[Senate Hearing 112-600]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]
S. Hrg. 112-600
INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT PRIORITIES IN THE FISCAL YEAR 2013 BUDGET
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
MARCH 6, 2012
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Relations
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
76-687 PDF WASHINGTON : 2012
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts, Chairman
BARBARA BOXER, California RICHARD G. LUGAR, Indiana
ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey BOB CORKER, Tennessee
BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho
ROBERT P. CASEY, Jr., Pennsylvania MARCO RUBIO, Florida
JIM WEBB, Virginia JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma
JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire JIM DeMINT, South Carolina
CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia
RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
TOM UDALL, New Mexico MIKE LEE, Utah
William C. Danvers, Staff Director
Kenneth A. Myers, Jr., Republican Staff Director
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Cardin, Hon. Benjamin L., U.S. Senator from Maryland, opening
statement...................................................... 1
Lugar, Richard G., U.S. Senator from Indiana, opening statement.. 3
Shah, Dr. Rajiv, Administrator, U.S. Agency for International
Development, Washington, DC.................................... 5
Prepared statement........................................... 8
Responses to questions submitted by the following Senators:
John F. Kerry............................................ 30
Richard G. Lugar......................................... 36
Robert P. Casey, Jr...................................... 60
Tom Udall................................................ 66
Marco Rubio.............................................. 72
James M. Inhofe.......................................... 74
(iii)
INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT PRIORITIES IN THE FISCAL YEAR 2013 BUDGET
----------
TUESDAY, MARCH 6, 2012
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Foreign Relations,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:55 p.m,. in
room SD-419, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Benjamin L.
Cardin, presiding.
Present: Senators Cardin, Menendez, Coons, Udall, Lugar,
Corker, Inhofe, and Isakson.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BENJAMIN L. CARDIN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MARYLAND
Senator Cardin. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee will
come to order.
I want to thank Chairman Kerry for allowing me to chair
this hearing.
I want to welcome Dr. Shah back to the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee.
I want to first, on behalf of the committee, on behalf of
all the Members of the Senate, express our deepest condolences
on the loss of Congressman Donald Payne, and our sympathy goes
to his family. I do not know of a more tireless fighter on
behalf of foreign aid and assistance and humanitarian efforts
who knew the continent of Africa better than Congressman Donald
Payne. I had the opportunity to serve with him in the House of
Representatives and he was always a champion for our
involvement in the continent of Africa and around the globe for
the right reasons. And he will be sorely missed in the Congress
of the United States.
I want to compliment USAID for naming a fellowship in his
name. I think it is a fitting tribute to the work that he has
done throughout his career. And again, we offer our deepest
condolences to his family.
At today's hearing we have the USAID Administrator, Dr.
Shah, with us to provide testimony on USAID's fiscal year 2013
budget request. As you know, I believe that our international
development assistance is a critical investment in America's
national security. I recognize that Dr. Shah and his team have
made tough choices in this year's request, and I look forward
to hearing more about those in our discussion today. I believe
this is a budget that protects America's security interests and
maintains U.S. global leadership while also encouraging more
efficient use of taxpayers' dollars.
Development, along with defense and diplomacy--the three
D's--is one of the three critical prongs that help to ensure
America's national security. As the chairman of the Senate
Foreign Relations Committee's Subcommittee on International
Development and Foreign Assistance, I know firsthand how smart
investments and worthy development projects are not only the
right thing to do, but they have a profound impact on global
stability.
Often Americans do not understand how the work of the State
Department and USAID affect their lives. Aside from the
humanitarian and moral imperative of improving lives in the
world's neediest places, I would also like to underscore how
our development assistance overseas expands export markets and
ultimately strengthens our domestic job market. We have an
economic interest in what we do globally as far as our
development assistance is concerned.
We will also continue to champion programs that bring
greater transparency and good governance to the countries in
which they are implemented and applaud the administration's
effort to redouble our own Government's transparency. Good
governance is a critical part to our international involvement
objectives. I also hold that empowering women is one of the
most critical tools in our tool box to fight poverty and
injustice. Gender integration, both in programming in the field
and in planning in D.C., must be a central part of all of these
programs. I defy anyone's assertion that women's empowerment
should take a back seat to any other so-called more important
priorities. I put on that list my efforts to encourage land
reform. Many women around the world are doing the agricultural
work and not getting the benefits of it, and land reform is a
critical part of our objectives.
Dr. Shah, I want to praise your release last week of the
new USAID Policy for Gender Equality and Female Empowerment,
which makes integrating gender and including women and girls
central to all U.S. international assistance. This policy,
which updates guidelines that were over 30 years old,
recognizes that the integration of women and girls is basic to
effective international assistance across all sectors like food
security, health, climate change, science and technology,
economic growth, democracy, and governance and humanitarian
assistance. It aims to increase the capacity of women and girls
and decrease inequality between genders and also to decrease
gender-based violence.
As Secretary Clinton pointed out more than 15 years ago,
``Women's rights are human rights,'' and nothing is more
fundamental in my opinion. I will continue to oversight and
advocate the programs under the jurisdiction of the
subcommittee to receive appropriate funding and rigorous
implementation with regard to these priorities and look forward
to working with the Department to achieve these goals.
America's active engagement abroad serves our economic and
strategic purposes but is also rooted in our national values.
Under the bipartisan initiative of the President's Emergency
Plan for AIDS Relief, also known as PEPFAR, we have valiantly
battled the spread of HIV in Africa.
Today, in conjunction with the Global Fund to Fight AIDS,
Malaria and Tuberculosis, over 4.7 million people are receiving
AIDS treatment, up from only 50,000 in 2003.
The focus on global health, as well as the critical issue
of food security, under the initiative of Feed the Future
highlights the administration's commitment to creating
sustainable solutions to fundamental development challenges.
With more than $15 million spent on development programs in
Afghanistan since 2002, USAID provides its largest bilateral
civilian assistance programs to that country. And with that
money and effort, Afghanistan has achieved some notable
development gains, and we should give credit to the dedicated
men and women of USAID where credit is due. Expanded access to
health services and basic education, improvements in maternal
and infant mortality rates, improved irrigation systems, new
women-owned small and medium enterprises--all of these success
stories underscore that when executed properly and in close
alignment with the Afghan people, the United States can make a
huge difference in development.
The challenge now is to learn from these lessons and focus
on what is necessary, achievable, and sustainable, given
limited resources and the changing political and security
environment in Afghanistan. I have continuing concerns that
achieving those standards is increasingly slipping out of our
grasp.
Our civilians are operating in a very challenging
environment and have assumed considerable risk in support of
the President's civilian-military strategy for Afghanistan.
Since 2003, 387 USAID partners implementing its programs have
been killed in action and another 658 wounded in action. Moving
forward, their safety must be our upmost concern.
As we begin the challenge of transition, unity of effort
across the U.S. Government will be critical to getting it
right. If a civilian program lacks achievable goals and needs
to be scaled back, no other actors should take over that
effort. We must keep good governance, fighting corruption, and
gender integration at the core of our work.
U.S. spending on international affairs has been a frequent
target of budget-cutting lawmakers. But if the United States is
to remain a global power, then it must sustain investments in
diplomacy and foreign aid commensurate with its national
security and international interests. As Secretary Clinton put
it last week in her testimony before this committee, this is a
``downpayment on America's leadership in a fast-changing
world.''
Rather than slashing America's international affairs
budget, we in Congress should work with the administration to
focus on reforming the international affairs budget, especially
to ensure that U.S. foreign aid is used more efficiently so it
continues to have a great impact. I look forward to working
with you, Dr. Shah, and your team, and I look forward to your
testimony.
With that, let me turn to Senator Lugar.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD G. LUGAR,
U.S. SENATOR FROM INDIANA
Senator Lugar. Well, thank you very much, Chairman Cardin,
and I join you in your praise in memory of our colleague,
Congressman Donald Payne of New Jersey. Both of us, I know,
have had the privilege of being with Don Payne and his brother
during Aspen Institute conferences abroad and other instances
of his service in the foreign policy of our country and
especially in Africa. And we will miss him.
But it is a special joy to welcome you, Dr. Shah. I admire
you very much for your willingness to undertake this awesome
responsibility. We are grateful you are here before the
committee again today.
As I emphasized to Secretary Clinton at her hearing before
the committee last week, we receive budget testimony amid
continued challenges here at home with the national
unemployment rate at 8.3 percent and 9 percent in my home State
of Indiana. Our national debt has grown to more than $15
trillion. This scenario brings great pressure on our
Government's financial obligations and places our entire
economy at risk.
In this context, the dollars available for global
development will be limited. The task before us today is to ask
whether our Government is using these dollars as efficiently as
possible to achieve the most benefits for U.S. foreign policy
and development goals. Our foreign assistance should be
targeted at sustainable development that promotes self-
sufficiency and produces demonstrable results. Ideally, it also
would support the strengthening of democracies and promote the
rule of law. Such a path allows nations to become effective
trading partners and allies on the world stage.
The administration has identified global food security,
global health, and global climate change as the highest
priorities for our development assistance. Historically, there
has been broad support for United States participation in
international efforts to feed vulnerable populations and combat
infectious diseases. I will be interested to learn from the
administration the degree to which our food programs have
engaged our own farmers and our highly regarded agriculture
research institutions to achieve greater productivity and
higher yields in countries struggling with food insecurity.
The administration's expansion of global health investments
beyond those established in PEPFAR raise several questions. Is
the priority of the Global Health Initiative combating and
preventing infectious diseases, or is it building local health
infrastructure and capacity? How is the agency setting
priorities, and in what ways are policies moving to country
ownership? What is our strategy and timetable for turning these
responsibilities over to the recipient countries?
As Administrator Shah knows, I have had misgivings about
USAID's new Global Climate Change Initiative, which under this
budget would receive $470 million. I have raised questions
about the rationale behind the program and about a number of
specific projects proposed under this initiative, especially in
the subcategory of adaptation.
My concern is that USAID is being asked to devote resources
to a politically determined objective, rather than to
maximizing development impact. In other words, if there were
not a Climate Change Initiative basket to fill, would all of
these projects be worthy purely on their development merits?
We should recognize that 470 million dollars' worth of
projects is not going to yield significant global
climatological benefits, and in fact USAID's own literature
does not seem to make that claim. So the benefits of these
projects are meant to be local. If that is the case, then we
should be applying rigorous standards on that basis to every
development dollar spent.
Hunger and disease are so fundamental to the human
condition and are so obstructive to the advancement of
societies that in most cases, their connection to basic
development goals is apparent. In my observation, adaptation
projects under this initiative have a much weaker connection to
basic development and their results will be more difficult to
measure.
My intent would be to ask the General Accountability Office
to examine the program, the standards being applied to it, and
whether projects will yield results that justify the expense,
especially at a time of diminishing resources.
In closing, as I did with Secretary Clinton last week, I
would like to express my appreciation to the men and women of
USAID who toil under very difficult and sometimes threatening
conditions to carry out our Nation's programs abroad. They are
indeed dedicated public servants, and we are deeply grateful
for their willingness to serve.
I look forward to hearing from the Administrator and to our
further discussion on these topics.
And I thank you again, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Cardin. Thank you.
Dr. Shah, I would be glad to hear from you.
STATEMENT OF DR. RAJIV SHAH, ADMINISTRATOR, U.S. AGENCY FOR
INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT, WASHINGTON, DC
Dr. Shah. Thank you, Chairman Cardin, and thank you,
Ranking Member Lugar, and members of the committee. I am
genuinely honored to have the opportunity to be here and look
forward to your guidance and our discussion on the President's
fiscal year 2013 budget request for USAID.
I also want to take a moment to recognize Representative
Payne. He took time to offer specific counsel to me and to our
staff on a regular basis, had visited nearly every African
mission, and we were proud to be able to support a modest
fellowship to help improve our efforts to build a diverse
workforce in partnership with his efforts and ideas.
Two years ago, President Obama and Secretary Clinton asked
us to elevate development as a core part of our national
security and foreign policy strategy. We recognize that this
work is so important that it has required us to do things
differently. It has required us to be more responsive to
national security priorities, more effective in foreign policy
priority contexts, while being much more results-oriented and
efficient in achieving core development results in food,
security, health, water and sanitation, education, humanitarian
assistance and resilience to climate change, and democratic
governance and basic respect for human rights.
In this fiscal year 2013 budget request, we believe we have
made tough choices, choices that are leading us to focus and
concentrate our investments where we can generate the most
value for every taxpayer dollar that is invested. In priority
areas like food and health, we have taken extra efforts to cut
programs and reallocate resources to those specific countries
where we think we can get the most results for every dollar
that we invest. Our maternal health program, for example, has
been reduced to 24 priority countries in order to support those
places where the burden of disease is highest and where we can
get the most results. Our Feed the Future Health Program has
closed out efforts in Kosovo, Serbia, and Ukraine to be able to
reinvest resources where we think we can generate the biggest
impact.
This approach has been a hallmark of our USAID Forward
reforms. The President has issued a policy directive on global
development. The Secretary and I launched the QDDR, and out of
that came the USAID reform package. Those reforms involve
investments in science and technology so that we can lower the
cost structure of doing our work, and we are starting to see
real results from that. New technologies that, for example,
help babies breathe and save lives in the first 48 to 72 hours
of birth in very difficult settings are already making a big
difference.
We focus more on monitoring and evaluation, and the
American Evaluation Association has recognized our efforts and
called them a gold standard for the Federal Government and
suggested that other parts of the Federal Government may also
take a similar approach. We are proud of that, and this year we
will be publishing more than 200 independently peer-reviewed
evaluations publicly on our Web site. So American taxpayers and
everyone else can see what results we are getting for the
resources we invest.
And fundamental to our reforms, we have changed our model
of partnership to work more directly and effectively with
faith-based institutions, with private sector companies, with
universities that have technology and ideas to add, and most
importantly, with a broad range of local institutions, local
civil society groups, local businesses and banks, and more
directly with governments.
These efforts are designed to help us be more efficient.
And to provide just one example: In Senegal, by restructuring
our education program to work directly with local institutions,
we brought the cost down by almost 55 percent. It allowed us to
build twice as many schools for the same amount of money, which
results in more girls getting an education.
This budget includes a focus on our top priorities. The
State AID budget request includes a $770 million incentive fund
to support and provide the responsiveness necessary to respond
to the situation in the Arab Spring. In frontline states like
Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, we continue to implement our
reforms focused on accountability, making sure that we are
making our work and the footprint of our work sustainable, and
doing what we can to ensure that those societies and countries
have a pathway to success without long-term U.S. assistance and
engagement at the current levels.
In each of these areas, we believe, as you have mentioned,
that there have been significant results, and the challenge
will be ensuring that they are sustained through a broad
international partnership and more domestic investment and
responsibility.
Our core priorities are also represented in this budget.
The Global Health budget request of $7.9 billion is the largest
single item in the foreign assistance budget and allows us to
achieve the goals we have laid out in very specific terms.
The President's program for AIDS relief will be on a path
to put 6 million patients on treatment, while maintaining
international commitments to make sure that we reach every
pregnant woman that is HIV-positive as an international
community with drugs to prevent the transmission to children.
We will be able to meet our program objectives in the
malaria program, in which we have already seen more than 30-
percent reductions in child mortality related to what I believe
is one of the most efficient global health programs out there.
And we believe there are major new opportunities on the
horizon with the introduction of new vaccines and the lowering
of costs in terms of saving children's lives and saving
mothers' lives, and we are very focused on achieving those
opportunities in a very results-oriented manner.
Our food programs have really represented a new way of
doing business over the past 2 to 3 years. The President's
program, which we call Feed the Future, has helped to work in
nearly 20 countries to expand access to agricultural
development and has done so by engaging U.S. institutions that
have technology to add, including U.S. universities and farmers
groups. The program is now generating specific results. In
Haiti, we are seeing rice yields increase by 170 percent. In
Kenya, we note that 90,000 dairy farm households have
experienced an income increase of more than $14 million on an
annual basis. And Bangladesh, for the first time in 3 decades,
today has enough rice to feed itself.
