is
extremely important to the PVOs, even in emergency situations. He also
stressed the need to make longer commitments, as the 5-year DAP ceiling
is often not long enough to achieve measurable results. Cederstrom
concluded his remarks by stating that the PVOs are looking forward to
being part of the dialogue as well as the decision-making process in
partnership with FFP.

3.1.4 Panelist Mary Lewellen, USAID/Ethiopia

Mary Lewellen said that this general session was the starting point of
constructing norms between the ways of thinking of the partners present
at the meeting. She pointed out that the common themes among the groups
included: population density and displaced populations leading to
conflict; man-made and natural disasters as a cause of conflict; the
issue of how to respond to chronically food insecure situations versus
how to respond to short term emergencies; and the issue of urban vs.
rural/displaced populations. Lewellen indicated that the ultimate goal
is to save lives by getting food to vulnerable groups in an efficient
and effective way, using local capacity when possible. This local
capacity, she argued, should be built at the community, national and
regional levels. She noted that the relief to development continuum was
omitted from group discussions. In conclusion, Lewellen enumerated a
number of issues that need consideration:

1.  The need to encourage risk taking at community and national levels

2.  The need to integrate all resources available, not just U.S.
    Government resources

3.  The need to address the root causes of food insecurity by using
    local capacity to implement programs

3.2 Management Streamlining

The objective of this session was to update participants on management
streamlining and provide a timeline for the coming year. Panelists
included: Jeanne Markunas, Deputy Director FFP, and Bridget Ralyea,
FFP/Development Programs.

3.2.1 Panelist Jeanne Markunas, FFP/Deputy Director

Jeanne Markunas initiated the presentation by thanking Lauren Landis for
making streamlining a priority. FFP started the process of streamlining
a few years ago and has made significant progress. Markunas concluded
that the Farm Bill has mandated FFP to streamline procedures and
guidelines and to submit a report by March 2003.

3.2.2 Panelist Bridget Ralyea, FFP/Development Programs

Bridget Ralyea, Team Leader for the Streamlining Group, pointed out the
Congressional mandate that FFP must streamline. Her team is presently
working on DAP guidelines for fiscal year 2004:

1.  Timely issuance

2.  Reduction of repetitions

3.  Clear expectation on how DAPs should be reviewed

4.  Significant decrease in number of changes made from one year to the
    other

5.  Separate presentation of policy information

6.  Moving towards inclusion in USAID's Automated Directive System

Regarding Streamlining accomplishments, Ralyea reported that: the Team
is looking at the DAP review process as indicated; the FFP web site is
regularly updated; the Commodity Reference Guide has been updated; a
standardized report survey is now included in all TAs for the emergency
programs; the EP budget reviews is now standardized; and that
pre-positioned commodities are now available. In order to achieve
streamlining efforts, Ralyea suggested that the following tools are in
place:

1.  Consolidation of Transfer Authorizations, including 202(e) into a
    single document

2.  Inclusion of language that allows for commodity substitution

3.  Updated commodity price list is now provided

4.  Light review of CRS4 for programs in their first year of
    implementation.

Ralyea then briefly discussed, "Streamlining and the New Farm Bill." A
synopsis was distributed at the conference[^2].

3.2.3 Breakout Groups

The participants next voted on issues they wanted to discuss. The
results led to the creation of 8 breakout groups to discuss the
following topics:

1.  The DAP Approval process. Facilitated by Angelique Crumbly
    (USAID/FFP).

2.  Establishment of a Mechanism/Strategy for Programming Title II Food
    Aid in a Transition Context. Facilitated by Susan Bradley
    (USAID/FFP).

3.  Annual reporting Requirements for development Programs. Facilitated
    by Anne Swindale (FANTA).

4.  Evaluation Requirements for Development Programs. Facilitated by:
    Beth Dunford (USAID/FFP)

5.  Process/Mechanism for Responding to Emergency Situations in a
    Country where Title II Development Resources are Being Programmed.
    Facilitated by: Helene Carlson (USAID/FFP).

