**UNITED STATES AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT**

**BUREAU FOR Democracy, Conflict &**

**Humanitarian Assistance**

**OFFICE OF FOOD FOR PEACE**

[UPDATE: Proposals for Fiscal Year 2009 Multi Year Assistance Programs
are due Monday, January 12, 2009.]{.underline}

**P.L. 480 TITLE II PROGRAM POLICIES AND PROPOSAL GUIDELINES**

**FISCAL YEAR 2009**

**LIST OF ACRONYMS**

AL Award Letter

ADS Automated Directives System

AER Annual Estimate of Requirements

AG Agriculture/Natural Resource Management

AIDS Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome

ART Anti-Retroviral Therapy

AU African Union

BEO Bureau Environmental Officer

CA Cooperative Agreement

CAADP Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme

CBO Country Backstop Officer

C.F.R. Code of Federal Regulations

CS Cooperating Sponsor

CTO Cognizant Technical Officer

DA Development Assistance funds

DAP Development Assistance Program

DCHA Bureau for Democracy, Conflict, and Humanitarian Assistance

ECS Environmental Capability Statement

EDP Extended Delivery Point

EMP Environmental Management Plan

ER Emergency Resources

ESR Environmental Status Report

F Office of Foreign Assistance

FANTA Food and Nutrition Technical Assistance

FAO Food and Agriculture Organization

FBCOs Faith-Based and Community Organizations

FEWS NET Famine Early Warning System Network

FFA Food for Assets

FFE Food for Education

FFP Office of Food for Peace

FFPIB Food for Peace Information Bulletin

FFP/W Office of Food for Peace-Washington

FFT Food for Training

FFW Food for Work

FY Fiscal Year

GDA Global Development Alliance

GIEWS Global Information Early Warning System

HCFFPA Host Country Food for Peace Agreement

HIV Human Immunodeficiency Virus

HN Health and Nutrition

ICB Institutional Capacity Building grant

ICRC International Committee of the Red Cross

IEE Initial Environmental Examination

IEHA Initiative to End Hunger in Africa

IFRC International Federation of the Red Cross/Red Crescent Societies

IO Intergovernmental Organization

IPTT Indicator Performance Tracking Table

ITSH Internal Transport, Storage, and Handling

LDC Least Developed Country

LOA Life of Activity

MCC Millennium Challenge Corporation

MCHN Maternal and Child Health and Nutrition

MT Metric Ton

MTZ Monetization

MYAP Multi-Year Assistance Program

NEPAD New Partnership for Africa's Development

NER Non-Emergency Resources

NICRA Negotiated Indirect Cost Rate Agreement

NGO Non-Governmental Organization

OFDA Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance

OMB Office of Management and Budget

OP Operational Plan

OTI Office of Transition Initiatives

PEPFAR President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief

P.L. Public Law

PLHIV Persons Living with HIV

PMTCT Preventing Mother-to-Child Transmission

PERSUAP Pesticide Evaluation Report and Safer Use Action Plan

PM2A Prevention of Malnutrition in Under Twos Approach

PREP Pipeline and Resource Estimate Proposal

PVO Private Voluntary Organization

REA Rapid Environmental Assessment

REO Regional Environmental Officer

SO Strategic Objective

TEC Technical Evaluation Committee

SYAP Single-Year Assistance Program

UMR Usual Marketing Requirements

USAID United States Agency for International Development

USAID/M USAID Mission

US United States

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture

USG United States Government

VCT Voluntary Counseling and Testing

VGF Vulnerable Group Feeding

### WFP World Food Program

**DEFINITIONS**

Beneficiary: *Direct beneficiaries* are those who come into direct
contact with the set of interventions (goods or services) provided by
the program in each technical area. Individuals who receive training or
benefit from program-supported technical assistance or service provision
are considered direct beneficiaries, as are those who receive a ration
or another type of good. Note: all recipients are beneficiaries, but not
all beneficiaries are necessarily food ration recipients. Services
include training and technical assistance provided directly by program
staff, and training and technical assistance provided by people who have
been trained by program staff (e.g., agricultural extension agents,
village health workers). If cooperatives or organizations receive
training or technical assistance from the program, all members of the
cooperative/organization are considered direct beneficiaries. In a Food
for Training (FFT) program, the direct beneficiaries are those trained
under the program. In a Food for Work (FFW) or Food for Assets (FFA)
program that is implemented as a stand-alone activity (e.g., not as part
of a wider set of interventions in the technical sector), direct
beneficiaries are those who directly participate in the activity (i.e.,
receive a ration), not all of those who use or benefit from the
infrastructure/asset created (e.g., a road). If a FFW or FFA activity
forms part of a set of activities in a technical sector (e.g., FFW to
build irrigation infrastructure, accompanied by technical assistance in
new cultivation techniques and water management to a targeted group of
farmers), the direct beneficiaries include FFW participants and the
farmers receiving the technical assistance (the two groups may overlap).
In the case of food rations, direct beneficiaries include the individual
recipient in the case of individual rations, and the recipient plus
his/her family members in the case of family rations.

Direct beneficiaries do not include those who benefit indirectly from
the goods and services provided to the direct beneficiaries, e.g.,
members of the household of a beneficiary farmer who received technical
assistance, seeds and tools, other inputs, credit, livestock, etc.;
farmers from a neighboring community who might observe the effects of
the training and demonstration plots in the target community and decide
to adopt or model the new practices themselves; the population of all of
the communities in a valley that uses a road improved by FFW; or all
individuals who may have heard a radio message about prices, but who did
not receive the other elements of an agricultural intervention necessary
to increase incomes. Such individuals are considered *indirect
beneficiaries*.

Emergency Resources (ER): Title II resources used to provide
agricultural commodities to meet emergency food needs. SYAP activities
are generally funded with emergency resources. Emergency resources may
be used in a MYAP for expanded safety net and asset protection
activities that target populations suffering from transitory food
insecurity during a shock or transition from an emergency situation; as
well as to fund mitigation and early warning activities.

Multi-Year Assistance Program (MYAP): A Title II program that is
approved to operate for more than one year (usually three to five years
in duration). This can be funded with a combination of Title II
emergency and non-emergency resources, or only non-emergency resources
over the life of the activity. MYAP resources focus on a select number
of priority countries, proposals for which are submitted to FFP on an
annual basis.

Non-Emergency Resources (NER): Non-emergency resources are used in MYAPs
for activities that target chronically food insecure populations. These
activities include long-term safety nets and interventions to enhance
human capacities, livelihood capabilities, and community resiliency and
capacity.

Prevention of Malnutrition in Under Twos Approach (PM2A): In the context
of Title II, corresponds to an intervention that targets its
beneficiaries based on age (-6 to +24 months) rather than nutritional
status. The package of interventions consists in: a Behavior Change and
Communication (BCC) program, medical care and attention throughout, a
Community Management of Acute Malnutrition (CMAM) component for children
that become severely malnourished (the latter extending to 59.9 months
of age); and food rations distribution to the mother during at least six
months before the birth of her child and until the child reaches six
months of age; then to the child until he/she reaches 24 months of age.
Family rations are often used in combination to reduce dilution effects
at household level. Although it is not part of the preventive approach,
CS may choose to provide supplementary feeding for children over 24
months who become moderately malnourished.

Priority Country: A country identified to receive priority consideration
for future MYAP funding based on quantitative indicators of food
insecurity. While some MYAPs may be funded through a combination of
emergency and non-emergency resources, country prioritization applies to
MYAPs only; no country prioritization exists for SYAPs.

Safety Nets: A \"safety net\" is a system of providing resource
transfers to low-income and other vulnerable individuals and populations
who are unable to meet basic needs for survival and human dignity.
Individuals may be unable to meet these needs due to an external shock,
such as a natural disaster or war, or due to socioeconomic
circumstances, such as age, illness, disability or discrimination. Such
individuals are often dependent to some extent upon outside resources to
meet their basic food and livelihood needs. There are three basic kinds
of safety nets relevant in the Title II programming context:
unconditional, conditional and productive. Unconditional safety nets
provide resource transfers based solely on criteria of need. Conditional
safety nets provide a resource transfer contingent on certain behaviors,
such as sending children to school or bringing them to health centers on
a regular basis. Conditional safety nets address both short-term
protection objectives while promoting the longer-term accumulation of
human capital. Productive safety nets provide a resource transfer in
order to meet basic needs, prevent households from selling off
productive assets such as animals, tools and equipment; and build
community assets. In a chronic food insecurity situation, a productive
safety net might be a seasonal intervention.

Shock: A rapid or slow onset event (or set of events) having a
detrimental effect on a population's food security status by impeding
one of more of the three elements of food security (availability,
access, utilization). Shocks can occur occasionally or recurrently. The
source of the shock(s) can be:

-   natural (drought, floods, earthquake, hurricane, etc.,)

-   political (conflict, civil war),

-   economic (employment insecurity, hyper-inflation, collapsed terms of
    trade), and

-   health-related (epidemics, endemic disease, and widespread
    malnutrition).

Single-Year Assistance Program (SYAP): A Title II emergency program
scheduled to last up to one year and funded (in most cases) with Title
II emergency resources. On a case-by-case basis, SYAPs may be extended
beyond the initial 12-month approval.

Surge capacity: The ability for rapid staff deployment and material
mobilization to sudden-onset emergencies or urgent requirements for
additional staff, with overall arrangements to mobilize external
capacities for rapid response.

Trigger indicator: Indicator used to determine the threshold at which
MYAPs need to shift activities and/or require additional resources for
new activities in response to a slow-onset shock. Such an indicator
helps direct program priorities in dynamic and often unpredictable
operating environments. For example, in order to be aware of when a
population's vulnerability has increased, a MYAP needs to monitor early
warning indicators such as prices or coping measures, clearly
understanding which coping measures indicate "normal times" and which
indicate that the situation and environment is becoming stressful and
hazardous and may warrant additional Title II resources. The trigger
indicator(s) advises that the community is being subject to unusual
stress. For example, parents/guardians withdrawing children from school
may be an important piece of information to help implementers assess the
direction in which food insecurity is moving.

Vulnerability: In a food security context, people are vulnerable or at
risk of food insecurity because of their physiological status,
socioeconomic status or physical security; this also refers to people
whose ability to cope has been temporarily overcome by a shock.
"Vulnerability to food insecurity is a forward looking concept related
to people's proneness to future acute loss in their capacity to acquire
food. The degree of vulnerability depends on the characteristics of the
risks and a household's ability to respond to risk" (TANGO International
2004).

**TABLE OF CONTENTS**

I Introduction

II Food for Peace Strategic Plan 2006-2010

III Defining Development-Relief Concepts

-   Chronic and Transitory Vulnerability to Food Insecurity

IV Title II Program Categories

-   Single-Year Assistance Programs

-   Multi-Year Assistance Programs

V Resource Allocation Priorities for Title II Multi-Year Assistance
Programs

VI Sectoral Guidance and Initiatives

> Sectoral Guidance

(1) Agricultural Production

    a.  Comprehensive Africa Agricultural Development Programme

    b.  The President's Initiative to End Hunger in Africa (IEHA)

    c.  Energy Sources for Commodity Preparation

(2) Food for Education

(3) HIV

(4) Focus on Prevention of Chronic Malnutrition in Children Under Two
    Years of Age

> Initiatives

(1) Faith-Based and Community Initiative

(2) Global Development Alliance

(3) Millennium Challenge Corporation

VII Facilitating Programmatic Flexibility

(1) Time Frame

(2) Program Funding

VIII Submission and Review Process

(1) Single-Year Assistance Programs

(2) Multi-Year Assistance Programs

IX Additional Guidance Applicable to SYAPs and MYAPs

X Procedures for the Final Year of a Program

XI Multi-Year Program Amendment Submission and Review Process

**ANNEX A: MYAP Proposal Application Format and Evaluation Criteria**

**ANNEX A1: MYAP Proposal Evaluation Scoring System**

**ANNEX A2: AER/Commodity Pipeline**

**ANNEX A3: Summary Request and Beneficiary Table**

**ANNEX A4: Executive Summary Tables**

**ANNEX B: Budget Instructions**

**ANNEX B1: MYAP Comprehensive Budget Format**

**ANNEX B2: MYAP Detailed Budget Format**

**ANNEX B3: Monetization LOA (including Cost Recovery) Table**

**ANNEX C: An Expanded Conceptual Framework for Understanding Food
Insecurity**

**ANNEX D: Environmental Review and Compliance**

**ANNEX E: Value-Added Commodities List**

**ANNEX F: USAID Marking/Branding Requirements**

**ANNEX G: Signed Certifications, Assurances, and Other Statements**

**ANNEX H: Madagascar Country Specific Guidance**

**ANNEX I: Malawi Country Specific Guidance**

**I INTRODUCTION**

This document sets forth the Policies and Guidelines for Title II
programs as required under Section 207(b) of the Agricultural Trade
Development and Assistant Act of 1954 (P.L. 480), as amended, and
supplements Appendix I of 22 C.F.R. Part 211. Consistent with the
ongoing streamlining efforts of the Bureau for Democracy, Conflict, and
Humanitarian Assistance\'s (DCHA) Office of Food for Peace (FFP), the
Policy Letter, previously issued separately by this Office, will now be
combined with the Guidelines and issued as a single document for the
convenience and easy reference of partner agencies, USAID Missions and
international organizations. In addition, just one set of Guidelines
will be issued, encompassing Single-Year (emergency) and Multi-Year
(non-emergency) activities, in the past considered as emergency and
development.[^1]

These Policies and Guidelines are provided for use by Cooperating
Sponsors (CSs) in the preparation of their Public Law (P.L.) 480 Title
II Single-Year Assistance Program proposals and Multi-Year Assistance
Program proposals. The focus of this guidance is on (1) FFP funding
priorities and (2) the particular information that FFP requires in order
to make a funding decision. Guidance on programming and other technical
resources may be incorporated by reference; it is neither the focus nor
the purpose of this FFP guidance.