Overall, since Feed the Future was launched, we have seen
in the 20 target countries agricultural productivity increase
5.8 percent which is more than eight times the global average
of 0.7 percent. And because of a more structured and results-
oriented focus on nutrition, we are seeing the rate of child-
stunting in our programs go down.
It is those types of results that we hope to speak more
about and deliver more effectively in a more transparent manner
through our overall reform efforts and through these
initiatives.
I would like to close just by thanking our staff. We have
asked our staff to do extraordinary things in some very
challenging and often dangerous environments. We appreciate
your mentioning the issue of how many of our staff have lost
lives or our partners have lost lives.
Perhaps the most telling moment for me personally this past
year was at the end of a conference that we had held, the first
one since I have been Administrator, with our mission
directors, our leaders around the world, and they were in. And
we talked through these reforms and these initiatives and this
more results-oriented approach. And at the end of the
conference, a number of them stood up and said that they were
committed to take these reforms forward even though it often
means more work and it often means more uncertainty and it
means changing the way we work because they saw value in it.
And they saw that by doing so, we could genuinely become the
world's premier development agency, and this country deserves
to have an institution that performs at that level.
Thank you, and I look forward to taking your questions and
learning from you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Shah follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dr. Rajiv Shah
Thank you, Chairman Cardin, Ranking Member Lugar, and members of
the committee. I am honored to join you to discuss the President's
fiscal year 2013 budget request for USAID.
Two years ago, President Obama and Secretary Clinton called for
elevating development as a key part of America's national security and
foreign policy. Through both the Presidential Policy Directive on
Global Development and the Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development
Review, they made the case that the work USAID's development experts do
around the globe was just as vital to America's global engagement as
that of our military and diplomats.
The President's FY 2013 budget request enables USAID to meet the
development challenges of our time. It allows us to respond to the
dramatic political transformations in the Middle East and North Africa.
It helps us focus on our national security priorities in frontline
states like Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan. And it strengthens
economic prosperity, both at home and abroad.
This budget also allows us to transform the way we do development.
It helps countries feed, treat, and educate their people while
strengthening their capacity to own those responsibilities for
themselves. It helps our development partners increase stability and
counter violent extremism. It supports those who struggle for self-
determination and democracy and empowers women and girls. And it helps
channel development assistance in new directions--toward private sector
engagement, scientific research, and innovative technologies.
I want to highlight how the investments we make in foreign
assistance help our country respond to our current challenges, while
delivering results that shape a safer and more prosperous future.
efficiency, tradeoffs, and usaid forward
While foreign assistance represents less than 1 percent of our
budget, we are committed to improving our efficiency and maximizing the
value of every dollar. American households around the country are
tightening their belts and making difficult tradeoffs. So must we.
Even as we face new challenges around the world, our budget
represents a slight reduction from fiscal year 2012.
We've prioritized, focused, and concentrated our investments across
every portfolio. In global health, we propose to close out programs in
Peru and Mexico as those countries take greater responsibility for the
care of their own people.
We've eliminated Feed the Future programs in Kosovo, Serbia, and
Ukraine and reduced support to Europe, Eurasia, and Central Asia by
$113 million to reflect shifting global priorities and progress over
time by some countries toward market-based democracy.
And we're keeping our staffing and overall administrative costs at
current levels, even in the midst of a major reform effort. It is
through that effort that I spoke about last year--USAID Forward--that
we've been able to deliver more effective and efficient results with
our current staffing profile and operating budget.
Our budget prioritizes our USAID Forward suite of reforms.
That funding allows us to invest in innovative scientific research
and new technologies. Last year, our support of the AIDS vaccine
research through PEPFAR led to the isolation of 17 novel antibodies
that may hold the key to fighting the pandemic. And we're working with
local scientists at the Kenyan Agricultural Research Institutes to
develop new drought-resistant seed varieties of sorghum, millet, and
beans, as well as a vitamin-A-rich orange-fleshed sweet potato.
It helps us conduct evaluations so we know which of our development
efforts are effective and which we need to scale back. The American
Evaluation Association recently cited our evaluation policy as a model
other federal agencies should follow.
It allows us to partner more effectively with faith-based
organizations and private companies. In fact, the OECD recognized USAID
as the best amongst peers in driving private sector partnerships and
investment.
And through our procurement reform efforts, among the most far-
reaching and ambitious across the federal government, we are
aggressively seeking new ways to work with host country partners
instead of through more costly consultants and contractors. This effort
will make our investments more sustainable and hasten our exit from
countries, while cutting costs.
For instance, in Afghanistan, we invested directly in the country's
Ministry of Health instead of third parties. As a result, we were able
to save more than $6 million.
That investment also strengthened the Afghan health ministry, which
has expanded access to basic health services from 9 percent of the
country to 64 percent. Last year, we discovered the true power of those
investments; Afghanistan has had the largest gains in life expectancy
and largest drops in maternal and child mortality of any country over
the last 10 years.
In Senegal, we are working with the government--instead of foreign
construction firms--to build middle schools at a cost of just $200,000
each. That helps strengthen the government's ability to educate its
people, but it is also significantly more cost effective than enlisting
a contractor.
When we do invest money in partner governments, we do so with great
care. Our Agency has worked incredibly hard to develop assessments that
make sure the money we invest in foreign governments is not lost due to
poor financial management or corruption.
With your continued support of this effort, we can expand our
investments in local systems while building the level of oversight,
accountability, and transparency that working with a new and more
diverse set of partners requires.
The Working Capital Fund we've requested would give us a critical
tool in that effort. The Fund would align USAID's acquisition and
assistance to USAID's program funding levels through a fee-for-service
model, so that our oversight and stewardship is in line with our
program and funding responsibilities. The result will be improved
procurement planning, more cost-effective awards, and better oversight
of contracts and grants.
supporting strategic priorities and strengthening national security
We will continue to support the growth of democracies around the
world, especially in the Middle East and North Africa where the
transformative events of the Arab Spring are bringing down autocratic
regimes and expanding freedom.
State and USAID have requested $770 million for a new Middle East
and North Africa Incentive Fund to respond to the historical changes
taking place across the region. The Fund will incentivize long-term
economic, political, and trade reforms--key pillars of stability--by
supporting governments that demonstrate a commitment to undergo
meaningful change and empower their people. State and USAID will
continue to play a major role in helping the people of this region
determine their own future.
In Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, USAID continues to work closely
with interagency partners including the State and Defense Departments,
to move toward long-term stability, promote economic growth, and
support democratic reforms. Civilians are now in the lead in Iraq,
helping that country emerge as a stable, sovereign, democratic partner.
Our economic assistance seeks to expand economic opportunity and
improve the quality of life throughout the country, with a particular
focus on health, education, and private sector development. With time,
Iraq's domestic revenue will continue to take the place of our
assistance.
In Afghanistan, we've done work to deliver results despite
incredibly difficult circumstances. We established our Accountable
Assistance for Afghanistan--or A3--initiative to reduce subcontracting
layers, tighten financial controls, enhance project oversight, and
improve partner vetting. And with consistent feedback from Congress we
are focusing on foundational investments in economic growth,
reconciliation and reintegration, and capacity building, as well as to
support progress in governance, rule of law, counternarcotics,
agriculture, health and education. We continue to focus on the
sustainability of these investments so they ultimately become fiscally
viable within the Afghan Government's own budget.
In Pakistan, our relationship is challenging and complex, but it is
also critical. Our assistance continues to strengthen democratic
institutions and foster stability during a difficult time. Crucial to
those efforts are the efforts we make to provide electricity. Over the
last 2 years, we've added as many as 1,000 megawatts to Pakistan's
grid, providing power to 7 million households. We've also trained more
than 70,000 businesswomen in finance and management and constructed 215
kilometers of new road in South Waziristan, expanding critical access
to markets.
the global health initiative
Thanks in large part to the bipartisan support we've had for
investments in global health, we're on track to provide life-saving
assistance to more people than ever before. Although this year's
request of $7.9 billion for the Global Health Initiative is lower than
FY 2012 levels, falling costs, increased investments by partner
governments, and efficiencies we've generated by integrating efforts
and strengthening health systems will empower us to reach even more
people.
That includes PEPFAR, which will provide life-saving drugs to those
around the world afflicted with HIV and expand prevention efforts in
those countries where the pandemic continues to grow. We can expand
access to treatment and lift a death sentence for 6 million people in
total without additional funds.
We're also increasingly providing treatment for pregnant mothers
with HIV/AIDS so we can ensure their children are born healthy. And
because of breakthrough research released last year, we know that
putting people on treatment actually helps prevention efforts--
treatment is prevention. All of these efforts are accelerating progress
toward President Obama's call for an AIDS-free generation.
Our request also includes $619 million for the President's Malaria
Initiative, an effective way to fight child mortality. In country after
country, we've shown that if we can increase the use of cheap bed nets
and antimalarial treatments, we can cut child death--from any cause,
not just malaria--by as much as 30 percent. In Ethiopia, the drop in
child mortality has been 50 percent.
Last year, we commissioned an external, independent evaluation of
the Presidential Malaria Initiative's performances. That report praised
the Initiative's effective leadership for providing ``excellent and
creative program management.''
And we will continue to fund critical efforts in maternal and child
health, voluntary family planning, nutrition, tuberculosis, and
neglected tropical diseases--cost-effective interventions that mean the
difference between life and death.
feed the future
Last year, the worst drought in 60 years put more than 13.3 million
people in the Horn of Africa at risk. Thanks to the humanitarian
response led by the United States--and the investments we made in the
past to build resilience against crises just like these--millions were
spared from the worst effects of the drought.
But as is well known, providing food aid in a time of crisis is 7
to 10 times more costly than investing in better seeds, irrigation, and
fertilizers. If we can improve the productivity of poor farmers in
partner countries, we can help them move beyond the need for food aid.
And we can prevent the violence and insecurity that so often
accompanies food shortages.
That's why we are requesting $1 billion to continue funding for
Feed the Future, President Obama's landmark food security initiative.
These investments will help countries develop their own agricultural
economies, helping them grow and trade their way out of hunger and
poverty, rather than relying on food aid.
The investments we're making are focused on country-owned
strategies that can lift small-holder farmers--the majority of whom are
women--out of poverty and into the productive economy. All told, the
resources we're committing to Feed the Future will help millions of
people break out of the ranks of the hungry and impoverished and
improve the nutrition of millions of children.
We're also leveraging our dollars at every opportunity, partnering
with countries that are investing in their own agricultural potential
and helping companies like Walmart, General Mills, and PepsiCo bring
poor farmers into their supply chain.
These investments are working.
In Haiti--where we continue to make great strides thanks to strong
congressional support--we piloted a program designed to increase rice
yields in the areas surrounding Port-au-Prince. Even while using fewer
seeds and less water and fertilizer, Haitian farmers saw their yields
increase by almost 190 percent. The farmers also cut 10 days off their
normal harvest and increased profit per acre. Today that program is
being expanded to reach farmers throughout the country.
These results complement our work to cut cholera deaths to below
the international standard. And we worked with the Gates Foundation to
help nearly 800,000 Haitians gain access to banking services through
their mobile phones.
And in Kenya, Feed the Future has helped over 90,000 dairy
farmers--more than a third of whom are women--increase their total
income by a combined $14 million last year. This effort is critical,
since we know that sustainable agricultural development will only be
possible when women and men enjoy the same access to credit, land, and
new technologies.
Overall, since we began the initiative in 2008, our 20 target
countries have increased their total agricultural production by an
average of 5.8 percent. That's over eight times higher than the global
average increase of 0.7 percent
building resilience
We all know that a changing climate will hit poor countries
hardest. Our programs are aimed at building resilience among the
poorest of those populations. By investing in adaptation efforts, we
can help nations cope with these drastic changes. By investing in clean
energy, we can help give countries new, efficient ways to expand and
grow their economies. And by investing in sustainable landscapes, we
can protect and grow rainforests and landscapes that sequester carbon
and stop the spread of deserts and droughts.
That work goes hand in hand with our efforts to expand access to
clean water to people hit hard by drought. In 2010 alone, those efforts
helped more than 1.35 million people get access to clean water and 2
million people access to sanitation facilities. Increasingly, we're
working with countries to build water infrastructure and with
communities to build rain catchments and wells to sustainably provide
clean water. We're currently in the process of finalizing a strategy
for our water work designed to focus and concentrate the impact of our
work in this crucial area.
strengthening education
Last year, we made some critical decisions about how we strengthen
global education. Since 1995, USAID's top recipients have increased
primary school enrollment by 15 percent. But even as record numbers of
children enter classrooms, we have seen their quality of learning
sharply drop. In some countries, 80 percent of schoolchildren can't
read a single word at the end of second grade. That's not education;
it's daycare.
The strategy we released last year will make sure that our
assistance is focused on concrete, tangible outcomes like literacy. By
2015, we will help improve the reading skills of 100 million children.
conclusion
Thanks to these smart investments, every American can be proud that
their tax dollars go toward fighting hunger and easing suffering from
famine and drought, expanding freedom for the oppressed and giving
children the chance to live and thrive no matter where they're born.
But we shouldn't lose sight that these investments aren't just from
the American people--as USAID's motto says--they're for the American
people. By fighting hunger and disease, we fight the despair that can
fuel violent extremism and conflict. By investing in growth and
prosperity, we create stronger trade partners for our country's
exports.
And above all, by extending freedom, opportunity and dignity to
people throughout the world, we express our core American values and
demonstrate American leadership.
Senator Cardin. Dr. Shah, thank you very much for that
update on the budget.
And I join with Senator Lugar in complimenting the
dedicated people that you have working for you under extremely
difficult circumstances. I had a chance to meet with some of
your mission leaders and they are incredible people, and I
applaud you for the people that are working with you on this.
I want to talk a little bit about the overall budget
problems. You have certainly put a good face on this, but the
truth is that the budget is very tight. It is basically a no-
growth budget, and you have to make some very difficult
decisions. So far, you have indicated that you want to be more
efficient, and we all want you to be more efficient. And your
example in Senegal is certainly very impressive.
But we also know that you are moving forward with new
initiatives, as you indicated, the Middle East with Arab
Spring, the initiative there. There are additional resources
being made available in several other areas.
Last year, in a speech that you made to the Center for
Global Development on the modern development enterprise, you
mentioned by 2015 USAID could graduate away from assistance in
at least seven countries, actually closing the missions in
those countries.
Can you just give us an update, with this tough budget--and
I am one who would like to see you have a larger budget, but
with this tough budget, what type of programs are likely to
see--might have to be compromised in order to be able to meet
the highest priorities that we have, knowing full well that
efficiency can only take you so far?
Dr. Shah. Well, thank you, Senator. I think this budget
does represent our best effort to focus and concentrate. We
have cut or reduced significantly more than 165 specific
programs. We have made real reductions in each area where we
work to concentrate our resources. I mentioned maternal health
where we shut down 20 or 25 country programs in order to
reallocate those resources to places where the burden of
disease was higher and where we felt we could generate more
lives saved with the investment of the same dollars.
We are on path to, as I mentioned in that CGD speech, close
out a number of our missions, places like Panama and
Montenegro, that can take on the costs of doing what we were
doing. And that transition to country ownership and
responsibility is a major part of the strategy. We think of
that as success when we are able to achieve that outcome.
And there are 11 more missions where we are actively
reducing our expenditures quite significantly, and ultimately
we will go down to zero as those countries take on more
responsibility.
So part of it is a geographic focus and reallocation. Many
of the results-oriented initiatives, by focusing in places
where the problem is most acute and most solvable, are
investing resources in Africa perhaps at the expense of other
regions and geographies. These are just tough tradeoffs that we
need to be able to make.