6.  Revising Policies with Respect to Monetization and Cost recovery.
    Facilitated by: Sylvia Graves (USAID/FFP) and Nancy Estes
    (USAID/Mali)

7.  Opening Lines of Communications among FFP, the PVOs, USDA, the
    Missions making Commodity Information Available More Quickly.
    Facilitated by: Kathy Hunt (USAID/FFP)

8.  Upgrade the Food For Peace Information System (FFPIS). Facilitated
    by: Lawrence Williams (USAID/FFP)

The participants were given 3 questions (below) to focus their
discussions. A Parking Lot was provided for interesting ideas not
directly related to the subject at hand.

1.  What is Working Well?

2.  What Should be Changed?

3.  Recommendations

4.  Parking Lot

Upon completion of the review of the assigned topic, the participants
returned to the plenary session. Lauren Landis, Jeanne Markunas and
Bridget Ralyea commented briefly and each group leader presented the
results of their deliberation[^3].

After the short presentations, Bridget Ralyea thanked the participants
and promised, "We'll take it and move forward." Jeanne Markunas said
that we need to look at the second generation of indicators, but must be
cautious "because costs go way up." Lauren Landis stressed once again
that she is working very hard to increase staff and will have a quicker,
transparent process to hire the best candidates. In conclusion, she
added, that she would like to see DP take the lead when "emergencies"
arise in countries with DP presence and with EP support.

3.3 Commodity Quality Issues and Solutions

The objective of this session was to provide an open forum for
representatives of Industry, PVOs, USDA and FFP to discuss commodity
quality issues and search for solutions. The meeting was moderated by
Jim Thompson (USAID/FFP) and the panel included: Peggy Sheehan,
representing industry; Ina Schonberg, representing the PVO community;
and Jim Firth, from USDA/FSA.

Thompson opened the session by explaining the role of the FACG Commodity
Working Group, which is to provide a forum for the Title II food aid
community to solve commodity problems and relevant issues. He proposed
four main issues related to commodities to be examined by the audience:

1.  Best use by date

2.  Seasonal products

3.  Micronutrients

4.  Genetically modified food

Regarding quality issues, Walter Welz from USAID/Uganda raised the issue
of poorly milled CSB destined for HIV/AIDS recipients that did not
comply with specifications. Another issue raised was that PVOs cannot
monetize commodities without a "best use by date." It was reported that
the Commodity Reference Guide set standards, however, USDA standards
differ from those in some countries. The conclusion was that there is
presently an honest attempt to administer common labels to projects
funded by both USAID and USDA. Simplification of coding was welcomed by
the participants.

3.4 [Status Report: Agency Response to the South African
Drought]{.underline}, Dale Skoric, USAID/FFP

Dale Skoric chaired the evening session and delivered a background brief
on the region. The Southern African Development Community (SADC) is
comprised of 14 member states, six of which are affected by the current
food security crisis. There is a 3.1 million metric ton (MT) maize
deficit in the SADC Region. FFP is responding to the 2.6 million MT
deficit in the 6 affected countries. Humanitarian assistance will meet
the approximately 1.2 million MT needed. Zimbabwe's needs represent 56%
of the total requirement but the number of affected people is expected
to rise from 7.6 million in July-August to 12.7 million people in the
December-March period. To compound matters, HIV/AIDS prevalence rates
are the highest in the world: 25.3 in Swaziland and 25.1 in Zimbabwe.

To meet the challenge, the USG response to existing WFP operations has
been swift. 96,000 MT have been sent to existing operations and 36,000
MT are en route to the region and have yet to be allocated. The
Inter-Agency USG Food Assistance Policy Council decided that an Emerson
Trust draw was necessary. 270,000 MT of wheat was approved for sale by
the USDA, which generated funds to procure 270,000 MT of mixed
commodities needed in the region.

Skoric reported that an Inter-Agency Policy Coordination Committee (PCC)
sub-group was established under the leadership of USAID. The PCC
Sub-group is co-chaired by Roger Winter of DCHA and Gene Dewey of State
Department. The PCC has also established a Working Group that meets
bi-weekly and is chaired by Lauren Landis, FFP Director. The group is
developing a diplomatic strategy, a public affairs strategy and a
pipeline strategy. FFP is now formulating another proposal for an
additional draw down of the Emerson Trust. Roger Winter, Lauren Landis
and Bill Hagelman, USAID/Africa Bureau will visit Zambia, Zimbabwe and
Malawi July 16-25, 2002.