Single-Year Assistance Program proposals may be submitted on an
as-needed basis (see Section VIII for requirements) as further described
in these guidelines. Multi-Year Assistance Program proposals and
amendments to current programs for activities beginning in fiscal year
2009 (FY09) are due to FFP/W and the appropriate mission(s) or regional
office **by Monday, January 12, 2009**

On November 20, 1999, the President signed into law the Federal
Financial Assistance Management Improvement Act. The purposes of this
law are to:

-   improve the effectiveness and performance of Federal grant programs;

-   streamline grant application and reporting requirements;

-   improve the delivery of service to the public; and

-   facilitate greater coordination among those responsible for
    delivering such services.

In support of this initiative, the Federal Government developed
Grants.gov to advertise grant opportunities for all Federal grant
programs. Grants.gov will serve as a single portal that allows potential
applicants to search and apply for all Federal grant opportunities at
one location. Effective October 1, 2003, all agencies are now required
to post assistance opportunities via the Grants.gov website. Consistent
with this requirement FFP will post annual guidance for Title II
Single-Year and Multi-Year Assistance Programs on
[www.grants.gov](http://www.grants.gov/).

Hard copies of the latest guidelines are available from FFP directly or
may be accessed online at
<http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/humanitarian_assistance/ffp/>.

From time to time, and in accordance with Section 207(b) of P.L. 480,
DCHA/FFP may provide supplemental guidelines on the design and
development of specific sectoral programs to ensure that such programs
continue to focus on addressing the underlying causes of food insecurity
in vulnerable populations.

In addition, FFP and/or missions may publish country-specific guidance.
FFP/W will provide links to these websites and/or copies of the guidance
on the FFP/W website, when available. Please contact FFP/W
country-backstop officers (CBOs) for assistance.

**II THE FOOD FOR PEACE STRATEGIC PLAN 2006 - 2010**

The new Food for Peace Strategic Plan addresses the problem of food
insecurity, in accordance with the Title II Program's authorizing
legislation. The 1990 Farm Bill made ***'enhancing food security in the
developing world'*** the over-riding objective for the P. L. 480 food
assistance programs and the subsequent 2002 and 2008 Farm Bills have
reinforced that message. The Title II program now represents the largest
resource within the USG available to focus on the problem of global food
insecurity.

Given the persistent high levels of hunger and under-nutrition in the
developing world, and recent trends in food insecurity coupled with
significant changes in its operating environment, FFP and its partners
will face increasing challenges in addressing the problems of food
insecurity over the next five years. Under the Strategic Plan, the 1995
Food Aid and Food Security Policy Paper remains the cornerstone of the
Title II program. However, FFP has expanded the basic food security
framework to place emphasis on vulnerability -- the risk and
consequences of, and resilience to, food security shocks -- that impedes
the achievement of food availability, access, and utilization. With one
strategic objective (SO) -- ***food insecurity in vulnerable populations
reduced*** -- this Strategic Plan represents a significant change from
the 1997-2005 strategic framework, which had separate objectives for
emergency and non-emergency programs. The new objective, which aims at
reducing food insecurity in vulnerable populations, encompasses both
emergency and non-emergency (development) programs. In other words, it
encompasses programs that address the needs of vulnerable people
impacted by food insecurity in varying degrees and duration. In some
cases it may be necessary to address immediate needs and save lives, yet
the need to build productive capabilities may also be important to
enable improved coping. In other cases it may be important to create
safety nets to protect vulnerable people from risk, while building their
capacity to cope with shocks. However, in order to be fully effective,
all programs should work to address the underlying causes of food
insecurity and vulnerability.

The focus on vulnerability will make it easier for emergency programs to
incorporate activities that address the underlying causes of emergencies
and for development programs to incorporate activities that will help
vulnerable people improve and sustain their ability to prevent and cope
with future emergencies. (FFP Strategic Plan, 2006-2010) The foundation
for the Strategic Plan is set forth in the Vision, Mission Statement and
Principles in the Plan. (See pages 13 -14, FFP Strategic Plan) as well
as **Annex C**: An Expanded Conceptual Framework for Understanding Food
Insecurity. (Figure 1 in the Plan). This Framework will be helpful in
clarifying the interrelationships between food security and food
insecurity and between and among the various underlying causes of food
insecurity for vulnerable populations.

The new SO -- framed in terms of reducing food insecurity -- places a
heightened emphasis on the "in" of insecurity and therefore focuses the
program on those populations already food insecure or vulnerable to food
insecurity. The target populations are thereby clearly defined as people
who are at risk of food insecurity because of particular physiological
status, socio-economic status, political status or physical security,
limited or weak governance or populations whose ability to cope has been
temporarily overcome by a shock. While the strategic approach of FFP
does focus on targeting vulnerable households and communities, the
strategy also highlights the ability of states to cope with shocks. The
Strategic Plan notes:

> All states are subject to shocks -- occasional and recurrent. What
> distinguishes a food secure state from fragile, failing or failed
> states is its ability to cope with these shocks. The level of economic
> development has a major influence on a country's ability to cope.
> Wealthier countries normally cope better with shocks than poorer
> countries but wealth or income alone is a poor indicator of
> vulnerability. Other political, society, and economic factors are
> important. States where large inequities in income and assets (access
> to resources) exist are likely to be more vulnerable, as are states
> with large ethnic populations (also religious groups) that are not
> well integrated economically, politically, or socially. Weak
> institutions, or the absence of key institutions, also increase
> vulnerability, as does poor governance. (FFP Strategic Plan,
> 2006-2010)

Thus we can add to the conceptualization of food security the notion of
state vulnerability and capacity to respond to shocks. Particularly when
considering these issues from a governance perspective, the capacity to
respond to (or avert) crises takes on heightened significance.

This also includes vulnerability due to physiological status, i.e.,
people who are malnourished, people infected with HIV, pregnant and
lactating women, and children under the age of two (as well as children
under five who become malnourished); socio-economic status, i.e.,
includes the poor (defined as persons with insufficient income to
purchase food for an adequate diet and other basic necessities); social
marginalization because of ethnicity, gender, or other characteristics;
living in environmentally marginal regions; and physical and economic
insecurity caused by conflict, which affects both resident and transient
populations, i.e., refugees, Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs) and
victims of war (in non-emergency situations). In order to adequately
reach these vulnerable populations that Cooperating Sponsors are
encouraged to reach out to local faith leaders, faith-based groups and
community groups and include them in consultation and program
implementation. Further discussion of the Faith-Based and Community
Groups Initiative can be found under Section VI. 2. below.

Consistent with the new Strategic Framework and in support of the
effective and efficient use of available funding and commodity
resources, new program proposals should directly address the
vulnerability of food insecure individuals, households and communities.
Title II program design should incorporate an understanding of why they
are vulnerable, how they are vulnerable and the consequences of their
vulnerability; and define effective approaches to address the underlying
causes of that vulnerability. These approaches should integrate
emergency response capacity and livelihood provisioning with development
interventions that are aimed at enhancing individual capacities,
livelihood capabilities and community resilience. They should address
the Strategy's Intermediate Result 2: "Title II Program impact in the
field increased" through a strategy that specifically looks to achieve
a) Human capabilities protected and enhanced; b) Livelihood capacities
protected and enhanced; c) Community resiliency protected and enhanced;
and/or d) Community capacity to influence factors (decisions) that
affect food security increased.

Actual programs are likely to combine several purposes and activities
reflective of more than one of the first four sub-IRs, as programs are
tailored to the specific needs and vulnerabilities in the program areas.
Current Title II approaches that combine activities focused on reducing
the prevalence of chronic undernutrition among young children, with a
focus on under twos, using community-based MCHN approaches (to increase
human capabilities) with activities focused on developing small holder
agriculture in the same communities (to enhance household livelihoods)
are expected to continue under Title II. Activities focused on helping
communities strengthen existing or develop new food security early
warning systems and disaster preparedness and mitigation plans and the
capacity to implement them also are encouraged, as are activities
focused on helping communities develop the capacity to influence factors
that affect food security. Combinations of purposes and activities also
are expected to differ from country to country and over time. For
example, more emphasis is likely to be given to protecting lives and
livelihoods in programs initiated in the immediate aftermath of a shock
with activities designed to enhance household livelihoods and community
resiliency added to programs and/or given increasing importance over
time.

**III DEFINING Development-RELIEF CONCEPTS**

Development-Relief is an approach that encourages the programmatic
linkages of the emergency and development objectives, and relies on
flexibility. It seeks to address acute and short-term vulnerability
while seeking longer term action to prevent undernutrition and to
protect and enhance the capacity of food-insecure groups. The approach
is reflective of the overall strategic plan to address the underlying
causes of food insecurity in a holistic manner, recognizing that to
address these underlying causes, programs must take into account
long-term risks and vulnerability as well as short-term shocks and their
impact on a vulnerable, food insecure population.

It recognizes that:

-   it is possible to meet acute needs while building a capacity to
    address the source of vulnerability to food insecurity;

-   relief activities are relevant in pre-shock environments and
    development activities are relevant in post-shock environments;

-   development and relief programming may alternate or co-exist in the
    most vulnerable, food insecure settings;

-   monitoring systems can track vulnerability indicators to determine
    when to shift programming emphasis;

-   a program needs to be flexible and have the ability to modify
    interventions when the context calls for change.

Development-Relief programming encompasses development-conscious
emergency programs that "enhance community and household resilience to
shocks" (FFP and DCHA 2003), and emergency-conscious development
programs that incorporate resource contingencies and promote effective
and coordinated interventions related to disaster prevention and
recovery. Indeed, development-relief programs will usually be designed
to achieve both an immediate impact -- preventing undernutrition,
protecting lives and maintaining consumption levels, and longer-term
impacts -- helping people and communities build more resilient
livelihood bases.

**Chronic and Transitory Vulnerability to Food Insecurity**

Food insecure households face challenges due to chronic food insecurity
as well as natural and economic shocks and social and health risks such
as conflict and HIV. It is important to identify chronic and transitory
food insecurity and to distinguish between the two for proper targeting.

Programming for the chronically food insecure population calls for
interventions that are stable, multi-year and determined by a careful
analysis of context. Programs should focus on increasing the resiliency
and livelihood options of the chronically food insecure to enable them
to pull themselves out of poverty. Conditional safety-nets that support
investments in health/nutrition, training and education, can help to
address both current and inter-generational food insecurity, and offer a
wide range of possibilities for food-based programming. The existence of
long-term safety nets with surge capacity (with the ability to deepen
and expand its coverage and purpose) will also permit programs to
respond to the increased needs of the chronically food insecure and the
needs of households that become transitorily food insecure due to
shocks.

Households suffering from transitory food insecurity are usually food
secure but their ability to cope has been temporarily overwhelmed by a
shock. When a shock occurs, the level of food insecurity of the
chronically food insecure may get worse, and the usually food secure may
also find themselves temporarily food insecure. In the absence of any
safety net or other assistance, the transitory food insecure may be
further weakened, increasing the danger of losing productive assets and
resiliency. In the absence of such expandable safety-net programming, or
specific asset protection strategies, the transitory food insecure may
be further weakened, lose their productive assets, and eventually join
the ranks of the chronically food insecure.

**IV** **TITLE II PROGRAM CATEGORIES**

Under the new strategy, Title II programs will fall into one of two
categories: Single-Year Assistance Programs (SYAPs) or Multi-Year
Assistance Programs (MYAPs). Both categories are explained in this
guidance as FFP is intent on having one document that combines
guidelines regarding the submission of proposals for short-term
emergency interventions and longer-term programs, potentially combining
emergency and non-emergency resources.

[Single-Year Assistance Programs (up to 12 months duration) are
appropriate in response to:]{.underline}

-   sudden-onset disasters, due to causal factors such as earthquakes,
    floods, cyclones, man-made crises or civil unrest;

-   slow-onset disasters, due to causal factors such as drought, that
    affects households in specific localities.

-   on-going emergency situations where the requirements for medium-term
    planning and programming have not been established.

-   other situations where food assistance may be solicited for a short
    period of time within longer-term non food assisted activities or
    where the timely input of food resources may prevent transitory food
    insecurity from developing into chronic food insecurity.

-   critical, exceptional cases, for long-term social safety net
    programs, where there is a demonstrable risk of loss of life or
    significant increases in malnutrition if Title II funding is no
    longer available for a MYAP. In such cases, single year programs
    could be used to facilitate a transition period, allowing the CS
    time to identify and access other sources of support for these
    programs.

FFP will continue to prioritize resources to meet the immediate food aid
needs of those affected by the most severe emergencies. SYAPs must
address emergency needs, with first priority given to relief in response
to emergencies, and second to recovery for those affected by
emergencies. In determining whether a program addresses relief, recovery
or chronic needs (for which MYAPs would be most appropriate), FFP will
use four criteria: (1) the situation; (2) the program goal; (3) the
program objectives, activities, and indicators; and, (4) the targeted
beneficiaries who have been affected by specific shocks.

[Multi-Year Assistance Programs are appropriate in:]{.underline}

-   complex emergencies arising from prolonged civil strife (and often
    exacerbated by climatic events) where the basis for medium-term
    planning nonetheless exists; characterized by insecurity;
    failure/inability of governmental structures to effectively address
    a crisis; large-scale refugee movements and/or internal
    displacement; and increased vulnerability among children, the
    elderly, and the infirm.

