**Office of Food for Peace (FFP)**

Bureau for Democracy, Conflict and Humanitarian Assistance (DCHA)

Concept Paper for its

Strategic Plan for 2004-2008

FINAL DRAFT

September 10, 2003

Table of Contents

I. Executive Summary [1](#i.-executive-summary)

II\. Introduction and Background [3](#ii.-introduction-and-background)

A. Purpose of Concept Paper [3](#purpose-of-concept-paper)

B. Summary of Current Program [3](#summary-of-current-program)

C. Summary of the Analytical Agenda
[6](#summary-of-the-analytical-agenda)

III.Situation Analysis [7](#iii.-situation-analysis)

A. Trends and Implications [7](#trends-and-implications)

B. Changes in FFP's Operating Environment
[10](#changes-in-ffps-operating-environment)

C. Policy Environment [11](#policy-environment)

IV\. Food for Peace's Strategic Direction
[14](#iv.-food-for-peaces-strategic-direction)

A. FFP's Vision, Mission and Governing Principles
[14](#ffps-vision-mission-and-governing-principles)

B. Key Assumptions [15](#b.-key-assumptions)

C. An Expanded Conceptual Framework
[16](#c.-an-expanded-conceptual-framework)

D. A New Strategic Framework [19](#d.-a-new-strategic-framework)

E. Approaches [27](#e.-approaches)

IV\. Management Innovations [31](#iv.-management-innovations)

V. Projected Resource Requirements
[32](#v.-projected-resource-requirements)

VI\. Participation and Consultation in Strategy Development
[32](#vi.-participation-and-consultation-in-strategy-development)

ANNEX: Vulnerability and Food Secure, Fragile, Failing And Failed States
[33](#annex-vulnerability-and-food-secure-fragile-failing-and-failed-states)

Food for Peace Concept Paper

# I. Executive Summary

This concept paper draws on the years of experience managing the Title
II food assistance program, and lays the foundation for the new FFP
strategy. Over the next five years, the Office will continue to use
Title II food resources to contribute to FFP's vision of *"a world free
of hunger and poverty, where people live in dignity, peace and
security"* and to the goals and objectives of the U.S. Government, the
U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and the Bureau for
Democracy, Conflict and Humanitarian Assistance (DCHA). In pursuing this
vision, Food for Peace and its partners will implement a strategy that
focuses on reducing the food insecurity of vulnerable groups in both
emergency and non-emergency contexts.

Recent trends in food security coupled with significant changes in its
operating environment mean that FFP and its partners will face increased
challenges over the next five years. At the global level, limited
progress has occurred, with reductions in global estimates of poverty,
undernutrition and malnutrition. But if one excludes China, progress has
been uneven across the developing world, with some countries in all
regions losing ground. Further, the Title II program is now operating in
an environment characterized by increased frequency and severity of
natural and manmade disasters; the heightened diplomatic, military and
humanitarian demands on the United States, including the war on
terrorism; and the destabilizing potential of HIV/AIDS, corruption,
conflict, and increased numbers of refugees and internally displaced
persons.

These trends have led FFP and its partners to the strategic decision to
focus Title II resources on reducing risk and vulnerability. The concept
of risk is implicit in the USAID definition of food security, but
operationally the program has focused on raising the levels of food
availability, access and utilization, with much less emphasis placed on
the risk of losing the ability to obtain and use the food. Under the new
Food for Peace Strategy, food security will remain the cornerstone of
the Title II program, but FFP has expanded the basic food security
conceptual framework to include a fourth pillar to make explicit the
risks that constrain progress toward increased food availability, access
and utilization. FFP will re-orient Title II programs operationally so
that the vulnerability of food insecure individuals, households and
communities is addressed more directly.

In this new context, food will have an immediate impact -- protecting
lives and smoothing consumption -- while also achieving the longer-term
impacts -- enhancing community and household resilience to shocks,
helping people build more durable and diverse livelihood bases
(enhancing assets, resources and infrastructure), and enhancing the
capabilities of individuals through improvements in health, nutrition
and education. Consistent with the Administrator's emphasis on
developmental relief, this means that food aid-supported activities will
be a means to reduce vulnerability over the longer--run and not merely
an end in themselves, even in an emergency environment.

FFP's proposed new strategic objective -- *Food insecurity in vulnerable
populations reduced* -- reflects the decision to place more focus on the
***"in"*** in food insecurity. This formulation also represents a
significant change from the current strategic framework, which has
separate objectives for the emergency and non-emergency or development
programs. This will help remove artificial distinctions between the
emergency and development programs and make it easier for the former to
incorporate activities that address the underlying causes of
emergencies. At the same time, the new formulation will ensure that
development programs become more risk conscious and pay greater
attention to prevention and sustaining progress in shock prone
environments. The new strategy also represents a clear choice on the
part of FFP to focus on higher order results that will have resonance
with a wide audience, although the achievement of these results will
require the Office to commit to a more active "global leadership" role
in the future.

The first intermediate result (IR) -- *FFP's global leadership enhanced*
\-- adds a major new dimension to the Office's strategic framework. This
IR reflects FFP's interest in performing a more active role in framing a
new food security agenda, both within USAID and with the broader
international community. As reflected in the sub-intermediate results in
the new framework, FFP will need to collaborate more successfully with a
more active and expanded set of partners in order to achieve greater
progress in reducing food insecurity. This also means that FFP will have
to play a more active role in galvanizing increased attention and
resources to the problems of the food insecure -- those living with
chronic food insecurity as well as those coping with emergencies.

The second intermediate result -- *Title II program impact in the field
increased* \-- reflects the decision to focus the Title II program on
enhancing the ability of individuals, households and communities to cope
with shocks in order to reduce their vulnerability. The concept of
"protection" is also included in this formulation to capture an
important function of the program during emergencies, when protecting
lives, livelihoods and community resiliency is the first concern.
However, in both emergency and non-emergency programs, the ultimate
objective must be leaving people and communities better off -- to
"enhance" human capabilities, livelihood capacities and the resilience
of communities. The importance of improved governance, especially the
need for communities to have greater "capacity to influence factors
(decisions) that affect their food security," is also included as an
important contributor to increasing program impact.

Based upon extensive technical analyses and stakeholder consultation
within and outside USAID, this proposed strategy aligns well with U.S.
Government and USAID priorities in using the bounty of American
agriculture to improve the lives of hungry, vulnerable people. In
elaborating the full strategy, FFP will continue to engage with USAID
and other key stakeholders to ensure optimal use of Title II resources
in both emergency and non-emergency contexts.

# II. Introduction and Background

## Purpose of Concept Paper

The purpose of this paper is to describe FFP's vision for its future and
to inform the parameters that will guide the development of the Office's
strategic plan. This concept paper draws on the years of experience that
the Office and its partners have in managing the Title II food
assistance program, and on the most recent successes in using Title II
food resources to help improve food security in the developing world in
accordance with the focus introduced in the 1990 Farm Bill.

## Summary of Current Program

The 1990 Farm Bill made major changes in the PL 480 food assistance
program, starting with the designation of improved food security in the
developing world as the program's over-riding objective. This
legislation gave USAID responsibility for the relief and economic
development programs (Title II and Title III) and USDA responsibility
for using food for trade promotion and market development purposes under
Title I. The 1990 legislation included addressing "famine or other
urgent or extraordinary relief requirements" and carrying "out feeding
programs" as two of the uses of food under the Title II program. But it
went beyond these activities, which are focused on the more immediate
satisfaction of food needs, to identify a number of broader, longer-term
uses. These include combating "malnutrition, especially in children and
mothers," carrying out "activities that attempt to alleviate the causes
of hunger, mortality and morbidity," promoting "economic and community
development," and promoting "sound environmental practices." The
legislation opened the way to increased sales of food (monetization)
under the Title II program, increasing the minimum that needed to be
monetized to 10 percent of the total value of non-emergency commodities
and expanding the uses of the proceeds to include income generation,
health, nutrition and agricultural activities. The Legislation also
called for increased coordination and integration of food aid with U.S.
development assistance objectives and with the overall development
strategy of the recipient country.

In 1990, many still thought of food security in very narrow terms, as
dependent primarily on the availability or supply of food at the
national level. The definition of food security in the legislation was
much broader, however, as was the definition that USAID issued in a 1992
policy paper:

"Food security exists when all people at all times have both physical
and economic access to sufficient food to meet their dietary needs for a
productive and healthy life." (USAID Policy Determination Number 19,
April 1992)

This definition focuses on three distinct but interrelated elements, all
of which are essential:

-   **Food availability**: sufficient quantities of food from household
    production, other domestic output, commercial imports or food
    assistance.