14,000 MT of the 36,000 MT shipment presently en route is allocated to
Zimbabwe. It was reported that South Africa is expected to have a
700,000 MT surplus. This will help only if the Government of Zimbabwe
(GOZ) allows the commodities to enter the country. In the division of
labor, WFP will handle logistics issues while PVOs handle distribution
in the region. A donor outreach strategy is being formulated. To respond
to the urgency, Ministers of Agriculture of the region will gather on
July 16^th^, 2002 to discuss policy constraints. USAID and other donors
are in discussion to monitor the situation in Zimbabwe with human rights
observers. "FFP policy is to meet humanitarian needs. Food will not be
used as a political tool in Zimbabwe specially since SADC does not have
the capacity to monitor or distribute food," concluded Skoric.

**4.0 Day Three**

4.1 [Integrating Title II Resources/Programs with Other USAID
Activities: Experiences & Innovations]{.underline}

The objective of this session was to identify and discuss lessons
learned in the integration of resources and programming in order to
inform the FFP strategic planning process and ongoing operations. Anne
Swindale from FANTA introduced the subject and led a Panel that
included: Enrique Urbana, USAID/Nicaragua; Tim Shortley, USAID/Ethiopia;
and Herbert Smith, USAID/Indonesia. Elise Storck facilitated.

4.1.1 Breakout Groups

Again, the participants were given 3 questions to guide and focus the
discussions of the breakout and a Parking Lot.

1.  What is meant by "integration" of Title II resources in the context
    of a specific region or programming area?

2.  What are participants' successful experiences with integration of
    Title II resources in this context? How might these successes be
    replicated?

3.  What obstacles have participants encountered in trying to integrate
    Title II resources, and what are some of the lessons learned for
    overcoming them?

The participants were then divided into 7 breakout groups to discuss
regional and programmatic perspectives:

1.  Africa. Facilitated by Nancy McKay (USAID/AFR)

2.  Latin America. Facilitated by Abdul Wahab (USAID/LAC)

3.  Disaster Preparedness. Facilitated by Tim Anderson
    (USAID/Bangladesh)

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
4.  Intra-USAID Integration. Facilitated by Bob Bell (CARE)

5.  HIV/AIDS Programming. Facilitated by Walter Welz (USAID/Uganda)

6.  Integrating Private Funds with Title II. Facilitated by Carol
    Jenkins (World Vision)

7.  Agriculture/Nutrition Linkages. Facilitated by Anne Swindale (FANTA)

The breakout groups reconvened in the plenary conference room. A
representative from each group presented the results of their
deliberations and their recommendations[^4].

[]{.mark}

4.2 [Conference Wrap Up]{.underline}, Lauren Landis

Landis thanked all the participants for their substantial contributions
to the discussions and debate, noting that the lines of communications
between the various players in the field of Food Aid have started a
dialogue that, she hopes, will continue after this conference ends.

4.2.1 Challenges facing FFP in coming months

Landis talked at length about some of the take-home messages and
overriding themes that emerged from the discussions. She started with
the challenges facing FFP in the coming months:

1.  202(e) and ITSH have changed and represent a challenge to balance
    authorities and various interests

2.  Changes in monetization, the need to reduce percentage aid
    monetized, and new sales procedures--- what this entails for all?

3.  Streamlining is now Law and a real challenge. Landis reiterated her
    commitment to make streamlining a truly consultative process.

4.  Decisions have been made for GFEI (the McGovern-Dole) and Food For
    Progress. The remaining question is: What agency will eventually
    implement the \$100 million GFEI program?

5.  The Intra-agency Review conclusion related to the use of Section
    416(b) is the Secretary of Agriculture's (5d) authority will not be
    used. The Administration believes that an increase in Title II funds
    will be a more sustainable approach. The end of this source will
    require a fresh look at 202(e).

6.  The paucity of funds will require a definite move to consolidate
    spigots. The Inter-Agency Review envisions a division of labor,
    whereby USAID works with PVOs and WFP while USDA focuses on
    bilateral government-to-government programs.

