# Presentation: 276694

## Foreign Agricultural Service Programming for Fiscal Year 2009 

- Foreign Agricultural Service Programming for Fiscal Year 2009

**As Presented by Members of the Office of Capacity Building and Development**
**Foreign Agricultural Service**
**U.S. Department of Agriculture**
**April 14, 2008**

## Introductions and Agenda

- Introductions and Agenda

- Welcome
- Ron Croushorn, Director, Food Assistance Division
- USDA’s Development Strategy
- Pat Sheikh, Deputy Administrator, Office of Capacity Building and Development
- Program Overview
- Babette Gainor, Deputy Director, Food Assistance Division
- Fiscal Year 2009 Food for Progress
- Debbie Pfaff, Senior Analyst, Food for Development
- Fiscal Year 2009 Food for Education
- Cristina Fundeneanu, Acting Branch Chief, School Feeding and Humanitarian Assistance
- Evaluating Food Aid Programs
- Brenda Freeman, Director, Monitoring and Evaluation Staff
- Questions and Answers

## USDA’s Development Strategy

- 	Presented by Patricia Sheikh, Deputy Administrator, Office of Capacity Building and Development, Foreign Agricultural Service

## Role of the Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS) in Development

- Primarily responsible for USDA’s international activities
- Support trade-capacity building and creating new markets
- Provide food aid and technical assistance to foreign countries
- Help increase income and food availability in developing nations

## Key Strategic Changes in FAS

- Greater emphasis on:
- Trade negotiations
- Enforcement of trade agreements
- Management of bilateral relationships
- Trade-capacity building
- Special emphasis on sanitary and phytosanitary issues
- Shift from implementing individual projects to supporting and coordinating international activities throughout USDA

**Notes:**
To keep up with the changing times, FAS underwent a major reorganization in 2006.
The NEW STRATEGIC FOCUS for FAS, includes:
#1  Greater emphasis on enhancing the international competitiveness of American agriculture.  
#2  Improving sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) systems to facilitate agricultural trade and address SPS barriers to U.S. exports.
#3  Continuously reviewing where we focus our significant intelligence-gathering and analytical resources to be sure they are delivering maximum value to you.

#4  Greater emphasis on capacity building to help less-developed countries meet international trade requirements and implement science-based regulatory systems.

## New FAS Structure

- Policy

- Programs

- Operations

**Notes:**
The new structure divides FAS functions into THREE PRIMARY AREAS:

   POLICY
   PROGRAMS
   OPERATIONS

FOUR major units work on POLICY (LIGHT BLUE BOXES):
	-     Office of Scientific and Technical Affairs
	-     Office of Country and Regional Affairs
   	-     Office of Negotiations and Agreements
	-     Office of Global Analysis

TWO major units focus on PROGRAMS (ORANGE BOXES):
	-     Office of Trade Programs
	-     Office of Capacity Building and Development

TWO major units focus on OPERATIONS (GREEN BOXES):
	-     Office of Administrative Operations
	-     Office of Foreign Service Operations

The reorganized FAS increases our flexibility and timeliness in responding to emerging issues. 

## Office of Capacity Building and Development (OCBD)

- Food for
- Development

- School Feeding
- and Humanitarian
- Assistance

- Transportation
- and Logistics

- Rural Develop-
- ment and Natural
- Resources

- Post-Conflict
- and Disaster
-  Assistance

- Science and
- Technology
- Capacity
- Building

- Regulatory and
- Policy Capacity
- Building

- Scientific
- Exchanges

- Cochran
- Fellowship
- Program

- Development
- Resources and
- Disaster
- Assistance

**Office of Capacity Building and Development (OCBD)**

- Agricultural
- Market Systems

**Notes:**
OFFICE OF CAPACITY BUILDING AND DEVELOPMENT (OCBD)

OCBD operates food aid programs; trade, science, and regulatory capacity building projects, including training and technical assistance programs; and supports USDA’s post-conflict, post-disaster reconstruction efforts.

How we are organized.
Food Assistance Division— Food for Development— School Feeding and Humanitarian Assistance— Transportation and Logistics
Development Resources and Disaster Assistance Division— Rural Development and Natural Resources Branch— Post-Conflict and Disaster Assistance Branch— Agricultural Market Systems Development Branch
Trade and Scientific Capacity Building Division— Regulatory and Policy Capacity Building— Science and Technology Capacity BuildingTrade and Scientific Exchanges Division— Cochran Fellowship Program— Scientific Exchanges

## OCBD Mission

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

- Lebanon

## Our Approach

- OCBD brings many tools into one area, creating an integrated approach
- Our activities allow us to play an enhanced role in meeting U.S. national security objectives
- Reconstruction and stabilization will continue to be a part of the international landscape
- Working to rebuild weakened states
- 	helps address U.S. security concerns

- Honduras

## Food Assistance Division

- Food assistance is often the first step in meeting humanitarian and development needs
- USDA assistance focuses on nutrition, agricultural development, and education