-   post-emergency transition situations characterized by a cessation in
    civil conflict and refugee/internal-displaced resettlement; and a
    need to facilitate resettlement, reintegration of ex-combatants, and
    rehabilitation of food production capacity.

-   situations where populations suffer from medium to long-term chronic
    food insecurity and recurrent vulnerability, characterized by
    economic and/or social vulnerability.

-   priority countries for future funding (See Section V. below).

Development-Relief approaches can occur within all of the above
programs, as flexibility allows FFP to consider programs that focus on a
variety of activities as long as they are related to the availability,
access and utilization of food, the attendant risk vulnerabilities, and
the underlying causes of food insecurity. These include innovative
programs aimed at strengthening individual, household and community
coping and resiliency capacities, as well as those that support the
strengthening of local governance and civil society institutions to
address food insecurity. In all of these situations, programs should
differentiate between interventions aimed at the chronically food
insecure and the transitory food insecure, as discussed earlier.

MYAP proposals should prioritize program objectives, keeping them
focused and limited in number and in context with Intermediate Result #2
of the FFP strategy: *Title II program impact in the field increased*:

> 1\. Human capabilities protected and enhanced;
>
> 2\. Livelihood capacities protected and enhanced;
>
> 3\. Community resiliency protected and enhanced;
>
> 4\. Community capacity to influence factors (decisions) that affect
> food security increased.

In addition to the reference documents cited within these guidelines,
CSs are also encouraged to consult the USAID-funded [Food and Nutrition
Technical Assistance (FANTA) project web
site](http://www.fantaproject.org/) for additional information on food
insecurity issues, including nutrition, HIV, design and use of food
rations, monitoring and evaluation, etc.

**V RESOURCE ALLOCATION PRIORITIES FOR TITLE II MULTI-YEAR ASSISTANCE
PROGRAMS**

In order to achieve the strategic objective of reducing food insecurity
of vulnerable populations,

FFP developed criteria to evaluate countries by level of food insecurity
based on quantitative indicators. Based on these criteria, a select
number of countries have been targeted for funding. The list of
countries with anticipated funding levels for FY 2009 is available in
the list of Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) posted on FFP's web site.

In keeping with the 2006-2010 Strategic Plan emphasis on *reducing food
insecurity in vulnerable populations*, Food for Peace will place
emphasis on funding MYAPs that target the most vulnerable and food
insecure populations within the targeted countries, which can have the
most impact in terms of reducing vulnerability during the proposed
length of the program (i.e., three to five years).

FFP recognizes that resources available from Title II do not, in most
situations, adequately or fully address all of the underlying causes of
food insecurity, and that additional funding sources are needed to
strengthen the ability to do so. To the maximum extent possible,
Multi-Year Assistance Program proposals should demonstrate resource and
programmatic integration from Mission sources, CS resources, the private
sector, and/or USAID initiatives such as the Initiative to End Hunger in
Africa (IEHA), Comprehensive African Agriculture Development Program
(CAADP) and The President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR). The
leveraging and integration of other resources with Title II resources is
actively sought and encouraged to further enhance FFP's mission of
reducing food insecurity among vulnerable populations.

At the same time, if resource integration were to take place, then CSs
should ensure that programming meets (has met) the applicable goals and
objectives of all donors involved. In the case of Mission DA, for
example, CSs should ensure that activities programmed with these
resources meet Mission objectives, while also adhering to the specific
objectives of a Title II program. In addition, with foreign assistance
reform also playing a significant role at the field level, CSs must be
as proactive as possible when developing MYAPs and dialogue with Mission
representatives concerning country Operational Plans (OP) and resource
integration. CSs should consult Mission web sites to ensure that
proposals are consistent with missions' programmatic interests as well
as the larger foreign assistance framework.

**VI Sectoral Guidance UPDATES AND INITIATIVES**

A critical priority of FFP in review of proposals for Title II resources
is to deepen and expand the sustainable development impact of its
investments. In this effort, FFP encourages proposals that utilize
appropriate technical sectors, leverage additional resources and include
the public-private alliance approach. Some examples of sectoral guidance
and current initiatives are highlighted below:

**SECTORAL GUIDANCE**

**[(1) Agricultural Production]{.underline}**

The new Foreign Assistance Framework and the USAID Agricultural
Strategy- Linking Producers to Markets (July 2004) reflect an Agency
goal "to improve the social, economic, and environmental sustainability
of agriculture." FFP implementing partners should, and will be expected
to, seek appropriate food assistance programming opportunities to
increase agricultural productivity, in a sustainable manner, and the
adoption of appropriate policy reforms to meet nutrition and livelihood
objectives. FFP programs shall fully recognize the importance of
agricultural production, financing, market-access and the enabling
policy environment encompassing the agricultural sector and rural
development. FFP strongly encourages implementing partners to increase
farmer's working capital, technical knowledge, use of appropriate
technology, and financing strategies to build farm assets and enhance
food security.

Implementing partners should also be prepared to act as proponents of
appropriate policy actions to encourage and strengthen actions that will
sustainably increase on-farm productivity. These programs should adopt
and/or adapt appropriate policy, science, and technology principles to
increase dietary diversity and minimize the food gap. This may be
achieved using agricultural and enabling environment practices to
increase soil quantity and quality through approaches such as:
integrated farm systems (e.g., tree-crop-fish pond-livestock), low-input
approaches, marketing, public and private investment, crop rotation,
intercropping, appropriate reforestation, water harvesting, ecologically
and climatically-appropriate crops that are culturally-sensitive and
appropriate to the community needs, integrated pest management,
non-invasive species, composting, and agroforestry to increase erosion
control on fragile soils situations.

**(a) Comprehensive African Agricultural Development Programme**

USAID is committed to align with and support the implementation of the
Comprehensive African Agricultural Development Programme (CAADP)
established by the African Union's New Partnership for African
Development (AU/NEPAD), whose objective is to achieve a six percent
annual growth rate in agriculture, and sustain this over time.  The
overall goal of CAADP is to "Help African countries reach a higher path
of economic growth through agriculturally-led development, which
eliminates hunger, reduces poverty and food insecurity, and enables
expansion of exports."  To achieve this goal, CAADP focuses its efforts
around four key pillars of intervention:

-   *Pillar 1*: Extending the area under sustainable land management and
    reliable water control systems;

-   *Pillar 2*: Improving rural infrastructure and trade-related
    capacities for market access;

-   *Pillar 3*: Increasing food supply, reducing hunger, and improving
    responses to food emergency crises; and

-   *Pillar 4*: Improving agriculture research, technology dissemination
    and adoption.

> Pillar III's goal is to increase resilience by decreasing food
> insecurity and linking vulnerable people into opportunities for
> agricultural growth. Pillar III draws together the central elements of
> the CAADP vision to ensure that growing agricultural productivity,
> well-integrated markets and expanded purchasing power of vulnerable
> groups combine to result in the eradication of hunger and poverty.
>  These efforts draw together and build on activities from other
> pillars to successfully combat chronic hunger in the long run while at
> the same time improving responses to short-term food crises.  Progress
> made through Pillar III will contribute directly to the overall CAADP
> objective of achieving a growth rate sufficient to reach the MDG goals
> of reducing poverty and hunger by half by 2015.\
>  \
> The Pillar III framework identifies 4 key objectives that contribute
> to the goal of increasing resilience in vulnerable populations:

-   Improved risk management: at the household, community, national and
    regional levels to inform decisions that ultimately impact the
    building and protection of assets and investments, and to strengthen
    national, regional, and community responses to climatic and economic
    shocks that risk and undermine the coping mechanisms of vulnerable
    populations.

-   Increased supply of affordable commodities through increased
    production and improved market linkages: Increasing the supply of
    food through increased production and improved market linkages will
    increase the food available to households and communities.
    Strategies to increase the production of staple commodities are also
    more likely to impact poor small farm holders, increasing their
    incomes and extending the geographic reach of markets to underserved
    areas.

-   Increased economic opportunities for the vulnerable: Identifying
    potential opportunities for diversification of
    livelihoods---particularly in support of adding value to
    agricultural production (through local processing, handling,
    transport, etc.) will both build resiliency and contribute to rural
    growth. Close coordination with strategies undertaken under other
    pillars will improve outcomes under this objective, as will
    pro-active attempts to link safety-net interventions to access to
    agricultural inputs, credit, training, and other interventions
    capable of providing opportunities for the poor to accumulate,
    diversify, and invest in assets.

-   Increased quality of diets through diversification of food among the
    target groups. While investment in increasing the production of
    staple foods will have an immediate, significant, impact on the
    poor, increasing the ability of the poor to access sufficient
    protein and micronutrients through varied, nutritious diets is
    necessary to ensure sustainable gains in the battle against poverty,
    hunger and malnutrition.

In developing new proposals in countries that already have agreed to a
CAADP country compact, CSs are strongly encouraged to liaise with
appropriate USAID Country and Regional Mission contacts involved
with the CAADP country compacts and the role of USAID to support them
within a multi-donor context, to support the specific country goals
under Pillar III on food insecurity in the MYAP to tackle the root
causes of food insecurity. This could include working with the Country
or Regional Mission to develop a country-level Pillar III strategy in
the MYAP that would entail the following 6 steps:

1\.        Identify the chronically food insecure and those vulnerable
to chronic food insecurity, characterize the vulnerable and the causes
of food insecurity;\
2.        Estimate the magnitude of change required to achieve the
Pillar III vision and objectives of CAADP;\
3.        Create an inventory and identify options to achieve the
objectives of the vision;\
4.        Prioritize interventions and costing options to focus on the
best returns for an investment plan and addressing the necessary
conditions to meet objectives;\
5.        Review of implementation options, roles, responsibilities and
coordination; and\
6.        Finalize and package an integrated program that includes an
investment and operational plan and arrangements.

**(b) The President's Initiative to End Hunger in Africa (IEHA)**

IEHA is a multi-year effort designed to help increase agricultural
income and fulfill the Millennium Development Goal of cutting the number
of hungry people in Africa in half by 2015. This initiative focuses on
promoting agricultural growth and building an African-led partnership to
cut hunger and poverty by investing in agriculture oriented towards
small-scale farmers. * *IEHA supports the African Union-led
Comprehensive African Agricultural Development Programme (CAADP), the
overall goal of which is to "help African countries reach a higher path
of economic growth through agriculturally led development which
eliminates hunger, reduces poverty and food insecurity, and enables
expansion of exports."\
 \
 IEHA relies on evidence-based performance data to demonstrate the
impact of USG agricultural assistance in Africa.  FFP partners
implementing Title II programs which contribute to the achievement of
IEHA objectives will increasingly be asked by USAID Mission's for
information to include in their IEHA reporting. The inclusion of Title
II in the results reporting of IEHA provides FFP and its
non-governmental partners an additional mechanism to demonstrate the
effectiveness of development food aid.  To the extent that partners are
able to incorporate appropriate IEHA indicators into their normal data
collection procedures, they are highly encouraged to do so (reference
Food for Peace Information Bulletin #07-01 "USAID and Food for Peace
Indicators and Reporting Systems" updated October 2007).  

**(c)** **Energy Sources for Commodity Preparation**

Many of the countries where FFP operates experience high rates of
deforestation exacerbating desertification and regional climate
variability with associated impacts on community livlihoods and health.
The typical FFP project (ca. 70,000 beneficiaries) uses approximately
25,500 MT of fuelwood per year based upon a conservative fuel wood
consumption rate of 1 kg fuelwood per person per day. FFP encourages
that the CS factor host-country settings such as fuelwood availability
and deforestation rates when determining the applicable food aid
commodity (i.e., longer cooking time of certain pulses or reduced
fuelwood use due to milling or soaking practices). In addition, FFP
suggests that the CS develop appropriate energy provision management
plans to reduce exposure to violence, contribute to the protection of
and ease the burden on those populations collecting wood in humanitarian
settings worldwide, through solutions which will promote safe access to
appropriate energy and reduce environmental impacts while ensuring
accountability. Illustrative activities include but are not limited to
improved cookstoves, improved cooking practices using current stoves,
non-timber energy sources such as organic matter briquettes, oil-seed,
small-scale bio-gas technologies to convert animal or human waste to
methane gas for household cooking and agricultural drying. Also
recommended are promotions of sustainable fuelwood harvesting practices
from existing forested areas (unless a municipally protected forest) as
well as productive livelihood activities involving tree nurseries and
plantations. The CS should collaborate with existing activities under
the Inter-Agency Standing Committee (IASC) Task Force on Safe Access to
Firewood and alternative Energy in Humanitarian Settings (IASC Task
Force SAFE, where feasible..

In the development of Energy components, CSs are strongly encouraged to
refer to the USAID report: [*Fuel Efficient Stove Programs in IDP
Setting- Summary Evaluation Report,
Uganda*](http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/economic_growth_and_trade/energy/publications/EGAT0020.PDF)
for program design and monitoring and evaluation considerations.

> **[(2) Food for Education]{.underline}**

FFP supports Food for Education (FFE) activities where the education
component is an integral part of a broader proposal that addresses the
determinants of food insecurity in vulnerable populations. CSs
considering FFE as a component of their MYAPs need to ensure that an
appropriate package of interventions clearly linking resources and
activities through integrated programming is included. In MYAP
proposals, FFP looks for FFE activities that will improve school health
and nutrition services and sanitation infrastructure, and strengthen
provision of health and nutrition education, as well contribute to a
larger effort in improving education, including national education
policy reform, curriculum development, and teacher training programs.
This includes innovative approaches such as adult literacy and informal
education courses and food for vocational training of HIV-affected youth
programs. Food and nutritional interventions must be programmed within
the context of other interventions that focus on the quality of
education. In SYAPs, school feeding may be considered an appropriate
safety net mechanism. For both types of programs, transition strategies
must be described in the proposals. This includes phase out or phase
over planning which should also be detailed in the proposal with
established benchmarks. Proposals that direct all or most of the program
resources to education should be submitted to the McGovern-Dole
International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program, funded
through USDA.