7.  "The Emerson Fund is alive and well," stated Landis. It was recently
    activated to handle the Southern Africa Drought crisis. Work
    continues on a reimbursement mechanism.

8.  There is a new understanding of what it means to be a "Pillar
    Bureau." The DCHA Bureau has a new strategy in the works. Landis
    believes that the new Assistant Administrators are pushing for the
    integration of programs among DCHA Offices. The Bureau also has a
    new Conflict Resolution Office.

9.  The AID Administrator, Landis was happy to say, knows what FFP is
    all about. He is a firm believer in food security and not food
    distribution. He recognizes the link between food insecurity and
    conflict, acknowledging that famine can cause failed states. He
    believes that we can prevent state failure by preventing famine.

10. Concerning technology, Landis stated, " I walk away from the
    conference feeling the need for a new technology push," and
    expressed her support for FARES.

11. There are many good discussions about FFPIS. Landis recognized the
    need for a new platform and that "we will get it into the new age,
    even if the resources are not there yet." She also added that FFP
    needs to see how FFPIS fits with the streamlining process; how to
    make better use of the website, and how to use the website as a
    focus of information relative to streamlining.

4.2.2 Themes requiring ongoing FFP discussion and analysis

1.  The need for consultations

2.  Transition, and how to do it best

3.  An appreciation of all obstacles and successes

4.  The realization that integration is sometimes confusing, but we need
    to focus on our needs

5.  Monetization - understanding and accepting that it will be reduced.
    Hence, the need to conduct a portfolio review and analyze the issue.

4.2.3 "To Do List"

Finally, Landis shared her "To do List" with the participants. This
includes:

1.  A short, concise summary of the conference. It will come out ASAP.
    "I am not interested in a document collecting dust on a shelf! The
    FFP Conference is a "working conference," therefore the report will
    be a "working document.""

2.  Streamlining. Landis reiterated that FFP is committed; that the FACG
    is the best forum for discussions and that it will be conducted in a
    consultative manner. The process, she added, will be done in the
    next six months.

3.  The Policy Letter: "We owe you one. The draft will be distributed in
    mid-July."

4.  Procedures for the ISA and emergencies will be looked at.

5.  "There is tons to do!" recognized Landis. The challenge of staffing
    and getting the right people is one of her priorities. She put the
    PVO community on notice that she will not hesitate to conduct raids
    as, "We are on the lookout for good people." Senior Management, she
    said, needs to focus on staffing.

6.  Regarding inter-agency coordination, there is need to focus on: Food
    For Peace, the Emerson Trust, and the Southern Africa Drought.

4.2.4 Landis concluded:

"I would like to end by saying thank you. It was a working conference.
Participation was good**.** There was much on tasks. The agenda was
dense. The assignments were tough. Some topics were difficult.
Discussions were sometimes heated and passionate, but it was in a
constructive working environment. I have good vibes about the meeting,
and I thank you all for it. I would like to thank the people who made it
possible:

-   Elise Storck was a fine organizer and a superb time-keeper

-   Thanks to Curt and Samir. Logistics went quite well

-   Thanks to the panelists. Some were assigned with very little advance
    notice. It was a revolving agenda.

-   Thanks to the note takers from the AMEX staff

To end, let me say that we are committed to strengthening the
consultative process and our partnership with our partners."

At the end of the concluding remarks, an evaluation form was distributed
to the participants. Out of 216 attendees, 68 returned the form[^5].

4.3 [USAID concerns of FFP field and headquarters staff]{.underline}

4.3.1 [Field Implications of the Farm Bill and Inter-Agency
Review]{.underline}

The objective of this meeting was to support the field in understanding
and adhering to new legislative and policy directives by providing
guidance on interpretation of the Farm Bill and Inter-Agency Review. The
session was facilitated by Elise Storck and included: Mary Lewellen from
USAID/Ethiopia; and Lauren Landis, Jeanne Markunas and Angelique Crumbly
from FFP.