Some are around different issues and topics. We have
reduced in this budget commitments to certain parts of our
environmental portfolio in order to focus on delivering human
outcomes in a clear and specific way. And when we are forced to
do that, we try very hard to make sure we work with our
international partners and explore whether others can take up
the burdens of those costs and those programs so that the
benefits do not go away. But we have had to make those types of
tough decisions in this budget.
Senator Cardin. Well, thank you.
The administration has said it wants to make AID more
transparent, a goal that I know Senator Lugar and I both agree.
Transparency is important so that we can actually trace how the
funds are being used. Part of that is to deal with the
corruption in countries around the world and to protect
whistleblowers who can help us in making sure that our funds
are being used for its intended purpose.
Can you just give us an update as to how you are proceeding
on advancing transparency in USAID and our goal of more
sustainable governments where the funds are actually being used
for the people?
Dr. Shah. Well, thank you.
I think this has been an area where we have really tried to
move from being seen as intransigent in the global community to
being the world leader in the global community. We have signed
on to join the International Aid Transparency Initiative, which
is the premier entity that sets standards for fiscal
transparency and investment transparency, and we announced that
in Busan, South Korea, recently.
We have launched the foreignassistance.gov Web site that
puts all of our program expenditures and obligations in the
public domain, for every country, by sector so there is clarity
of where the resources are going.
We are testing different strategies to use our Web site and
to use different programs in-country to expand transparency,
and I would highlight the new Pakistan country Web site that
lists every program that we support in Pakistan. It has a ways
to go and can get better and we will be relaunching our site
completely this June, and I think that will improve
transparency. People can click through and see every program we
have everywhere.
And we will be launching a valuation database so that all
of our program evaluations are made public within 3 months of
completion of the program. There will be no effort to edit
those independently conducted evaluations. They will be part of
a public database, and by the end of this calendar year, we
will have 250 of those evaluations. It will be the largest and
most significant repository of real evaluation data on
development programs of any institution worldwide.
So we are very proud of what we are trying to do there, but
we also know that we have a long way to go and we will stay
very focused on that space.
Senator Cardin. And please keep us informed on those
initiatives. There is a great deal of interest.
I mentioned in my opening statement the initiative on
gender equality for a focus on women and girls. Would you just
bring us up to date briefly as to how you are integrating that
priority into all of our USAID programs?
Dr. Shah. Sure. We have launched a new policy, as you
mentioned, just last week that is the culmination of more than
a year's worth of work to make sure that we integrate gender
programming in everything we do.
The challenge has not been knowing that that is the right
thing to do. The challenge has been for this field for decades
operationalizing it. And this was the first operational policy
issued in the last 3 decades by USAID to achieve that goal.
In agriculture and health, in education, in countering
trafficking in persons, in all of these areas, we will begin
measuring with specificity the impact of our programs on women
and girls. For example, in agriculture, we have launched a
women's empowerment index, which is a sophisticated and
appropriate tool for actually generating data on how our
programs preferentially help women, and where they do not,
learning why and exploring what we can do there.
I think those kinds of measurement and policy tools will
make a big difference. That is just one part of a suite of
activities that is being coordinated by our new gender
coordinator in the office they represent, and I think it is
making a very, very big difference.
Senator Cardin. Thank you.
Senator Inhofe. Mr. Chairman, are you going to hold the
record open for questions to the record? I am not going to be
able to stay, but I had several questions to ask.
Senator Cardin. Yes, we will be holding it open for the
record.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you.
Senator Cardin. Thank you.
Senator Lugar.
Senator Lugar. Dr. Shah, you mentioned that since Feed the
Future was launched, we have witnessed great advances in
agricultural productivity worldwide in target countries. While
agricultural productivity increased by 5.8 percent across the
board, you also mentioned very dramatic increases pertaining to
rice and dairy production.
With these facts in mind, let me just ask a fundamental
question. One of the great disputes in the past in terms of
agricultural advancement has been resistance to genetically
modified seed, and this has come perhaps because of European
influence among policymakers in the developing world. But in
the absence of the use of genetically modified seed in many of
these countries, efforts to realize productivity increases have
resulted in minimal gains, and in cases of bad weather, they
have been almost nonexistent.
Now, I am curious how you have overcome that resistance,
which endures among the Europeans. As I have visited with
German farmers or even those in Ukraine, there is continued
adherence to the thought that somehow this modification infects
the soils or the waters or is an environmental hazard, quite
apart from a boost in nutrition.
Given these barriers, can you describe your success or how
you have moved to realize success in these matters?
Dr. Shah. Thank you, Senator.
We have, as we have discussed previously, been very focused
on making sure we use all available appropriate technology to
help in particular vulnerable, small-scale farmers--70 percent
of whom in sub-Saharan Africa are women--improve their
production of food. And we know that that is directly
correlated--that agricultural productivity--with improved human
outcomes and child nutrition.
Our strategy here has been one of just engaging real
partnerships with countries so that today we are actually
testing both hybrid conventional and transgenic technologies on
the ground with countries on their research stations at their
leadership. And I think once African scientists and scientific
institutions develop their own products that have a broad range
of technologies, they ought to have the capacity and the
regulatory awareness and ability to make their own judgments
about what technologies are appropriate as opposed to, you
know, taking guidance from outside partners, whether it is the
European partners or anyone else.
And I think we have seen in places like Tanzania where we
have been engaging that way a change in the mindset and an
eagerness to use some of the improved seeds that are currently
mostly conventionally improved but are yielding real results, a
more than tripling of maize yields in western Kenya. There are
any number of new seed varieties in Tanzania that are ready for
introduction, and I think it will be a slow and steady process.
I do not think we have overcome it completely yet, but we are
very focused on making sure that farmers have the tools and
technologies that help them escape poverty.
Senator Lugar. Well, I appreciate that. I have an almost
emotional bias on the subject. On my own farm, we are getting
400 percent more production in corn than my dad did 50 years
ago. And I have seen in my lifetime the change on the same
acreage with the change in seed, fertilizer, and other
agricultural methods. Now, that kind of change worldwide would
make an enormous difference in humankind.
But you have an influence right now to be able to make
those breakthroughs, and this is why I am pleased that there is
some good data. But more power to you in moving ahead.
I am curious on the health front. How and to what extent
are institutions changing as positive developments take place
on these issues? Do you see the building of institutions that
are going to continue to work when they are no longer receiving
direct financial support from USAID? I know you are working on
this, but what sort of markers can you give us of progress?
Dr. Shah. Well, this has been a central part of our health
strategy and our entire strategy in terms of how we work with
countries. And I would just preface by saying before we invest
directly in local institutions for the purpose of building up
their capacity and their experience in delivering services and
using new vaccines or new improved insecticide-treated bed nets
to help save kids lives, we do a rigorous assessment to make
sure we can vouch for the accountability and the resources,
that they are not lost or stolen and that they are generating
results.
That said, I think the big defining trend in global health
over the next 5 to 10 years will be countries taking more
direct responsibility for providing health services to their
populations. We can play a critical role in starting that
process, and so we are very focused on doing that.
There are some countries that are doing a particularly
effective job of that, and one example of success is
Afghanistan. Seven or eight years ago, we made the
determination to work to build up the capacity of the Ministry
of Public Health there. Today we now have data that shows over
the last 8 years, Afghanistan has seen the most rapid reduction
in maternal mortality of any country on the planet, has seen a
huge reduction in child mortality, and importantly, has a
ministry that is essentially in charge of their health system.
They still need a lot of help from outside partners and for
securing finance, but that is the pathway to sustainability.
And people would not have thought 8 or 9 years ago when they
had no capacity to do this, that this would have been one of
the biggest success stories in the global health arena.
Senator Lugar. Well, I hope your reports will give data
about this so-called sustainability in Afghanistan and, for
that matter, in Iraq, where we still have an important program.
I would ask about just one controversial country situation
now. We have run into a lot of problems with Egypt, and we have
heard from polling efforts that 70 percent of the Egyptian
people do
not care that the United States is threatening to withdraw $1.5
billion of support. It appears that they perceive this
assistance as interference.
What is the on-the-ground situation in Egypt with your
program at this point?
Dr. Shah. Well, you know, it has been a challenging few
weeks, of course, as you are aware. We took the position that
we really wanted to see resolution to the issue with respect to
NDI and IRI and their staff. That situation is still active and
is still being worked. We are pleased to see the U.S. staff be
able to leave or the international staff. There are still
remaining and outstanding issues there that we are working
through.
With respect to the remainder of our programmatic approach,
we remain focused on trying to make sure that is successful, it
is responsive to the critical needs, but in a context where we
are
really trying to work through some of these issues as a
condition to continue that overall approach.
Senator Lugar. Thank you.
Senator Cardin. Senator Menendez.
Senator Menendez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Shah, thank you for your service.
I have to be honest with you, though. I do not understand--
and I know what you answered last year when I raised this
question. So you are going to have to do better this year than
last year because I have waited to see, and remain concerned
about what is happening in Latin America and the Caribbean.
As in many regions of the world where USAID works, the
absolute level of U.S. assistance to the countries of Latin
America and the Caribbean has begun to decline; however, in
Latin America, unlike Africa, South and Central Asia, and the
Middle East, so too has the proportion of USAID going to the
region. So that is a compounding factor.
Between fiscal year 2008 and 2012, United States assistance
to Latin America and the Caribbean fell from $2.1 billion to
approximately $1.8 billion, a 13-percent decrease since 2008.
Assistance to Latin America has also declined proportionately.
Latin America now receives only 8 percent of the bilateral aid
pot, whereas in 2008, it received 10. And looking over this
year's funding requests, I am alarmed by what I see. For
example, the spending request for ESF is down 7 percent from
last year and a whopping 21 percent from 2008. Even direct
assistance to Guatemala is down slightly even though the Miami
Herald shocked no one when it asked the President of Guatemala
whether his country had the possibility of being the next
Somalia and knowing, as we do, that the drug cartels are
overwhelming not only the Guatemalan Government, but other
Central American governments as well.
I know you told me in response to my question last year in
this regard--and this has only gotten worse--that your theory
of budgeting is to fund what gets the best bang for the buck
but not if that means ignoring the areas where some of the need
is the greatest.
I look at the Western Hemisphere, our own front yard, I
look at what is undermining these countries through the
narcotics trafficking. I look at the resurgence of health
issues that were once cured like tuberculosis and I see it
rise. Of course, health and disease know no borders.
When I look at the question of undocumented immigration
that we debate in this country and think about what creates
that movement, it is either dire economic necessity or civil
unrest. I see the movements that are antidemocratic in the
region continuously challenging their citizens in terms of
their fundamental rights--and the list goes on and on.
I do not quite understand what it is that the
administration does not see that I and maybe others see. So my
question is, what is your justification in this regard and how
do you rank the needs of the region versus the needs of other
regions? What indicators did you consider when making these
types of cuts in your budget? And if we start there, maybe I
will get a sense of how you came to your conclusions. But this
is not a budget I can support.
The final point I will make before giving the balance of
time to your answer is within that context as well. I know that
ESF accounts took a hit, but I see what you did to the account
for our democracy programs in Cuba. We have an American citizen
languishing in Castro's jails, and so our response is to cut
the democracy program in Cuba. Is that a deal that we made,
that we are going to cut the program in Cuba in response to an
American who is sitting in jail? Are we going to get anything
for that? Because otherwise we send the absolute wrong message
at the end of the day.
We never in the world--in the world--Vaclav Havel, Lech
Walesa, Alexander Solzhenitsyn--cut our democracy assistance
programs because of the disapproval of a regime. Here you are
cutting it by 25 percent. It is pretty significant. So make me
feel better, if you can.
Dr. Shah. Thank you, Senator, for the comments. I will take
them in order.
Our approach overall to budgeting is to do our best to
maintain core results or achieve new ones given the overall
budget situation, and this was a budget and is presented as a
budget that has a real reduction in overall foreign assistance
within the 150 Account.
Within Latin America, our No. 1 priority has been security
in Mexico, Central America, and the Caribbean. Programs like
CARSI have seen real and significant and sustained increases
year on year under this administration that are significant,
and we would like to continue on that path and that trend for
that No. 1 priority.
We have experienced savings that have come in large part
from ESF in places like Colombia or Peru--Colombia was the
second-largest program--and where by our criteria of country
readiness--country willingness--to take on the costs of
implementing certain programs, basic levels of per capita
income and revenues at the country level, we are able to
transition those efforts to domestic responsibility. And we
believe that that is an appropriate tradeoff to make and, in
fact, is part of the pathway and vision for success, most
notably exemplified by a place like Panama where we can close
our mission and move on.
Senator Menendez. But with respect, Dr. Shah, you are
talking about where you reduced in one country. I am talking
about a whole region. You cannot tell me that Central America
and its present challenges today are the equivalent of a
Colombia or some of the other examples you have cited.
Dr. Shah. Well, for Central America--and I would have to
review and come back to you with the specific numbers. I think
for Central America we have maintained a commitment and we have
maintained our budgets and in some areas, like in the CARSI
program, seen significant increases. When you look at the
region overall, because of the significant growth in Latin
America because many of these countries are making the
transition from recipient to donor themselves like Brazil, we
believe the criteria are applied in an effective way.
I would also add that in places like Guatemala and El
Salvador, we have made them priority countries for initiatives
like Feed the Future, the Global Health Initiative, the
President's Partnership for Growth effort. In some cases, that
does not necessarily come with a tremendous amount of
additional investment, but it does come with a lot of
additional support for improving the quality of the programs,
for making sure we bring partners like Wal-Mart to those
economies to help move farmers out of poverty in a sustainable
way.
And we are seeing some very real results, and western
Guatemala is a good example where we are seeing 15,000 farmers
move out of poverty. We are seeing a serious reduction in child
stunting rates in the western highlands. And those are sort of
model initiatives and even though we can do them at lower cost
because we are building real partnerships with others that can
sustain it.
With respect to Cuba--and I know my time is short--I would
just say we did not make any proposed reduction because we were
urged to by an external regime. We are presenting a budget we
think we can implement effectively, and we recognize and have
done quite a lot especially through our State Department to try
to deal with the situation with Alan Gross and have taken some
extraordinary steps to support his situation and his family,
and we hope to see him released and continue to ask for and
work toward that objective.
Senator Menendez. Well, I will close, Mr. Chairman, by
simply saying it is remarkable to me that you could sit there
and tell me that at a time of greater repression, at a time
when two hunger strikers whose only crime was speaking out
against the regime have died, at a time when the women in white
get attacked by security forces, at a time in which a recent
roundup of 100 peaceful protesters ended up in jail--we reduce
our democracy program in Cuba by 25 percent. I do not
understand how you figure the metrics, but those metrics do not
work.
Senator Cardin. Senator Corker.
Senator Corker. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And, Mr. Shah, thank you for the work you do and for being
with us in advance to let us know a little bit about what you
are laying out.
If you look at growth around the world, the developed
countries are where rapid growth is taking place. In the
developed countries there is lesser growth happening. And as we
watch some of the other powers around the world and the way
they invest in developing countries, much of that is done in a
way that furthers their own growth also. And I am just
wondering as you look at these investments in the developing
world, do we give any thoughts to how that might benefit our
own country in creating a relationship that is symbiotic and
allows jobs to be created here in our own country.
Dr. Shah. Thank you, Senator, for that question. And I
think we have also studied carefully some of the models that
countries like China have deployed to essentially position
themselves aggressively in what are going to be the emerging
markets of the next few decades. It is worth noting that in
Africa you have 15-17 countries that have been growing at 6 or
7 percent annually consistently for more than a decade. You
have a common market that is larger than the market in China,
and there is very clearly serious and important business
opportunities on that continent.
The same is true even in lower income populations in Asia
where we think globally the bottom 2 billion, 3 billion, 4
billion in the world represent a real significant emerging
market.