- FAS Administrator Michael Yost visiting a school in East Africa

## Program Overview

- 	Presented by Babette Gainor, Deputy Director, Food Assistance Division, OCBD

## FY 2008 Programming

|  | Food for Progress (Title I) | Food for Progress (CCC) | Food for Education
 | 
TOTALS |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Number of Agreements
 | 
0 | 
17 | 
19 | 
36 |
| Tons (thousands) | 
0.0 | 
212.7 | 
90.8
 | 
303.5 |
| Total Value
($ millions)
 | 
$0.0 | 
$155.9 | 
$100.0 | 
$255.9 |

**Notes:**
The Food Assistance Division is responsible for administering 4 food aid programs; Section 416b, P.L. 480 Title I, Food for Progress, and Food for Education
Of these 4 programs, the FFP and FFE programs are being actively implemented.
This slide depicts the current level of programming for both the FFP and FFE programs.

## Farm Bill
 Reauthorization of programs
Anticipated budgets
 Food for Education: $100 million
 Food for Progress: $40 million for
	 transportation
Commodity and freight prices
Food aid quality
 USDA/USAID funded project
Potential changes in regulations

- Farm Bill
-  Reauthorization of programs
- Anticipated budgets
-  Food for Education: $100 million
-  Food for Progress: $40 million for
- 	 transportation
- Commodity and freight prices
- Food aid quality
-  USDA/USAID funded project
- Potential changes in regulations

- Important Issues for
- FY 2009

**Notes:**
As we enter in our FY2009 solicitation period, it is important to be aware of outside forces that can impact our food aid programs
The Farm Bill, which authorizes our Food Aid programs, is still being worked out in conference.  The Farm Bill can make changes to our food aid programs.
While the budgets are not fully known for FY2009, again partly due to the Farm Bill, we anticipate a straight line for FY2009.
With the current budget level anticipated to be straight-lined in FY09, along with increased commodity & freight prices, our programming impact levels will see a net decrease.
A few other changes for the upcoming year include changes in food aid regulations, which I would highly encourage all program participants to be on the look-out for the federal registrar notice.  Additionally, the regulations will incorporate any changes that will come about due to our food aid quality study that is underway.  There will be a breakout session covering commodity quality aspects later in the conference if you are interested in learning more about this study.

## Overall Program Elements

- Program timeline
- Applying for the programs
- Guidelines
- Program complements
- Multi-year agreements

**Notes:**
Now if I can refocus everyone to a few topics that impact the upcoming FFP and FFE FY09 proposal solicitation process.

## Timeline for USDA Food Assistance Programs

- Timeline for USDA Food Assistance Programs

| ACTION | FY 2009 FOOD FOR PROGRESS | FY 2009 and FY2010 FOOD FOR EDUCATION  |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Announce solicitation period | KC Conference, 
April 2008 | KC Conference, 
April 2008 |
| Deadline for Proposals | August 1, 2008 | August 1, 2008 |
| Reconfirm FY 2010 Priority countries | KC Conference, 2009 and
Announce solicitation for FY 2010 | KC Conference, 2009 |

## Proposal Submissions

- Apply online at:
- 		www.fas.usda.gov/food-aid.asp
- Follow program guidance
- Provide a proposal rating if multiple proposals are submitted

**Notes:**
This is the website link for applying for the food aid programs.  
Our website contains guidance and FAQs that can assist you through the application process.  We encourage every applicant to review all of the application materials prior to making application.
If your organization submits proposals for more than one country, we will often come back to you and ask about your organization’s priorities.  This does not mean that we will fund your priorities but it is another element that we may take into consideration.

## Program Management

- Timely reporting
- Refocusing of resources on servicing and monitoring implementation of agreements
- Increased use of multi-year agreements with enhanced flexibility
- Customer service

**Notes:**
I’ve listed a few areas that our Division has been handling a bit more aggressively.
The first involves the timely reporting under your signed agreements.  FAD has been trying to work with your organizations to ensure your reports are submitted and contain quality information.  For those organizations with existing programs, your reports are reviewed and used during the proposal review cycle to help support organizational capacity, program timelines and achievements.

## Food Aid Development Training

- Training sessions will begin in late May 2008
- Training topics will include:
- Proposal writing and agreement negotiations
- Food aid commodity facts
- Shipping guidelines
- Program implementation
- Closeout procedures
- Dates for the training will be announced at the end of April 2008, via the food aid website -  www.fas.usda.gov

**Notes:**
One of the areas that FAD and our agency is committed to is ensuring transparency of our food aid processes.  
FAD is organizing a series of food aid development training sessions that will address all areas related to our food aid programs.
FAD is working with many of our food aid partners to ensure we provide you with the greatest amount of information available.  
For example, FAD is working with our commodity organizations to help us present a training session on commodities available for food aid programming and how to use those commodities in distribution programs. 
Additionally, we will be coordinating with participating shipping and freight companies to provide program participants with a real understanding of the roles of freight forwards, liners, shippers, inland transporters, and warehousing companies.
FAD hopes that these training sessions will bring about a greater level of understanding and program implementation for our beneficiaries.