The group discussed at length the synopsis of the new Farm Security and
Rural Investment Act of 2002[^6], i.e. the Farm Bill, prepared by Don
Gressett from USAID's General Counsel Office. The following points were
raised as part of the discussion:

1.  Missions need to know how their responsibilities will change if GFEI
    becomes part of USAID

2.  Food For Peace needs to become more involved in adult literacy
    programs and not just support basic education

3.  Monetization

    a.  OMB wants to reduce monetization and integrate more direct
        assistance into the DAPs

    b.  Pre-existing DAPS will be grand-fathered in

    c.  Current approved monetization programs will stand, but new ones
        will be reduced

    d.  FFP should consult with the PVO community and with Michigan
        State University to agree on an acceptable level for
        monetization programs

4.3.2 [Lessons Learned, Best Practices, and Broad Implications: Field
Perspectives and Experience]{.underline}

The objective of this session was to examine best practices from the
field, in order to identify innovations in program implementation and
management that can be replicated in other Title II Programs. Lauren
Landis moderated the session.

4.3.2.1 [USAID/Bolivia Impact Evaluation]{.underline}, panelist Abdul
Wahab, USAID/LAC

Abdul Wahab started with an impact evaluation for the Title II Bolivia
Programs. He outlined the opportunities for USAID in the country and
their achievements thus far. Wahab first described Bolivia, mentioning a
harsh terrain, an absence of infrastructure including education and
health systems, and 250 communities suffering from extreme food
insecurity. In terms of opportunities, he identified:

1.  Macroeconomic stability

2.  Popular Participation Law

3.  Successful decentralization process

4.  Long-term growth outlook is good

In terms of achievements, he mentioned:

1.  Net annual household income increased from \$322 to \$963

2.  Decline in chronic malnutrition rates (11% in boys, 9% in girls)

3.  Increased access to safe drinking water increased from 9% to 31% of
    the country

4.  Decline in school drop-out rates

5.  Reduction of infectious diseases

6.  Improved storage and processing of foods

7.  3,900 kilometers of rural roads were constructed

8.  Market-driven development programs have been effective and
    successful

9.  Institution building at all levels

Community participation has been a contributor to the success of the
ventures. It involves good environmental practices, sound technical
consulting, and was based on market forces.

The lessons from the USAID/Bolivia experience were summed up by Wahab:

1.  A team approach is helpful

2.  Good environmental practices are good development practices

3.  All interventions are contributing to decrease malnutrition within a
    year

4.  Programs need to be extended beyond the 5-year ceiling with good
    evaluation criteria and an exit strategy

5.  Program success is due to good management structure

Regarding difficulties, Abdul Wahab cited:

1.  Intervention to provide rural micro-credit. Yet, difficulty in
    collecting the loans

2.  Involvement of host country government. Yet, the government is
    centralizing activities as a result of the Law of Participation

3.  Exit strategy. Yet, a lack of Government school feeding programs.

Concerning resources for the future, Abdul Wahab reported that future
resources to continue programming will come from the President's budget,
drawing on DA funds, and monetization that is still available.

4.3.2.2 [Addis Managed DAP review]{.underline}, panelist Ali Said,
USAID/Ethiopia

Ali Said spoke of his experience with the Ethiopia FY2003 External DAP
Review completed a month ago. It was a "very robust" and rigorous DAP
review. Said described the setting as a Title II team composed of
individuals from each S.O. to review DAP and RFA concurrently with the
review by FFP/W. The result was a consolidation of comments (Mission,
FFP/W and FANTA) and one submission. Said also reported that the mission
will work with FFP/W in the coming months towards a joint approval. He
observed that the lessons learned are that the commitment of the mission
was essential and that Title II cross-cutting issues represented the
convergence of AID/W and the Mission at the programmatic level without
compromising Title II objectives. In his opinion, it was very effective
and efficient to conduct the review process. Having the DAP defense done
in front of Lauren Landis, the FFP Director, and in Addis Ababa, made
Said feel as though everybody was able to act as one team.

4.3.2.3 [West Africa Commodity Tracking System]{.underline}, panelist
Nancy Estes, USAID/Mali

Nancy Estes presented the West Africa Commodity Tracking System (WACOM)
of the West Africa regional Office of Food For Peace with a wealth of
data and charts. She said that USAID/Mali has 19 CS programs operating
in 14 countries. The staff USAID/Mali consists of 2 FFP Officers, 2 FSNs
and 1 PSC. Therefore, she feels there exists an oversight challenge;
hence the need for efficient, effective management tools.