**[(3) HIV]{.underline}**

The FFP strategy provides a framework for integrating HIV activities
into food aid programs. Food security programs for HIV infected and
affected populations may be supported by Title II resources when a
determination has been made that HIV is an underlying cause of food
insecurity in the community and/or represents a significant constraint
to household food security. The situational analysis should describe the
impact of HIV on community and household food security, including an
assessment of the impact of the prevalence of HIV. This assessment can
be multifaceted. For example, it can assess the impacts of the burden of
HIV on agricultural production, health and nutritional status of
potential food aid beneficiaries, impacts on the environment, the
education sector, and the overall socioeconomic status of individuals,
households and communities. The rationale for targeting of the
particular subset of HIV infected and/or affected individuals,
households and their communities and why the programmatic use of food
aid in this context represents a "best practice" should be included. The
assessment should include a description of other programs (NGOs, IOs,
USAID and other donors) and opportunities to promote synergy of food aid
interventions with other interventions targeting HIV.

A description and understanding of existing gaps in the food and
nutritional support network for HIV infected and affected populations
should further support and clarify the program objectives and proposed
outcomes. Special emphasis should be given to understanding and building
upon existing and potential food security, supplementary feeding and
nutritional support activities under the President's Emergency Plan for
AIDS Relief (PEPFAR).[^2] Secondarily, Title II resources may support
the care, prevention and treatment goals of the PEPFAR initiative
insofar as these programs include food insecure households.

The proposal should indicate clearly how the proposed activities would
mitigate the impact of HIV on food security and work in a coordinated
and cost-effective manner to achieve these goals with other USG, NGO and
donor HIV-dedicated resources. Where Title II food aid resources will be
targeted to food insecure PLHIV, orphans and vulnerable children,
adolescents, households and communities affected by HIV; implementing
partners will be required to identify types of beneficiaries and track
resources (food and non-food) used in HIV programming in their M&E
systems, in the PREP and in financial and results reports. Implementing
partners will be expected to integrate PEPFAR, Global Fund, Development
Assistance (DA) or other resources to fund HIV service delivery
activities, including prevention education, nutritional assessment and
counseling, home-based care, to the maximum extent possible and utilize
food for direct distribution to the widest number of food insecure
beneficiaries possible. The proposal should clearly state how Title II
resources will be coordinated with HIV resources.

Currently, PEPFAR focuses its direct food support on HIV positive
pregnant and lactating women, OVC either infected or affected by HIV,
and PLHIV who are malnourished, with supplementary and/or therapeutic
feeding as needed. In contrast to many Title II food aid activities,
PEPFAR is primarily clinic-based and focused on individuals falling into
the three groups previously described. Similarly, PEPFAR programs are
largely urban and peri-urban based due to the higher HIV-prevalence in
these areas relative to rural areas. It may be possible to consider
expanding geographic focus of Title II programs to target individual
food-insecure [families]{.underline} affected by HIV in urban/peri-urban
communities in order to better synergize Title II food aid and HIV food
and nutritional support. If CS considers urban programming as part of
their focus on food insecurity and they are working in a country where
HIV is an issue related to food insecurity, food insecure families of
HIV beneficiaries can be included among those urban/peri-urban families
targeted for assistance.

FFP strongly encourages partners to consider the possibilities of Global
Development Alliances to leverage private sector resources. In addition,
given the resources available for HIV programming, FFP prefers that
monetization resources be utilized for programming direct food security
mitigation interventions or ones designed to strengthen food and
livelihood security for those affected by HIV, and co-program cash
resources for HIV prevention, treatment, care and support mitigation as
much as possible.

When an HIV component is included in a MYAP proposal, clear entrance and
exit criteria should be established. Appropriate indicators and targets
should also be proposed to capture the impact of mitigation and
prevention activities that lessen the negative impact of HIV on the
household food security of a particular target group.

In countries with an HIV program, CSs are strongly encouraged to
coordinate any planning for the use of food resources for food-insecure
HIV infected and affected with already existing programs funded through
PEPFAR, Global Fund and other donors to the greatest extent possible.
This is important to achieve linkages to services and support, assuring
the best use of Title II resources. CSs are encouraged to refer to
PEPFAR's [Policy Guidance on the Use of Emergency Plan Funds to Address
Food and Nutrition
Needs](http://www.pepfar.gov/documents/organization/84583.pdf) and [FFP
and PEPFAR\'s HIV and Food Security Conceptual
Framework](http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/humanitarian_assistance/ffp/FFP_pepfar_conceptual.pdf).

Analyzing food insecurity through the HIV lens may bring about some
modifications of FFP programming. Title II HIV programs may include:

1.  Targeting food aid resources, complementary to HIV resources, to
    urban/periurban programming;

2.  Utilizing clinics as entry points for targeting food insecure
    households of PLHIV;

3.  Improving the ability of community-based Title II programs to link
    with and refer beneficiaries for HIV services, such as voluntary
    counseling and testing (VCT) treatment with anti-retroviral drugs
    (ART), preventing mother-to-child transmission (PMTCT) and
    palliative care, including clinical nutrition assessment, counseling
    and support that may be supported with HIV resources;

4.  Improving the ability of HIV clinical services to link with and
    refer beneficiaries to community food security, food aid and
    livelihood programs;

5.  Increasing FFP support for institutions providing services to OVC,
    such as orphanages, training centers and programs for street
    children, which tend to be more urban and peri-urban based where HIV
    activities come from HIV resources (i.e. Global Fund, PEPFAR,
    bilateral funds) and food comes from FFP;

6.  Strengthening prevention and livelihood programs among food-insecure
    high risk populations such as female and child-headed households,
    families with high dependency ratios, etc.; and

7.  Strengthening the capacity of all individuals and families receiving
    nutrition and food support to sustainably address their long-term
    food needs through improved food production, employment and other
    vocational and livelihood assistance.

In the development of HIV components, CSs are strongly encouraged to
refer to the new FANTA guide: [*Food Assistance Programming in the
Context of
HIV*](http://www.fantaproject.org/downloads/pdfs/Food_Assistance_Context_of_HIV_Oct_2007.pdf)
for program design and monitoring and evaluation considerations.

**[(4) Prevention of Malnutrition in Under Twos Approach]{.underline}**

Food-assisted maternal and child health and nutrition (MCHN) programs
have traditionally targeted children less than 5 years of age who were
identified as undernourished. Scientific evidence, however, shows that
children under two years of age are both more at risk of becoming
undernourished, and more responsive to nutrition interventions than
older children. Research findings consistently show that the earlier and
the longer food supplementation is provided before the child reaches 2
years of age, the greater the benefits not only on growth in early life,
but also on long-term physical, cognitive and reproductive performance.
Strong evidence also now exists that preventing malnutrition is more
effective at reducing population prevalence of stunting, wasting and low
weight for age than traditional, "recuperative" approaches. Thus,
investing in the first two years of life provides benefits way beyond
childhood and is an essential element of development strategies and
human capital formation interventions.

Based on this evidence FFP strongly encourages Cooperating Sponsors to
design their MCHN intervention on the basis of preventive actions. PM2A
targets all children from their conception until they reach two years of
age. A complete preventive MCHN package includes a strong Behavior
Change and Communication (BCC) component to educate mothers on adequate
infant and young child feeding practices, antenatal care to the mother
during her pregnancy, nutrition and health support to mothers in the
first six months after birth, the tracking of all children under 60
months of age to detect and treat children who become severely
malnourished (for instance, through Community Management of Acute
Malnutrition, or CMAM); and food rations distribution to (i) the mother
during at least six months before the birth of her child; (ii) lactating
women until the child reaches six months of age; (iii) all children aged
between 6 and 23.9 months of age; and (iv).the household where the child
lives, to reduce dilution of the child ration to other family members.
Although it is not part of the preventive approach, CS may choose
to provide supplementary feeding for children over 24 months who become
moderately malnourished. For detailed evidence presenting the benefits
of the preventive MCHN approach, and for technical reference materials
on the design features of, a preventive MCHN approach CSs should consult
the [FANTA-2 website](http://www.fantaproject.org/):
<http://www.fantaproject.org/publications/Lancet_Feb08.shtml> and
<http://www.fantaproject.org/downloads/pdfs/Haiti_Exec_Summary_Dec07.pdf>

**INITIATIVES**

**[(1) Faith-Based and Community Initiative]{.underline}**

The Faith-Based and Community Initiative was created by Executive Order
on January 29, 2001, to help the Federal Government coordinate a
national effort to expand opportunities for faith-based and other
community organizations (FBCOs), and to strengthen their capacity to
better meet social needs in America\'s communities and in international
development and relief efforts.

Cooperating Sponsors are encouraged to reach out to local faith leaders
and FBCOs when forming strategic objectives and implementing strategies
for FFP programs. Working directly with FBCOs or local faith leaders
will not be possible in every instance, but CSs are encouraged to
include them in planning and implementation. FBCOs are oftentimes the
only ones who can reach and do reach the most vulnerable in society,
even when these communities are transient. It is, therefore, necessary
to utilize this great resource in alleviating human suffering,
especially hunger. Furthermore, when local FBCOs are rooted and not
transient, building their capacity and strengthening their outreach
efforts may go a long way towards enhancing and stabilizing the
community itself and guaranteeing sustainability long after USAID
financial assistance has been completed.

Additional guidance pertaining to FBCOs and USAID funding can be
obtained at the following website:
<http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/global_partnerships/fbci/fbocomments_101304.doc>

**[(2) Global Development Alliance]{.underline}**

One such example being pursued by USAID is the Global Development
Alliance (GDA), which provides new opportunities for leveraging
resources to enhance multi-year assistance programming. FFP considers
these activities to be extremely important in helping to leverage
resources to address food insecurity needs. In the past few years, USAID
has prioritized public-private alliance building as a principal business
model for the Agency and found it to be an effective way to expand and
deepen the development impact of USAID development and humanitarian
assistance programs.  Since FY 2002, USAID has funded over 400
public-private alliances with \$1.4 billion leveraging over \$4.6
billion in partner contributions. Public-private alliances mobilize the
ideas, efforts and resources of governments, businesses and civil
society to address a number of development issues.

USAID expects that alliances will bring significant new resources, new
ideas, new technologies and/or new partners, or will use existing
partners in new ways, to address development and humanitarian problems
in countries where USAID works.  There is no pre-defined minimum or
maximum number of partners; each alliance will be different.  Like all
investments in development, alliance activities at the country level
that actively involve local leadership and local beneficiaries in design
and implementation are the ones most likely to be successful and
sustainable.  Local ownership, leadership and beneficiary participation
are still keys to success, and the private sector is one means of
encouraging such participation.  FFP encourages implementing partners to
submit applications that expand food security activities through the
building of public-private alliances.  While a match of a one-to-one of
USAID-to-partner contributions is the goal for creating Global
Development Alliances, it is understood that this is not necessarily
feasible for food aid activities. Accordingly, FFP proposals are
evaluated as to the extent to which they maximize food security and
developmental impact by bringing complementary resources, including
private sector resources, into the program (Item 16 in **Annex A1**).
Matching resources from the private sector will not always be in the
form of funding or monetary resources -- different partners can
contribute different things. In addition to monetary contributions,
in-kind resources, intellectual property, implementation know-how, and
technical assistance are also valuable contributions. GDA proposals must
clearly specify what each party is contributing.  

CSs looking to leverage Title II resources through a GDA partnership
should research such opportunities well in advance of their proposal
submission, as they are usually not captured within a Title II agreement
but are embarked upon separately. Implementing partners are urged to
develop partnerships related to their work with Title II and can find
guidelines for applications and tools at the [GDA Secretariat Web
Site](http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/global_partnerships/gda/).

To inquire about what types of partnerships USAID bureaus and offices
are interested in pursuing, go to
<http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/global_partnerships/gda/GDA_Contacts.doc>.

**[(3) Millennium Challenge Corporation]{.underline}**

The Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) was established to provide
aid to developing countries that reinforce good governance, economic
freedom and investments in people. Its mission is to reduce global
poverty through the promotion of sustainable economic growth. MCC funds
are not expected to serve as a substitute to Title II funding, nor will
MCC programs fully meet FFP objectives. At the same time, FFP encourages
CSs wishing to propose MYAPs in MCC countries to do so. However, as with
other complementary funding sources such as PEPFAR or DA, they should
seek ways to develop program synergies and complementarity.

Additional information on the MCC is available online at
<http://www.mcc.gov/>.

**VII** **FACILITATING PROGRAMMATIC FLEXIBILITY**

**[(1) Timeframe]{.underline}**

Programming to reduce food insecurity must have flexible time frames.
Single-Year Assistance Programs are initiated mainly in response to an
emergency and can be submitted at any time throughout the year in
response to one of the triggering mechanisms referred to in this
guidance. SYAP proposals should be designed to last no more than 12
months, with the duration depending on the context and activities
planned. Multiple follow-on Single-Year Assistance Programs, including
cost and no-cost extensions to the original agreement, are possible in a
situation where the need for food interventions continues but the
situation post-shock has not stabilized sufficiently to enable
medium-term planning and implementation. Decisions to fund SYAPs beyond
one year, however, will be made on a case-by-base basis as situations
warrant.

Multi-year proposals should be designed to last three to five years,
depending on the context and the strategy envisioned. The time frame
will depend on the intended results and the status of the vulnerability
of the targeted population. The chronically food insecure may require
longer term interventions to improve resiliency if that is the goal of
the program; but the transitory food insecure populations may also
require a longer timeframe if the objective is to go beyond the initial
resolving of the effects of a crisis to rebuilding assets in order to
prevent these households from becoming chronically food insecure. While
FFP may consider follow-on MYAPs as well as cost and no-cost extensions
to the original agreement, CSs should expect and prepare for their
programs to end within the timeframe specified in the program
Cooperative Agreement (CA).