## Submit Food Aid Success Stories Via the FAS Website

## Food for Progress

- 	Presented by Debbie Pfaff, Senior Analyst, Food for Development Branch       Food Assistance Division, OCBD

## Overview
Resources
Priority countries
Proposal review

- Resources
- Priority countries
- Proposal review

- Food for Progress

- Bolivia

## Food for Progress Act of 1985
Targets developing countries and emerging democracies 
Supports democracy and expansion of private enterprise in the agricultural sector

- Targets developing countries and emerging democracies
- Supports democracy and expansion of private enterprise in the agricultural sector

- Food for Progress

- Jamaica

**Notes:**
Congress passed the Food for Progress Act of 1985.

## Most agreements are implemented with PVOs and foreign governments
Commodities are usually monetized
Commodities are also used for:
Barter
Food for work 
Direct distribution

- Commodities are usually monetized
- Commodities are also used for:
- Barter
- Food for work
- Direct distribution

- Food for Progress

- Burkina Faso

**Notes:**
USDA provides commodities which are shipped to the recipient country and then “monetized” or sold.  The sales proceeds are then used to implement projects in that country.

## Food for Progress ProjectsPrimary emphasis is agricultural development

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

- Armenia

**Notes:**
There are many different types of activities that can be implemented under Food for Progress.  Here are a few examples –

Teach farmers improved farming methods
Some PVOs build processing and storage facilities or assist farmers in finding markets for their products
Some PVOs have even built roads and other infrastructure.  As you know, without roads, it is very difficult for farmers to get their produce to the marketplace.

Some programs are focused on one particular crop or sector of agriculture, whereas others are more broad in scope.  For example, some programs have focused on:
Dairy industry development
Chicken production
2 programs – cocoa production
Sesame production

## Policy-related activities:
Promote science-based sanitary and phytosanitary standards
Trade-capacity building
Improve market channels

Complementary activities:
HIV/AIDS awareness 
Nutrition training
Land mine removal

- Promote science-based sanitary and phytosanitary standards
- Trade-capacity building
- Improve market channels
_*Complementary activities*_*:*
- HIV/AIDS awareness
- Nutrition training
- Land mine removal

- Food for Progress

- Mozambique

**Notes:**
Trade-capacity building – For example, last year I traveled to Nicaragua and visited a medfly eradication project that is being funded under a FFP program with the govt. of Nicaragua.  Once this project is fully implemented, Nicaragua hopes to be able to more easily export mangos and other fruit.

Improve market channels – This refers to the actual monetization process.  The importation and sales of commodities into the country provides opportunities for businesses in that country such as processors and distributors, and thereby can help to improve market channels there.

## Food for Progress FY 2008 Proposals

-      _104 Received_
- 95 PVOs
- 3 UN World Food Program
- 6 governments
- 36 countries
- Total value $1.08 billion

- _13 Approved (as of 4/04/08)_
- One government and 12 PVO programs approved
- Total value $129 million

**Notes:**
36 countries – many PVOs submitted proposals for more than one country.

Of the 104 proposals received, we were able to approve 13 with our available resources. As you can see, there is a lot more demand than what we are able to fund.  

The programs we approved are listed on our website.  

## Food for Progress – FY 2009Expected Resources

- $40 million cap on transportation costs
- $35 million available for new FY 09 awards
- No restriction on commodity cost
- $15 million for administrative costs
- No new P.L. 480, Title I funding

**Notes:**
Although we expect to have a $40 million freight cap, we will have one multi-year agreement to be funded in FY 2009.  Therefore, we will have about $35 million available to fund proposals.  

## Food for Progress Active and New Agreements

| Country  | Cooperating Sponsor | Date Initiated (signed year) | Estimated Completion Year |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Afghanistan | Mercy Corps |  2005 | 2008 |
|  | International Fertilizer Development Center |  2005 | 2008 |
|  | Mercy Corps | 2006 | 2008 |
|  | Government of Afghanistan | 2005 | 2008 |
|  | Government of Afghanistan | 2006 | 2009 |
|  | Government of Afghanistan | 2008 | 2009 |
| Armenia | World Food Program | 2006 | 2008 |
|  | World Food Program | 2007 | 2008 |
|  | Armenian Technology Group Inc. | 2006 | 2008 |
|  | United Methodist Committee on Relief | 2008  | 2010 |
| Azerbaijan | Vishnevskaya-Rostropovich Foundation | 2007 | 2008 |

**Notes:**
These slides reflect a listing of active and new agreements. As you will see, we have a lot of active agreements. As I will explain later, we took into consideration these active agreements in finalizing our country priority list.  