Estes informed the participants that the WACOM database:

1.  Reports Title II issues in Africa

2.  Provides CS commodity Status report

3.  Developed food logs in coordination with CRS

4.  Focuses on in-country losses

5.  Produces annual reports

6.  Produces country-specific reports

7.  Considers sectoral breakdowns

8.  Reports food losses and claim status

9.  Provides regional analysis, and

10. Analyzes call forwards and losses

She indicated that there exists a relatively high vessel rate loss vs.
in-country losses. This, she added, is due to poor port losses, which
may be overstated, but in-country losses have been usually understated.
Estes then talked about the major issues facing WACOM:

1.  The methodology used for CSRs and RSRs is detailed and tedious

2.  Electronic data swap between CS and Mission. A template was
    developed for PVOs without a system being already in place.

3.  The need for coordinating Bellmons and UMRs

Estes then described the March 2002 meeting in Dakar that brought
together the Foreign Agriculture Services Regional Attaché, based in
Abidjan, Cote d'Ivoire, and USAID's Regional FFP Officer, from Bamako,
Mali to discuss Bellmon analyses. The meeting recommended that the group
provide a Bellmon profile for each West African country. USAID/Mali
agreed to develop one per country and the basic data to be posted on the
USAID/Dakar website, FFP, and FAM. The format has already been agreed
upon.

At the end of the discussion, Jim Thompson, from USAID/FFP, surveyed the
participants to determine if any other commodity management system
existed. He stated that all could benefit from technology sharing, that
there would be no need to "re-invent the wheel," as the need for
standardization would educate FFP/W as well.

4.3.3 [Maximizing FFP's Field Presence]{.underline}

The objective of this session was to identify opportunities for
increasing responsibility, accountability, and capacity-building for FFP
staff in the field, particularly FSNs. The moderator was Lauren Landis
and the panel included:

1.  Golam Kebir (USAID/Bangladesh)

2.  Ashi Kathuria (USAID/India)

3.  Pedro Carillo (USAID/Madagascar)

4.  Solonirina Ranaivojaona (USAID/Madagascar)

The four panelists were Foreign Service Nationals (FSNs). They discussed
their experience in the field as well as their hopes and thoughts on
their jobs. All four panelists shared the opinion that, although their
work is often difficult, things are moving forward; and they have seen
more responsibility handed over to the FSNs. They hope to have more
responsibility in the future.

Golam Kebir was the first speaker. He said that he has been 23 years
with the USAID Mission. He pointed out that FSNs are an important part
of the Mission. FSNs, Kebir said, play a critical role and assume large
responsibilities in re-delegated Missions. Talking about areas of
improvement, he stressed the importance of FSNs as a human resource for
the Mission, as they know the country and the local cultures, and in
many cases represent the institutional memory of the Mission.

Ashi Khaturia thanked USAID for giving her the chance to be part of this
gathering. She explained that she has received much on the job training,
and that in the past few years she has witnessed a lot of responsibility
handed over to the FSNs. She stresses the need for delegation of
authority to FSNs and the need to give them more training in project
management. She suggested more training at the regional level for
increased experience sharing and to further the opportunity to "tap"
into the FSN resources. She then talked about the important role FSNs
play for better interaction with the host government and suggested that
FSNs should become full-fledged FFP Officers.

"Riri" Ranaivojaona talked about the role FSNs play in the
implementation of the FFP programs in the field. He asked the question,
" What is my job?" and answered saying it was to serve the local
community and get results. "How to do it?" he asked. He believes that it
can be done by developing trust between the Mission and the
beneficiaries and by carrying out the responsibilities in a professional
way. The best way to do it, he concluded, is to give FSNs full and total
certification.

Pedro Carillo started by saying that he was a Third Country national
(TCN) working as a PSC. He reminded the participants that the FSNs run
the ship when the bosses are away. He added that FSNs stay behind when
ordered departures take place. They keep the food aid program alive.
Hence, the need for more comprehensive training.