[**(2) Program Funding**]{.underline}

In the interest of maintaining flexibility and ensuring that the
emergency and non-emergency funding categories within P.L. 480 are
respected, emergency and non-emergency resources will fund the following
programs and activities within Single-Year Assistance Programs and
Multi-Year Assistance Programs.

Single-Year Assistance Programs will primarily be funded with emergency
resources.

Multi-Year Assistance Programs may be funded with non-emergency
resources, or a combination of emergency and non-emergency resources,
over the life of the activity. Multi-year program activities that target
the chronically food insecure, which may include long-term safety-nets
in addition to human capacity, livelihood capability and community
resiliency activities, will be funded with non-emergency resources.
Emergency resources may be used to extend enhanced safety-net or asset
protection activities to the transitory food insecure. These expanded
safety-nets may be included, for example, in the first year of a MYAP
that targets a population that is transitioning from an emergency
situation. In addition, during the life of activity of a MYAP,
safety-net interventions may need to be added or increased in response
to a short-term emergency or shock that deepens the level of food
insecurity among the already food insecure and causes the usually food
secure to experience transitory food insecurity and the need for asset
protection.

Activities aimed at strengthening disaster management, emergency
preparedness or mitigation may also be funded with emergency resources
if they are identified in the multi-year program design and last no more
than 12 months. When these types of activities require multi-year
funding, in general, they will be funded with non-emergency resources.

In addition to the integrated developmental relief approach, where there
is an unforeseen emergency need in a country and an emergency
contingency was not built into the MYAP for the unforeseen situation, up
to ten percent of in-country Title II commodity stocks may be diverted
from a MYAP for emergency use with USAID Mission or Diplomatic Post
approval. If additional tonnage, above the ten percent, is sought for
diversion from a MYAP for use in meeting an emergency need, and/or the
CS seeks replacement of the commodities diverted, FFP/W authorization is
required. CSs should contact the applicable Country Backstop Officer in
Washington or FFP Officer in the field in such cases. This authorization
must be received prior to the transfer of any additional commodities and
funding.

The USAID Mission cannot authorize the transfer of monetized proceeds,
ITSH or Section 202(e) for emergency uses, except as the FFP Director
may otherwise approve in an amendment to the approved program. The use
of any development program commodity stocks for emergency use should be
reported separately under the MYAP as Vulnerable Group Feeding / Social
Safety Net. CSs should note that reimbursement for commodity transfers
is not guaranteed, but will be determined by FFP/W based on need and
availability of resources.

Where specific types of shocks and emergencies are predictable in a
country, FFP prefers that these be identified and planned for in MYAP
proposals as trigger indicators. In these cases, when predicted
emergency indicators are triggered, the CS will respond in the manner
indicated in the proposal. In some cases, however, when unforeseen
emergencies occur, SYAPs may be approved apart from an existing MYAP to
respond.

The following graphs provide visual examples of the use of the emergency
and non-emergency resources that FFP believes will facilitate
programmatic adjustments and flexibility in response to shocks in
multi-year programs.

The first example (Figure 1) represents the case of a new Multi-Year
Assistance Program being implemented in a specified population that is
transitioning from a Single-Year Assistance Program (emergency program).
In this situation, during the first year of the multi-year program, the
program is targeting a population suffering from residual transitory
food insecurity from the emergency, as well as a chronically food
insecure population, one that was likely to have been food insecure even
before the shock. Emergency resources (ER) are used to fund vulnerable
group feeding/social safety-net activities (VGF) for the transitory food
insecure, and non-emergency resources (NER) are used to fund the
activities targeting chronic food insecurity in two technical sectors:
agriculture/natural resource management (AG), and health and nutrition
(HN). The HN activities include a conditional safety-net, where food
rations are provided to all households with children under two or
pregnant or lactating women who participate in the HN program
activities. In years two and three of the Multi-Year program, the
transitory food insecure have "graduated" from the need for a
safety-net, and programming is focused on the chronically food insecure
with a continuation of a preventive focus for children under two. All
funding in years two and three is non-emergency (NER). In this example,
CSs would submit two AERs and two comprehensive and detailed budgets,
one each for emergency and non-emergency resources.

![](media/image1.wmf)

Figure 2 presents the program and funding adjustments to the same
Multi-Year Assistance Program when the population experiences a shock in
year two of the program. There is an increased need for VGF to maintain
consumption levels and protect assets, both for the chronically food
insecure and the usually food secure. The Cooperating Sponsor adjusts
the distribution of non-emergency resources to increase the proportion
directed to the HN conditional safety-net component (by temporarily
increasing the size of the HN ration) for the chronically food insecure,
and also expands the FFW component under AG. Plus, additional emergency
resources are made available to fund the "surge" in VGF for those who
have become transitorily food insecure. It is important to note that
multi-year program design in this scenario, included early warning
mechanisms within the program monitoring system that advised managers
when the emergency intervention was required, along with interventions
designed to meet the increased needs. Early warning indicators and
internal triggers should be identified in the program design in order to
assist program managers to recognize when to adjust or add program
interventions. In this example, an emergency resource AER and budgets
are not required at proposal submission.

![](media/image2.wmf)

The third example (Figure 3) represents a scenario whereby the
Multi-Year Assistance Program targets a chronically food insecure
population and throughout the period of intervention no shocks are
experienced -- hence, the funding source is solely non-emergency.

![](media/image3.wmf)

Figure 4 represents a scenario of the same Multi-Year Assistance Program
that experiences a shock in year three. Regular programming continues
with adjustments among the interventions and, in addition, emergency
resources are added in response to additional transitory needs due to
the shock. An emergency AER and detailed and comprehensive budgets are
submitted at that time, i.e., when the shock occurs. This "emergency"
safety-net intervention is funded with emergency funds during the same
time that the longer-term interventions continue with non-emergency
funding, although the relative weight of food distribution for the
chronically food insecure increases relative to the non-food activities
such as training and technical assistance, because of the need to
maintain consumption levels and protect the assets of the chronically
food insecure.

![](media/image4.wmf)

All of these scenarios indicate the need for flexibility and use of both
emergency and non-emergency funding. Identifying the potential shocks is
paramount to designing Multi-Year programs that focus on vulnerability
of the targeted populations. Understanding their level of resilience and
coping mechanisms provides the basis for determining when to intervene
with emergency responses.

FFP strongly urges all proposal submissions to include a discussion on
the process used to identify potential shocks. If the proposal does not
include mechanisms to monitor early warning and trigger indicators and
plans for how to respond to shocks, the proposal should indicate why
these mechanisms are not necessary based on the nature of the targeted
population's food insecurity and the sources of vulnerability and risk.

**VIII SUBMISSION AND REVIEW PROCESS**

**(1) Single-Year Assistance Programs (up to 12 months duration)**

The Single-Year Assistance Program proposal and approval process is
designed to facilitate rapid response to emergency situations where loss
of lives and livelihoods may result, in the absence of rapid
intervention. FFP\'s most important emergency response mission is to
ensure that critical food needs of people affected by natural disasters
and complex emergencies are effectively met. Natural disasters,
protracted refugee operations and complex civil or man-made emergencies
almost always lead to food insecurity for the affected population. Due
to war or a natural catastrophe, coping mechanisms are typically
strained and resources exhausted, creating a situation warranting
external intervention to offset the inability of the affected population
to meet their basic needs. The sometimes lengthy nature of the crises
further compounds people\'s ability to adapt because of insecurity,
leading in some cases to constant movement, which in turn affects their
ability to plant food crops or gain employment. In these situations,
SYAPs may require cost or no-cost extensions to the same CA, or
follow-on SYAPs under a different CA. In some circumstances, a MYAP may
be more appropriate in lieu of a SYAP. MYAP proposals are described
below.

If the emergency is a rapid-onset emergency in a country or region of a
country where no Title II activity is occurring, CSs should consider
assessing nutritional status, food security and emergency food needs.

All FFP SYAPs must demonstrate the need for food as an appropriate
response to the emergency. Frequently, an in-country needs assessment is
carried out on a joint basis involving several different agencies,
including WFP and CS/NGOs. Note that national or regional needs
assessment data are also available to those agencies, USAID Missions and
FFP/Washington through several sources including the Famine Early
Warning System Network (FEWS NET). The Food and Agriculture Organization
of the United Nations (FAO) produces bi-monthly reports by country on
food crops and shortages as well as reports generated by the Global
International Early Warning System (GIEWS). These documents are
especially helpful in preparing for a slow-onset emergency, such as a
drought.

Prior to funding, either the issuance of a UN emergency appeal or a
disaster declaration by the U.S. Embassy is required. Often, the initial
nutritional and food security assessments provide the foundation of an
appeal or disaster declaration. Both the UN Appeal and Embassy Disaster
Declaration are considered \"triggering mechanisms\" used by FFP, and
either may serve as a basis for considering requests for emergency food
assistance. Though infrequent, an emergency request from the
International Committee for the Red Cross (ICRC), International
Federation of the Red Cross/Red Crescent Societies (IFRC) or similar
organizations may also initiate a broader U.S. response in the form of
food grants to CSs/NGOs.

[Note that such an external "triggering mechanism" as described above is
necessary only in the case of an unanticipated shock or when there are
not any active Title II single- or multi-year programs, either in the
country or in the region affected by the emergency. Otherwise, as
detailed below, the expectation is that early warning indicators and
internal triggering mechanisms will be in place within on-going MYAPs
and will enable timely response should an emergency or shock as
described above occur.]{.underline} Such ongoing MYAPs, equipped with
early warning indicators, should provide monitoring information to
support their request to initiate emergency response when internal
triggers occur. Missions are expected to concur with the CS request to
initiate an emergency response based on monitoring early warning
indicators and internal triggers occurring, should an external emergency
declaration not be forthcoming.

While SYAPs may ultimately be extended beyond twelve months resulting in
funding for more than one fiscal year, such decisions will be made on a
case-by-case basis as situations warrant. Conditions for FFP to consider
SYAP extensions beyond twelve months include, at a minimum: (1) the
emergency addresses the same target groups (IDPS, returnees,
drought-affected populations, etc.) in the same geographic area for the
same emergency condition or shock with the same desired outcome; and (2)
the extension is supported by a disaster declaration by the American
Embassy or appeal by an international organization (the UN or ICRC).

**[a. SYAP Proposal Submission]{.underline}**

SYAP proposals are unsolicited, in order to facilitate a rapid response
to emergency situations. Accordingly, FFP will accept SYAP proposals at
any time for countries in need of Title II assistance and for which
emergency resources are appropriate, as detailed in Section IV. above.
However, a CS considering a response should contact their main field
contact, i.e., USAID Mission, Regional Office (where there is no USAID
Mission) or U.S. Embassy and their CS headquarters to alert them that a
response is being contemplated. Once developed, CSs are required to
submit SYAP proposals to both the applicable field contact (most likely
the Mission(s)) and FFP/W.

To be considered for funding, CSs are required to submit SYAP proposals
to both (1) FFP/W (to AMEX International as stipulated below and an
electronic copy only to the Country Backstop Officer (CBO)) and (2) to
their main field contact (i.e., USAID Mission, Regional Mission, or U.S.
Embassy). If a CS proposal is a regional program covering multiple
countries, then the CS must submit proposals to their main field contact
[in each country included in the regional program]{.underline}.

[Documents to be Submitted]{.underline}: At each location where CSs are
required to submit an proposal, CSs must provide one unbound copy and
one electronic copy.

[FFP/W Submission]{.underline}: FFP/W submissions must be made to:

> AMEX International
>
> Attn: Single-Year Assistance Program Proposal
>
> RRB North Tower
>
> 1300 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.
>
> Suite 270
>
> Washington, DC 20004 USA

The electronic copy to FFP/W must be sent to <FFPdocs@amexdc.com> in
addition to the applicable Country Backstop Officer (CBO). CSs should
(1) reference the country name, CS, and "SYAP proposal submission" in
the subject line of the email and (2) specify the name and location of
their USG field contact(s) at the USAID Mission, Regional Mission, or
U.S. Embassy in the text of the email message. CSs should note that
zipped files may not be accepted at USAID email accounts, and should
follow up with the Mission to ensure all files were received.

For questions about where and how to submit SYAP proposals, please
contact the FFP/W CBO responsible for the country for which you intend
to submit a SYAP.

**[b. SYAP Proposal Format and Contents]{.underline}**

While FFP requires a set of standard proposal information critical to
launching an emergency response, it offers some flexibility in its
format requirements. Rapid-onset emergencies (e.g., flood, earthquake,
volcano eruption, etc.) require quick mobilization and FFP will not
normally expect an extensive proposal in order to make a timely and
effective initial response. CSs in such cases should address the
following issues in a brief initial proposal submission. If some of the
following key components are not yet determined, they should describe
the process and timeframe by which these details will be worked out and
included as an amendment to the agreement, should the proposal be
approved.

Alternatively, if resources are also being sought from DCHA/OFDA, they
may choose to follow the proposal format established by OFDA for
emergency funding, with the inclusion of the critical information
required for a Title II food aid response. While FFP accepts OFDA's
proposal format, SYAP proposals should only request Title II funds, and
not joint funding from both FFP and OFDA.

FFP will expect additional detail on each of the issues listed below, as
needed, for SYAP proposals responding to slow-onset or protracted
emergencies and SYAP extensions/follow-ons. In the case of the latter,
CSs should also build upon knowledge and experience gained during the
program's initial response.