## Food for Progress Active Agreements – Continued

| Country  | Cooperating Sponsor | Date Initiated        (signed year)   | Estimated 
Completion Year |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Bolivia | Government of Bolivia | 2005 | 2008 |
|  | Project Concern International | 2005 | 2008 |
|  | Food for the Hungry, Inc. | 2007 | 2009 |
|  | Project Concern International | 2008  | 2011 |
| Cameroon | Government of Cameroon | 2005 | 2008 |
|  | Government of Cameroon | 2006 | 2009 |
| Central African Republic | International Partnership for Human Development, Inc. | 2006 | 2008 |
| Democratic Republic of the Congo | South-East Consortium for International Development | 2005 | 2008 |
|  | United Methodist Committee on Relief | 2006 | 2008 |
| Dominican Republic | National Rural Electric Cooperative Association | 2006 | 2008 |

## Food for Progress Active Agreements - Continued

| Country  | Cooperating Sponsor | Date Initiated 
 (signed year)   | Estimated Completion Year |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Ecuador | Government of Ecuador | 2005 | 2008 |
|  | Government of Ecuador | 2006 | 2009 |
| El Salvador | Government of El Salvador | 2005 | 2008 |
|  | Government of El Salvador | 2007 | 2009 |
| Ethiopia | Government of Ethiopia | 2007 | 2009 |
|  | ACDI/VOCA | 2008 | 2011 |
| Georgia | United Methodist Committee on Relief | 2006 | 2008 |
|  | International Relief and Development | 2006 | 2008 |

## Food for Progress Active Agreements - Continued

| Country  | Cooperating Sponsor | Date Initiated (signed year) | Estimated Completion Year |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Guatemala | Government of Guatemala | 2005 | 2008 |
|  | FINCA International | 2006 | 2008 |
|  | The Texas Agricultural Experiment Station | 2005 | 2008 |
|  | Government of Guatemala | 2006 | 2008 |
|  | Texas A&M University | 2008 | 2011 |
| Honduras | Zamorano School | 2005 | 2008 |
|  | Government of Honduras | 2005 | 2008 |
|  | TechnoServe | 2005 | 2008 |
|  | TechnoServe | 2006 | 2008 |
|  | Cooperative for Assistance and Relief Everywhere | 2006 | 2008 |
|  | Government of Honduras | 2006 | 2008 |
|  | TechnoServe | 2008 | 2011 |

**Notes:**
For example, Guatemala and Honduras have numerous active programs.

## Food for Progress Active Agreements - Continued

| Country  | Cooperating Sponsor | Date Initiated 
(signed year) | Estimated 
Completion Year |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Iraq | U.S. Grains Council | 2005 | 2008 |
| Jamaica | Food for the Poor, Inc. | 2005 | 2008 |
| Kenya | TechnoServe | 2005 | 2008 |
|  | Land O' Lakes, Inc. | 2006 | 2008 |
|  | World Council of Credit Unions, Inc. | 2006 | 2008 |
| Lebanon | Government of Lebanon | 2006 | 2008 |
| Liberia | Visions in Action | 2006 | 2008 |
|  | ACDI/VOCA | 2007 | 2009 |
|  | Mercy Corps/Visions in Action | 2007 | 2009 |
| Madagascar | Government of Madagascar | 2005 | 2008 |
|  | Land O' Lakes, Inc. | 2007 | 2009 |
|  | Catholic Relief Services | 2006 | 2008 |
| Malawi | Planet Aid, Inc. | 2006 | 2008 |

## Food for Progress Active Agreements - Continued

| Country  | Cooperating Sponsor | Date Initiated 
(signed year)     | Estimated
 Completion Year |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Mali | Aga Khan Foundation U.S.A. | 2006 | 2008 |
|  | Government of Mali | 2006 | 2008 |
| Mauritania | Government of Mauritania | 2005 | 2008 |
| Mongolia | Mercy Corps | 2005 | 2008 |
|  | World Vision, Inc. | 2006 | 2008 |
|  | Mercy Corps/Cooperative Housing Foundation | 2005 | 2009 |
| Mozambique | Government of Mozambique | 2005 | 2008 |
|  | TechnoServe | 2006 | 2008 |
|  | TechnoServe | 2007 | 2009 |
|  | Planet Aid, Inc. | 2007 | 2009 |
|  | Government of Mozambique | 2007 | 2008 |
|  | Land O' Lakes, Inc. | 2008 | 2011 |

**Notes:**
Mozambique has quite a few active agreements.

## Food for Progress Active Agreements - Continued

| Country  | Cooperating Sponsor | Date Initiated
 (signed year) | Estimated 
Completion Year |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Nicaragua | World Food Program | 2005 | 2008 |
|  | Government of Nicaragua | 2005 | 2008 |
|  | World Food Program | 2006 | 2008 |
|  | FINCA International, Inc. | 2007 | 2009 |
|  | Project Concern International | 2008 | 2011 |
| Niger | Catholic Relief Service | 2005 | 2008 |
|  | International Relief and Development | 2007 | 2009 |
|  | Government of Niger | 2006 | 2009 |
|  | International Relief and Development | 2008 | 2009 |
| Nigeria | Partners for Development | 2005 | 2008 |
| Pakistan | Government of Pakistan | 2005 | 2008 |
|  | Government of Pakistan | 2006 | 2008 |