A lot of what we have done in our public-private
partnerships and in our major efforts and initiatives have been
designed to help American institutions participate in
development both to generate very concrete and specific
development results and to innovate and create business models
that will help them serve and, in some cases, profitably very
low-income communities today that I think will be the emerging
markets of the future.
In Ethiopia, for example, we have worked with Pepsi to help
them build out a supply chain to reach 30,000 chickpea farmers,
most of whom are women. By growing chickpeas, they are able to
then have a product, the humus product, which they will sell in
commercial markets. But about half of the total product that is
produced will be packaged as a ready-to-use, high-nutrition
paste that is provided in food aid programs to stunted and
vulnerable children in that region. I think that is a good
example of the kind of partnership that achieves concrete
results and allows for positioning and engagement in these
markets.
With Procter & Gamble, we have a major partnership to help
them develop and sell to low-income communities improved
products to purify water. And in slum communities in Asia and
Africa, that is a major product, and they have some unique
technology and can do that and generate really great results.
So we have tried to adapt the way that frankly the whole
development community has traditionally thought about
partnering with the corporate sector and the private sector and
try to engage in a more creative and results-oriented approach
to develop new business models, new technologies, achieve our
development outcomes, often at lower cost, and create a
countervailing system to what we are seeing some other
countries do.
Senator Corker. It would be great over time to develop some
metrics so we could see results in that regard.
And I thank you for certainly the focus. I know we have
talked about that some privately.
We notice in the PEPFAR budget--I know this is something
that has been very bipartisan as far as support goes--that you
set a pretty ambitious goal of increasing the number of people
on ARV's from 4 million today to 6 million in 2013; at the same
time, reduced funding from $5.1 billion to $4.5 billion. So you
have a substantial increase in your goal of over 2 million and
yet a reduction. I know that all of us need to be focused on
the amount of resources we are putting into all these programs,
but I am just wondering if those two are lining up or if the
goal itself is overly ambitious.
Dr. Shah. We have studied this very carefully, Senator. We
believe this is an achievable goal. We think that with the
budget request we are making for global health with the
significant efficiencies in the program as we both reduce the
cost structure of doing our work and, importantly, as the cost
of providing antiretroviral therapy to patients has come down
very significantly and continues to go down, we believe this is
an achievable goal. We think we will hit the 6 million target.
We are at 4.7 million right now, having exceeded previous
expectations already, and we believe we will have the resources
to continue to really lead the world in a global effort to
address the transmission of HIV from pregnant mothers to
children and end that transmission so that we can get to, as
the President and the Secretary have both committed to, a
situation where we have a generation that is free of HIV/AIDS.
And we are very committed to those objectives. We are very
committed to making sure that institutions like the Global Fund
that have been important places for us to leverage our dollars
with other donors continue to be successful. And we have
presented a budget that we think can achieve that.
Senator Corker. Senator Lugar in his opening comments
referred to the Climate Change Adaptation Fund of $407 million.
It is kind of curious with all the other issues that we are
pursuing right now. What exactly are we planning to do with
that $407 million as it relates to climate adaptation and what
effect do we think it is going to have with our aid programs?
Dr. Shah. Well, thank you.
First, the resourcing for the climate change program
overall includes adaptation but it also includes an effort to
improve access to energy and an effort to address deforestation
and do that in a way that creates business opportunities for
local populations and sources of income.
On the adaptation in particular, it covers a pretty broad
range of activities, but some of them, such as creating
climate-resilient agriculture, for example, I think are going
to be very important and will very directly deliver specific
results and specific outcomes. Other activities are designed to
really help countries develop their own adaptation strategies
to hotter and drier growing conditions to more droughts like
the one we saw in the Horn of Africa to resilience efforts.
Sometimes that may even include getting insurance to
pastoralist communities that are vulnerable to climate shocks
or helping farmers in Bangladesh who are vulnerable to floods.
So we are trying to find alignment between our Feed the Future
program, our climate change initiative, and our health efforts,
and we are trying to point resources toward those types of
things that do deliver specific development results in a
logical manner.
Senator Corker. So it is really more about in the ag
community getting people to plan for weather trends. Is that
what you are saying?
Dr. Shah. I am sorry? Weather?
Senator Corker. It sounds like it is really in developing
countries trying to get farmers there to look at weather trends
that are taking place and plant agriculture crops accordingly.
Dr. Shah. Those are some of the examples. One in
particular--we have a really exciting partnership with NASA
called SERVIR that allows us to marry some of their earth
observation systems and weather collection systems with the
reality of what is happening in certain parts of the world that
are vulnerable to climate shocks or to extreme weather events
and plan for and adapt to that. In our field, it is called
resilience programming. I know that is a technical term, but it
is helping communities really protect themselves against what
we know is happening which is more droughts in the Horn of
Africa, more floods in the delta in Bangladesh, and those types
of situations.
Senator Corker. If it is oriented that way--I know my time
is up--I would suggest a title change or something. I think it
sort of sends out a different signal when you first hear it,
and what you are talking about obviously fits, if it is
described as you just said, very much into much of the
agriculture efforts that Senator Lugar and others have talked
about.
I know my time is up. I look forward to talking to you in
more detail, and thanks for coming.
Dr. Shah. Thank you.
Senator Cardin. Senator Shaheen.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Administrator Shah, thank you very much for being here and
for your efforts on behalf of the country around the world.
I know that Senator Cardin raised the concern about
investing in women and the importance of doing that. I know it
is something that Secretary Clinton is very committed to, and I
happen to support the belief that investing in women is one of
our best development strategies if we are going to get the most
out of our dollars. And the hope is that we are coordinating
these programs and making those investments across all our
development efforts.
So I wonder if you could talk a little bit about how USAID
staff and contracting agencies are held accountable, what kinds
of metrics they have for integrating gender throughout all of
their planning and budgeting throughout program design,
throughout implementation and monitoring.
Dr. Shah. Thank you so much for that question and that
comment.
You know, we really do believe and understand and think
there are decades of strong data to substantiate the point that
if you can effectively engage women in development solutions,
you get better results, more sustainability, more kids in
school, reduced child malnutrition, and the structure of what
you are trying to accomplish becomes easier to accomplish and
solve and more sustained over time.
For that purpose we have really helped to put together the
national action plan for women: peace, and security. We have
introduced a new gender and women and girls policy that will
make sure that we do exactly what you suggest, which is
establish metrics and measures in our major programs to be able
to assess whether our efforts are preferentially focused
effectively on women and girls and whether we are seeing
results from that.
Senator Shaheen. So can I just interrupt you? I am sorry.
So that effort is underway now? The metrics are not in place
yet. You are in the process of developing those?
Dr. Shah. Well, they are being developed for every area we
work in. In most of our major areas, we do have them. We have
spent a year putting this together and are steadily rolling
them out. Some examples include--we have a major effort in
using mobile phones and mobile banking to help people who
otherwise are not connected to a cash economy but do actually
have a mobile phone, use that tool to connect better to receive
financial services, be part of the economy. We believe and have
established specific targets within those efforts to make sure
they preferentially target and reach women and are seeing that
make a huge difference in Haiti where there have been more than
a million banking transactions, the majority of which have been
conducted by women on mobile phones who previously did not have
bank accounts or access to finance. The same is true in
Afghanistan and Kenya and other Asian countries where we are
prioritizing that effort.
In our agriculture program, we have launched a women's
empowerment index so that every one of our 20 Feed the Future
priority countries will report on the extent to which their
programs are empowering women farmers. And it actually has been
highlighted as a best practice in the field because it does not
just measure women's incomes, but also their relative standing
compared to men and their position in decisionmaking in their
communities.
In our civil society and democratic governance programs, we
are taking new efforts, together with Ambassador Verveer at the
State Department, to ensure that we are identifying women
leaders of NGOs and civil society organizations, providing
support as appropriate, but also bringing them into the embassy
fold and using our diplomatic resources to elevate their
visibility and their standing in country.
These are just some of a broad range of actions and
activities that get as operationally detailed as making sure
there is better lighting and safe spaces for women in IDP camps
and refugee camps from the get-go through our U.N. partners.
So I am very excited about the approach. I think it will
generate very concrete and real results, and we have a lot of
this detail. We would be happy to share that with you in more
detail as well.
Senator Shaheen. Great. Thank you very much.
And while we are talking about women, obviously one of the
issues that is very important to women is family planning.
International family planning remains a controversial issue. We
had former President Clinton and Bill Gates before this
committee last year, and I had the opportunity to ask them what
we could do to try and get beyond that controversy and
recognize that family planning is actually very pro-family,
pro-women. It is important to saving the lives of both women
and infants.
I wonder what experience you have had in your position
today and whether you have any thoughts about how we can make
this issue less controversial and more supportive of what women
and families need around the world.
Dr. Shah. Well, thank you. I perhaps also look forward to
learning your thoughts on that or Bill Gates' and President
Clinton's.
But at the end of the day, we know that our history of
program support in family planning has been one of our most
successful areas of work. We do not, as you know, in any way
support or fund abortion or any counseling related to abortion.
We have very strict controls on that.
We have seen in country after country a common pattern that
gets you to a place where you have a better demographic
situation for development, and that is, first, a significant
reduction in child mortality, and we know when that happens,
people and families invest more in kids, get them into school,
and they become the pathway out of poverty. And then that is
generally followed by a long-term and more effective approach
to family planning and reducing the total fertility rate in
countries. And the combination of those two things has been a
major part of the development success story in nearly every
success story we see around the world. So it is incredibly
important.
We have seen in our own programs that effective birth
spacing reduces maternal and child mortality by 25 percent, and
we think that there are relatively noncontroversial ways to
achieve that outcome simply as part of having trained community
health workers, the same people who are visiting people's homes
and making sure kids who are malnourished have access to
protein and micronutrients, also engaging in conversation about
just the facts related to the effectiveness of that approach.
In Pakistan, for example, we have helped train more than
22,000 health providers and have seen significant and positive
results in terms of reducing the birth cohort year on year as a
result of that effort over a number of different years.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Cardin. Thank you.
Senator Isakson.
Senator Isakson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it.
Dr. Shah, thank you for being here and your great
contribution to not just the United States but the whole world
community.
Let me, first of all, start off with a parochial interest,
if I might, and I doubt if you will know the answer, but if you
would check it out and let me know, I would appreciate it.
There is a program called the Peanut CRSP program which is
a collaborative research support program through USAID. It is a
5-year contract that ends at the end of this year and is being
reviewed for extension. There are a number of universities, of
which the University of Georgia is one, that are participating
in the program. And they have recently isolated a microtoxin
known as aflatoxin and tied it to the decline in human immune
systems, and they are making a major breakthrough in turning
that around and improving health.
So my interest would be to find out what the status of that
review is and what the agency thinks of what has been produced
so far by the Peanut CRSP program, if you would not mind.
Dr. Shah. Certainly. That has been an external evaluation
that is currently underway. We have tried to restructure our
entire research strategy in agriculture and food security, and
this is part of that review. I will explore the details and
come back to you on that.
But I do want to note that certainly aflatoxin is a
critical issue that we have expanded our focus on under the new
strategy, and we also would note that through some of our other
mechanisms, we have been working with, I believe, a group in
Georgia that is producing a peanut-based, high-nutrition
product for some of our food aid as our food aid makes the
shift to include more high-nutrient, high-protein, prepackaged
foods that have a bigger impact on helping kids survive and
overcome acute child malnutrition in certain settings. But I
will explore the details of the Georgia Peanut CRSP.
Senator Isakson. Well, at the risk of grandstanding, I was
not going to bring that up, but since you brought it up, that
is the Manna program, which is in Fitzgerald, GA, which is
where my mother was born. And they are making the packets that
are bringing nutrition to Somalia and Kenya right now during
the difficult drought, and it is a 3.5-ounce peanut paste with
fortified vitamins and powdered milk in it that is remarkable.
And it is produced by a not-for-profit. The other big producer
is a French company that is for-profit. So when you all make
note of that, make note that we are not-for-profit down in
Georgia.
Would you explain to me the role of USAID and the role of
CDC in PEPFAR?
Dr. Shah. Sure. Thank you, Senator.
I think from the beginning, PEPFAR was established to both
support countries to develop health systems and systems for
expanding service access to affected populations and to have a
very focused, disease-specific disease control model. So
initially the approach was CDC did what it does best, which is
epidemiological analysis, training of field workers,
identification of the structure of an epidemic, and development
with the host country of the strategy to address HIV/AIDS. And
USAID does what it has done best, which is support service
delivery, the development of a long-term sustainable health
system inclusive of financial models that will help it sustain
over time.
Over time, the reality is those lines have blurred, and now
both partners do a lot. When I started certainly, the degree of
overlap and duplication was pretty extraordinary. I want to
compliment both Tom Frieden and Eric Goosby, the Ambassador for
PEPFAR, and Tom, of course, the CDC Chief. But we have worked
very closely with them to try to improve our coordination in
countries to make sure we are getting to a much more efficient
approach to the provision of services and to ensuring there is
more country ownership and local responsibility for seeing the
program through. And it has been hard. It has been challenging
work, but I think we are seeing results because we are seeing
situations like in Kenya where without spending extra
resources, we were able to expand services considerably by
bringing these platforms together across CDC and USAID and
PEPFAR and just being more integrated about delivering services
to affected populations.
Senator Isakson. Is that specifically the program where you
isolated the 17 novel antibodies that may hold the key to
fighting the disease? Is it in Kenya?
Dr. Shah. That is part of a USAID program with an outside
partner called the IAVI, the International AIDS Vaccine
Initiative, that has helped to identify some novel antibodies
that we think will be an important breakthrough to try to
actually get a real HIV/AIDS vaccine.
Senator Isakson. Well, the reason I asked that question
is--and I am not a scientific guy by any stretch, nor a doctor
of medicine but it seems like to me that that is sort of a CDC
role not a USAID role. How much collaboration do you all do to
make sure you are not working at either cross purposes or
duplicating good purposes?
Dr. Shah. We do quite a lot of collaboration. Just being
perfectly honest, joining the U.S. Government from a different
entity, I was struck by how much coordination we do do. I think
it is necessary because there are these areas of overlap and
partnership. But at the end of the day, especially on our
research and development and technology efforts, of which that
is a part, we work with CDC but also the NIH, and the NIH is
actually the sort of hub within the Federal Government for
supporting those types of activities. So when we do work
against that goal, we do it with complete joint review of
programs and against an aligned strategy. And I think that is
why you are seeing some of the big efficiencies in the PEPFAR
program and in our health efforts create new opportunities for
the level of patient coverage and the level of impact we
believe we can achieve with constant budgets.
Senator Isakson. Well, I commend you and Dr. Frieden both
because we are getting more bang for the buck in PEPFAR than we
ever have, and a lot of that is because of the countries that
are receiving the help are doing more of the delivery. And our
cost is down to the retrovirals and the testing in a lot of
cases.
But I appreciate what you do in that, and I would love to
talk to you more when we get a chance about the comparable
roles because I think your programs provide a great service and
help open the door for the United States of America in some
places where we might not be as popular as we should be.
Thank you.
Dr. Shah. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Cardin. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Coons.
Senator Coons. Thank you, Senator Cardin.
I will just follow on with a line of questioning Senator
Isakson was hitting on there. As you can see, we have a great
partnership on the Africa Subcommittee.
And I would like to join Senator Cardin and Senator Lugar
in opening by expressing my regret at the passing of
Congressman Donald Payne who was deeply knowledgeable about
Africa and a great advocate both for your work in USAID and for
the work all of us are trying to carry forward in terms of
meeting basic human needs in Africa.
And I think, Administrator Shah, you have been a true
visionary and an innovator. You have really brought a new level
of energy and leadership and focus. In these difficult
budgetary times, championing USAID Forward has been difficult,
but I think has made real progress with procurement. I also
think in a number of the areas of initiative I have been able
to see in Africa, whether it is Feed the Future or the Global
Health Initiative, as Senator Isakson was referencing, you have
been able to both reduce the total cost of service delivery
while improving outcomes. So I am grateful for what you have
done in improving development assistance and saving lives of
women and children and improving transitions.