The key components of a SYAP proposal are detailed below. Components
marked with an asterisk (\*) are standard forms and must be provided in
full.

1)  Analysis of the emergency -- Reference, include, or attach available
    nutritional, food security and needs assessments data.

2)  Proposed response - Explain why food aid is the appropriate tool for
    this emergency and describe what activities are proposed, including
    a description of how the program will fill gaps that may exist
    and/or avoid duplication or overlap with other programs.

3)  Beneficiaries -- State who, where and how many.

4)  Ration(s) composition and size -- State what, why and how much,
    including target population(s) and utilization, as well as any
    changes made from previous years for each program activity. If
    rations are being proposed to support more than one activity or are
    being distributed by more than one CS in the country (including
    WFP), discuss whether and how the rations are complementary and/or
    harmonized. Similarly, any changes in ration eligibility criteria
    should be described, by activity, where appropriate.

5)  Program duration -- Proposed start date and length of response.
    Include prospects and timing for transitioning out of the emergency
    phase, describing what the triggers will be to determine the need to
    transition.

6)  Implementation Plan -- Describe how and who. Proposals should also
    identify ports and inland delivery points within their proposals, as
    applicable.

7)  Timeframe -- State when commodities are needed.

8)  Monitoring -- Address how will it be done and what are the
    indicators. CSs should consult FFPIBs 07-01 and 07-02 on FFP's
    reporting requirements, indicators and reporting systems for
    information on indicators required by FFP and how they align with
    other USAID and F indicators and objectives.

9)  Cost estimate -- Include a detailed budget of P.L. 480 Title II
    inland transport (if applicable), ITSH and 202(e) costs, as well as
    CS cost share and other USG funding as applicable. A brief budget
    narrative should be included with the budget. The financial plan
    should meet the criteria contained in OMB Circular A-122, which will
    be used by the USAID Mission and DCHA/FFP to determine whether the
    financial plan is reasonable. At a minimum, the following line items
    should be included for review:

    a.  International Staff Salaries and Benefits;

    b.  National Staff Salaries and Benefits;

    c.  Total Salaries and Benefits;

    d.  Supplies and Materials;

    e.  International Travel;

    f.  Domestic Travel;

    g.  Commodity Transportation and Warehousing;

    h.  Total Travel and Transport;

    i.  Capital Equipment;

    j.  Consultancy/Technical Assistance/Training

    k.  Other;

    l.  Sub-Total Direct Costs;

    m.  NICRA base; and

    n.  Grand Total

10) Exit strategy -- Explain how the proposed intervention addresses the
    underlying causes that led to the emergency being addressed; discuss
    how the intervention helps to prepare for transition out of
    emergency and/or build in preparedness and mitigation components.

11) A signed Host Country Food for Peace Agreement (HCFFPA) or Mission
    or Diplomatic Post concurrence noting that such a program can
    operate in accordance with Regulation 11 without the HCFFPA or until
    one can be signed.

12) Signed Certifications, Assurances, and Other Statements**\***.
    Before making the award of a grant or cooperative agreement to a
    non-governmental organization, FFP must possess standard
    certifications and assurances, as detailed in **Annex G**. Signed
    copies of each of these documents are required prior to SYAP
    approval.

13) 22 CFR 216 environmental documentation**\*** -- A draft Initial
    Environmental Examination (IEE) for [slow-onset]{.underline} or
    [persistent, complex]{.underline} emergencies as these interventions
    typically last more than one year. Refer to **Annex D**, Section IV
    E for details.

    -   In the first year of an emergency response, FFP encourages CSs
        to use the [Rapid Environmental Assessment
        (REA)](http://www.benfieldhrc.org/disaster_studies/rea/rea_index.htm)
        to minimize impact of relief to public health and natural
        resources.

14) A copy of the latest Negotiated Indirect Cost Rate Agreement**\***
    (NICRA), negotiated annually between CSs and USAID (or USDA);

15) A Bellmon Analysis (interim or final) -- See Section IX. vi.);

16) USAID Branding Strategy and Marking Plan (See **Annex F**);

17) An AER/Commodity Pipeline**\*** (with CS signatures) -- CSs may
    choose to use this document to outline their commodity needs for the
    FY, calculate their ration sizes, and illustrate their commodity and
    resource pipeline during the SYAP implementation period.

18) Vehicle procurement request, if applicable, with mission vehicle
    procurement policy. (See Section IX.ix.);

19) Country/area intervention map(s).

In addition, if their SYAP proposal is approved, CSs must comply fully
with all requirements specified in the program's CA.

> **(2) Multi-Year Assistance Programs (3 to 5 years in length)**

## 

Consistent with the requirements set forth in the P.L. 480 Title II
legislation, FFP shall determine whether to accept a MYAP proposal no
later than 120 days after receipt of a complete proposal (subject to
availability of funds). FFP is committed to meeting this mandate;
however, its ability to do so depends upon the quality of proposals and
their responsiveness to the standards and requirements set forth in
these guidelines.

**[a. MYAP Proposal Submission]{.underline}**

## To be considered for funding in FY 2009, CSs are required to submit MYAP proposals to both (1) FFP/W and (2) to their main field contact (i.e., USAID Mission, Regional Mission, or U.S. Embassy). If a CS proposal is a regional program covering multiple countries, then the CS must submit proposals to their main field contact in each country included in the regional program. Proposals must be submitted by 5:00 p.m. local time at each location (FFP/W and field) on January 12, 2009 MYAP proposals that are received after this time will not be accepted for funding consideration during this funding cycle. 

## Note: If the proposal is for a follow-on Multi-Year Assistance Program from a Single-Year Assistance Program described above, adherence to the scheduled submission dates will be required. It is likely that country-specific pipeline and activity arrangements will have to be made regarding the end of the initial emergency interventions under the Single-Year Assistance Program and the startup of an approved Multi-Year Assistance Program. 

[Documents to be Submitted]{.underline}: At each location where CSs are
required to submit a proposal, CSs must provide one unbound copy and one
electronic copy.

[FFP/W Submission]{.underline}: FFP/W submissions must be made to:

> AMEX International
>
> Attn: FY 2008 Multi-Year Assistance Program Proposal
>
> RRB North Tower
>
> 1300 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.
>
> Suite 270
>
> Washington, DC 20004 USA

The electronic copy to FFP/W must be sent to <FFPdocs@amexdc.com>. CSs
should (1) reference the country name, CS, and "FY08 MYAP proposal
submission" in the subject line of the email and (2) specify the name
and location of their USG field contact(s) at the USAID Mission,
Regional Mission, or U.S. Embassy in the text of the email message. CSs
should note that zipped files may not be accepted at USAID email
accounts, and should follow up with the Mission to ensure all files were
received.

Given the large number of files being submitted in a MYAP proposal, FFP
requests CSs to name files based on the appendices and titles referenced
in the guidance (i.e., Proposal Narrative, Detailed Budget, Executive
Summary Table, etc.).

For questions about where and how to submit MYAP proposals, please
contact the FFP/W CBO responsible for the country for which you intend
to submit a MYAP.

**[b. MYAP Proposal Format and Contents]{.underline}**

[Format:]{.underline} MYAP proposal packages must be prepared according
to the proposal application format provided in **Annex A**. Furthermore,
proposals must meet the following conditions:

-   Be written in Times New Roman, 12-point type (narrative) in English,
    using left justification and one-inch margins;

-   Be limited to no more than 35 numbered and dated pages for proposals
    with a single objective, or 45 pages for a proposal incorporating
    two or more objectives (not including cover page, glossary/list of
    acronyms, and annexes);

-   Include a clear statement of program goal(s) and results to be
    achieved by the end of life of the program, with objectively
    verifiable indicators and sources of data to measure such results;

-   Be submitted as Microsoft Word and/or Excel files (attachments) on
    letter-sized (8½ x 11 inches) paper in printer-friendly formats.
    IPTTs may be submitted on legal-sized (81/2 x 14 inches) paper.
    Adobe PDF files will be accepted for official (signed) documents,
    memoranda, certifications, etc. (signed AER, HCFFPA, NICRA, letters
    of support, etc.); and

-   Provide only the information requested (cross-reference and use of
    charts to present information concisely and eliminate repetition).

[Contents:]{.underline} All of the documents listed below must be
submitted, in the applicable formats as outlined in these guidelines:

1.  Proposal Narrative (The narrative is comprised of all items as
    detailed in Annex A.);

2.  Appendix 1: Letters of support for the programmatic activities in
    the program area by a local or national government official and a
    description of the registration and legal status of the CS in the
    proposed country;

3.  Appendix 2: An AER/Commodity Pipeline (with CS signatures) and
    corresponding ration justification[^3];

4.  Appendix 3: Resource and Beneficiary Summary Table;

5.  Appendix 4: Executive Summary Tables;

6.  Appendix 5.1: Comprehensive Budget[^4];

7.  Appendix 5.2: Detailed Budget;

8.  Appendix 5.3: Budget Narrative;

9.  Appendix 5.4: A copy of the latest Negotiated Indirect Cost Rate
    Agreement (NICRA), negotiated annually between CSs and USAID (or
    another Federal agency);

10. Appendix 6: Cost Recovery Tables;

11. Appendix 7: Country/area Intervention Map(s);

12. Appendix 8: Indicator Performance and Tracking Table and
    corresponding narrative on the program's monitoring and evaluation
    plan;

13. Appendix 9: Vehicle Procurement Plan;

14. Appendix 10: A final evaluation (attached) for any follow-on
    Multi-Year Assistance Program proposals in targeted country. The
    final evaluation's findings must underscore that positive results
    and effective implementation occurred under previous funding and the
    evaluation's recommendations should be incorporated into the
    follow-on proposal, if practicable, in order to be considered for
    funding;

15. Appendix 11: Name and curriculum vitae for the chief of party;

16. Appendix 12: Agency references (i.e., specifically references tied
    to U.S. Government awards within the last 3 years);

17. Appendix 13: Glossary/List of Acronyms.

In addition to meeting the objectives outlined in their MYAP proposal
package, if approved, CSs must also comply fully with all requirements
specified in the program's Cooperative Agreement.

## [Incomplete Proposals:]{.underline} Should any of the documents listed above be missing upon submission of the MYAP proposal, FFP will consider the proposal incomplete and will notify the CS accordingly of the failure to submit a complete proposal. FFP shall notify the CS Headquarters Office and the relevant USG field contact by email with this determination. 

[Complete Proposals:]{.underline} Once FFP has determined that the CS
has submitted a complete proposal, FFP has 120 days to determine whether
or not the proposal will be accepted to begin final negotiations for
funding.

**[c. MYAP Proposal Review and Funding Determination]{.underline}**

Once a proposal is deemed complete, FFP will review each proposal based
on the criteria and policies provided in this guidance.  USG field
contacts will collaborate closely with FFP/W in the review of proposals.
FFP/W may authorize USAID Missions or Regional Offices to assume
leadership roles in the process; CSs may expect to work more directly
with FFP field staff in such circumstances. 

 

Following its review of a complete proposal, FFP may accept the
proposal, deny the proposal, or withhold a decision on whether to accept
or deny the proposal pending resolution of outstanding issues.

 

FFP may determine that a particular proposal meets all requirements and
warrants funding.  In this case, FFP will notify the CS that its
proposal has been accepted. 

 

Alternatively, if FFP determines that a proposal generally meets program
requirements but has deficiencies that can and should be addressed prior
to approval, FFP will send an issues letter to the CS, which will
consolidate the comments from USAID offices, including FFP, USAID
Missions and Bureaus, and/or U.S. Embassies, as applicable.  FFP or the
CS may also request a formal meeting (either in Washington or the field)
to discuss the threshold issues presented in this letter.  Given the
importance of issues letters responses to the funding decision, CSs are
strongly encourage to respond to the appropriate contact as indicated in
the letter within 15 business days. Any delays will adversely affect the
process and lead to subsequent delays in finalizing the award
documentation.

*If FFP accepts the proposal*, the CS must submit a revised proposal
(narrative and appendices 1 -- 13), that also includes the documents
listed below, in the applicable formats as outlined in these guidelines,
to the appropriate contact(s) either within 15 business days or
according to the time frame decided upon by the TEC Chair:

>  

1.  Appendix 14: A signed Host Country Food for Peace Agreement (HCFFPA)
    or Mission/Diplomatic Post concurrence noting that such a program
    can operate in accordance with Regulation 11 without the HCFFPA
    until one can be signed;

2.  Appendix 15: Initial Environmental Examination (IEE) (with Mission
    signatures\*)

3.  Appendix 16: Marking and Branding plans;

4.  Appendix 17: Certifications, Assurances, and Other Statements; and

5.  Appendix 18: Memoranda of Understanding, inland contracts, and
    letters of support or agreements with relevant parties (with
    corresponding translations), as applicable.

\* The IEE will be returned to the CS if Mission signatures are not duly
included. Please note that even though the IEE is required *after FFP
accepts the proposal*, it is strongly recommended that the CS begins
work on the IEE when designing the proposal, prior to its submission.
Please review Annex D and prepare for the submission of the IEE as soon
as possible.

When a complete, revised proposal is received, FFP will complete its
final review of the submission.  If the proposal is complete, FFP
determines that it has adequately addressed all of the issues previously
cited, and funds are available, then FFP will approve the proposal and
send a signed Award Letter with attachments to the CS for review and
signature.  If a CS fails to adequately respond to the issues letter
with sufficient detail and relevant information, within the required
time frame, FFP will deny the proposal based on the outstanding issues
the CS has failed to address. 

Finally, if FFP determines that a proposal has major deficiencies, FFP
will deny the proposal and identify key reasons for the denial. 