## Food for Progress Active Agreements - Continued

| Country  | Cooperating Sponsor | Date Initiated 
(signed year) | Estimated 
Completion Year |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Philippines | Government of Philippines | 2006 | 2008 |
|  | Land O' Lakes, Inc. | 2006 | 2008 |
|  | ACDI/VOCA | 2006 | 2008 |
| Republic of the Congo | International Partnership for Human Development, Inc. | 2006 | 2008 |
| Senegal | Counterpart International | 2008 | 2011 |
| Sri Lanka | World Vision, Inc. | 2005 | 2008 |
|  | World Council of Credit Unions, Inc. | 2005 | 2008 |
|  | Humpty Dumpty Institute | 2006 | 2008 |
| Tanzania | FINCA International, Inc. | 2007 | 2009 |
|  | Partners for Development | 2008 | 2011 |
| Uganda | Land O' Lakes, Inc. | 2005 | 2008 |
|  | FINCA International, Inc. | 2005 | 2008 |
| Yemen | Government of Yemen | 2006 | 2008 |

## Priority Country Determination

- Per capita incomes below $3,595 (World Bank) and population > 1,000,000
- Net food importer with > 20% of the population undernourished (FAO)
- Positive movement in political rights or civil liberties (Freedom House)
- USDA Post coverage and ability to monitor agreements
- No concerns with security, market, or capacity issues

**Notes:**
We use the most recently published data from FAO.  FAO has the most complete data set for all countries.

Freedom House ratings – Freedom House rates all countries as free, partly free, or not free.  We eliminated the countries that are considered not free.

We used the first 3 criteria last year – per capita incomes, undernourishment, and freedom.  

This year we decided to add a 4th criteria – USDA post coverage and our ability to monitor.  Because of the need to monitor our active agreements, FAS felt it was very important for our posts to have the ability to cover and help monitor our existing and new programs.  So those countries that do not have post coverage were dropped from the list.  

Once we’ve applied these 4 criteria, we also look at security, market, or capacity issues.  For example, there may be commodity issues that would make programming difficult in a particular country.      

## Food for Progress Priority Country DeterminationOther Factors Considered

-   Countries added (within two points of malnutrition cut-off):
- Philippines
- Uganda

**Notes:**
Although the Philippines and Uganda did not meet the malnutrition criteria (20%), we decided to add them back in because they were very close to the cut-off (Philippines – 18% and Uganda – 19%).  No other countries were this close to the 20% malnutrition cut-off and still met the other criteria.  In addition, there have been strong expressions of interest in continuing the work in these countries.

## 22 Food for Progress Countries Meeting All Criteria/Other Factors 

- Afghanistan
- Bangladesh
- Bolivia
- Dominican Republic
- Ethiopia
- Guatemala
- Honduras
- Kenya
- Liberia
- Madagascar
- Malawi

- Mali
- Mongolia
- Mozambique
- Namibia
- Nicaragua
- Niger
- Philippines
- Senegal
- Tanzania
- Uganda
- Yemen

**Notes:**
Countries not included in final list because of other concerns:

Armenia – Needs for assistance have declined based on recent site visit
Haiti – UMR issues due to large USAID program
India – Net food exporter
Papua New Guinea – Not viable due to low PVO presence
Sri Lanka – Security concerns and UMR issues
Thailand – Likely UMR issues
Zambia – GMO issues 

## Two-Year Priority Country Lists

- USDA reviewed the list of priority countries and divided it over two years to provide:
- More focused priorities for both USDA and applicants
- Activity within agreement portfolio
- Countries with less activity in FY 2009 list
- Countries that received programs in FY 2007 & FY 2008 moved to FY 2010
- Facilitates longer-term planning for PVOs

**Notes:**
We looked at the list of 22 countries and reviewed our list of active agreements.  We decided to split the priority countries over 2 years. Those countries that have a greater number of active programs continuing into FY 2009 were moved to FY 2010.  We put the less active countries on the FY 2009 list.  This allows for more focused priorities for both USDA and applicants. It also facilitates longer-term planning for PVOs.   

## Food for Progress Priority Countries for Solicitation in FY 2009

- Afghanistan
- Bangladesh
- Dominican Republic
- Ethiopia
- Malawi

- Mali
- Namibia
- Philippines
- Senegal
- Uganda
- Yemen

**Notes:**
Afghanistan is on priority list for both years because of its overall importance to U.S. Govt. policy.  The other countries are either on one year or the other.

For Food for Progress, we will only solicit for 2009 this year.  Next year we will solicit for 2010.

11 countries total:

6 - Africa
3 – Asia
1 – Latin America  (Latin America countries, except DR,  have many active programs now.  Therefore, most moved to 2010 list.)
1 – Middle East

## 2010 Food for ProgressPriority Countries*

- Afghanistan
- Bolivia
- Guatemala
- Honduras
- Kenya
- Liberia

- Madagascar
- Mongolia
- Mozambique
- Nicaragua
- Niger
- Tanzania

- *subject to change

**Notes:**
This list is subject to change.  Next year we will see which countries meet our criteria.  It’s possible some countries may be taken off or added.  For example, if the political situation deteriorates in a country so it is considered “not free”, it would be taken off.  However, most countries on this list will probably remain on the list next year.    