-   **Food access**: adequate resources to obtain appropriate foods for
    a nutritious diet, which depends on income available to the
    household, on the distribution of income within the household and on
    the price of food.

-   **Food utilization**: proper biological use of food, requiring a
    diet providing sufficient energy and essential nutrients, potable
    water and adequate sanitation, as well as knowledge within the
    household of food storage and processing techniques, basic
    principles of nutrition and proper childcare and illness management.

This is the conceptual framework that underlies the current Title II
program. The centrality of these three elements has also gained
widespread international acceptance, as demonstrated by their acceptance
as part of the definition of food security that was adopted at the World
Food Summit in 1996 and the follow-up Summit in 2002.

In 1995, USAID issued a major new policy \-- its "Food Aid and Food
Security Policy" -- designed to bring the Title II program into better
conformity with the purposes laid out in the 1990 Farm Bill and to guide
program development and resource allocations. This document identified
new geographic and programmatic priorities for the Title II emergency
and development food aid programs and aimed to refocus the programs on
the principal causes of food insecurity among the poor in the most food
insecure countries.

FFP used the 1995 policy as the basis for making a series of major
changes in the Title II program over the last seven years, particularly
in the development program. Some of the more important changes in the
development program, which are documented in the recent "Food Aid and
Food Security Assessment" (FAFSA),[^1] are discussed below.

**Geographic priorities** \-- As a result of the 1995 policy, USAID now
gives more priority in the allocation of Title II resources to programs
in those countries that need food the most and where food insecurity is
greatest. The number of programs and amount of resources going to
programs in sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia -- the two priority
regions identified in the policy -- also have increased as a result. In
the Latin American and Caribbean (LAC) region, resources have shifted to
the more food insecure countries and populations within those countries.

**Sectoral priorities** -- FFP has placed more priority on "improving
household nutrition, especially in children and mothers, and on
alleviating the causes of hunger, especially by increasing agricultural
productivity." Plus, the cooperating sponsors have made major strides in
increasing their capacity to implement programs in these priority
sectors, i.e., health and nutrition and agriculture.

**Managing for results** -- FFP has placed greater emphasis on
monitoring and evaluating the food security impacts of the Title II
program, in response to the 1995 policy and in conformity with the
"managing for results" orientation required by the Government
Performance and Results Act. The FAFSA determined that over half the
Title II maternal child health and nutrition programs had achieved
reductions in the percentage of malnourished children (stunting or
underweight); reductions in diarrhea and increases in immunizations also
were reported; and almost all the agricultural programs reported
increases in yields. This represents a major change from the days when
commodity monitoring and accountability were the primary management
concerns. However, additional progress is needed, according to the
FAFSA, in reducing the variability in how indicators are defined,
measured and reported and on improving the use of the information
generated for program management.

**Expanding complementary activities** -- The 1995 policy recognized the
importance of complementary resources -- cash in particular -- to the
success of emergency programs as well as to achieving food security on a
sustainable basis. Within the development program, much of the success
in the health and nutrition and agricultural sectors was achieved
through increases in complementary inputs, including the additional
technical assistance and training that has become available since the
promulgation of the policy. However, much of this increase was funded by
monetization rather than an increase in the availability of Development
Assistance (DA) and other USAID funds or other donor resources. As a
result, the amount of monetization has grown substantially, increasing
to 65 percent of Title II non-emergency commodities in 2001 -- a
development that has not been welcomed by all of the Title II
stakeholders (See discussion below on the "Policy Environment").

**Integration with mission strategies** \-- Some progress has been made
in integrating the Title II development programs with USAID mission
strategic frameworks, particularly in the LAC region, with Title II
development programs contributing to the achievement of mission
performance objectives. However, even where progress occurred in
integrating Title II programs into mission strategies conceptually, this
has not always resulted in the operational integration of mission and
Title II resources. Achieving better integration of resources within
USAID continues to be a challenge due to a variety of factors. These
include the lack of integration of diverse USAID programs within
missions, a decline in the availability of DA resources to support
agriculture, and independent budgetary criteria, accounts and cycles.
Achieving better integration of Title II resources with other sources of
funds (i.e., from the cooperating sponsors, other donors and recipient
governments) has proven equally, perhaps more, challenging.

**Sustainability** -- The Title II program has shifted its emphasis from
feeding people in the short-run to trying to improve the food security
of the more food insecure populations over the medium and longer-term.
As part of this development, the cooperating sponsors have adopted
multi-sectoral, community-based approaches that emphasize community
ownership, self-reliance, empowerment, and participatory methods. To
increase the likelihood that the food security results achieved under
these programs will be sustainable, the FAFSA recommends more
flexibility in the length of the development assistance proposals,
including the ability to extend programs beyond the current five-year
time frame. It also recommends that the cooperating sponsors take steps
to identify alternative sources of assistance for their services earlier
in their programs and more effectively link beneficiaries to these
alternatives.

**Strengthening food aid partner capacity** -- The cooperating sponsors
have improved their capacity to assess problems, manage programs in the
field and to monitor and report on performance. They have also developed
small-scale, locally affordable and appropriate innovations in both
their health and nutrition and agriculture programs. However, FFP needs
to focus on the institutionalization of these strengthened capacities
and to improve quality control in the field.

**Strengthening the food aid partnership** -- FFP made progress in
strengthening its partnerships with internal (i.e., USAID's regional
bureaus and missions) and external partners (primarily the cooperating
sponsors). However, the FAFSA identified a need for additional
improvements in the areas of transparency, consistency, flexibility,
communications and consultation. The FAFSA also identified the need to
establish clear lines of authority and to help Title II partners
understand the roles of the different management units within the Agency
-- the Food for Peace Office, the regional bureaus and the missions.

**Relief to development continuum** -- Although the 1995 policy
recognized the need to develop a better understanding of the
relationships between relief and development, little progress was made
in this area. The FAFSA recommended that Food for Peace "put priority on
developing a relief-to-development strategy for Title II resources that
recognizes the oscillatory and coincident nature of most relief and
development transitions."

## Summary of the Analytical Agenda 

The Office of Food for Peace commissioned several technical papers to
help inform the preparation of its new strategy. First, FFP commissioned
an assessment of the Title II development program to determine the
extent to which the regional, sectoral and management objectives laid
out in the 1995 policy had been achieved, and to recommend future
program and legislative objectives. The results of this analysis, the
"Food Aid and Food Security Assessment" (FAFSA), were discussed in the
previous section.

To help broaden the evidence base for the food security impacts of
monetization, the Office commissioned Michigan State University (MSU) to
assess monetization programs in several African countries. These case
studies document the positive impacts that selling the food
(monetization) can have on recipient countries -- impacts that range
from foreign exchange savings, stabilized food supplies and lower food
prices, to stimulating private commerce and processing industries. The
greatest impact of monetization, according to MSU, stems from the
results of activities that are funded with the proceeds from the
commodity sales. This was also a key finding of the FAFSA. Cash from
monetization helps pay for distributing the food and to pay for the
other inputs \-- the training materials, engineering designs, and the
tools used in the food for work programs -- that are needed to
complement the food that is distributed. Cash is also used to pay for
disseminating the new agricultural technologies and for the nutrition
and health education activities that are such an important part of the
programs implemented since the 1995 policy.

The Office also commissioned two reviews of recent trends in food
security and new evidence on the effectiveness of alternative program
approaches to food security -- one by the International Food Policy
Research Institute (IFPRI) and the second by Tufts University School of
Nutrition.[^2] These documents have provided FFP with a broad set of
insights into the nature of the food security challenge and potential
approaches. These two papers and the discussions that have taken place
around them have also helped FFP up-date its analytical framework to
reflect the changing realities in the world. And, they have helped the
Office to better understand the risky environments in which its programs
operate and the implications of this risk for program design and
implementation.

# III. Situation Analysis

## Trends and Implications

*"To put it bluntly, the state of food insecurity in the world is not
good."*

(FAO 2002*)*

This statement summarizes FAO's view of the state of food insecurity, a
view that is supported by the analyses that IFPRI and Tufts prepared for
the Office.

**Some progress has occurred at the global level.** -- Global
***poverty*** declined during the 1990s by around 20 percent. The number
of chronically ***undernourished*** people (a FAO measure of
national-level food adequacy) fell in the developing countries from 816
to 777 million during the 1990s. And, the number of chronically
***malnourished*** (stunted) children fell from 220 million to 184
million. However, much of this progress was due to successes in one
country -- China.

**Progress in reducing food insecurity has been uneven, with the
situation worsening in some regions and some countries in all regions**.
-- All three proxies for food security -- poverty, undernutrition and
malnutrition \-- indicate that the progress in reducing food insecurity
has been very uneven.