If I could, I would be interested in just asking about how
we are going to continue to meet the challenges of global
development in these difficult budget times and what in
particular we can do to apply science and technology solutions
to the very complex challenges of development. In February at
the White House Innovation in Science and Technology, you
announced an RFA, a request for application, for a higher
education solutions network. And it is my understanding this is
part of a larger initiative to harness cutting-edge innovation
in science and technology to American universities to implement
new solutions to development challenges. Senator Lugar
mentioned previously the dramatic increases in agricultural
production and output on his farm in just a few decades. I
think we are seeing comparable advances potentially in Africa
in farming.
Can you describe how this RFA will further help USAID's
innovation agenda while also helping universities here at home
and how this particular budget request advances science,
technology, and innovation at USAID? Sorry for the long
question. I know you can handle it.
Dr. Shah. Thank you, Senator Coons, and thank you for your
extraordinary leadership and counsel on this range of issues.
I think the basic premise around your question about how do
we drive the most significant transformational results in an
environment where budgets are going to be tight is that we have
to lower the cost structure of doing our work and we have to
literally invent new solutions that make extraordinary things
possible. That happened a couple of times in our history. In
the 1960s and 1970s the Green Revolution, as Senator Lugar has
certainly talked to me about, happened in part because of great
new technologies created by scientists, in that case Dr. Norman
Borlaug. In the 1980s the USAID worked to create an oral
rehydration solution which since then has saved 11 million
children because it basically took the power to save a life out
of the hands of a doctor and put it in the hands of a mother,
and it turns out that is a much more effective way to save
children's lives.
We basically believe we are on the cusp of an era of a
whole new range of technological and scientific breakthroughs
and innovations that will do that again. Whether it is orange
flesh sweet potatoes that help kids avoid river blindness
because it has more vitamin A or whether it is new seeds that
use appropriate technologies and have more yields and more
resilience to climate shock or some things that come straight
out of U.S. universities. One of my favorite examples is a CPAP
device, which is a continuous positive airway pressure device,
that would normally cost thousands of dollars. A group of
students at Rice University invented one that costs $160. That
is going to save countless kids' lives in the first 48 hours
after birth in very difficult environments around the world.
So with that as our motivation, we launched this request
for partnerships with U.S. universities and institutions, and
we did it basically saying we want to find more dramatic, game-
changing, cost-reducing technologies and innovations and
approaches that will help us achieve the outcomes we have said
we are going to achieve with the investment of taxpayer
dollars. On three webinars, we have had more than 1,000 people
express interest. Every time I have gone to a U.S. college or
university, I am struck by the passion that students have. I
was at Bethel University outside of Minneapolis a few weeks
ago, and the students there had read our entire
countertrafficking in persons program. A student NGO had
already gone out to their partner country in Uganda and had all
these ideas.
We are not going to fund every idea, but we do want to
engage the power of American innovation and the power of
American research institutions and universities to really
change what is possible in development. It is something the
President and Secretary feel strongly about, and we have done
it before in our history and we can do it again in a way that
is responsible, cost-reducing, and hopefully inspiring to
students across this country.
Senator Coons. Thank you, and I am eager to work with you
in carrying that forward. And hopefully that will be a part of
this budget submission that will not just be sustained but
contribute to the success of your agency in our development
efforts.
You worked, along with many others, not the least of them,
Dr. Jill Biden, on drawing attention to the very real
humanitarian crisis in the Horn of Africa. Recently it has been
downgraded from a famine largely due to U.S. and other
multinational aid. I would be interested in an update on what
is the current status of the humanitarian situation in Somalia
and the Horn and what additional assistance is needed and how
the learnings from this particular famine are going to be
implemented and how these ongoing humanitarian needs are
reflected in your budget request.
Dr. Shah. Thank you.
As you point out, more than 13 million people were affected
because of the worst drought in more than 6 decades. When I had
the chance to travel with Dr. Biden and Senator Frist, we
actually met a young woman who had to make just a harrowing
choice because she had to walk with her two children for 70
kilometers to safety at the Dabaab refugee camp and actually
had to chose which child she could physically take forward
because she could not physically carry both on that dangerous
and difficult trek. It is extraordinary the stories we heard
and the conditions people were under.
In that context, the United States--and I think Americans--
can be proud. We are nearly 60 percent of the global response.
We put in place efforts that were both informed by prior
experience, targeting children who were most vulnerable, and at
a time when the U.N. was estimating that up to several hundred
thousand people might die, we were able, with our international
partners, to do some innovative things, some of which I can
talk about, some of which I really cannot, to make sure we had
access in very difficult environments. And I am convinced those
efforts helped save tens of thousands of lives. We will get
specific evaluations done and we will know very soon.
I think what we learned from that is that we have put in
place something called the Famine Early Warning System that
allows us to predict where these types of disasters will
happen. We have learned that we need to be more aggressive
about taking those predictions and creating an international
consensus to plan for the year ahead to try and get out in
front of disasters before they strike. And that is what we are
doing.
And later this month, we are organizing the entire
international community in Nairobi so that we plan for the year
ahead in the Horn. We know there are still more than 7 million
people at risk. We expect because of the current estimates are,
the rains will be poor again, we expect some ups and downs, but
we expect things to get worse before they get better. We want
to see as much burden-sharing across the international
community as possible, and we want to learn rigorously from the
things we did that worked and the things we did that did not
work so that we can be even more effective at saving lives this
year.
I also think most of this work is reflected in our IDA
account, the International Disaster Assistance Account, and I
thank the committee for its support of those budgets.
And I would finally just conclude on that point by saying
that at the same time that we saw that extraordinary disaster,
that afternoon we had a chance to see some of our Feed the
Future programs actually working. We saw kids receiving orange
flesh sweet potato and the impact that made on their health and
their livelihoods. We heard from farmers on a research station
working with scientists that were doubling or tripling their
yields of maize in the western part of Kenya. And the estimates
are that in Kenya alone, about 4.5 million people did not need
assistance because of improvements in their agriculture over
the last few years. And that is the trend we really want to see
in a consistent, focused, results-oriented way to really take
hold over the next decade.
Senator Coons. Thank you. Thank you, Dr. Shah.
Senator Cardin. Dr. Shah, you mentioned about specific
evaluations which I think are very important as related to our
famine relief but also as it relates to all of our programs.
Feed the Future is an initiative of the Obama
administration. You have mentioned it several times in your
testimony, most recently on dealing with nutrition and life and
also dealing with gender issues and women. I think it would be
helpful for us if you could give us how we can evaluate
progress made on Feed the Future, what your objectives are. I
know that you have done this, but if you could provide that to
the committee as to the progress you believe we can make in
Feed the Future in the short term and long term, I think it
would be helpful for us to have that information.
And I would encourage you to provide as much specifics
about the results of USAID as you can because it is important
not just for us to feel good, but it helps provide the type of
support we need here in the United States for these programs
but also I believe encourages stronger partnerships, not just
with other governments but with private entities, when we know
that what we do has real consequences. For a mother to have to
make a decision as to what child to take is heartbreaking, and
we all can do better. So I think the more specifics you can
give us, the better we will be.
I want to ask you one or two more questions before we
conclude and turn to Senator Lugar.
Afghanistan. We have not talked a lot about Afghanistan
here. I am very concerned about the safety of our workers in
Afghanistan. We see daily reports about the Afghan people
expressing not only lack of interest in what the United States
is doing, but the fact that even though we are the largest
donor of aid, they do not believe we are doing anything to help
them. I do not know how we continue a program without the
support of the people of the country. So I just really want you
to be able to comment with us as to the safety of our workers
and those who are working with us in Afghanistan, and that
needs to be our highest priority, protecting their safety.
Dr. Shah. Thank you, Senator.
I appreciate your expressing such a strong commitment to
the safety of our personnel. As you know, we have pulled our
personnel from specific technical assistance roles where we
felt they were exposed to undue risk, given the current
situation and environment, and we will only be putting them
back in after Ambassador Crocker is convinced on a case-by-case
basis that that is an appropriate situation from the
perspective of their safety.
We also know that later this month there will be the
implementation of the decree around the Afghan public
protection force, and we have worked hard over the last 18
months to make sure we reduce our need for private security
contractors. Today more than 75 percent of USAID programs do
not require private security contractors, but 25 percent do.
And we have been working very
actively with those implementing partners to make sure that
they have a pathway to safety and security as they work to
complete these programs and transition them to Afghan host
country institutions.
We will stay very focused on the safety of our United
States direct-hire staff and the safety of our Foreign Service
nationals, the Afghan nationals, that really do take incredible
risks to carry out this mission and do it in a visible and
transparent manner.
I am also glad in your opening statement you made reference
to some of the accomplishments of the program. It has been my
belief that we have done a better job over the past 2 years or
so of aggressively communicating some of the specific
advantages these programs have had to the Afghan people, the
fact that longevity has increased for Afghan women by nearly 2
decades, the fact that health services have gone from 7 percent
to 64 percent, that there are 7 million kids in school, 35
percent of whom are girls. Compared to when we started that
work, it was just a few hundred thousand. And we have built out
800 kilometers of road and seen year on year annual growth
rates of nearly 10 percent.
We know that this situation needs to focus on and we have
been very aggressive about making it more sustainable and have
a number of different approaches we have been taking over the
past 2 years to enhance the sustainability, including working
with the Afghan Government to increase their own domestic
revenue collection, which has gone up fourfold, and we think
will continue to rise as they assume more direct
responsibility.
But these are important results and they are the results
that have accrued because our team has been there, has taken
risks, and has focused on delivering those outcomes.
Senator Cardin. Our involvement in Haiti pretty much
parallels your leadership in USAID. Well, we were involved
before, but since the tragedy occurred. Can you just give us a
brief update as to the capacity of the Haitian civilian
authority to take on responsibility to maintain the progress
that has been made through international assistance?
Dr. Shah. Sure. We have seen steady and now accelerating
progress in areas like agriculture, access to financial
services through mobile phones, improvements in health. The
cholera epidemic, which was so devastating, is now down well
below international norms and standards. And we have been
working aggressively to help the new President, President
Martelli, build the capacity to assume greater responsibility.
They have gone through a long process that had an effective
democratic election of a new President and new Parliament. But
it has been a slow process of building the institutional
capacity in the Haitian Government to effectively take on all
of these responsibilities. That is why we will continue to work
with them as a partner, consulting and taking their guidance on
when they want to really hold hands and do activities and
programs together and when the priority needs to be, as it has
been with efforts to get people out of settlements and tents
and into homes, a more directed effort to just get the job done
as quickly as possible in discussion, dialogue, and
partnership.
I would also say in that context the role of the private
sector has been I think underdiscussed in the context of Haiti,
but our partnership with Coca-Cola to reach 20,000 farmers and
create a mango juice value chain I think is a good example of
what is possible when we work effectively with the private
sector. And we are now seeing new announcements by Marriott to
build a hotel in Port-au-Prince and the opening of an
industrial park in the north that can create nearly 60,000
jobs. And those are the kinds of partnerships we have been
eager to build together with our Haitian counterparts.
Senator Cardin. Thank you.
Senator Lugar.
Senator Lugar. I just want to thank again Dr. Shah for very
informative testimony. I have no more questions, only
commendation for the hearing.
Senator Cardin. And let me join again Senator Lugar in the
compliment to our witness and to the work that you are doing
and that your agency is doing in furtherance of U.S. objectives
in a very difficult environment.
The record will remain open for 1 week for questions by
members of the committee. I would ask that you respond as
promptly as possible if questions are propounded.
And with that, the hearing will stand adjourned. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 4:20 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
----------
Additional Material Submitted for the Record
Responses of USAID Administrator Rajiv Shah to Questions Submitted
by Senator John F. Kerry
Question. Earlier this year USAID released its new ``Climate Change
and Development Strategy'' highlighting the Agency's commitment to
addressing the impacts of climate change and capturing opportunities to
promote solutions. This strategy is an important step forward for
increasing the effectiveness of development assistance by providing a
roadmap for integrating climate change efforts throughout the Agency's
programs.
Given that integration is one of the three pillars to the
new strategy, please describe how USAID is working to integrate
climate change throughout its development portfolio. How will
USAID measure that integration?
Answer. Global challenges, particularly in development, are
increasingly complex and interrelated, and thus demand integrated
solutions that bridge traditional programming sectors. Climate change
is an inherently cross-cutting issue that presents risks and
opportunities for numerous areas of USAID programming. For example,
more variable rainfall, stronger storms, and increasing temperatures
have the potential to reduce agricultural productivity; warming ocean
temperatures and ocean acidification are already negatively impacting
fisheries. These impacts are poised to undermine the livelihoods of
millions in developing countries, especially the poorest. Similarly,
increased incidence of flooding and drought, saltwater intrusion into
drinking water supplies, and the migration of disease vectors into new
areas (such as mosquitoes carrying malaria) will affect public health
by undermining access to clean water and sanitation, undercutting
nutritional gains, and changing disease distribution patterns and
prevalence. Strategic integration of climate change offers the
opportunity to increase impact and achieve sustainable, resilient
development solutions that address interrelated issues simultaneously.
For example, USAID's experience in disaster risk reduction provides a
solid foundation for expanded efforts to build resiliency by helping
the most vulnerable populations adapt to and avoid climate change
impacts, and to quantify the costs associated with increasing climate
change risks. Many years of leadership in biodiversity conservation and
natural resources management inform climate-sensitive approaches to
land-use planning and sustainable use of natural resources such as
forests and water.
In support of the new Climate Change and Development Strategy,
USAID has embarked on a series of integration pilots that will help to
develop a suite of practices and tools that can be adopted throughout
the Agency's development portfolio. Pilots will emphasize integration
of climate change considerations into other administration priorities
such as the Feed the Future and Global Health Initiatives, sustainable
economic growth, water, gender, democracy and governance, youth, and
security. Pilots will demonstrate the potential to generate lessons and
tools over the next 1 to 4 years. An integration pilot, for example,
might test ways to reduce energy consumption as part of a USAID
agriculture program. The results will inform the Agency's wider
development portfolio moving forward.
Crucial to integrating climate change is integrated program
planning that is problem-oriented and maximizes cobenefits.
Consideration of climate change in strategic planning, program design,
and project implementation across a wide range of development sectors
is essential to the success of USAID's mission. It must become the
responsibility of all USAID development professionals to consider the
impact climate change will have on their efforts and to search for
opportunities to promote greener, cleaner, more resilient approaches to
driving development results. To enhance the ability of staff to do
integrated programming, USAID has already developed and fielded
specific training modules on Integrating Global Climate Change in
Development, as well as sector specific training modules, and has
developed climate change guidance for country strategies. Current
efforts are also analyzing ways to enhance Agency project design,
management, monitoring and evaluation practices to be better able to
integrate climate change issues.
In addition, the Agency has developed a comprehensive climate
change results framework and a set of metrics to measure progress,
which will be refined over time as lessons and trends emerge. Over the
coming years, the Agency will evaluate a series of climate change
integration pilots that are testing different approaches to integrating
adaptation and mitigation into other USAID development endeavors. For
instance, a pilot to help smallholder farmers in the Dominican Republic
adapt their agricultural and business practices to better cope with
climate variability and change will help the Agency evaluate the
efficacy of its adaptation interventions and better integrate climate
adaptation into its broader food security portfolio. In addition,
Agency GCC and monitoring and evaluation specialists are engaging
actively with other donors and experts to develop more robust
adaptation indicators that will better estimate the impact of climate
adaptation programs.
Question. It is important for USAID to consider climate change
throughout relevant program development, from supporting research to
in-country programmatic implementation. Please describe a few
noteworthy examples of interventions that will showcase this holistic
and comprehensive integration.
Answer. USAID's newly adopted Climate Change and Development
strategy has three objectives--mitigation, adaptation, and integration.