12 Countries total:

2 - Asia
4 - Latin America
6 – Africa

We will accept proposals for non-priority countries.  However, given funding constraints, it is unlikely that non-priority country proposals would get approved.  An exception would be if the country has an ongoing program and a final program is necessary to make it sustainable.  In this case, we would consider the proposal for programming.   

## Proposal Review Criteria

**Agricultural focus (30%)**
**Commodity management and appropriateness (20%) **
**Organizational capability and related experience (20%)**
**Proposal quality (15%)**
**Ability to quantify program impact**** ****(15%)**

**Notes:**
As Babette explained previously, the deadline for proposals this year is August 1.  The guidelines for submitting proposals are on our website.  Once we receive the proposals, we review them and grade them according to the following criteria:  

Agricultural focus – Keep in mind that the primary focus of the program should be agricultural, but there can be complementary activities.  For example, some programs have HIV/AIDS awareness training.  

Organizational capability and experience – This doesn’t necessarily have to be experience with USDA programs.  For new organizations, you can describe any related experience you have in food aid or development programs.  

Based on these criteria, the proposals are given an overall number score.  However, the numeric score is only used by the reviewing analyst to derive at a “recommendation” or “not recommended” level.

## Key Sections of Proposals

-    It is essential that all sections be clear and complete, but especially these:
- Introductory statement
- Section 5(a) – Activity objectives
- Section 5(b) – Method of choosing beneficiaries
- Section 5(h) – Criteria for measuring progress
- Section 6(e) – Uses of sales proceeds

**Notes:**
Although all sections of proposal are important, these are the sections that can either make or break a proposal.  If these sections are complete and well written, the proposal has a much better chance of getting approved.

I won’t go into details here, but if you’d like more information on this, I would encourage to attend our training session in May.

Introductory Statement – Capability and experience of PVO
                                  - Need for the program
                                  - Why you are targeting the particular region of the country where you want to implement your program

Activity Objectives – Need to be very clear

Method of Choosing Beneficiaries – You need to describe what criteria you will use in selecting beneficiaries

Criteria for Measuring Progress – You need to be very specific – Use numbers or percentages

Uses of Sales Proceeds – Need to explain exactly how you will implement the activities that are being funded from the sales proceeds

## Food for Progress Targeting And Proposal Impact

| Activity | Type and Number of Beneficiaries | Intended Output | Intended Outcome* |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| New Production Technology | 300 farmers 
50 businesses
 | Two monthly training sessions | 20 percent increase in yields;
30 percent increase in income |

- *Baseline data to be provided during agreement negotiation

**Notes:**
This is a sample of our Criteria for Measuring Progress table.  Some people may be confused by output vs outcome.  The output is what you’re actually going to do (provide so many training sessions).  The outcome is what will happen as a result of the output (such as a certain percentage increase in income).  As much as possible, we like to see specifics (such as percentage increase in income or yields, number of new businesses were created, etc.)  

## Food for ProgressCommon Proposal Weaknesses

- Limited agricultural focus
- Objectives and program implementation not clearly defined
- Weak progress measures/outcomes
- High cost per beneficiary compared to outcomes
- Lack of coordination with Embassy/Government
- Commodity/monetization issues
- Proposal is incomplete, inconsistent or does not follow format

**Notes:**
Keep these issues in mind when submitting proposals.

Our program guidelines are available on our website.  And of course, our staff is also available if you have any questions.

## Food for Progress

- Jamaica

- Bolivia

**Notes:**
I will now turn it over to Cristina, who will be discussing Food for Education.

## Food for Education

- 	Presented by Cristina Fundeneanu,  Acting Branch Chief, School Feeding & Humanitarian Branch, Food Assistance Division, OCBD

## Food for Education

- Overview
- Resources
- Priority countries
- Proposal review

- Guinea Bissau

## Supports education, child development, and food security
Targets low-income and 
	food-deficit countries 
Encourages health and 
	nutrition complements
Strives for sustainability

- Targets low-income and
- 	food-deficit countries
- Encourages health and
- 	nutrition complements
- Strives for sustainability

- Food for Education

- Senegal

## FY 2008 Program Awards

- 67 proposals received; valued at $1.8 B
- 11 proposals funded; valued at $48 M
- Four new programs
- 10 multi-year agreements

- Albania

## Available Resources

- $100 million requested in President’s budget in FY 2009
- $70 million committed in multi-year agreements in FY 2009
- $45 million committed in FY 2010

## Food for EducationActive Agreements

- 33 active agreements currently funded with 19 cooperating sponsors, in 28 countries, with more than 3 million beneficiaries

## Food for EducationActive Agreements - Continued

## Priority Country Determination

- Per capita incomes below $3,595 (World Bank) and population > 1,000,000
- Net food importer with > 20% of the population undernourished (FAO)
- < 75% literacy rate of total population (UNESCO)
- Government commitment to education
- USDA Post coverage and ability to monitor agreements
- No concerns with security, market, or capacity issues

## FY 2009 and FY 2010 Food for Education Priority Countries 

**Afghanistan**
**Angola**
**Bangladesh**
**Cambodia**
**Cameroon**
**Chad**
**Ethiopia**
**Guatemala**
**Guinea**
**Guinea Bissau**
**Kenya**
**Laos**
**Liberia**