-   **Poverty** \-- If China is excluded from the analysis, the rate of
    poverty reduction in the world has been less than half the rate
    needed to meet global targets. Further, the number of people living
    on \$1 per day or less in sub-Saharan Africa, South Asia and Latin
    America increased by 10 million each year during the 1990s. (UNDP
    2002)

-   **Undernutrition** -- Although the number of chronically
    undernourished people in the world fell by some 39 million during
    the 1990s, China accounted for most of the progress (66 percent of
    the gain). Two-thirds of the ninety-nine countries analyzed
    experienced increases in undernutrition. Some of the worse
    performers were in sub-Saharan Africa (Democratic Republic of the
    Congo, Burundi, Tanzania, Somalia and Mali) but others can be found
    in Asia and the Middle East (Democratic Republic of Korea, Mongolia,
    Iraq and Afghanistan), and others in Latin America (Cuba and
    Guatemala). (IFPRI 2002)

-   **Malnutrition** -- The prevalence of child malnutrition (both
    stunted and under-weight children) has increased during the 1990s in
    both sub-Saharan Africa and Central America. (ACC/SCN 2002)

**Recent projections suggest that progress is likely to slow in the
future.** -- Several recent analyses indicate that the momentum for
change that began in the 1990s may have stalled, suggesting that it may
be more difficult to make progress in reducing food insecurity in the
future than in the recent past*.* According to recent estimates by USDA,
IFPRI and FAO, for example, the goal of halving the number of
undernourished people by 2015 is not likely to be met until 2050 at the
earliest, given realistic scenarios for the growth in food supply and
effective demand. Another IFPRI assessment concludes that a 50 percent
reduction in poverty or child malnutrition in most parts of the world,
let alone the entire world, is optimistic.

**Achieving reductions in poverty could become more difficult.
Multi-sectoral interventions will continue to be important to achieving
reductions in malnutrition** -- In the future, success in reducing food
insecurity will depend on our ability to "shift" endemic chronic
poverty. Average poverty rates have declined during the 1990s. However,
the number of people living in extreme poverty in the least developed
countries more than doubled since the late 1960s, and by 2000 had
reached 307 million. At the same time, the gap between the extremely
poor and the less poor has widened. Rising national aggregate incomes,
which we now understand how to promote, have been responsible for the
decline in the average rates of poverty. However, pulling the extremely
poor and food insecure, who frequently live in marginal locations in
poor countries, out of conditions of long-term deprivation has proven to
be less amenable to quick solutions. Furthermore, growth in income alone
in the absence of specific nutrition interventions is unlikely to result
in as rapid a decrease in the prevalence of child malnutrition as is
desirable and possible. This means that reducing malnutrition will have
to be promoted explicitly as a goal within a food security strategy, and
multi-sectoral targeted interventions will continue to be important.

**Disasters, both natural and manmade, will continue to take a toll.**
\-- Manmade and natural disasters took a tremendous toll during the
1990s, with over 3 million lives lost to these events. Three times as
many natural disasters were reported in the 1990s as in the 1960s, and
estimates of economic losses due to these events during the 1990s range
from \$400 to almost \$800 billion. The number of earthquakes and
volcanic eruptions have held fairly steady, but disasters related to
water and weather have increased dramatically, and their effects are
likely to become even more devastating as populations at risk increase.
The number of manmade disasters also grew during the 1990s, killing
three times as many people as natural disasters, with countries in every
region affected. Conflict played a central role in these manmade
disasters. By the end of 2000, internal conflict and repression had
generated 14.5 million refugees and asylum seekers worldwide and nearly
25 million people displaced within their own countries.

**The challenge of HIV/AIDS will increase**. -- HIV/AIDS threatens to be
as devastating to the 21^st^ Century as famine was for the 19^th^ and
20^th^ Centuries. Approximately 42 million people are currently living
with HIV/AIDS; the death toll exceeds 3 million per year and continues
to rise. The pandemic affects an estimated 200 million people worldwide,
most in low-income developing countries. Sub-Saharan Africa is most
affected, where the disease has become the leading cause of adult
morbidity and mortality and a major contributor to recent large-scale
food crises. HIV/AIDS is also spreading rapidly across Asia, with India
leading the world in the absolute numbers of infections, currently
estimated at 5 million. In addition to infecting and killing individuals
in the most productive 15 to 45 years age group, the pandemic affects
household food security in a variety of ways, eroding the capacity of
households to attain food security and/or to withstand shocks. AIDS
morbidity and mortality reduce households' ability to produce and buy
food, deplete savings and assets, and reduce the insurance value of
social networks as increasing numbers of households call in favors
simultaneously. Morbidity affects agricultural productivity by reducing
labor availability and efficiency, pushing households to reallocate
labor from productive activities to patient care, and by shifting
income-earning responsibilities to the elderly and the young. At
national levels, government investments in human capital development
(education, training, health) are all at risk, while future economic
growth, tax income and the inter-generational transfer of skills and
knowledge (cultural capital) all become less certain.

**Urban food insecurity will grow.** -- The developing world is
continuing to urbanize, and the proportion and number of urban poor are
increasing. In many developing countries, however, poverty is still
primarily a rural problem, extreme poverty in particular. Urban food
insecurity problems have arisen on a large scale where the process of
urban growth has been very rapid, and especially when the increased
urbanization was linked to distress migration rather than the
attractions of urban economic growth. Another cause for concern about
increasing urbanization relates to shocks. While the International Fund
for Agricultural Development (IFAD) argues that the rural poor are much
more vulnerable to fluctuations in well-being than the urban poor, the
latter can also be vulnerable to both natural and economic shocks. For
example, the urban poor were at least as severely impacted by the Asian
financial crises of the late 1990s as many rural poor, because of more
rapid price dissemination effects and real food supply constraints.

**The availability of food aid is likely to continue to be volatile,
with the United States remaining the major donor.** -- Overall
availability of food aid has declined since the mid-1980s, and this
decline has occurred in the context of continuing volatility in
international supplies. U.S. deliveries of food assistance, which
approached record lows in the early years of the 21^st^ Century, have
varied by a factor of more than three over the past decade, ranging from
roughly 3 million metric tons in 1997 to over 9 million metric tons in
1999. The United States' share of total donations still accounted for
over 62 percent in 2000, however, in part because food aid donations
from other major donors -- Canada, the European Union and Australia --
have shown a consistent decline. The supply of food aid continues to
depend on unpredictable factors, such as the politics of U.S.
agricultural price supports and deliberations in the World Trade
Organization (WTO), as well as climatic factors affecting production.
There remains no assurance that future fluctuations in the supply of
food aid will be more congruent with the changing needs in the
developing world, especially where non-emergency needs are concerned.

## Changes in FFP's Operating Environment

The environment in which the Title II program operates has changed
dramatically since the mid-1990s. Current challenges include the
increased frequency and severity of natural and manmade disasters; the
heightened diplomatic, military and humanitarian demands on the United
States; and the destabilizing potential of HIV/AIDS, corruption,
conflicts, and increased numbers of refugees and internally displaced
persons.

The integration of the Office of Food for Peace into the Bureau for
Democracy, Conflict and Humanitarian Assistance (DCHA) has also brought
changes, including the decision that fragile, failed and failing states
should be the organizing principle for the Bureau (see box for
definitions). This decision raises the question of how the Title II
program, which typically has worked in two basic types of environments
\-- emergencies and non-emergency or development environments -- fits
within this new optic.

The Farm Bill makes the emergency and non-emergency or development
distinction, and this is the way that the Office of Food for Peace has
been organized since the mid-1990s. However, concern has been growing
about the utility of making such clear distinctions between emergencies
and non-emergencies. For example, the 1995 "Food Aid and Food Security
Policy" recognized the need to develop a better understanding of the
relationships between relief and development; the FAFSA talked about the
need to develop a relief-to-development strategy that "recognizes the
oscillatory and coincident nature of most relief and development
transitions"; and, the USAID Administrator makes frequent reference to
"developmental relief."

## Policy Environment

The Title II program operates within a complex policy environment that
is influenced by numerous U.S. government and external stakeholders,
with common and differing interests.

**External Stakeholders \--** The PL 480 food assistance program has
enjoyed substantial support over the years from a unique combination of
political, agricultural, commercial and civil society interests.
Supporters include farmers; other agricultural interests such as food
processors and producers of nutrient supplements, transporters and
shippers; and private voluntary organizations. These groups have had a
powerful influence on the Title II program, working together to expand
the size and complexity of the program.