**IX** **ADDITIONAL GUIDANCE APPLICABLE TO SYAPs AND MYAPs**

The following information provides further guidance to CSs submitting
proposals for either SYAPs and/or MYAPs, as applicable. CSs should
consider these issues in developing proposals:

i\) [Legislative Mandates for Type of Commodity, Programming and Program
Size]{.underline}

CSs implementing MYAPs are encouraged to use value-added commodities
above the mandated minimum amount required. For multi-year programs, FFP
must take into account the mandate that states, of the non-emergency
tonnage (including both direct distribution and monetization
commodities), seventy-five percent of it must be processed, fortified or
bagged. FFP has developed a "Value-Added Commodities List" of processed,
fortified and bagged commodities that it has determined meet this
statutory requirement (see **Annex E**). Proposals with a higher
proportion of processed, fortified or bagged commodities may be given
priority.

ii\) [Section 202(e) Funding]{.underline}

Authority and Purpose: P.L. 480 Title II Section 202(e), requires FFP to
make cash available to eligible organizations in support of Title II
programs in order to help to: (1) establish new programs under Title II;
(2) meet specific administrative, management, personnel and internal
transportation and distribution costs for carrying out Title II programs
(including monetization programs) in foreign countries; and (3) improve
and implement methodologies for food aid programs, including needs
assessments (upon the request of the Administrator), monitoring and
evaluation.

With the 2008 Farm Bill, Section 202(e) funding has been increased to an
amount no less than 7.5 percent and no greater than 13 percent of the
total Title II appropriation in each fiscal year.

Definition of Eligible Recipients: In order to be considered eligible to
receive funds under Section 202(e) an organization must be either a
Private Voluntary Organization (PVO) or cooperative that is, to the
extent practicable, registered with USAID; or an Intergovernmental
Organization (IO), such as the World Food Program.

Eligible Uses**:** Eligible uses for 202(e) funding differ between "new"
programs and "established" programs as detailed in [Food for Peace
Information Bulletin (FFPIB)
08-0](http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/humanitarian_assistance/ffp/ffpib_04_01.doc)3
or any subsequent revisions or released FFPIBs.

Expectations:

A. FFP strongly encourages CSs to identify other sources of public and
private funding in order to leverage Title II resources and diversify
support for the program prior to making requests for 202(e) funding.

B. FFP expects that the 202(e) portion of most Title II Programs will be
between 7.5 percent and 13 percent of the approved program value
(including the commodity cost, shipping cost, ITSH and 202(e) budgets).
Exceptions will be considered on a case by case basis.

C. Typically, no costs incurred prior to the effective date of an Award
Letter (or Amendment) will be eligible for 202(e) funding. Exceptions
must be approved by the Agreement Officer.

D. If the Title II program shares staff, services or space with another
program(s), the amount charged to 202(e) should be in proportion to the
expenses incurred by the Title II program.

E. FFP will receive and consider 202(e) funding requests from CSs on a
per project basis. CSs may charge indirect costs on their 202(e) direct
costs in accordance with their previously established Negotiated
Indirect Cost Rate Agreements (NICRAs). All CSs will be subject to the
same 202(e) policy guidelines defining what types of direct costs may be
covered by 202(e) funding.

F. Section 202(e) and ITSH resources cannot be carried over from one CA
to another. Accordingly, FFP must deobligate all remaining Section
202(e) and ITSH resources at the end of the program's LOA.

iii\) [Funding for Internal Transport Storage & Handling
(ITSH)]{.underline}

P.L. 480 Title IV Section 407(c) (1)(B) (for non-emergency programs) and
Section 406(b)(6) (for emergency programs) authorize the use of Title II
funding for the transportation costs of Title II commodities from
designated ports or points of entry abroad to storage and distribution
sites and for the associated storage and distribution costs for Title II
programs. All emergency programs are eligible for ITSH funding; however,
non-emergency programs only qualify for ITSH funding if they are in
Least Developed Countries (LDCs) as described by the World Bank's list
of the International Development Association's (IDA) eligible borrowers.

The following website provides a list of the eligible LDC countries in
which FFP will consider ITSH funding for non-emergency programs.
<http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/EXTABOUTUS/IDA/0,,contentMDK:20054572~menuPK:115748~pagePK:51236175~piPK:437394~theSitePK:73154,00.html>

If other sources of support have been examined and are inadequate, a
request for ITSH funds may be submitted with the program proposal. This
funding is limited and justification for such funding must be strong. To
underscore, note that Section 202(e) and ITSH resources cannot be
carried over from one CA to another. Accordingly, FFP must deobligate
all remaining Section 202(e) and ITSH resources at the end of the
program's LOA. In addition, FFP does not support the application of
NICRA against ITSH costs.

Eligible Uses**:** Eligible uses for ITSH funding are detailed in [Food
for Peace Information Bulletin (FFPIB)
08-0](http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/humanitarian_assistance/ffp/ffpib_04_01.doc)3
or any subsequent revisions or released FFPIBs.

iv\) [Monetization]{.underline}

In reviewing proposed monetization activities, FFP would consider the
degree to which the activities funded with the monetization proceeds:
(i) directly address the underlying causes of food insecurity; and (ii)
do not result in significant harm to local production or markets.
Proposals should indicate project food aid resources to be monetized as
a percentage of the total metric tonnage. MYAPs calling for 100 percent
monetization will not be approved. FFP will closely scrutinize all
proposed monetization activities and approve only those levels of
monetization which do not cause significant harm to local production or
markets. Proposals should include the total percent monetization
resources being requested, calculated as a percentage of the total
metric tonnage. All things being equal, to achieve greater program
resource efficiency and effectiveness, FFP would prefer monetizations
proposals with greater cost recoveries to those with lower cost
recoveries. SYAPs proposing monetization activities will also not be
considered, except in extenuating circumstances. All MYAPs with a
monetization component will need to clearly articulate why cash
assistance is not available (e.g. explored all avenues of assistance)
and have therefore determined that monetization is/would be the more
efficient and effective resource to address proposal requirements.

Should actual commodity sales revenue fall below the revenue anticipated
in the monetization plan, FFP will not approve additional commodities to
compensate the shortfall. Requests for exceptions to this rule, will be
reviewed by FFP on a case-by-case basis, would require the approval of
the Director of Food for Peace, and be subject to funds availability.
Conversely, should commodity sales revenue exceed revenue anticipated in
the monetization plan, FFP would reduce accordingly monetization
commodity pipelines in the activity's out years. When evaluating
requests to switch commodities, FFP would consider consistency with
current market conditions, funds availability and other country-specific
requirements.

To meet the statutory requirement that 75 percent of the programmed
commodities be processed, bagged or fortified for non-emergency
programs, FFP gives a preference to the monetization of value-added
commodities, i.e., processed, fortified, or bagged commodities, over the
monetization of bulk commodities. When there is more than one CS in a
country proposing to monetize commodities, FFP encourages the CSs to
monetize jointly to decrease costs associated with monetization
management and maximize the monetization proceeds. However, FFP will
review, on a case by case basis, CS requests to monetize independently.

If monetization is not feasible to monetize in the country where
proceeds will be used, monetization may be carried out in another
country in the region, i.e. "a regional monetization". Regional
monetization should first consider the feasibility of monetizing in
low-income food-deficit countries (LIFDCs) in the region. The list of
LIFDCs can be found on FAO's web site at
<http://www.fao.org/countryprofiles/lifdc.asp?lang=en>. If the LIFDC
option is not feasible, then monetization may take place in a U.N.
classified, Least-Developed Country (LDC) in the region at
<http://www.un.org/special-rep/ohrlls/ldc/list.htm>. In the case of
"regional monetization," the USAID Mission and/or U.S. Embassy in both
the program country and the monetization country must endorse the plan.

For each commodity to be monetized, CSs must set an expected sales price
which: (1) represents the reasonable market price of the commodity in
the specific market in the country (or region) in which it is being
sold; (2) would not interfere with domestic production or marketing in
the that country, in accordance with the 1977 Bellmon Amendment[^5]; and
(3) would not have a disruptive impact on the farmers or the local
economy of the recipient country. In addition, the CS must take
reasonable precautions to safeguard the usual marketing of the United
States and avoid displacing any sales of the United States agricultural
commodities that the Secretary or the Administrator determines would
otherwise be made, i.e., UMR considerations[^6]. The proposed price
level and the adequacy of the safeguards taken must be acceptable to the
USAID Field Mission (or Regional Mission for non-presence countries).

Regarding cost recovery requirement for monetization, CSs are expected
to receive a \"Reasonable Market Price\" for the sale of the Title II
commodities. In general, where local market prices are largely
determined by competitive forces, such local market prices can be used
as reliable and acceptable references for determining the "reasonable
market price," including the import parity price relevant for the market
in which the sale is to be transacted. To accommodate for specific
temporary or episodic anomalies, reference should be made as well to
historical local seasonal price cycles. In markets in which significant
market interferences, including government interventions, preclude the
usefulness of the local prices as a reasonable reference, other price
discovery methods may be used, including public tender, construction of
import parity prices and auctions. In such cases, the USAID Mission will
determine whether or not the resulting price is an acceptable use of its
limited resources and advise FFP. For all proposed monetization, CSs
should provide the USAID Mission, FFP/W and Regional Office, if
relevant, the expected sales prices and basis for that estimate.

To contribute to food security objectives, avoid market disruptions and
generate/receive sufficient monetization proceeds in time to meet
programmatic requirements, CSs should indicate the optimal timing of
food aid imports. In determination of the import scheduling due
consideration should be given to the timing of local harvests, holidays,
seasonal port congestions and transport bottlenecks.

Monetization plans for new MYAPs are to be included in the proposal's
"Commodity Management and Logistics Plan" section. The monetization plan
shall conform with the outline provided in USAID's [Monetization Field
Manual](http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/humanitarian_assistance/ffp/monetiz.htm).
This includes the: a) rationale; b) proposed mechanics, such as
commodity selection, timing, location, and sales method; c) expected
impact of the sale on the local market and other programs and adequacy
of storage and transport facilities; d) monetization sales budget; e)
sales proceeds management, including proceeds' safeguard measures,
identification of financial institution(s), monitoring/accounting system
and, if applicable, brief description of the joint/umbrella
monetization.

From the time of the MYAP proposal design to approval to subsequent PREP
submission, market conditions may change to the degree that the original
sales price estimates could need to be modified. CSs shall inform FFP
when market condition changes result in insufficient resources for
program implementation or render the sale of a particular commodity
impractical. CSs can adjust monetization cost recovery estimates and
actuals within their annual PREP and Results Report submissions.

At this time, FFP is not considering proposals including monetization of
commodities for the animal feed industry.

[]{.mark}

> v\) [Resource Integration and CS Cost Share Programming]{.underline}

Title II food aid programs offer extensive opportunity for partnership
and integration with activities and services funded with resources other
than Title II, such as GDA (described earlier), Mission DA, PEPFAR, host
government, and CS cost share, among others. Particularly in the case of
MYAPs, CSs are actively encouraged to solicit such opportunities to the
benefit of their programs.

Should resource integration be a part of their program proposal, CSs
should clearly delineate the different sources being proposed, including
the total value and/or quantity (in the case of complementary supplies,
equipment, etc.) being provided from each source. For MYAP proposals,
this information should be provided both within the narrative as well as
in the Executive Summary Tables.

Cost sharing becomes a condition of the award when it is made part of
the approved award budget. Cost sharing must be verifiable from the CS'
records, is subject to the requirements of 22 C.F.R 226.23, and can be
audited. If the CS does not meet its cost sharing requirement, it can
result in questioned costs. "Leveraging" represents all of the non-USAID
resources that are expect to be applied to a program. It may include
cost sharing, but may also include resources that third-parties will
bring to the program without necessarily providing them to the CS. These
parties can include the host government, private foundations, businesses
or individuals. The CS is not responsible for any leveraging in excess
of the agreed-upon cost sharing.

[]{.mark}

For CS cost share specifically, the CS should also present the amount of
cost share to be provided and where it will be used across budget
categories. (CSs should reference **Annex B** on budget categories.) If
at the end of any funding period, the CS has expended an amount of
non-Federal funds (i.e., CS cost share) less than the agreed upon amount
or percentage of total expenditures, the Agreement Officer may apply the
difference to reduce the amount of USAID incremental funding in the
following funding period. If the award has expired or has been
terminated, the Agreement Officer may require the recipient to refund
the difference to USAID.

[]{.mark}

vi\) [Bellmon Determination]{.underline}

The Bellmon Determination is a statutory requirement that certifies that
the commodities programmed for direct distribution or monetization in
Title II food aid programs will not result in a substantial disincentive
or interference with domestic production or marketing in that country,
and assures availability of adequate storage. The Determination is based
upon supporting analysis and available information. The analysis focuses
on the first fiscal year of the proposal. For all proposed SYAPs and
MYAPs to be approved, the USG must make a positive a Bellmon
Determination for the Title II commodities to be distributed or sold.

The CS must demonstrate in its use of monetization that it has
incorporated sufficient safeguards, including, but not limited to,
expecting a contract price which approximates or exceeds the import
parity price, to ensure that proposed national or regional sales are
Bellmon-compliant. In a rapid-onset emergency, CSs should consult with
their respective country CBO for Bellmon determination requirements.