The integration objective seeks to mainstream climate change across
USAID's core programs, in recognition of the fact that climate change
is not a sector unto itself; rather it is a set of global, national,
and local challenges that can undermine progress and increase
vulnerability and insecurity in development sectors throughout
developing countries.
It is incumbent upon USAID to consider the impacts of climate
change on our development goals and objectives, the country's
development plans, and public and private investments when designing
strategies and programs. USAID has therefore asked its missions to
inform themselves of the potential impact of climate change on their
host countries and their development priorities in the earliest stages
of developing a Country Development Cooperation Strategy (CDCS) and has
provided guidance to help them do so. Many missions are pursuing
explicit climate mitigation and adaptation results within their broader
development objectives. Others will monitor climate-related measures as
they design and implement traditional development objectives, such as
food security and health.
For instance, one mission is building an ``improved economic
governance'' subobjective into its economic growth objective, which,
among other things, will monitor the quantity of reduced greenhouse gas
emissions, providing a ``more responsible management and development of
natural resources'' subobjective. This will allow the mission to
monitor and report on total investments facilitated by USG for
hydropower development and number of hectares under improved management
practices.
Question. The administration is not seeking Global Health Program
funds for Pakistan for FY 2013. Global Health and Child Survival
(USAID) funds amounted to $29.7 million in FY 2010 and $28.4 million in
FY 2011. How much funding are you providing for Global Health
activities within the Economic Support Fund (ESF) account for Pakistan
in FY 2013 and what are the objectives? Is the proposed funding level
sufficient to achieve them?
Answer. U.S. Government (USG) efforts in global health are a
signature of American leadership around the world. The Global Health
Initiative (GHI) is saving and improving the lives of millions,
spurring economic growth, and strengthening families, communities, and
countries.
Pakistan is a vital country within the GHI, and its importance is
reflected in the administration's FY 2013 $70 million request for the
health portfolio. The USAID/Pakistan health portfolio is focused on
enabling the provincial governments to strengthen the provision of
health services, improve the management of the health care system, and
increase coverage of services. The FY 2013 request will contribute to
the reduction of maternal and child mortality and unintended pregnancy
through strategic programming of high-impact integrated family planning
and maternal and child health, and health systems strengthening
interventions.
Question. Polio remains endemic in Pakistan. Last year, more than
175 cases of polio were reported, which was the highest caseload in the
world. According to UNICEF, ``roughly 700,000 children in [Punjab]
province already miss immunization drives . . . [and] medical experts
fear this number will now rise.'' What steps is USAID taking to help
support efforts to eradicate this disease in Pakistan?
Answer. USAID, working through the World Health Organization (WHO),
supports the national polio surveillance system, which identifies and
investigates suspected polio cases; collects and analyzes laboratory
samples to determine the type of virus circulating; and publishes
weekly surveillance updates, which are widely disseminated. USAID also
supports UNICEF's work to develop communication networks that build
public trust in immunizations, increase community awareness about
immunization campaigns, and increase demand for immunizations. This
network of community mobilizers is targeted in areas with high refusal
rates. USAID believes that surveillance and communication networks are
the two components of the polio eradication initiative that will lead
to eradication and strengthened disease control efforts. It is
important to note that there are other donors who support the
procurement of vaccines and the operational costs of the immunization
campaigns (e.g., per diem, transportation, ice packs and other
supplies). USAID works in partnership with these donors, which include
the World Bank, JICA, DFID and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
Question. I recognize and appreciate the efforts of USAID to update
its Pakistan Web site to improve the information available about its
development assistance program. I also believe it is important to
publish this information in local languages, such as Urdu, to ensure
that it is readily available to key audiences. Does USAID have plans to
translate its newly updated Web site into Urdu, and if so, when will
this occur?
Answer. While USAID does not have immediate plans to translate the
Web site to Urdu, we understand the importance of communicating in
local languages in Pakistan and are including Urdu information in a
variety of other communications efforts in Pakistan. USAID is reaching
out to key Pakistani audiences, which include Urdu-speakers, through
multiple mediums to advance U.S. foreign policy goals.
Over the last year, in particular, USAID has prioritized raising
awareness of U.S. assistance and mitigating unfavorable opinions of the
United States by sizably increasing communications efforts, including
in Urdu as well as Sindhi, Punjabi, Balochi, and Pashto. Public opinion
research has shown that the vast majority of Pakistanis receive
information from radio and television broadcasts rather than by the
Internet, so our initial emphasis in increasing awareness is to utilize
these mass media outlets. USAID now conducts a weekly call-in radio
program in Urdu that features USAID staff, partners, and beneficiaries.
It is widely broadcast and receives call-ins from across the country.
Television and radio are where 70 percent of Pakistanis receive
information and have accordingly been a focus of USAID efforts. Already
this year USAID has placed more than 10 documentaries about U.S.
assistance projects on five television stations for a total of 38
showings. USAID has also recently begun a multifaceted communications
campaign that will use television, radio, and print public service
announcements to increase awareness of U.S. civilian assistance.
Question. What activities did the Task Force for Business and
Stability Operations (TFBSO) undertake in Afghanistan in FY 2011? Which
Task Force activities in FY 2011 will be continued by USAID in FY 2012?
How is the Task Force working with USAID to transition those activities
it would like to see continue post-2014? What are the advantages and
disadvantages of transferring TFBSO activities to USAID?
Answer. TFBSO undertook activities in five programmatic areas in FY
2011: (1) Minerals; (2) Energy; (3) Indigenous Industries; (4)
Agriculture; and (5) Information Technology. Currently, there are no
plans for transitioning any of the FY 2011 TFBSO activities to USAID in
FY 2012 as TFBSO has received funding from Congress to continue
operations in Afghanistan through FY 2012. A new process of quarterly
coordination meetings between TFBSO, State, and USAID was recently
initiated to enhance dialogue and coordination. The Department of
Defense, the Department of State, and USAID are jointly developing a
proposed plan of action on the future of TFBSO and the possible
transition of its activities to the Government of Afghanistan, other
USG agencies, or the private sector. We expect the plan to be cleared
through the three agencies and submitted to Congress shortly.
Question. Please provide me with an update and description of your
new Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) framework for Afghanistan.
Answer. As you are well aware, monitoring and evaluation in a high
threat environment remains a longstanding challenge, including in
places such as Afghanistan. Our Agency understands that a framework of
clear, measureable goals and expected results is the heart of effective
programming. Direct monitoring of results not only enables us to
improve the quality of implementation abut also to inform others of
progress and lessons learned in Afghanistan. Under such tough
conditions as exist in Afghanistan, we are constantly refining and
improving our approaches to increase impact, improve oversight of
projects, and build Afghan capacity. The following constitutes the
major elements of our monitoring and evaluation program in Afghanistan:
Results Frameworks: USAID's Results Framework in Afghanistan
graphically represents the development hypothesis, defines goals,
development objectives, and multilevel results, along with
corresponding performance indicators for each objective and result.
Results Frameworks serve as the basis for project design, monitoring,
evaluation, performance management and reporting, and ultimately, the
Performance Management Plan.
Performance Management Plan: Since fall 2010, USAID/Kabul has been
reporting against a mission-level Performance Management Plan (PMP)
which illustrates how programs contribute to achieving overall U.S.
Government goals in Afghanistan. The Afghanistan mission's results
framework and PMP outline eight overarching assistance objectives, with
related intermediate results and indicators. All USAID programs are
mapped to results frameworks and report quarterly on indicators linked
to those results, showing progress toward goals. USAID's implementing
partners are also realigning their projects as needed to map against
the Results Framework and its PMP. The data for the Mission Results
Framework and PMP is tracked and monitored in a central database known
as Afghan Info.
Afghan Info: Afghan Info is the USAID mission's information storage
and retrieval system. In the first quarter of 2010, the mission began
using Afghan Info, a database through which implementing partners
directly report results against project indicators. In February 2011,
USAID/Afghanistan's 53,000 project site locations, PMP indicators for
the eight overarching strategy goals, and spending figures were added
to the system. Since February, the system has transitioned to a new
Web-based platform to provide increased U.S. Government oversight of
partner reporting and provide the mission with additional management
tools that can be accessed in Afghan Info, including performance
management functions, project evaluation documentation, and project
financials. Additionally, geospatial data is included in Afghan Info
for all USAID projects with specific locations. By knowing the location
of the project sites and examining program performance, USAID can (1)
ensure better integration of its programs and coordination among its
implementing partners; (2) manage resources; and (3) maximize impact of
its programs.
Third-party Monitoring and Evaluation: USAID/Afghanistan has had a
monitoring and evaluation (M&E) contract in place since 2006 that
provides the entire USAID mission with M&E services. The mission is
committed to maintaining the constant presence of a missionwide third-
party monitor in addition to support from other third-party monitors as
needed.
Monitoring & Evaluation Unit: In 2011 the mission established a
monitoring and evaluation unit to improve oversight, ensure compliance
with required agency M&E policies, and see that relevant information is
shared and understood widely within the mission. In 2011, the M&E team
of 3-4 full time staff has also established an extended M&E team
throughout the rest of the mission. All USAID/Kabul technical offices
have designated M&E liaisons who meet regularly with the core M&E Unit.
Third Party Monitors are also engaged by the mission. They are not
subject to Chief of Mission (COM) authority and therefore often have
fewer security restrictions than USAID direct hire employees to visit
projects and assess progress on the ground in real time. USAID
Contracting officers and key mission staff are encouraged to visit
their project sites to the maximum extent allowable under Chief of
Mission authority.
evaluation outlook for 2012
Increased Evaluation: USAID`s Afghanistan evaluation program is
aligned with the USAID Evaluation Policy issued in January 2011: http:/
/www.usaid.gov/evaluation/. It adheres to Agency guidelines for high
quality evaluations. Afghanistan has identified seven high quality
performance evaluations that will be completed between July 1, 2011,
and December 31, 2012.
Question. What are your projected levels of spending in FY 2014, FY
2015, and FY 2016 for Afghanistan and Pakistan?
Answer. The USAID Afghanistan and Pakistan missions are currently
in the process of preparing their FY 2014 Mission Resource Requests,
which will in turn inform the FY 2014 budget submission by USAID and
the Department of State to the Office of Management and Budget and,
subsequently, the FY 2014 Congressional Budget Justification. USAID's
budget request in FY 2014, FY 2015, and FY 2016 will ultimately be
determined by overall U.S. Government policy. In Afghanistan, the FY
2014 resource request will be guided by the ongoing comprehensive
review of our assistance portfolio in consultation with the Government
of Afghanistan. USAID is aligning programs with a focus on activities
that are the most necessary, achievable, and sustainable, and with the
intent of setting a foundation for an economically sustainable and
stable Afghanistan post-transition. As you know, in Pakistan, FY 2014
will be the last year under the Enhanced Partnership with Pakistan Act
of 2009. The FY 2014 budget request will be guided by an ongoing review
of our assistance portfolio in five priority areas of energy, economic
growth, stabilization, education, and health. It will also be guided by
consideration of broader foreign policy goals in Pakistan and the
region.
Question. What steps are you taking to ensure that USAID Forward
and other reforms you have made to agency operations are maintained and
strengthened beyond your tenure? What legislative measures have you
considered to strengthen these reforms in the long term?
Answer. I have spent a great deal of time working with USAID staff
in Washington and with our leaders and managers overseas to make the
USAID Forward reforms ``irreversible.''
We have approached this priority task on three levels:
By establishing and empowering a select number of new
organizational units where this was necessary to bring back
core competencies into the Agency;
By improving our recruitment, assignment and career
development services, ensuring we get the right staff in
the right place with the right skills;
By conducting a full review of all key regulations and
guidelines to ensure they do not stand in the way of our
officers' success.
In support of Implementation and Procurement Reform (IPR):
We are reviewing and revising relevant policies and
regulations in order to provide an enabling environment
that enables our staff to more easily work through partner
country systems and with local NGOs and businesses while
guarding against corruption or other improprieties. We are
also streamlining and simplifying our procedures and
compliance requirements so that we can be more cost
effective and broaden our partner base.
We are building sustainability into our country
development strategies and project design and requiring
that all our programs consider how to build more local
capacity. We want to transition out of certain countries or
at least out of certain sectors within the next few years
because we have built stronger local institutions that lead
their own country's development.
We are training staff in both Washington and the field to
ensure that staff across the Agency have the knowledge and
skills to make IPR an integrated part of the way we do
business.
Following the establishment of the Bureau for Policy,
Planning and Learning (PPL):
We are revising our policies mandating country strategies,
project design and evaluation to ensure these practices are
embedded in Agency operations.
We are training staff across the Agency to ensure USAID is
guided by evidence-based policy making and strategies.
We have reinstituted the AAAS program to bring high
quality scientists back to USAID and developed partnerships
with the scientific and university communities.
The new Office of Budget and Resource Management (BRM) and the
associated increase in budget responsibility at USAID is
institutionalized in the QDDR, which codifies reforms already underway
through USAID Forward.
BRM is making us more cost-effective:
By focusing budgetary resources on development and
humanitarian assistance activities and in countries where
there is a greater return on investment;
By strengthening the development voice in the formulation
of the International Affairs budget, through the
Administrator's comprehensive development and humanitarian
assistance budget as envisioned in the QDDR; and
By strengthening budgetary practice and attention to cost-
effectiveness throughout USAID.
To support and further talent management:
We have concentrated overseas expansion funded through the
DLI program in Africa, Asia and the Middle East, and more
than doubled the number of engineers, economists,
agricultural, health, financial management, and contracting
and project development cadre through new hiring.
We have launched an ambitious mentoring program, and
expanded career development counseling and staff care
services for our workforce, enabling us to better meet the
needs of USAID's larger and more diverse workforce.
Recognizing that the success of any change management
program rests on leadership, we have published and widely
discussed a set of leadership principles that senior
managers are being held accountable for. We have also
expanded both the use of survey tools and social media to
generate more awareness and enthusiasm for the reforms
among our staff.
To advance innovation through the newly established Office
of Innovation and Development Alliances (IDEA):
USAID has reformed and improved the application process
for public-private partnerships that has resulted in
multiple multimillion dollar partnerships as well as small
grants to growing entrepreneurs, both domestic and
international, to achieve targeted development goals.
USAID has created a new tool, Development Innovation
Ventures, to engage with new partners and embrace a venture
capital approach to development that leverages small scale
investments to have a significant development impact.
USAID is using mobile technology to integrate electronic
payments and mobile banking into our development programs
and host-country financial systems to increase aid
effectiveness, transparency, and accountability across the
board and to cut costs associated with cash payments (i.e.,
transportation, security, and printing).
To sustain the momentum we have achieved, I ask your help
with the following:
(Implementation and Procurement Reform) To ensure that
USAID can manage the increased partner base, we have
requested the authority to create a Working Capital Fund
resourced from program funds obtained via a fee-for-service
model of up to a 1 percent charge on estimated annual
acquisition and assistance obligations worldwide. We will
use the fees collected to improve acquisition and
assistance services to bureaus, offices, and missions, and
to realign our workforce to match evolving Agency policy
and priorities. This new way of operating will allow USAID
to enhance its procurement capacity, build local capacity,
provide better service, and increase strategic sourcing of
supplies and services.
(Budget) To continue the progress we have made, we ask
that you continue your strong support of USAID's
development assistance, humanitarian assistance, and
especially its operational expense budget which is
essential in making USAID truly the world's preeminent
development agency.
______
Responses of USAID Administrator Rajiv Shah to Questions Submitted
by Senator Richard G. Lugar
afghanistan
Question. The administration has long been engaged with President
Karzai's government in concluding a longer term Partnership Agreement,
as other allies have done, with little progress and diminishing
prospects for success. Some now suggest an agreement may be unlikely.
How will the United States effectively implement foreign assistance at
the levels proposed by the President with this situation of diminishing
cooperation, especially given the lessons we must draw from Iraq?