These stakeholders also have unique and sometimes differing interests,
many of which are reflected in the legislation and in the manner in
which the program is implemented. The most recent example of these
diverging interests has resulted from the large increase in monetization
in the last few years. USAID and the PVO community supported the
expansion of monetization under the Title II program as a way to obtain
the cash resources needed to achieve the substantive objectives of their
programs. Some in the agricultural community, on the other hand, have
become increasingly concerned about the effects that this increase is
having on their markets. Since bulk commodities are often used in
monetization programs because they are easier to market, agricultural
processors have become concerned about the decline in the amount of
processed foods being used in the program and in the reduced
predictability of purchases of their products. Exporters also have
become increasingly concerned that these high levels of monetization
could be displacing commercial sales. These concerns have registered
with Congress and in the Administration.

**Congress and the Legislation** -- The Title II program, which is
authorized by the Farm Bill, has a very different legislative history
than the rest of the foreign assistance program. The program is under
the jurisdiction of the agricultural committees in the Congress and, its
budget is included in the budget of the Department of Agriculture,
although the budget totals are now included in the 150 (international
affairs) account.

Although Congress originally created the PL 480 food assistance program
in 1954 as a way to use U.S. agricultural surpluses, over the years
legislative amendments have given the program a more development
orientation. The 1990 Farm Bill heralded a number of important changes,
including making improved food security the over-riding objective of the
program. In the 1990 Farm Bill, Congress also called for increased
coordination and integration of food aid with U.S. development
assistance, and facilitated this integration by giving USAID sole
responsibility for managing the relief and economic development programs
(i.e., Title II and Title III).

Since then, Congress has also added provisions that recognize the
increased costs of managing the program and the need for complementary
resources to effectively carry out food aid-related development
activities. The 1986 legislation introduced the process of monetization
into the Title II program, as a means of making additional cash
available for transporting and handling commodities. The 1990 Farm Bill
increased the monetization minimum to 10 percent of the total value of
non-emergency commodities and expanded the uses of these proceeds to
include income generation, health, nutrition and agricultural
activities. The 1996 Farm Bill raised the minimum to 15 percent.

Over the years, additional provisions have enabled USAID to use more of
its budget directly to support costs associated with specific program
operations. The 1990 Bill, for example, authorized USAID to use part of
its total budget to provide dollar grants to the cooperating sponsors
(not less than \$10 million or more than \$13.5 million per year), which
they could use to pay for administrative and support costs. These
amounts were increased in 1996 and expanded to include in the World Food
Program. The 2002 Bill converted the specific amounts to percentages \--
not less than 5% or more than 10% of the total program budget. Given the
size of the program, this will result in an amount that is considerably
above the fixed dollar amounts specified earlier. The 2002 legislation
also authorizes USAID to use some of its budget to pay for internal
transportation, shipping and handling (ITSH) for non-emergency programs
in least developed countries, extending a provision that was already
available to emergency programs.

Over the years, numerous amendments have been added to the legislation,
often at the behest of stakeholders. These amendments, some of which
USAID has argued are inconsistent, have added to the complexity of the
program. These include the minimum and sub-minimum, value added, and
management reforms[^3]. The 2002 Farm Bill also extended the
authorization of the program to 2007, eliminated the \$1 billion cap on
spending for Title II and expanded the program objectives to include
"conflict prevention."

**The Executive Branch** -- The President's Management Agenda, published
by the Bush Administration in 2001, identified the USG food assistance
program as a reform priority. The Administration created an interagency
committee, chaired by the National Security Council, to undertake a
review of the entire U.S. food program, Title II included. The review
proposed the following reforms:

-   Making the direct feeding of genuinely hungry populations the
    primary goal of USG food assistance programs

-   Reducing bureaucratic duplication and inefficiency in Washington and
    overseas

-   Reducing the proportion of the total food aid program that relies on
    unpredictable surplus commodity availability

-   Improving safeguards to avoid any potential displacement of U.S. or
    third country commercial sales

The amount of food made available through the USDA-managed surplus
disposal program \[Section 416 (b)\] expanded dramatically during the
latter part of the 1990s. The Administration proposed eliminating this
expanded program to reduce the proportion of the total food aid program
that relies on unpredictable commodity surpluses and to gain more
control over the budget. The elimination of this program, however, has
also meant a decline in the overall amount of food aid resources
available and has resulted in additional pressures to re-direct Title II
non-emergency program resources to emergency programs.

**USAID Policies and Priorities** -- The 1992 definition of food
security and the 1995 "Food Aid and Food Security Policy" (discussed
earlier) continue in effect as the basic Agency-level policy documents
for the program. USAID remains committed to better integrating the Title
II program with other Agency programs. With the inclusion of the Food
for Peace Office within the Bureau for Democracy, Conflict and
Humanitarian Assistance (DCHA), there is a need to integrate the food
assistance programs within the DCHA strategic framework and strengthen
the links with the other DCHA programs. The Title II program will be
expected to help DCHA address the problems of "fragile, failed and
failing states," which DCHA has identified as a central organizing
principle for the Bureau in its "Planning Framework for 2003-2008." The
Administrator's concern that there be "No famines on my watch" is also a
priority for FFP, which will also have a role to play in supporting new
USAID initiatives to "Cut Hunger in Africa" and its "Expanded Response
to HIV/AIDS."

# IV. Food for Peace's Strategic Direction

## FFP's Vision, Mission and Governing Principles 

As a first step in developing its new strategy, the Office and its
partners articulated the following vision and mission statements and
principles. Although new, these statements articulate core values that
FFP and its partners and other stakeholders have long shared. The vision
of a world "free from hunger" has been a core value since the beginning
of the program in 1954, as has the vision of a world where "people live
in peace" \-- hence the "food for peace" label. The mission statement
also contains references to longstanding themes: the program as an
expression of the "compassion and good will" of the American people, the
mobilization of "America's resources," and the prevention of famine.

*Vision*

The USAID Food for Peace Program envisions a world free of hunger and
poverty, where people live in dignity, peace and security. (November 12,
2002)

*Mission*

The USAID Office of Food for Peace and our partners work together to
reduce hunger and malnutrition and assure that all people at all times
have access to sufficient food for a healthy and productive life. We are
committed to contributing to the achievement of the Millennium
Development Goal to cut world hunger and poverty in half by 2015.

Expressing the compassion and good will of the people of the United
States, Food for Peace mobilizes America's resources to predict,
prevent, and respond to malnutrition and potential famine overseas. Our
programs address the root causes of food insecurity, poverty and
conflict in emergency and development situations and in transitional
periods of instability. FFP programs help minimize the long-term need
for food aid by strengthening the capacity of developing societies to
ensure access to food by their most vulnerable communities and
individuals, especially women and children. (November 12, 2002)

# 

# 

# B. Key Assumptions

The Office of Food for Peace holds the following assumptions about the
Title II program environment during the new strategy period:

-   Despite declining support for food assistance programs among other
    donors, support for the Title II program will continue among the
    U.S. public and its external stakeholders. Further, resources
    available to the program are likely to continue to grow at a modest
    rate assuming there are no major emergencies such as in FY2003.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Food aid resources will continue to be needed for emergencies due to
    manmade and natural disasters. This will require FFP to continue to
    make the case for using food resources in non-emergency
    (development) settings to help vulnerable groups enhance their
    capacities and coping abilities and to reduce the likelihood that
    they will need emergency assistance in the future.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   The U.S. and global economies will not undergo major contractions
    during the strategy period.

-   The negotiations underway in the WTO will not impact negatively on
    the implementation of the Title II program.

## C. An Expanded Conceptual Framework {#c.-an-expanded-conceptual-framework .unnumbered}

One of the most important outcomes of the technical analyses and
consultations underlying the new strategy was the elaboration of a new
conceptual framework. The conceptual framework for the "Food Aid and
Food Security Policy" of 1995, with its focus on food availability,
access and utilization, provided a good underpinning for the new
directions that were given to the program at that time. And, it is still
a useful place to start. However, this basic framework does not provide
a way to take into account the vulnerability of countries, communities
and households to risk \-- a shortcoming that seems particularly serious
in retrospect, in the aftermath of the many natural and manmade
disasters that characterized the 1990s. The concept of risk is implicit
in the definition of food security. That is, the inclusion of the phrase
"at all times" in the definition suggests that food security can only be
achieved when the risk of falling below adequate levels of availability,
access and utilization is very low. Operationally, however, the focus
has been on increasing the levels of food availability, access and
utilization -- with less emphasis given to the risk of losing the
ability to obtain and use the food. This will change under the new
strategy, with more attention paid to addressing food insecurity through
a focus on reduced vulnerability and risk.

**Understanding vulnerability**. Vulnerability can be thought of as the
inability to manage risk. When countries, communities and households are
unable to cope effectively with shocks or hazards, in fact or
potentially, they are vulnerable and potential candidates for
assistance. Reducing exposure to risks, such as shocks that affect the
many (e.g., droughts or floods) or shocks that affect the individual
(e.g., death of the head of a household) can help reduce vulnerability.
Increasing the ability to manage risks also reduces vulnerability. (See
Annex for a further discussion of vulnerability and its relationship to
food secure, fragile, failing and failed states).