**Madagascar**
**Malawi**
**Mali**
**Mozambique**
**Niger**
**Pakistan**
**Rwanda**
**Senegal**
**Sierra Leone**
**Tanzania**
**Uganda**
**Yemen**

## Approval of Proposals in FY 2009 and FY 2010

- Continuation of existing programs will receive highest priority in FY 2009
- Limited funds will remain after these programs are funded
- Remaining proposals will be considered for FY 2010 funding

## Proposal Review Criteria

**Proposal quality (38%)**
**Organizational capability and experience (20%)**
**Commodity or funding appropriateness (15%)**
**Ability to quantify program impact and need for program clearly expressed (12%)**
**Graduation/sustainability, coordination with other programs and local government and NGO support for program (15%)**

## Proposal Impact/Results

- FAS will evaluate the outputs, outcomes and graduation/sustainability plan is clearly described in the proposal.
- At a minimum, each proposal must provide the number of beneficiaries targeted and the impact of the program on those beneficiaries.
- Proposals that contain clear measurable indicators (Section 5h) will be more competitive.

## Key Sections of Proposals

- It is essential that the following sections
- be clear and complete:
- Introductory statement
- Section 5(a) - Activity objectives
- Section 5(b) - Method of choosing beneficiaries
- Section 5(h) - Criteria for measuring progress

## Things To Remember in Writing An Effective Proposal

- Possible substitutes for the commodities requested
- Monetization or barter are well justified
- The program is well targeted to appropriate regions
- Detailed and realistic progress indicators are used
- Contribution of other donors are encouraged
- Program sustainability plan is outlined
- Government commitment is sought

## Monitoring and Evaluation

- Presented by Brenda Freeman, Director, Monitoring and Evaluation Staff, OCBD

- 61

##  Monitoring and Evaluation Staff

- Brenda Freeman, Director – 	690-1177
- Delphine Hamlin, Senior Analyst – 720-4233
- Liliana Bachelder, PVO Lead– 720-0581
- Angella Greaves, G-G Lead – 720-0761
- Lita Echiverri, Program Analyst – 720-4678
- Shane Townsend, Program Asst. – 720-4090
- Gary Groves – On detail

**Notes:**
Wednesday, April 10, 2008
Introduction:  Hello, my name is Brenda Freeman, Director of the Monitoring and Evaluation Staff (M&ES).  I’m the fairly new kid on the block and have been with M&ES just under one year.  
M&ES has a high powered, committed staff all of whom are forced to wear more than one hat in the operation, depending on the circumstances.  Five of us are here today.   I’m sure most of you know Delphine Hamlin.  Delphine, our Senior Analyst as well as M&ES institutional memory, procedures and policy developer for food aid agreements. 
Liliana Bachelder is the guru of PVO agreements and recognized for her prowess in closing these agreements. I’m sure most of you have spoken with her at one time or another.  If you’ve received a long-awaited closeout letter in the past 8 months, please thank Liliana sometime during the session.
 Angella Greaves handles Government to Government agreements and she is tireless in pursuit on missing documents and folders.  Her leadership in this area has been important to our progress in closing these agreements.   
With us today is also is Gary Groves – Gary was temporarily assigned to help close the pre-2002 agreements and has done a fine job coordinating that process.
We also have two other staff members  back in Washington who provide support to our evaluation function, Lita Echiverri and Shane Townsend.  We also expect to bring a close out specialist aboard in the near future.
Next let’s talk about the role of M&ES in the Office of Capacity Building and Development.  

## Role of Monitoring and Evaluation Staff

- Administer the closeout of food aid agreements
- Conduct mid-term review of food aid programs to assess their impact
- Evaluate the effectiveness of OCBD technical assistance programs

**Notes:**
M&ES was established during the November 2006 FAS reorganization.  Our mandate is to provide a transparent structure for monitoring and evaluating and closing food assistance agreements.   We expect to develop a transparent process with your input and we will communicate any changes in policies and procedures to you.  
Because there are varying perceptions of the role of monitoring, let’s talk about it.  
Some of you in the room are program managers.  You are responsible for the day-to-day operational oversight of your program.  This is not the level of monitoring M&ES conducts.  
What M&ES does is to work with program managers during the course of the program cycle to track whether their programs are moving toward their intended goals.  So you can see monitoring is a fluid process.
With that in mind, I can say that monitoring looks at what happened; the final component is evaluation which complements monitoring by measuring a given point in time to answer why something happened. 
At this point, let’s turn to everyone’s favorite subject.  Food agreements close-outs.