Answer. The United States and Afghanistan have signed a strategic
partnership agreement that demonstrates the enduring U.S. commitment to
Afghanistan, strengthens Afghan sovereignty, and allows us to continue
targeting terrorists together so they cannot outlast us.
A prime example of our ongoing cooperation and close collaboration
with the Government of Afghanistan (GIROA) is the joint review of U.S.
assistance programs held in March 2012. These reviews were unique in
that they focused on U.S. assistance at the project level, and provided
a comprehensive and frank review of each project's performance and any
outstanding issues from the perspectives of the U.S. and Afghan
Governments. Afghanistan's participation was led by the Ministry of
Finance at the Deputy Minister level, and included the Minister of
Mines and high-level representatives from the Ministry of Agriculture,
Irrigation and Livestock, the Ministry of Justice, the Ministry of
Reconstruction and Rural Development and the Independent Directorate
for Local Governance. Key issues raised by both sides included
alignment with key deliverables for National Priority Programs under
the Afghanistan National Development Strategy, coordination with other
donors, and sustainability and progress toward transition goals.
This joint review process reflects an unparalleled and increasing
level of dialogue and cooperation between the U.S. Government and the
Government of Afghanistan on development issues. It also comes at a
critical time--despite the various challenges to U.S.-Afghan
cooperation in recent months. The U.S. Government's continued
collaboration on development issues sends a strong signal to our fellow
donors and GIROA about our commitment to Afghanistan. Furthermore, the
willingness of the Afghan Government to engage in detailed and critical
dialogue and take an active role in the implementation of U.S.
assistance is a sign of an ongoing commitment to collaborate
productively with the U.S. Government and an increasing and critically
important ability to take ownership of development as we approach the
transition in 2014.
Question. How will our assistance and planning be affected in the
absence of such a strategic agreement?
Answer. We are committed to a strong, enduring partnership with
Afghanistan and we were heartened that the Loya Jirga expressed its
support for this partnership at its meeting in November 2011. The donor
community, including the United States, has been working closely with
Afghan Government officials to plan assistance post-2014. And as
mentioned above, USAID has conducted an extensive review of its
portfolio with the Afghan Government, to ensure that its activities
support Afghan development priorities, build Afghan capacity, and
promote sustainability of development. These reviews reflect a
commitment on both sides to work productively to achieve jointly
responsible development results over the long term. In addition, at the
December 2011 Bonn Conference, the United States, along with the
broader international community, committed to supporting Afghanistan as
it consolidates its development and security gains, and moves toward
self-sufficiency. This commitment will be reemphasized in the coming
months at both the May G8 meetings and the July 2012 Tokyo Conference
on Afghanistan. One of the key dimensions of this commitment is the
principle of ``mutual accountability,'' in which the United States and
broader donor community continues to closely coordinate with and align
its assistance in support of the Afghan Government, while the Afghan
Government for its part fulfills key governance commitments it outlined
at the Bonn Conference.
Question. How have you ensured that the available assistance that
is appropriated is closely managed and applied to only the highest
national security purposes rather than an Afghan wish list that might
perpetuate the misgovernance present in many parts of the country?
Answer. USAID programs in Afghanistan are designed to further U.S.
policy objectives and regularly evaluated to assess whether they are
having a positive impact in support of U.S. national security. USAID's
country program, as approved through and guided by the interagency
process, supports the administration's goal of disrupting, dismantling,
and defeating al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan and eliminating its
capacity to threaten America and our allies by stabilizing key
districts and enabling Afghans to develop a foundation of sustainable
economic growth and effective, legitimate governance.
As the United States and international partners prepare to
transition greater security responsibility to Afghan forces, USAID is
focusing its assistance on the development of a stable Afghanistan by
working to enhance the ability of Afghanistan to withstand the
economic, security, and governance challenges associated with the
transition and drawdown of the international forces.
Importantly, USAID is implementing the Administrator's
Sustainability Guidance for Afghanistan to ensure sustainability and
accountability. USAID's country program, as a result of the
sustainability review conducted within the USG and with the Afghan
Government, will focus on (1) driving inclusive economic growth; (2)
enabling increasingly effective governance; and (3) fostering a more
resilient and capable population able to demand and receive government
services. As we go forward, USAID programs will: (1) increase Afghan
ownership and capacity; (2) contribute to stability and confidence in
the Afghan Government; and (3) be scrutinized for efficient cost and
results.
Each technical area in USAID/Afghanistan has a high-level goal
which contributes to establishing stable and effective Afghan-led
development. Some key sector goals include improved performance and
accountability of governance. The mid-level results, assuming success,
will combine to achieve the higher level goals. Indicators are
associated with every level of goal to signal to the mission whether
progress is being made or if managers need to make adjustments to the
program.
USAID also works with other USG entities and donors operating in
Afghanistan to ensure that its assistance is aligned with the work of
others and there is no duplication of effort. As USAID plans for the
2014 security transition, and noting a decline in its resources, USAID
is focusing its program on key foundational investments in priority
sectors--such as energy, agriculture, extractive industries, and human
capital--that will help develop Afghan capacity, promote economic
growth, and increase government revenue generation to support a
sustainable, durable transition in Afghanistan.
Coordinating interagency USG assistance to Afghanistan is important
for maximizing the developmental impact of donor funds, avoiding
duplication of effort, and strengthening our partnership with allies in
Afghanistan. In Washington, USAID works closely with our counterparts
at the Department of State to ensure close coordination in our
programming and overall assistance goals. In Kabul, all of USAID's
activities in Afghanistan are closely overseen by State's Coordinating
Director for Development and Economic Affairs. Beyond Kabul, USAID
works hand in hand with field staff from State, the U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Department of Defense, and other agencies as part of the
Regional Platforms, Provincial Reconstruction Teams, and District
Support Teams.
Question. What is the current level of USAID assistance in the
following areas:
Humanitarian assistance such as that needed for the fierce
winter they are
experiencing;
Development assistance such as agriculture or
infrastructure;
Stabilization assistance such as pay for work and diesel
fuel for generators?
Answer.
Humanitarian assistance such as that needed for the fierce winter they
are experiencing
The USAID/Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance (OFDA)'s funding in
Afghanistan has totaled approximately $36 million since 2010, with
$17.7 million programmed thus far in FY 2012. In response to the severe
winter this year, USAID/OFDA mobilized to provide cold weather-related
emergency relief supplies, including blankets, winter clothing, shoes,
and shelter materials, to approximately 28,000 of the estimated 30,000
residents of the Kabul Informal Settlements. To quickly address
humanitarian needs of newly displaced people, USAID/OFDA supports the
prepositioning of emergency relief supplies in strategic locations
throughout Afghanistan, which relief agencies draw upon when population
displacement or other emergency needs occur, such as the avalanches
this month.
Other examples of OFDA's humanitarian assistance activities in
Afghanistan include providing humanitarian air services to allow
humanitarian workers to access vulnerable populations in remote areas;
building emergency preparedness and response capacity among local NGOs
and community leaders; and increasing public awareness of natural
hazards and building local emergency preparedness through community-
based training programs. USAID/OFDA is also supporting efforts to
advocate at the national level for child protection in emergencies and
to enhance the capacity of government and civil society organizations
to meet children's emergency protection needs.
Development assistance such as agriculture or infrastructure; and
stabilization assistance such as pay for work and diesel fuel
for generators
The following table provides a summary of how USAID expects to
program its FY 2011 foreign assistance resources in Afghanistan. In
agriculture, for instance, USAID expects to invest approximately $83
million of FY 2011 funds. Agriculture is a critical sector of the
Afghan economy, with approximately 75 percent of Afghans deriving their
livelihoods from agricultural activities. USAID resources in this
sector support activities such as irrigation and watershed management;
improving food security by strengthening agricultural value chains;
promoting agribusiness; and building the capacity of the government to
manage this sector. Our FY 2011 investments in infrastructure,
including approximately $538 million in power, underpin the USG's
economic growth and job creation strategy in Afghanistan and will be
used to expand power transmission and strengthen revenue generation and
commercialization to improve cost recovery and strengthen the
government's fiscal position. Going forward, our focus in the
infrastructure sector is increasingly on operations and maintenance and
the sustainment of investments to date by Afghans. We have no plans to
fund diesel fuel for generators.
USAID Assistance by Sector--Afghanistan
[Dollars in millions]
FY 2011
Enacted
Total USAID Assistance........................................ 2,037.5
==============================================================
____________________________________________________
Governance.................................................... 817.4
Stabilization and Local Governance........................ 240.8
Democracy, Governance..................................... 576.6
Justice/Rule of Law........................................... 89.9
Rule of Law............................................... 23.9
Counternarcotics--Alternative Development................. 66.0
Economic Growth............................................... 874.7
Roads and Water........................................... 140.0
Power..................................................... 538.3
Agriculture............................................... 83.3
Economic Growth/ Private Sector Development............... 113.1
Social Sector................................................. 255.6
Education................................................. 95.0
Health.................................................... 160.6
USAID's programs also support the hold-build-transfer stages of the
military's counterinsurgency strategy in Afghanistan. USAID expects to
program approximately $240 million of FY 2011 resources for programs
such as the Afghanistan Stabilization Initiative, the Community
Development Program, and the Stabilization in Key Areas program, which
work in key areas to build confidence in the government and create an
environment that is more conducive to the transition of Afghanistan to
a stable and productive state that is responsive to citizen needs.
While USAID continues to engage in some cash-for-work programs, going
forward, our stabilization programs will be increasingly focused on
supporting the transition to Afghan-led development and building the
capacity of the Afghan Government to address sources of instability. In
addition to these programs, other USAID programs, such as those in
democracy, economic growth, and health and education, contribute to
long-term stability by building the capacity of Afghan Government and
improving its connection with, and service to, the Afghan people.
iraq
Question. Iraq recently passed a 117 trillion dinar budget (about
$100 billion), based principally on revenues generated from an average
oil price of $85 per barrel and 2.6 million barrels per day (bpd) in
crude exports. World crude oil is now trading at $107 per barrel and
rising. These new numbers should bring Iraq yet another budget surplus.
Given Iraq's budget reality and ours and the tremendous cost of simply
housing, protecting, and feeding USAID employees and contractors in
Iraq and the difficult political and security environment there, what
impacts are USAID programs having?
Answer. USAID continues to meet the challenge of operating
effectively in a dynamic security environment while still maintaining
the safety of our personnel.
Iraqi Government Cost Sharing
On April 9, 2009, in accordance with congressional mandates in the
2009 Supplemental Appropriations Act (Public Law 111-32), the State
Department adopted a set of policy guidelines on Iraqi Government
matching for U.S. assistance funds, which require financial or in-kind
Iraqi Government counterpart contributions for most U.S.-funded foreign
assistance programs and projects that directly benefit or involve the
Iraqi central government. USAID has applied this requirement to the
budget planning process for Iraq. USAID requires that the program costs
of assistance that directly benefits Iraqi Government institutions--
except certain extraordinary costs such as security and life support--
be matched on a dollar-for-dollar basis in cash or in-kind. The Iraqi
Government's contributions are specifically quantified prior to the
initiation of assistance and include a plan for transitioning
responsibility for the project to the Iraqi Government, and semiannual
reporting requirements.
USAID's previous Tatweer National Capacity Building project was the
first project to formally seek cost-sharing from the Iraqi Government,
but only partially since it had been awarded in July 2006 before the
congressional mandates. USAID's Primary Health Care Project awarded in
March 2010 was the first USAID project to fall fully under the
congressional cost-share mandates. So far, the Iraqi Ministry of Health
has committed to share the $56 million cost of USAID assistance to
improve the delivery of primary health care services. USAID is
currently negotiating cost-sharing agreements for the following
projects which directly benefit the Iraqi Government and fall under
congressional cost-sharing mandates.
Governance Strengthening Project ($39M)--capacity-building
assistance to provincial and local governments as well as
community groups.
Administrative Reform project ($113M)--assistance in
strengthening central Iraqi Government ministries and executive
departments.
Received approval for three education cost-share activities
($53M).
USAID projects are having some of the following impacts:
Community Development
The USAID Community Action Program (CAP) assists Iraqi communities
in identifying their priorities, and then formulating and implementing
solutions using local resources including advocating with Iraqi local
governments. Since 2008, over 850 community groups have implemented
more than 2,500 projects with USAID assistance. Recently, USAID-
supported community groups have been working with international oil
companies in southern Iraq to rehabilitate local schools, improve water
purification systems, and provide economic livelihoods to disadvantaged
women.
Microfinance
Since 2004, USAID-supported microfinance institutions have provided
more than 344,590 loans worth a combined value of over $808 million.
One component of the project focuses on vulnerable communities in Iraq
which include Internally Displaced Persons, ethnic and religious
minorities, and female-headed households. Another component of the
project focuses on expanding economic opportunity to Iraqi youth. The
project has benefited more than 4,000 Iraqi youth through Small
Business Development Centers by providing assistance in improving
business skills, finding employment, starting businesses and getting
loans.
Women
The USAID-supported Women's Awareness and Inclusion program, which
is implemented in southern Iraq has benefited 23,000 women since 2005
by empowering them through literacy and social inclusion programs. The
program assists women by providing 1-year basic literacy and numeracy
trainings which are supplemented with educational modules on cultural
and social awareness topics, such as democracy and governance, human
and women's rights, needs identification and prioritization--vital
tools for women, as they work to become powerful advocates and leaders
in their communities. Today, over 10,000 women and teenage girls are
enrolled in the program through 226 centers across the southern
governorates of Basra, Maysan, Muthanna, and Thi Qar.
Question. What are the top priorities for USAID Iraq in the medium
term?
Answer. USAID will continue efforts to assist Iraqis in using their
own resources to strengthen democratic governance and promote broad-
based economic prosperity through private sector growth. This includes
technical assistance to the Government of Iraq to improve its ability
to govern effectively, deliver essential services, and generate
economic growth.
USAID will also continue to support Iraqi microfinance
institutions, the private banking sector and the Central Bank of Iraq
to expand access to credit to Iraqi entrepreneurs, small and medium
enterprises, strengthen the private financial sector and promote
reforms that will encourage private sector investment.
pakistan
The population of Pakistan is estimated to increase from 170
million to 260 million by the year 2030. It is further estimated that
by 2030, the urban population will become double, and about 50 percent
of the total population of Pakistan will be living in urban area.
Experts examining U.S. civilian aid to Pakistan recommend that
assistance now focused primarily in rural areas be refocused urban and
periurban areas going forward. The growing dissatisfaction of the
populace in these areas stems from a combination of limited economic
opportunity, physical insecurity, and misguided or ambivalent
governance.
Question. To what extent are you examining investments in civilian
assistance in urban areas in addition to rural areas? What assumptions
are you using for such assessments, as they relate to our national
security interests in a long-term relationship with Pakistan? How does
the urban development element fit in the near term given the existing
threats that emanate from some of Pakistan's major cities? What
opportunities are there for collaborative development in such areas,
and what obstacles hinder their impact?
Answer. Several analyses have pointed to the importance of urban
and periurban areas to Pakistan's future, both in terms of economic
growth and countering violent extremism. As such, our approach to
civilian assistance to Pakistan--which is centered around five priority
sectors, namely energy, economic growth, stabilization, education and
health--very consciously strikes a balance between programming that
promotes urban versus rural development.
Our assumptions for assistance include that: (1) overall, U.S.
assistance is a nationwide program to benefit Pakistan's population
writ large, rather than any particular region; (2) that programming
will be intentionally split between urban and rural populations,
including the remote border areas of KP and FATA; and (3) that
opportunities to counter violent extremism will be a consideration in
program decisionmaking and design. These considerations acknowledge
that some of the greatest discontent and potential for extremism and
violence do indeed emanate from urban areas.