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, social, and economic factors also are
important. States where large inequities in incomes 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. Armed conflict can also be an indicator as well as a
consequence of the failure of countries to deal effectively with shocks,
and it also increases the vulnerability of countries, communities and
households to future shocks.

High levels of chronic malnutrition also are an indicator of the
vulnerability of countries, communities and households to shocks. During
emergencies the focus is on acute malnutrition \-- i.e., people who are
wasted (too thin for their height). This form of malnutrition is a
serious problem because individuals that are severely wasted,
particularly young children, can easily die. But chronic malnutrition,
which is the term used to describe people that are stunted (i.e., too
short for their age), can also be a serious problem. Chronic
malnutrition reduces people's ability to cope because it reduces their
productivity while increasing their vulnerability to illnesses. Children
who are chronically malnourished are also more vulnerable to illness and
death. In addition, when chronic malnutrition affects children early in
life (between six and 24 months), it will also reduce their ability to
cope as adults, make them more vulnerable to chronic illnesses
throughout their lives, and impair their motor skills, cognitive
abilities and productivity.

This argues for paying special attention to populations suffering from
chronic malnutrition. The children in these populations are close to the
edge; a shock that reduces household food availability, whatever the
cause, could quickly turn chronic malnutrition into acute malnutrition,
leading to illness and death. But high rates of chronic malnutrition
among young children should also be addressed before shocks occur,
because of the pernicious affect that it has on their ability to cope as
adults and the negative effect that this can have on the economic,
social and political development of their communities and countries.

This focus on vulnerability helps clarify the rationale for assistance
prior to, as well as during and immediately after, a shock. Countries,
communities and households will need assistance when they are in the
midst of an emergency, overwhelmed by a shock (e.g., a hurricane,
drought, or financial or political crises). But for the more vulnerable,
assistance *prior* to major shocks is also needed to help them take
preventative actions to reduce risk, increase coping capacity and reduce
the likelihood that they will be overwhelmed by the next shock and need
emergency assistance.

**Adding vulnerability and risk to the basic food security framework.**
Conceptually, focusing more on the ***"in"*** in food insecurity
requires that the basic food security framework be expanded to include a
fourth pillar -- risk -- which makes explicit the risks that constrain
food availability, access and utilization. Operationally, this will mean
reorienting programs so that the vulnerability of food insecure
households and communities is addressed more directly, focusing more on
prevention and helping countries, communities and households cope or
manage risk better. This expanded framework is laid out in Figure 1,
where the basic food security framework is presented in the upper part
of the diagram, with the desired food security outcomes leading to the
goal of improved food security. The risks that must be tackled to
achieve food security are presented in the bottom part of the diagram.

The expanded conceptual framework demonstrates how understanding risk is
essential to understanding the concept of food security -- it underlies
everything. Unmanaged risk leads to food insecurity, while managing
risks can protect and enhance food security.

Risks, as the expanded framework makes clear, come from many sources.
Food supply can be affected by climatic fluctuations, depletion of soil
fertility, for example, or the loss

![](media/image1.wmf){width="8.26875in" height="5.680555555555555in"}

of a household's productive assets. Access to markets can be disrupted
by changing global terms of trade, a disruption of markets during
crises, or risks stemming from the insecurity of non-farm incomes. Food
access can be negatively affected by physical insecurity stemming from
conflict, for example, loss of livelihood or coping options (such as
border closings preventing seasonal job migration) or the collapse of
safety-net institutions that once protected people with low incomes.
Food utilization is often impaired by epidemic diseases, lack of
appropriate nutrition knowledge or socio-cultural practices that affect
access to nutritious foods according to age or gender. Political risks,
including the lack of good governance, can exacerbate natural, economic,
social and health risks.

The expanded conceptual framework encourages a stronger emphasis on
livelihoods and assets, and the need to support consumption indicators
and invest in nutrition, education and skills development, roads and
other public works, and social capital. It also encourages a greater
focus on prevention, including prevention of damage to physical assets
and livelihoods. The focus on prevention also has a generational
dimension, encouraging early investment in infant nutrition to prevent
malnutrition. The expanded framework also provides a logic for providing
emergency assistance to food secure states, as well as emergency and
non-emergency assistance to fragile, failing and failed states. In
addition, it incorporates a rationale for responding to HIV/AIDS and for
interventions targeted to food insecurity in urban areas, if analyses of
risk and vulnerabilities indicate that these are the areas where the new
priorities lie.

##  {#section-2 .unnumbered}

## D. A New Strategic Framework {#d.-a-new-strategic-framework .unnumbered}

**The proposed new Strategic Objective: *Food insecurity in vulnerable
populations reduced***

The Office of Food for Peace proposes to focus it efforts during its
next five-year strategy period on the reduction of food insecurity in
vulnerable populations (See Figure 2). This formulation represents a
significant change from the 1997-2001 strategic framework, which has
separate objectives for the emergency and non-emergency (or development)
programs.[^4] It also represents a clear choice on the part of FFP to
focus on higher order results that will have resonance with a wide
audience, even though the achievement of these results will require the
Office to commit itself to a more active leadership role in the future.

The new strategic framework is based upon the expanded conceptual
framework discussed above, which argues for the need to address the
***"in"*** in food insecurity. The

![](media/image2.wmf){width="8.4875in" height="6.029861111111111in"}

decision was made to frame the new SO in terms of reducing food
insecurity (rather than increasing food security), because this
formulation automatically puts the focus where it should be, on those
populations already food insecure or vulnerable to food insecurity.

Several options were considered prior to the selection of this
formulation, including a strategic objective (SO) related to the food
security results achieved by the FFP programs in the field, an SO
focused on improving the capacity of its implementing partners to
achieve results, and an SO focused on office management processes. The
option that is being proposed succeeds in capturing dimensions of all
three of these alternatives.

FFP also sees an advantage in having one strategic objective that
encompasses both the emergency and development programs. The hope is
that this new formulation will help break down artificial distinctions
between the emergency and development programs -- distinctions that have
encouraged the stovepiping of these programs. FFP also believes that the
single SO focused on reducing vulnerability is more aligned with the
Administrator's vision of "developmental relief." The focus on
vulnerability will make it easier for emergency programs to incorporate
activities that address the underlying causes of emergencies and for the
development programs to incorporate activities that will help vulnerable
people improve their ability to prevent and cope with future
emergencies.

FFP's proposed strategic framework includes two intermediate results
(IRs) -- one on global leadership and a second on program impact in the
field. This formulation is consistent with the view prevailing within
senior DCHA management that the Bureau plays a dual role, providing
intellectual leadership in its substantive areas of influence and
implementing large programs in the field. (See the DCHA goals in Figure
3 indicating how these dual responsibilities are being conceptualized at
the Bureau level.)

The single FFP strategic objective will directly contribute to USAID's
humanitarian assistance goal -- *Lives saved, suffering reduced, and
conditions for political and economic development re-established* (See
Figure 3)**.** It will also contribute to DCHA goals, especially the
first goal \-- *Long-term development enhanced through integrated high
impact DCHA interventions, particularly in countries affected by crisis,
conflict and food insecurity*. Because of the Title II program's strong
emphasis on improving household nutrition and agricultural productivity,
particularly in the development program, FFP also makes direct
contributions to Agency goals in the areas of health and economic growth
and agriculture. FFP expects that these contributions will continue
under the new strategic framework, as indicated by the separate line
that links the proposed SO with the Agency-level SOs in the global
health and economic growth and agriculture pillars.

**Intermediate Result #1: *FFP's global leadership enhanced***

This intermediate result adds a major new dimension to the Office's
strategic framework, which previously focused primarily on the
implementation of FFP programs in the field. This IR reflects FFP's
interest in playing a more active role in framing a new food security
agenda. It also recognizes that FFP will need the strategic
collaboration of a more active and expanded set of partners in order to
reduce food insecurity. Increasing the impact of Title II programs in
the field (IR #2) is important to the achievement of the SO, but USAID
and its PVO partners cannot do it alone. The World Food Programme (WFP)
also plays an important role, using USG and other donor resources. FFP
also needs to be more active in galvanizing increased attention and
resources from other USG sources and other donors to the problems of the
food insecure -- those living with chronic food insecurity as well as
those living in the midst of an emergency.

In addition to helping mobilize additional resources, this IR will also
facilitate the integration of resources, promote more synergies and help
insure coherence among interventions and programs. And, it will
contribute to better programs overall by facilitating the adoption of
standards and best practices. USAID, as the leading food aid donor, has
the obligation and the opportunity to make its own programs the best
they can be and to influence the quality of food aid and food security
programs globally.