For further information on the analysis used for a Bellmon
Determination, consult the *1985 Background Paper and Guide to
Addressing Bellmon Amendment Concerns on Potential Food Aid
Disincentives and Storage* and the official USAID cable entitled,
*Bellmon Certification Requirements for P.L. 480 Title II Activities*
(reissued, August 1999). For supplemental information regarding market
analysis, please consult the *P.L. 480 Title II Monetization Field
Manual*. These documents are available on the Internet at:
<http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/humanitarian_assistance/ffp/nonemergency.html>.

vii\) [Host Country Food for Peace Agreement]{.underline}

In accordance with Regulation 11 (Section 22 C.F.R. § 211.3(b)) CSs
shall enter into a written Host Country Food for Peace Agreement
(HCFFPA) with the government of each country for which Title II
commodities are to be transferred to the CS. This agreement shall
establish the terms and conditions needed by the CS to conduct a Title
II program in the country in accordance with the applicable requirements
of Regulation 11. In extraordinary circumstances, where such a written
agreement is not appropriate or feasible, the USAID Mission or
Diplomatic Post may determine that the program can be effectively
implemented in compliance with this Regulation 11 without such an
agreement, or until one can be signed. For MYAP proposal submissions, at
a minimum, CSs must submit letters of support for the programmatic
activities in the program area by a local or national government
official and a description of the registration and legal status of the
CS in the proposed country. CSs submitting proposals for countries in
which they lack a HCFFPA should make arrangements well in advance to
ensure that Mission or Post approval is received prior to the program
approval. The final proposal must include either the HCFFPA or the
written certification as appropriate.

viii\) [Annual Estimate of Requirements/Commodity Pipeline]{.underline}

An Annual Estimate of Requirements (AER), signed by the submitting CS,
reflecting the tonnage of commodities proposed for approval, should be
provided as Appendix 3 of the MYAP proposal (AER submission is optional
for SYAP proposals).  Carry-over resources from one fiscal year to the
next should be provided as well as part of the commodity pipeline,
provided as two separate tabs in the AER/Commodity Pipeline file.  CSs
should continually monitor their pipelines to ensure that requested
commodities are adequate and are needed to meet program requirements. 
FFP will request and review MYAP pipelines on a periodic basis to ensure
that pipelines are commensurate with program requirements and commodity
status reports.  

For FY09 MYAP preparation and submission, please consult the information
provide on the MYAP shift included as an attachment to these guidelines.

While always a critical component of any food aid program, an accurate
pipeline analysis is particularly critical in the last year of a
program's resource request so that FFP can ensure that the CS has
planned for all commodities to be utilized by the program completion
date and that commodities requested for monetization are consistent with
anticipated monetization proceeds that must be expended by the end of
the program. Given the date shift of MYAP approval and implementation,
moreover, and the expectation that CSs will carry over significant --
and possibly sufficient -- quantities of commodities for the final FY,
commodity pipelines should also be closely tracked in the months
preceding the final FY as well.

 

If a CS intends to use both emergency (ER) and non-emergency resources
(NER) in the first year of the MYAP, then the CS should submit one
signed AER per funding source, i.e., ER and NER. MYAPs should not submit
AERs with their proposal to request contingency resources; should a
shock occur and a response be warranted, as defined in their proposal,
an AER would be submitted at that time.

[]{.mark}

The AER/Commodity Pipeline is encouraged, though not required, for SYAP
proposals.

ix\) [Non-U.S. Equipment and Vehicle Purchases]{.underline}

All Title II cooperative agreements will now use 935 as the geographic
code which permits CSs to purchase non-U.S. equipment (See Mandatory
Reference, [22 CFR Part 228, Subpart
F](http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2006/aprqtr/pdf/22cfr228.03.pdf)).
Motor vehicles are restricted goods and waivers are required for all
vehicle purchases for all country programs except those for Sub-Saharan
Africa. This includes any vehicle to be financed by USAID including
long-term leases.

The Director of FFP may provide a waiver when special circumstances
exist and are supported in the Mission concurrence cable and other
communication throughout the approval process. Special circumstances
that may merit waiving the requirement are: inability of U.S.
manufacturers to provide a particular type of vehicle; present or
projected lack of adequate service facilities and spare parts for U.S.
manufactured vehicles; or an emergency requirement for vehicles for
which non-USAID funds are not available and can be met in time only by
purchase of non-U.S. manufactured vehicles.

In general, vehicle procurement requests for SYAPs will generally not be
approved. Procurement requests for the final year of a multi-year
program will also likely be denied. CSs seeking waivers to this policy
should contact the CBO responsible for the SYAP/MYAP country.

*Vehicle Procurement Financing:* FFP prefers that CSs purchase vehicles
for project use with non-U.S. Government (USG) funding. However, if the
Cooperating Sponsor is unable to identify alternate funding (at the
discretion of the CS), the order of preference for funding vehicles is
first Section 202(e) funds and then ITSH funds. FFP prefers not to fund
the purchase or lease of vehicles with monetization resources.

*Vehicle Procurement Requests and Approval:* Motor vehicles are
considered restricted goods; accordingly, the CS shall not procure such
items without the prior budget approval of FFP. Prior budget approval
means that: motor vehicles have been identified and incorporated in the
program description or schedule of the award; and, the costs related to
the motor vehicles are incorporated in the approved budget of the award.
Where the item has not been incorporated into the award as described
above, a separate written authorization from FFP must be provided before
the item is procured. Refer to the \"USAID Eligibility Rules for Goods
and Services (March 1997)\" standard provision and ADS 312 \"Eligibility
of Commodities.\"

If procurement of vehicles is requested, CSs should: (1) provide a
justification for the procurement of motor vehicles during the life of
the agreement period, and include a table with the following
information: number of vehicles and the fiscal year during which the
purchase is planned; type of vehicles; planned uses of vehicles; and
estimate cost of each vehicle; and/or, (2) for active programs
requesting additional vehicles or follow-on proposals from a previous
program, provide in a table format with additional supporting text a
history of vehicle procurement including the size and condition of the
current vehicle fleet, age of each vehicle, use of vehicles by activity,
and plans for maintenance and replacement. An example format for vehicle
information is provided in Annex A.

x\) [Inland Transportation]{.underline}

In the case of landlocked countries, Title II Inland Transport funding
may be provided on a reimbursable basis for transport from discharge
port to extended delivery point (EDP), or designated port of entry
within the recipient country. ITSH funding may be provided for internal
transport from the EDP or designated point of entry to distribution
site. When a CS requests inland transport through the vessel's bill of
lading to a designated internal point, funding will be provided on a
reimbursable basis under the CS's Inland Freight Purchase Authorization
(PA). Accordingly, MYAP and SYAP proposals should identify both ports
and inland delivery points within their proposals, as applicable.

CSs without a prior activity in a given country should submit data from
pro-forma invoices or contract quotes submitted by likely inland
transport companies. Submission of the required information is pivotal
to establishing an inland transportation account for reimbursement. In
lieu of pro-forma invoices or contract quotations, CSs shall perform
market research or a survey of local and regional transport companies.
This shall be completed to determine local costs and pricing for the
type and range of inland transport services that may be required during
the term of the agreement. In this manner, the CS and FFP may be
confident with the budget estimates for reimbursement of inland
transport services.

xi\) [Initial Environmental Examination]{.underline}

The Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended, Section 117 requires
that the impact of USAID's activities on the environment be considered
and that USAID include environmental sustainability as a central
consideration in designing and carrying out its development programs.
This mandate is codified in Federal Regulations (22 CFR 216) and in
USAID's Automated Directives System (ADS) Parts 201.5.10g and 204
([*http://www.usaid.gov/policy/ads/200/*](http://www.usaid.gov/policy/ads/200/)),
which, in part, require that the potential environmental impacts of
USAID-financed activities are identified prior to a final decision to
proceed and that appropriate environmental safeguards are adopted for
all activities. CS environmental compliance obligations under these
regulations and procedures are specified in the following paragraphs of
these Guidelines.

In addition, the CS must comply with [host country environmental
regulations unless otherwise directed in writing by USAID.]{.underline}
In case of conflict between host country and USAID regulations, the
latter shall govern. No activity funded under the MYAP cooperative
agreement will be implemented unless an Environmental Threshold
Determination, as defined by 22 CFR 216, has been reached for that
activity, as documented in an Initial Environmental Examination (IEE),
including any [Pesticide Evaluation Report and Safer Use Action Plan
(PERSUAP)](http://www.encapafrica.org/meo_course/Course_Materials/Module9--Special_Topics/Agriculture_Irrigation_Pest_Pesticide_Management/How_to_prepare_a_PERSUAP_031504.pdf),
duly signed by the Bureau Environmental Officer (BEO).

All 22 CFR 216 compliance documentation is prepared for the *final*
decision and approval of the Bureau Environmental Officer (BEO) as in
ADS 204.3.4a(3). In preparation for BEO/DCHA final signature, the IEE is
cleared first in the Mission by the Mission Environmental Officer (MEO)
(or Regional Environmental Advisor (REA) for non-presence countries),
FFP Officer (optional) and Mission Director and then cleared in
Washington by the FFP CBO (optional) and FFP Director. Final 22 CFR 216
clearance on all environmental compliance documentation for FFP programs
is the responsibility of the BEO/DCHA.

The CS is advised to refer to **Annex D** for more specific guidance and
templates for the IEE and ESR. Additional information on environmental
best management practices is also available at the [FFP Environmental
Website](http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/humanitarian_assistance/ffp/environment.html).
Contact
[BEO/DCHA](http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/environment/compliance/officers.html#beo)
with questions and/or comments concerning environmental compliance
guidance, document preparation or capacity building opportunities.

Please note that even though the IEE is required *after FFP accepts the
proposal*, it is strongly recommended that the CS begins work on the IEE
when designing the proposal, prior to its submission. Please review
Annex D and prepare for the submission of the IEE as soon as possible.

xii\) [Certifications, Assurances, and Other Statements]{.underline}

Before making the award of a grant or cooperative agreement to a
non-governmental organization, FFP must possess standard certifications
and assurances, as detailed in **Annex G**. CSs should submit signed
copies of each of these documents *after FFP accepts the proposal*.

## X Procedures for the Final Year of a Program 

Cooperating Sponsors should conduct impact evaluations in the year prior
to the program's final year, and must submit the evaluation report to
FFP before or with the submission of the results report for the
penultimate year. If the CS is proposing a follow-on program, the final
evaluation report must be submitted to FFP prior to the submission of
the new proposal. MYAP extension requests should be submitted to FFP at
least six months prior to the planned expiration of the program
alongside the closeout plans (discussed below). Additionally,
microcredit programs require additional assurances in terms of
sustainability through appropriate transfers of programs.

FFP expects that CSs will plan for all commodities to be distributed,
and all costs to be incurred against the approved monetization budget,
by the program completion date. However, should any commodities and/or
monetization proceeds remain at the end of the program's LOA, these
resources may be transferred to a follow-on MYAP in the same country, if
approved, or otherwise redirected by FFP. Should any Section 202(e) or
ITSH resources remain, they must be deobligated and returned to USG.
Costs for implementing a program closeout should be captured within the
CS's budget and, as the LOA expires, within its detailed budget and
closeout plan. Regardless of the final date of closeout, CSs should
incorporate all program results within the final evaluation and final
Results Report submitted to FFP.

A CS should submit closeout plans to the USAID Mission and applicable
FFP/W CBO no less than six (6) months prior to the expiration of a
program. CSs should consult the [FFP Closeout
Guidelines](http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/humanitarian_assistance/ffp/)
for additional details.

## XI MULTI-YEAR PROGRAM AMENDMENT APPLICABILITY AND SUBMISSION PROCESS 

**[a. MYAP Amendment Applicability]{.underline}**

A CS should submit a MYAP amendment request if there are significant
changes proposed to the approved program. A significant change is
defined as: (a) a change in the purpose and/or outcome of the project,
including changes in targeted beneficiaries or geographic coverage area;
(b) a radical restructuring of implementation or monetization
arrangements; (c) a shift of 10 percent or more of resources among
technical sector budget line items (the technical sector breakout is
reported in the Summary Request Tables); and/or (d) a request for
additional resources over the approved LOA budget. For CSs with
consolidated country or regional programs, LOA refers to the entire
approved program budget rather than country specific budgets.

Under any of these circumstances, the CS and FFP may mutually decide to
consider a program revision or amendment. CSs should consult with the
appropriate FFP Country Backstop Officer, who will make the
determination on if and how to move forward in the amendment submission
process.

[^1]: These guidelines apply to all SYAPs and MYAPs implemented with
    Title II resources. They are not applicable for programs implemented
    by the World Food Program or the International Food Relief
    Partnership (IFRP). The IFRP program has separate guidance,
    available online at
    <http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/humanitarian_assistance/ffp/ifrp.html>.

[^2]: See Office of the U.S. Global AIDS Coordinator, [*Food and
    Nutrition for People Living with
    HIV/AIDS*](http://www.pepfar.gov/documents/organization/91983.pdf)

[^3]: As in the case of the AER/Commodity Pipeline, MYAPs transitioning
    from emergency activities should submit one AER per funding source.
    An AER/Commodity Pipeline need not be submitted as part of
    contingency plans built into the MYAP to address potential shocks.

[^4]: ^2^ If requesting emergency resources in the first year of a MYAP
    as part of a program transitioning from emergency to development
    activities, CSs should submit one comprehensive and one detailed
    budget per funding source (ER and NER). Emergency resource budgets
    need not be submitted as part of contingency plans built into the
    MYAP to address potential shocks.

[^5]: P.L. 480: Section 403(a): Determine that there are adequate
    storage facilities in the country to prevent spoilage or waste and
    the distribution of the commodities in the recipient country will
    not result in a substantial disincentive or interference with
    domestic production or marketing in that country.

[^6]: *Usual Marketing Requirements (UMRs)*: Under all
    government--to-government food aid programs, a UMR analysis is
    required in order to ensure that food aid sales or donations will
    not unduly disrupt world agricultural commodity prices and normal
    patterns of commercial trade. The UMR is the level of commercial
    imports that a government recipient of food aid agrees to maintain.