## Status of Gov to Gov Food Aid Agreement Closeouts

| Number of Open & Active Agreements | 12 |
| --- | --- |
| Number of Agreements Open & Pending Closure | 7 |
| Number of Agreements Closed | 48 |

**Notes:**
You may recall the 2004 OIG report on USDA’s administration of PVO programs.   The OIG report advised USDA to close the backlog of open food aid agreements signed prior to FY 02 closed by the end of FY 09.  This function was assigned to M&ES.
Currently, our close out world is divided in government to government agreements and PVO agreements and instead of B.C. and A.D. our demarcation periods are pre-2002 and post-2002.
To get the process underway, my staff did a complete inventory of all open agreements for that time period and identified 252 open agreements.  This figure included food aid agreements with foreign countries and with private voluntary organizations. 
So what is our score card to date?  Beginning with Government to Government agreements, we started Fiscal Year 2008 with 67 open agreement.  In consultation with our posts overseas, we were able to close 48 agreements.  The remaining 19 agreements are either pending closure or are currently active as you can see on the slide. 
The close out process for government to government agreements has been working well. 
Turning to PVO agreements, the picture looks like this:   

## Status of Pre-FY 2002 PVO Agreement Closeouts 

| Number of Open & Active Agreements | 95 |
| --- | --- |
| Number of Agreements Open & Pending Closure | 21 |
| Number of Agreements Closed | 74 |

**Notes:**
As you can see from the overhead, we began with a much larger number of PVO agreements in Fiscal Year 2008, that is 185 open agreements.  

Due to the  excellent work of my staff, Liliana Bachelder, she should take a bow at this point, to date, we’ve closed 90 agreements.  That’s nearly half!  The remaining 95 agreements are either open and active or pending closure.
So the close out process is complete for pre-2002 agreements and has been working well.  For post-2002 agreements closure can be expedited by fully complying with the close out checklist.

So that’s the good news.  Okay, now it’s time to discuss how you can help us keep up the good work by discussing some frequently asked questions.

## Closeout Requirements

-  Important items you need to submit:
- Final cumulative Logmon report
- Final cumulative financial report
- All proceeds and interest accounted for
- All other relevant reports, audit (A-133); program evaluations and project status reports
- List of equipment purchased for over $5,000 with USDA funds and your plan for disposal
- A final, Indirect Cost Rate
- Note:  Please see the FAS homepage for the Closeout Checklist for a list of these requirements

**Notes:**
Remember that M&ES can’t close an agreement without the information on the checklist.  USDA requires:
A final cumulative logistics and monetization report (logmon) that accounts for all commodity and proceeds received.  The report should indicate that it is the FINAL reports and that all proceeds and interest have been accounted for. However, unspent interest from McGovern Dole should be returned to USDA.  IF YOU HAVE A GOVERNMENT TO GOVERNMENT AGREEMENT, DON’T FORGET TO COPY THE ATTACHES ON THE LOG/MON REPORTS, INCLUDING THE FINAL REPORT.  THIS CAN SAVE HEADACHES IN THE FUTURE. A list of equipment purchased for over $5,000 with USDA funds and how you intend to dispose of the equipment.
All relevant tax certification forms; All relevant audits (A-133), program evaluations and project status reports.
Finally all known issues have been resolved.  Next, how long will it take to close my agreement? 
Our first priority was to close out the backlog of  agreements negotiated prior to FY 2002.   As we move forward with the closure of the backlog, we are beginning to turn our attention to the next tranche of agreements signed in FY 2002 and later.  Once we get through the backlog,  I’d like to conform to the OIG recommended 120-180 days to close an agreement. 
Whom should I submit my program evaluation audit to?   Continue to send this information to FAD.
Closing agreement prior to audit?  No.  An audit is required for the years that the program was in operation.
Do I need a final indirect cost rate?  Yes, a final indirect cost rate is needed.  If you have questions about the NICRA rate, please contact Ron Croushorn or Delphine Hamlin for assistance.  

## Closeout Time Lines

- First priority was to closeout pre-2002 agreements
- The next tranche of agreements for closure are those signed in FY 2002 to FY 2004
- Agreements signed in FY 2005 and forward are expected to be closed within 120 - 180 days of your request for closure combined with your submission of all required documentation

## Closeout Submission Process

- PVO submits all closeout documents to FAD, not to M&ES
- M&ES is notified by FAD that you have requested closure of your agreement
- M&ES receives closeout documentation from FAD submitted by PVO
- M&ES conducts an analysis of submitted documents and consults with PVO, as necessary
- M&ES prepares and sends closeout letter to PVO

## Evaluation Plans for 2009

- M&ES will look at programs with the following components:
-  Consortium Agreements, where 2 or more PVOs are party to one agreement with USDA and work in collaboration towards a common objective in the same country
-  Monetization programs, to learn of and share best practices
-  Microcredit programs

**Notes:**
Here are the criteria we will use in selecting programs to be evaluated in Fiscal Year 2009.  The number of evaluations remains to be determined but we will becoming to evaluate some of your programs. 

You can be sure that we will give you advance notice if we intend to evaluate your program.  In order for this process to work well, we will work closely with you. 

Evaluation is results-oriented and brings results to the center of the planning and decision making process.  

M&ES will take a broader look at food assistance programs and make recommendations to the Deputy Administrator on program objectives, goals, and outcomes.

I look forward to working with each and every one of you and to receiving your suggestions on process improvement if you have any useful ideas.  Thank you. 

## Questions