Of course, the Office already plays a role in U.S. and global
deliberations on food security and food aid issues. The advantage of
this new formulation is that it integrates these types of activities,
including those related to U.S. policy and relationships with the WFP,
into a comprehensive framework. The leadership IR also will facilitate
coordination and linkages with other DCHA offices, thereby supporting
DCHA's coordination goal. Plus, it will enable better collaboration on
food security issues within USAID with other pillar and regional bureaus
and facilitate mobilization of the complementary inputs that are so
important to the achievement of IR 2 -- Title II program impact in the
field increased.

The new Results Framework includes a set of outcomes (sub-IRs) that the
Office will need to achieve in order to reach the global leadership
intermediate result. The first two sub-intermediate results relate to
the fora in and through which the Office plans to act; the second two
IRs reflect the need for intellectual content to legitimize FFP in these
fora. All four are mutually reinforcing.

![](media/image3.wmf){width="5.995833333333334in"
height="8.409027777777778in"}

To expand its leadership in a global environment, the Office will have
to increase "its own role in U.S. and multilateral policy development"
(Sub-IR#1.1) and work to

strengthen its "national and global partnerships" (Sub-IR#1.2).
Recognizing that leadership is more effective when supported by
knowledge and experience, the Office has also identified the importance
of "technical excellence and innovation" (Sub-IR #1.4) coupled with
policies and programs that are "evidence-based" (Sub-IR #1.3) as
contributors to the success of this IR. In other words, substance will
give FFP the direction and legitimacy it will need to perform a more
effective role in "U.S. and multilateral policy development" and to
strengthen its "national and global partnerships." These fora and
partnerships are necessary for the Office to expand the impact of its
knowledge and expertise beyond its own programs.

What the latter two IRs mean in terms of specific activities, including
the outline of a research agenda, and the types of activities that the
Office will consider using to support the development of technical
excellence and innovation among its partners will be developed in more
detail in the strategy. Additional information on key fora, the issues
to be pursued in these fora, FFP's role vis a vis other DCHA and USAID
offices and the partnerships to be emphasized and illustrative
activities to be undertaken under Sub-IRs #1.1 and #1.2 also will be
provided in the strategy.

The Office also has identified a fifth sub-intermediate result, the
"timely and efficient management" of its own programs, which FFP sees as
contributing to both intermediate results. This sub-IR, which is
situated at the bottom of the framework, is labeled sub-IR 1.5 and
sub-IR 2.5 and has lines connecting it to both IRs. This sub-IR
legitimizes the Office in international fora, and is necessary to
increase the impact of FFP field programs. Actions under this sub-IR
include more timely issuance of guidelines, timely and transparent
approval of proposals, timely processing of commodity requests, and
improved financial and commodity management.

**Intermediate Result #2: *Title II program impact in the field
increased***

The second IR reflects FFP's decision to reorient the Title II program
to focus on enhancing the ability of individuals, households and
communities to cope with shocks in order to reduce their vulnerability.
The first three sub-intermediate results are based on the expanded
conceptual framework, which identified three categories of actions to
help increase coping capacity -- actions designed to:

-   Enhance human capabilities

-   Enhance livelihood capacities

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Enhance community resiliency

FFP has added the concept of "protection" to the strategic framework in
order to capture an important function of the Title II program during
emergencies, when protecting lives, livelihoods and community resiliency
is the first concern. However, in both an emergency response as well as
a non-emergency response, the ultimate objective is to leave people and
communities better off -- to "enhance" human capabilities, livelihood
capacities and the resilience of communities.

Examples of activities that might be undertaken to achieve these
sub-intermediate results are provided in Figure 4. These are
illustrative, and they will be refined and information on how they can
be structured to help reduce risk and vulnerability will be provided in
more detail in the strategy.

Most of these activities are already included in current Title II
programs. What is different under the new strategic framework is that
these actions are expected to address the vulnerability of food insecure
households and communities more directly. In other words, most of the
activities that are included in current Title II programs will continue
to make sense. But, these activities will need to be re-oriented to
focus more on helping people manage risks and opportunities better. For
example, a focus on agriculture will still be an important component of
food security programs in rural areas, but under the new strategy, more
emphasis will be given to activities that help reduce risk and
vulnerability. This includes more emphasis on the construction of
cisterns and irrigation systems to help farmers manage their water
resources better and reduce the risk of crop losses to drought.
Agricultural technology transfer programs will focus more on reducing
production risks, e.g., through the dissemination of new seeds and
agricultural practices selected because they are more drought and pest
resistant as well as higher yielding. To help families reduce the risk
of running out of food during the lean season between harvests, more
agricultural programs will include the dissemination of improved storage
technologies and practices. And, crop and income diversification
activities will receive added attention under the new strategy because
supporting more diversified livelihoods is an important risk reducing as
well as income increasing strategy.

In the context of the new strategic framework, food can be seen as
having an immediate impact -- protecting lives and smoothing
consumption. But food can also have a more lasting impact \-- to enhance
communities' and households' resilience to shocks, to help people build
more durable and diverse livelihood bases (enhancing assets, resources
and infrastructure), and to enhance the capabilities of individuals
through improvements in health, nutrition and education. In other words,
while there are immediate welfare benefits to these types of food
aid-supported activities, these activities also provide opportunities to
increase the ability of communities, households and individuals to cope
with risk in the future. This means that food-supported activities need
to be seen as a means to reduce vulnerability over the longer--term and
not merely as an end in themselves, even in an emergency environment.

The adoption of this new strategic framework does not mean a shift away
from "development" to "emergency" responses. What it will require,
however, is a reorientation of both the emergency and development
programs so that the risks inherent in the development process are more
fully understood and addressed. On the development side, it means
becoming more shock conscious and paying more attention to prevention
and the sustainability of progress within shock prone environments. In
emergency settings, this means becoming more development conscious in
order to help

people cope better with the next crisis. For this reason, FFP believes
the new strategy is well aligned with the concept of developmental
relief. The adoption of this new strategic framework also will require
utilizing early warning approaches (such as the Famine Early Warning
System (FEWS)) and integrating vulnerability assessments across the
board in all programs.

The importance of improved governance, another priority within DCHA and
Agency programs writ large, is also reflected in the new strategic
framework in Sub IR#2.4, which refers to the need for communities to
have greater "capacity to influence factors (decisions) that affect
their food security." This will include activities designed to
strengthen communities' capacities to organize, plan, implement and
represent their interests in broader fora. Here the focus is on the
community level, because that is the level at which most of the Title II
partners work. FFP also recognizes that there will be occasions when the
Office and its partners can usefully work at higher levels such as the
district, provincial and even at the national level.

Normally, however, FFP and its Title II cooperating sponsors rely on
other partners -- USAID missions, other USAID offices and other donors
-- for improvements in the enabling environment, at the national level
in particular, that will help increase the impact of FFP programs. In
order to give explicit recognition of this broader context in which the
Title II programs work, the new results framework includes two
contributing sub-intermediate results. The first underscores the
importance of the broader enabling environment, which includes both
economic and social policies. The second reflects the positive impact
that "improvements in governance and conflict mitigation in a broader
country context" can have on the program. These two contributing IRs are
shaded, with a dotted line connecting them to the intermediate result.
This indicates that other USAID operating units and other donors will be
responsible for achieving these results (as noted in the box labeled
"Key to Results"). By recognizing these contributing results in its new
strategic framework, FFP also reinforces the importance of strengthening
the linkages identified in Figure 3 with other offices in DCHA and the
economic growth and agriculture and global health pillars.

## E. Approaches {#e.-approaches .unnumbered}

**Using food in direct distribution programs** \-- Food ***is*** the
basic resource that is available to the program. FFP expects to be able
to place greater emphasis on the direct distribution of food under its
new strategic framework. Food aid is a resource that can be sold, as
well as conveyed in kind. What differentiated the Title II program from
the Title I and Title III programs (which are basically government to
government sales programs) for many years was its use of food in direct
distribution programs. Sales of food, under the right circumstances, can
be structured so that the sale itself will have a food security impact,
through helping to strengthen a country's food markets, for example.
Some argue that this also is a good example of the use of food to
further food security objectives. But in the majority of cases,
monetization has had its greatest impact on food security through the
activities that are funded with the proceeds from the sales of the
commodities.

The use of food in on-site feeding programs during humanitarian relief
efforts is the use that is probably the best known to the general
public. But, as emphasized elsewhere in this paper, food can also be
used to help people in need in non-emergency situations -- to help
improve the diets of the chronically food insecure and to smooth the
consumption of those facing bouts of transitory food insecurity that do
not reach the level of an emergency. FFP will continue to emphasize this
use of food.