At the end of the presentations, Lauren Landis expressed her thanks and
gratitude to Ron Senykoff (USAID/Nairobi) who was instrumental in
suggesting and organizing this very valuable and instructive panel
discussion.

4.3.4 [Open Forum with FFP Senior Management Team]{.underline}

The objective of the session was to have a dialogue with FFP Senior
Managers on management issues raised by the participants. The Team
consisted of: Lauren Landis (FFP Director), Jeanne Markunas (FFP Deputy
Director), Jon Brause (FFP/EP, Chief), Angelique Crumbly (FFP/DP Acting
Chief), and Jeff Drummond (FFP/POD Chief). Elise Storck was the
facilitator.

Lauren Landis opened the meeting by saying that it was an open
discussion to discuss any and all topics of interest to the
participants.

The questions covered a wide range of issues. These included personnel
and the need for more staff; PVO requests for multi-year programs; the
need to involve more intimately the PVO community in the planning
process; the posting of more BS 15 Direct Hire staff overseas to oversee
the programs; to consider the idea of a "double major" to keep New Entry
Professionals (NEPs) who are going after other backstops; the need to
extend the DAP ceiling beyond 5 years to be more realistic; FFP to play
a greater role in donor coordination; and better communications between
USAID/W and the missions.

The Senior Staff members provided answers as best they could in an
atmosphere of frank discussion devoid of "canned" clichés and defensive
attitudes. It was the end of a long and intensive conference and it was
the last meeting where the staff, particularly the overseas staff, was
trying to get answers to crucial and important issues. The answers came
as honest and straightforward as they could possibly be.

Regarding the multi-year issues, Jeanne Markunas reported that PVOs
wanted multi-year programs, and often changed the programs significantly
from year to year. She said FFP needs to address changes made midstream
by PVOs, and that FFP is now trying to get a better design from the PVOs
at the onset and remain with it for all five years without major
changes. Lauren Landis added that the PVOs did not feel like they were
being heard. "The partnership and listening should be improved," she
added. PVOs felt so bad about the situation that they wanted to
legislate the relationship. Landis continued saying that FFP has
established a dialogue with Congress and the Agriculture Committee to
avoid falling short of expectations. Angelique Crumbly noted that there
is currently a "Streamlining Committee" that is looking at the DAP
Review Process and Landis added, "We will give Congress a status report
and after roughly one year provide a final report to make sure that we
are on track."

Regarding her vision of the possibility of expanding BS-15 Direct Staff
overseas, Landis admitted that she does not have a vision yet, other
than know that FFP needs to fix the situation. She pointed out that the
situation is compounded by the fact that many BS-15ers are retiring and
not many slots are open as missions often replace them by other
backstops. Jeanne Markunas remarked that "When you have a highly visible
situation, that is the time to time to raise the staffing issue, and we
have raised the issue with the Administrator. There are good NEPs, but
where are the positions?" Markunas recognized that everyone is feeling
the crunch and recognize that FFP needs staff. She reported that some
temporary positions overseas will be created for NEPs, but they will
have to be OE-funded. Concerning the "double major," Markunas pointed
out that it would mean an official systemic change, which is not
plausible in the short term.

Regarding the 5-year ceiling for DAPs, Landis said that it is difficult
to "solve the problem" in 5 years. Regarding the US contribution, Jon
Brause reported that a lot of thought has been given by FFP for
leadership in Afghanistan and in Southern Africa. He said that there is
a strategy for donor outreach, and that with the Millennium Challenge
Account, things will change and we will be stepping up to the plate.

After the Senior Management Team fielded questions and the staff
received answers that satisfied their concerns and enquiries, the
meeting and the conference were adjourned ending three days of
intensive, frank and challenging interchange among the various members
of the larger Food Aid Community.

[^1]: See Annex 1 for the synopsis of the strategy and vision breakout
    groups.

[^2]: See Annex 2.

[^3]: See Annex 3 for the synopsis of the streamlining breakout groups.

[^4]: See Annex 4 for the synopsis of integration breakout groups.

[^5]: See Annex 5 for the tabulation of the evaluation results.

[^6]: See Annex 6 for the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of
    2002.