FFP will also emphasize using food in ways that have positive impacts
beyond the immediate act of feeding -- in both the emergency and
non-emergency (development) programs. Reorienting the program to
emphasize helping communities and households reduce their vulnerability
to food insecurity, the focus of the new conceptual framework, is
expected to expand opportunities for using food in distribution
programs. Protecting and enhancing assets -- both physical and human --
becomes key under this new strategy to help communities, households and
individuals increase their ability to cope with risks/hazards.
Food-for-work programs, which in the past have been hard to integrate
into programs focused on increasing agricultural productivity, if
implemented in ways that follow best practices, are tailor-made for
helping communities and households protect and enhance their physical
assets. In addition, there is growing evidence that take home rations
tied to specified behaviors such as participation in health and
nutrition education programs, for example, and/or keeping a child in
school are effective approaches to enhancing human capital.

Food is a unique resource and one that is complex and costly to manage,
with extensive and detailed rules, regulations and procedures affecting
its purchase, shipping, handling, storage, and delivery. Basic to
meeting the objectives of the program, for example, is the requirement
that the right food be shipped and delivered at the right time to the
right people in the right place. However, the legislation also requires
that the food be delivered in such a way that it does not disrupt local
markets, depress local prices, or discourage local agricultural
production. This makes the task of managing the food resource even more
complicated. Among the food management items on FFP's agenda during the
new strategy period will be the more timely processing of commodity
requests, and improvements in the commodity management system.

Issues related to the appropriateness of specific foods, their safety,
quality, and nutritional value are another dimension of the uniqueness
of the food resource. In the last several years, the Office has worked
with USDA to develop improvements in assuring the quality of fortified
foods. During the new strategy, FFP will continue to work with a range
of partners, including the Global Health Bureau, USDA and the private
sector, to develop new foods designed to be more responsive to the needs
of specific vulnerable populations. These initiatives will include the
development of foods for use by displaced people in emergencies, the
development of therapeutic milk for use in therapeutic feeding centers
and the development of new foods for use by people living with HIV/AIDS
(see discussion below). The Office also expects to continue to deal with
the controversies surrounding the use of foods that include genetically
modified organisms (GMOs).

Another challenge will be learning how Title II food resources can help
vulnerable people deal with the impact of HIV/AIDS. Creative new
approaches are needed to ensure that food transfers will be used to
their best effect in buffering the economic costs of the infection to
households without stigma and without high administrative screening
costs. The role of food in providing nourishment that helps protect
against or delays the progress of the disease itself is another issue
that remains highly political and poorly understood empirically. This
too is an area in which the Agency will need to invest in documenting
impacts and best practices.

**Combining food with other resources** -- Mobilizing sufficient
non-food resources to complement food aid will be one of FFP's greatest
challenges under the new strategy. These complementary resources are
critical for the achievement of the new Strategic Objective.
Fortunately, the 2002 legislation will enable USAID to increase the
amount of dollar funding the Agency can make available to partners to
pay for administrative and support costs and for internal
transportation, shipping and handling costs for development programs in
the least developed countries. The Office will continue to look to
monetization as an important source of cash needed to finance the
complementary inputs required to insure the effectiveness of the food
resource, although the percentage of the development program that is
monetized will decline in accordance with the Agency's agreement with
OMB.

FFP will continue to make progress in integrating Title II programs with
other DCHA and USAID mission programs wherever possible. FFP is already
making progress at the mission level, for example in Zambia with a joint
Africa Bureau/ FFP assessment of food security conditions and a plan to
integrate FFP resources with the mission strategy and resources. FFP
will repeat this strategic assessment and integration process in other
fragile, failing, and failed states to ensure full strategic and
resource integration. The FFP emphasis on maximizing resources through
improved integration also will help achieve the DCHA goal of more
coordinated, high impact interventions. The Office also plans to
undertake a systematic assessment of the constraints to program and
resource integration both at the Washington and mission levels leading
to a more comprehensive plan of action.

FFP will also explore other creative ways to access additional resources
to complement its food resources. For example, food could be combined
with complementary resources in a campaign to expand the access of the
rural poor to improved water and sanitation, to support
HIV/AIDS-affected households, individuals and communities, and to
support the Agency's new initiative to "Cut Hunger in Africa." There may
also be opportunities to do more to improve the nutrition of young
children by combining food with better-targeted and appropriate
nutrition messages focused on improving child feeding practices financed
with complementary resources from the health sector.

**Targeting resources to the vulnerable** -- FFP will continue to target
resources to the most vulnerable regions and countries, and communities
within these countries, but the new strategy will utilize different
criteria to identify the target countries and populations. These
indicators will be more consistent with the focus on food insecurity and
vulnerability in the new strategic framework and DCHA's decision to
focus on "fragile, failing and failed states." As already noted, income
poverty by itself is not a sufficient indicator of vulnerability to
prioritize countries or areas within countries. Nor is the Low Income
Food Deficit formulation, which combines an income indicator with a
measure of aggregate annual net food exports, neither of which provides
much insight into vulnerabilities or risks. Thus, FFP will develop new
criteria that take into account a combination of factors, including risk
and coping capacity, as well as levels of food security.

The new focus on vulnerability requires targeting resources differently
within countries, giving priority to highly vulnerable areas and
population groups. Improved targeting will require a greater investment
in problem analysis at the local level, and the expanded use of
indicators of risk as well as levels of need. Focusing more on risk and
vulnerabilities will lead to greater similarities between the approaches
used to assess food insecurity in both emergency and development
settings. Another advantage is that better problem analysis should
result in a better program design, greater synergy, and increased
impact.

During the strategy period that is just ending, there was a clear focus
on rural areas, driven by the agricultural focus of the 1995 policy, as
well as analyses of the geographical distribution of food insecurity,
which frequently used poverty and malnutrition indicators. With
developing countries rapidly urbanizing and urban poverty increasing,
there will be cases when strong arguments can be made for supporting
urban-based activities. However, increased urban poverty in itself will
not cause a structural reorientation of Title II activities away from
rural areas if country-specific analyses of risks and vulnerabilities
indicate that this is where the priorities still lie.

**Building capacity** -- Enhancing the capacities of the vulnerable --
individuals, households and communities -- is a central focus of FFP's
new strategic framework. Implicit in this formulation and essential to
increasing the impact of the Title II program is the need to help build
the capacity of FFP partners in the field. Therefore, the Office plans
to continue its focus on building the capacity of its partners,
expanding the focus to include local cooperators. The commitment to
capacity building as an approach is also implicit in the Office's
commitment to support technical excellence and innovation. As in the
past, FFP will use a combination of approaches, including funding
individual cooperating sponsor grants, the development of guidance and
standards, the identification of best practices, and training. With more
attention being paid to exit strategies and sustainability, building
capacity at all levels will be essential in order to maintain the
positive changes initiated by FFP programs.

**Measuring impact and learning what works** -- The 1995 policy
committed USAID to re-orient its own and its partners' programs to
"manage for results." FFP and its cooperating sponsors now report
annually on results, and results frameworks are included in all new
proposals. The Office and its partners have made considerable effort to
adapt a results orientation, with the Office providing technical
assistance through the FANTA project with joint funding from Global
Health. Generic indicators have been identified, manuals and guidance
developed and technical assistance and training provided. As the FAFSA
pointed out, however, additional progress is needed in reducing the
variability in how indicators are defined, measured and reported; in
providing more guidance on data collection methods, analysis and use;
and on improved monitoring of program management.

Some of the current indicators for measuring program impact will be
applicable under the new strategic framework, but FFP will need to
develop new indicators of coping capacity and vulnerability. Measuring
performance under the global leadership IR will probably entail
qualitative indicators, such as milestone indicators that identify a
combination of specific actions FFP expects to accomplish each year
(e.g., assessments, evaluations, guidelines, training programs, special
consultations with partners, participation in international fora, new
initiatives begun, partnerships developed, policies adopted, etc.).

FFP will also undertake a more strategic approach to evaluations. The
IFPRI technical analysis recommended that the Office support some "gold
standard" evaluations of key program issues. These might include
assessments of the effectiveness of alternative uses of food and
alternative approaches to enhancing human capabilities, livelihood
capacities and community resiliency. Under the global leadership IR, FFP
will participate more in the current empirical debate, for example, by
partnering with applied research organizations to update its thinking on
key concepts such as vulnerability, targeting, livelihoods, governance,
and social capital, and to provide the research community access to
operational experiences. There is also a need for credible success
stories to maintain continued support for the program at a political
level. This will help stimulate a culture of critical empirical inquiry
and learning throughout the program. FFP will also take under
consideration IFPRI's recommendation that the Office should contribute
to helping improve the quality and quantity of information that is
available on food insecurity in the world. The basic data -- FAO's data
on undernourishment -- are flawed. Yet these and other flawed data are
used to influence major resource allocation decisions. All of these
analytical efforts are necessary for the Office to develop the evidence
base that is needed for "more effective policy and program approaches."

# 

# IV. Management Innovations

This strategic approach calls for major management improvement and
innovation. In addition, the 2002 Farm Bill has mandated that FFP shall
streamline its program approval and administrative systems and
procedures. In order to meet these objectives, FFP has hired a senior
management expert with substantial public and private sector food aid
management experience and a senior systems and process expert to prepare
a plan of action for management improvement and innovation, including
greater utilization of electronic systems and procedures to improve
Title II operations.

The new FFP strategy will result in greater integration between the
emergency and non-emergency programs; better and improved coordination
with other DCHA offices and high-impact programs, most notably disaster
relief, democracy, conflict mitigation and management, transition
initiatives and public and voluntary organization programs; and a fuller
integration of FFP programs with regional bureau and mission strategic
plans in fragile, failing and failed states.

The full Strategic Plan will provide greater detail on management
innovation and improvement and modalities of improved coordination with
other DCHA offices and pillar and regional bureaus, once the ongoing
assessment of FFP management and operational systems are completed and a
plan of action is developed by the independent consultants, and when the
Bureau Planning Framework is approved and operational.

# V. Projected Resource Requirements

\[FOR USAID INTERNAL USE ONLY\]

# VI. Participation and Consultation in Strategy Development

# 

The Office of Food for Peace has adopted an open and participatory
approach to the development of its new strategy. In the spring of 2002,
FFP created a working group to oversee the development of the strategy.
This group has enjoyed broad participation from within FFP as well as
other USAID offices (DCHA's Office of Program, Policy and Management and
the regional and pillar bureaus), FFP's contractors (its Institutional
Support Project and the Food and Nutrition Technical Assistance Project)
and cooperating sponsors.

This working group also was able to solicit inputs from a much broader
set of partners, USAID mission staff in particular, during the June 2001
worldwide Food for Peace Conference. More than 200 participants attended
the three-day conference, representing an array of stakeholders: USAID
(FFP/Washington, the regional bureaus and USAID missions); Title II PVOs
and NGOs; commodity and industry groups; other USG agencies; and
representatives of International Organizations.

The concept paper was developed under the auspices of this working group
and reflects their considered inputs. At the end of March, FFP
disseminated a draft for comments within USAID (to missions, PPC and
regional and pillar bureaus) and to its other partners, including the
PVOs and the WFP. Office staff also made oral presentations on the paper
at a meeting of the Food Aid Consultative Group (FACG) in late March and
a meeting of the Food Aid Coalition partners in early April. Many
comments have been incorporated in this draft. Others will be used in
the development of the Strategy, and in particular in the further
development of the two intermediate results, their rationale,
illustrative activities and the performance monitoring plan. FFP plans
to schedule the parameters meeting for the end of April and submit the
strategy in early June.

# ANNEX: Vulnerability and Food Secure, Fragile, Failing And Failed States

Vulnerability can be thought of as the ability to manage risks. When an
entity is unable to cope effectively with a shock or hazard it is
vulnerable. This relationship can also be expressed as a formula, as in
Figure 1, where vulnerability is equal to a shock (or hazard) minus
coping ability. The larger the shock is in relationship to the ability
to cope, the greater the degree of vulnerability.

This model helps depict vulnerability as it applies to countries,
communities, households and individuals. In this model, vulnerability
can be reduced by (1) reducing exposure to risks, such as shocks that
affect the many (e.g., droughts or floods) or shocks that affect the
individual (e.g., death of the head of a household); (2) increasing the
ability to manage such risks; or (3) both. This model takes into account
numerous sources of risk -- political, economic, social, health,
production and natural. A number of factors are recognized as
influencing the ability of countries, communities and households to
cope, including economic, social and political factors. Governance also
plays an important role in this model, influencing both the risks and
the ability of countries and communities to cope with these risks.

The relationship between risk and ability to cope, and how it plays out
over time, also can be portrayed graphically (See Figures 2 through 4),
with risk and coping ability represented by separate lines with
independent trajectories over time. Countries (also communities and
households) are vulnerable when the line representing the magnitude of a
hazard or risk is located above the line representing the ability to
cope, with the degree of vulnerability measured by the distance between
the two lines.

The first diagram provides an example of low vulnerability or high
resiliency. Here, the entity (which is labeled a state, but could also
represent a community or household) is unable to cope with only one of
the several shocks that it faced during ten years. In the second
diagram, the line representing the ability to cope lies far below the
line representing the severity of the shock over the entire time period,
indicating a complete failure to cope. This situation of high
vulnerability is characteristic of a failed state. In the third diagram,
the entity is able to cope with some shocks but not the majority, which
results in its being characterized as "fragile." In this last example,
the degree of vulnerability is relatively high in some years, but even
lesser amounts of vulnerability, if frequent enough, can be
destabilizing and result in reduced ability to cope with future shocks.
This decline in ability to cope is also represented in the third figure
and could be characteristic of an entity that is failing, for example, a
failing state.

These diagrams are meant to be illustrative and do not capture all the
possible variations. Coping ability may also vary in the first and
second cases, increasing or decreasing over time, for example, as a
result of increased investments in disaster prevention, the cumulative
negative effects of a series of disasters, or with the nature of the
disaster. Investments can also reduce risk: investments in river
embankments to reduce the risk of flooding, for example, and
reforestation and live barrier and rock terraces to reduce the risk of
landslides.

All states are subject to occasional and recurrent shocks. It is
primarily their ability to cope with these shocks that determines
whether they are food secure or fragile, failing and failed states. At a
country level, countries can be thought of as food secure when they are
able to cope with most hazards they encounter even though not all
communities and/or households within their borders will be able to cope.
This is true of most developed countries. The United States, for
example, is able to deal with the vast majority of hazards it faces,
although regions and communities within the United States frequently
need assistance from the federal government to deal with the effects of
hurricanes, floods, droughts, etc.

The level of development and capacity of the national and local
governments and other political and social institutions also plays a
major role. Developing countries can also fall into the food secure
classification, such as Brazil and Mexico. Together, these two countries
account for the majority of the poor and food insecure people living in
the LAC region. Yet both have reached the level of political and
economic development that should enable them to finance and implement
the safety net programs necessary to assist their poor and food insecure
to cope with the shocks that confront them. Mexico and Brazil should
also be able to cope with other more transitory hazards that are likely
to affect other segments of their populations, but even these countries
may need additional assistance to cope with major shocks. Indonesia is
another example of a state that was food secure during most of the
1990s, because it was able to reduce its vulnerability to food
insecurity through policies that promoted increases in the production of
its major staple food crop and a dramatic reduction in poverty. When a
major financial crisis hit at the end of the 1990s, however, Indonesia
too was overwhelmed and needed food assistance to help it cope with this
economic shock.

![](media/image6.wmf){width="8.5in" height="5.302777777777778in"}

![](media/image7.wmf){width="4.382638888888889in"
height="2.9965277777777777in"}![](media/image8.wmf){width="4.382638888888889in"
height="2.9965277777777777in"}![](media/image9.wmf){width="4.382638888888889in"
height="3.061111111111111in"}

[^1]: Patricia Bonnard, Patricia Haggerty and Anne Swindale, "Report of
    the Food Aid and Food Security Assessment: A Review of the Title II
    Development Food Aid Program," a report prepared by the FANTA (Food
    and Nutrition Technical Assistance) Project of the Academy for
    Educational Development for the Office of Food for Peace and the
    Office of Program Policy and Management of the Bureau for Democracy,
    Conflict and Humanitarian Assistance, Washington, DC, March 2002.

[^2]: Patrick Webb and Beatrice Rogers, "Addressing the "In" in Food
    Insecurity," a report prepared by Tufts University, February 2002;
    and Lawrence Haddad and Tim Frankenberger, "Integrating Relief and
    Development to Accelerate Reductions in Food Insecurity in Shock
    Prone Areas," a report prepared by the International Food Policy
    Research Institute (IFPRI), February 2003 (draft).

[^3]: The legislation establishes a minimum quantity of commodities that
    have to be programmed each year and a second minimum (referred to as
    the sub-minimum) for the quantity of commodities that are required
    to be used in non-emergency (development) programs each year. The
    legislation also requires that 75% of the quantity of commodities
    required to be distributed each year must be in the form of
    "processed, fortified or bagged commodities."

[^4]: The 1997-2001 strategic framework has two SOs. SO #1 is *Critical
    food needs of targeted groups met* and SO #2 is *Increased
    effectiveness of FFP's partners in carrying out Title II development
    activities with a primary focus on household nutrition and
    agricultural productivity.*