A number of economic growth programs oriented toward urban
development complement those with a rural orientation. Those focused on
urban growth include the ongoing entrepreneurs program, which has to
date trained 70,000 women entrepreneurs in financial literacy and other
skills, including in Karachi and other urban areas. In addition, a
program currently under design to provide investment capital to
Pakistani small and medium-sized enterprises will also foster urban
employment.
In energy, our top assistance priority, we are focusing primarily
on helping Pakistan resolve the shortfall it currently faces on its
national electric grid, in lieu of focusing on providing electricity to
rural populations off-grid or adding populations (and by extension
increasing demand) to the national grid. Such a decision has the effect
of focusing effort and resources on urban development, as only 60
percent of Pakistan's population is connected to the national grid,
predominately in urban areas. Prioritizing energy assistance and
development is also designed to address a core obstacle to urban
investment and employment, since insufficient energy supply is
responsible for large-scale unemployment and furloughs in industrial
areas.
sudan
Our committee will hold a hearing next week to examine the ongoing
crisis in Sudan following the secession of South Sudan. It appears the
Government in Khartoum is continuing to implement policies of violence
and forced isolation to bend the will of its remaining population.
Khartoum has also prompted South Sudan to cut off the flow of oil due
to allegations of theft and manipulation.
Question. What is the status of international assistance to Sudan,
especially to the conflict areas near the border with South Sudan?
Answer. Since the outbreak of violence first in Abyei in May 2011,
then Southern Kordofan in June 2011, followed by Blue Nile later in the
summer, virtually all international management of humanitarian and
development activities has come to a halt. The Government of Sudan
(GOS) continues to restrict international access and assistance to
government-controlled and nongovernment-controlled areas of Southern
Kordofan and Blue Nile.
Southern Kordofan and Blue Nile
Access for humanitarian and development organizations throughout
Southern Kordofan and Blue Nile states is highly restricted by the GOS.
USAID's humanitarian partners are limited to operating scaled-back
programs run by national staff with no direct monitoring or oversight
from expatriate program managers. The Sudanese Red Crescent Society
(SRCS) operates in GOS-controlled areas. Through $1.2 million in
funding to the International Federation of Red Cross (IFRC) and Red
Crescent Societies, USAID supports SRCS to provide humanitarian
assistance--including food, relief items, basic health care services,
and access to safe drinking water and sanitation facilities--to
internally displaced persons (IDPs) and other conflict-affected
populations in GOS-controlled areas. SRCS is also conducting family
tracing, mine risk education, and protection activities in child-
friendly spaces, in collaboration with local staff of U.N. agencies.
USAID also maintains a Rapid Response Fund, managed by the U.N.
Children's Fund (UNICEF), which enables relief organizations to quickly
access funding to meet emergency needs through both local and
international partners. To date since the outbreak of conflict in
Southern Kordofan in June 2011, USAID has provided assistance to people
in Sudan People's Liberation Movement/North (SPLM/N)-held areas.
Despite the GOS authorization in January for the return of a
limited number of U.N. international staff to Kadugli, the capital of
Southern Kordofan State, the movements and ability of U.N.
international staff to assess conditions and organize a response are
limited to Kadugli, where humanitarian needs are fairly well managed.
The U.N. international staff do not have access to the Nuba Mountains,
where up to 150,000 people are in dire need of humanitarian assistance.
USAID's partner, the U.N. World Food Programme (WFP), recently
modified its previous position that it would only provide food
assistance in Southern Kordofan if granted access to providing
assistance to all areas of the state, including SPLM/N-controlled
areas. While WFP will continue to press the GOS for unfettered,
statewide access, it will now assist in any location where the GOS
permits international WFP staff to participate in food security
assessments, even if this means that WFP can only provide food aid in
Sudan Armed Forces (SAF)-held areas. In early May, WFP national and
international staff and GOS technical staff conducted a joint
assessment of the food security situation among IDPs in four SAF-
controlled localities in Southern Kordofan. Subsequently, WFP
distributed full, 1-month rations to approximately 30,000 IDPs in these
locations.
Since the outbreak of conflict in Southern Kordofan in June 2011,
international humanitarian organizations have not been permitted to
resupply or deliver aid to newly vulnerable populations. The U.S.
Government is doing all it can do through indirect support to try to
save lives within the tight confines of limited access due to the
security environment. USAID is also closely coordinating with the U.S.
Department of State's Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration,
which is leading the response to the needs of the growing refugee
population in South Sudan.
The strong coping mechanisms of the population along with the small
amount of assistance that is getting in is helping mitigate the
immediate impact of the crisis, but we remain gravely concerned for the
innocent civilians caught in the midst of the conflict.
With respect to transition/development activities, these are
largely suspended due to insecurity and open conflict. USAID has had a
historic role in supporting the people of Sudan, particularly along the
fragile border. Since the signing of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement
(CPA) in 2005 until its close in July 2011, USAID worked with civil
society and political parties to support key CPA political processes in
the Three Areas (Abyei, Southern Kordofan, and Blue Nile), increase the
capacity of local government to be responsive to the needs of the
population, mitigate conflict between various tribal and ethnic groups,
and promote citizen participation in the CPA-mandated ``popular
consultations'' in Southern Kordofan and Blue Nile. However, since the
outbreak of violence along the border last year, virtually all
international management of these activities has come to a complete
halt. With open conflict ongoing in Southern Kordofan and Blue Nile,
and political stalemate between the GOS and Republic of South Sudan
over post-CPA issues including the status of Abyei, prospects for
local-level support to outstanding post-CPA processes in the Three
Areas are bleak.
When the operating and political environment allow, USAID stands
ready to provide humanitarian assistance and address outstanding CPA
issues. We are currently exploring how best to support building the
capacity of civil society organizations; developing and targeting
support to local governance; and expanding avenues for citizen
participation through civic education and engagement in the Three
Areas, and throughout Sudan, as appropriate.
Darfur
Despite a lack of consistent access to all areas in Darfur, USAID,
supported by other countries, including Japan, Canada, Norway, and the
United Kingdom, continues to provide critical humanitarian assistance
in Darfur.
USAID continues to meet emergency needs among internally displaced
and other conflict-affected populations while supporting early recovery
programs where conditions of security and access permit. Approximately
78 percent of USAID food assistance supports more than 3.2 million
IDPs, refugees, returnees, and conflict-affected residents of Darfur.
In FY 2011, USAID provided approximately $31 million--representing 44
percent of its FY 2011 nonfood humanitarian budget for Darfur--for
early recovery activities aimed at promoting sustainable livelihoods
among conflict-affected and IDP populations, including significant
numbers of returnees.
USAID recently completed an early recovery water assessment in
Darfur to better understand livelihood-related water needs and the
viability of various potential initiatives to increase sustainable
access to water for communities in stable and secure areas. USAID is
currently conducting a broader early recovery assessment to improve
ongoing and future early recovery programming. However, the ability to
implement a program based on recommendations from these assessments is
severely limited without the issuance of travel permits and
implementation protocols by the Government of Sudan.
Returnees
USAID funds Catholic Relief Services to support vulnerable,
transiting returnees in and around Khartoum and the International
Organization for Migration (IOM) for returnee tracking and monitoring.
In addition, USAID supports IOM to provide onward transport for
returnees once they arrive in South Sudan from Sudan. Onward transport
allows returnees to quickly reach their home areas throughout South
Sudan and begin their new lives. Currently, the humanitarian community
is facilitating the airlift from Khartoum to Juba of 12,000 to 15,000
returnees who had been stranded in Kosti--a key transit point in
Sudan--for long periods of time. The international donor community is
funding the airlift, and once the returnees arrive in South Sudan, they
receive onward transport to their final destinations through USAID
assistance and are supported by USAID partners to help them assimilate
and reintegrate in South Sudan.
Other Donors
The top five donors supporting the 2012 U.N. humanitarian appeal
are the United States, Japan, the United Kingdom, Canada, and Norway.
The U.N. appeal is nearly 29-percent funded at $306 million.
As of February, Canada, Japan, Norway, Sweden, and the United
Kingdom had contributed a total of nearly $1 million to the IFRC appeal
to support SRCS. The European Commission's Directorate-General for
Humanitarian Aid and Civil Protection (ECHO), the International
Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), Germany, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and
various U.N. agencies have also provided bilateral support to SRCS.
Question. How have you prioritized with the new mission in Juba,
South Sudan, the effective implementation of significant assistance in
an environment with little infrastructure, governance capacity, and now
no revenue since the oil pipeline has been closed?
Answer. Since the signing of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement
(CPA) in 2005, and through the agreement's conclusion in July 2011, the
regional Government of Southern Sudan benefited from oil revenues
mandated by the CPA and from generous humanitarian and development
funding by international bilateral and multilateral institutions. With
this support, many gains were made during the CPA years, including
tripling primary school enrollment and increasing access to potable
water. The decision by the Government of the Republic of South Sudan
(RSS) in January to shut down oil production, thereby reducing its
revenue to almost nothing (98 percent of past revenue was derived from
oil), disrupted this positive trajectory. Amid budget cuts in essential
services and growing inflation, South Sudan has begun to backslide on
prior developmental gains, forcing donors to reconsider long- and
medium-term growth and capacity-building strategies in favor of
humanitarian assistance to address looming conflict and food security
crises.
The RSS prepared an ``austerity'' budget for the remainder of the
fiscal year (through June 2012) that reduced operating and capital
expenditures and eliminated block grants to state and local governments
but maintained existing levels of salaries and allowances. While that
``austerity'' budget did little to reduce overall expenditures, a
budget newly proposed by the Council of Ministers for the upcoming
fiscal year would reduce expenses to only about U.S.$2.2 billion;
however, the RSS has cash guarantees for only half of the budget and no
plan yet for financing the remainder.
In the absence of alternative financing or resumption of oil
operations, estimates indicate that the RSS will spend down its
remaining revenue and reserves by sometime between June and October. At
that point, the RSS will have almost no money for salaries, operating
and maintenance costs, and investment. Without public resources, basic
health, education and other services will likely stop, as will RSS
maintenance of infrastructure and roads.
South Sudan loses an estimated $650 million in oil revenue each
month its oil wells remain closed, whereas combined donor contributions
constitute only about $550 million per year. Consequently, donors have
advised RSS that their support will not be sufficient to supplement the
fiscal gap between RSS resources and the anticipated needs. Moreover,
donors will be unable to support the programs planned in Government's
South Sudan Development Plan 2011-2013. The donors have also
communicated to RSS their concerns that the ``austerity'' environment
undermines the ability of South Sudan to build the institutions and
capacity necessary for inclusive economic growth and sustainable
development, and that RSS needs to develop an accelerated approach to
resolve all outstanding CPA issues, the chief issue being that of oil
production.
USAID's current strategy for working in South Sudan was predicated
on the assumption that the RSS would maintain uninterrupted revenue
flows and continue as an engaged partner, responsible for significant
contributions to basic service provision, procurement of essential
medicines, maintenance of roads and operating systems. A basic
challenge that USAID anticipates, even if the oil dispute is resolved
in the near term, is pressure to respond to increasing humanitarian
needs while still seeking to protect some of the state-building gains
realized over the six years of implementation of the CPA. USAID expects
that, if oil production is not restarted, humanitarian needs will
increase as the RSS becomes unable to fund basic state services.
Institution-building gains such as the automated systems introduced
over the last couple of years that have improved tax collection,
customs fees, and government budgeting may be jeopardized if funds are
not available to pay salaries for individuals who have been trained to
maintain them.
USAID is conducting a detailed review of existing programming to
respond to current priorities and needs in light of South Sudan's
current economic and humanitarian crisis. We are closely monitoring the
situation in coordination with our G6 partners (the United Kingdom,
Norway, European Union, United Nations, and World Bank). We will notify
the committee should conditions indicate that a shift in our basic
approach to working in South Sudan becomes necessary.
horn of africa drought
For more than 18 months, the Horn of Africa has been experiencing
the worst drought the region has seen in 60 years. Tens of thousands of
Somalis have lost their lives, including women and children. Thousands
of others have walked for days seeking food and shelter, and more than
730,000 Somalis are now displaced throughout Kenya, Ethiopia, and
Djibouti. In FY 2011 and to date in FY 2012, the United States has
provided more than $934 million in humanitarian assistance to the
region, making it one of the largest donors to the humanitarian effort.
What is the status of the Horn of Africa drought? What
additional funds do you anticipate requesting for the effort,
and what is the current outlook for the Horn?
Answer.
Current Status and Outlook
As of early February 2012, famine conditions had abated in Somalia,
and food security conditions had improved in Djibouti, Ethiopia, and
Kenya due to the favorable October-to-December rains in 2011. The
estimated number of people requiring humanitarian assistance in the
region declined from a peak of approximately 13.3 million people during
the second half of 2011 to an estimated 10.4 million as of February
2012. However, the food security situation throughout the region,
particularly in Somalia, remains extremely fragile and could
deteriorate.
Need for Continued Humanitarian Assistance
A continued large-scale response is critical in preventing a
deterioration of humanitarian conditions or a reversal of recent food
security gains throughout the Horn of Africa, particularly in Somalia.
Evolving needs in the region will determine the precise levels of
funding required from humanitarian donors. A number of factors will
affect humanitarian needs in the Horn of Africa, including another
anticipated season of below-normal rainfall combined with an incomplete
recovery of household asset losses, harvest yields, security
conditions, levels of humanitarian access, and local and regional food
prices.
Commitment to Building Resilience in the Region
USAID is committed to building greater resilience in the Horn of
Africa more effectively by connecting humanitarian and development
efforts. Through enhanced, joint humanitarian and development planning
and implementation, USAID is building resilience amongst the most
vulnerable populations in the Horn of Africa and mitigating the impact
of future droughts. USAID is engaging regional actors and other donors
to improve the link between humanitarian response, longer term
development, and donors.
Anticipated Needs in the Region
Despite recent improvements in food security, the outlook for the
Horn of Africa remains uncertain. The current USAID and U.S. Geological
Survey forecast indicates that the upcoming March-to-May rainy season
is most likely to be 10 percent below average and poorly distributed in
the eastern Horn of Africa. In the worst-case scenario, the upcoming
rains could be between 50 and 70 percent of average rainfall levels.
Below-average rains could negatively impact rain-dependent crops, as
well as pasture and water availability. Given the impact of the 2011
drought, USAID is actively preparing contingency plans to address the
potential effects of below-average rainfall in 2012.
USAID recognizes the urgency of improving resilience among families
and communities vulnerable to chronic drought and food insecurity
around the world, particularly in the Horn of Africa and the Sahel.
USAID is working to help communities throughout the Horn of Africa
recover from the recent drought and build resilience so that they can
withstand future crises while reducing the need for emergency
assistance. By investing in agricultural development in the region,
USAID is helping communities become more food secure and prevent future
food crises. In addition, by investing in livelihood diversification
and asset-building activities, USAID can increase the resilience of
vulnerable communities to withstand the impacts of future shocks.
FY 2013 Funding Requirements
In 2011, the United Nations (U.N.) and affected country governments
requested approximately $2.41 billion in assistance to respond to
humanitarian needs in Ethiopia, Kenya, and Somalia. In 2012, the U.N.
and affected country governments requested approximately $2.45 billion,
excluding a forthcoming revised appeal for refugee needs in Ethiopia.
In FY 2011, USAID provided nearly $544 million in humanitarian
assistance to respond to needs in Djibouti, Ethiopia, Kenya, and
Somalia. To date in FY 2012, USAID has provided more than $261 million
in humanitarian assistance for the region. USG funding for the region
totals more than $934 million for FY 2011 and FY 2012 to date.
USAID continues to provide additional support to respond to
assessed needs and evolving conditions. As USAID's humanitarian funding
accounts are global and contingency-based, the FY 2013 request does not
include country specific levels for the Horn of Africa. However, USAID
projects that funding requirements in FY 2013 will be commensurate with
FY 2012 levels, pending future assessments of humanitarian needs. The
FY 2013 request includes a total of $960 million for International
Disaster Assistance (IDA) for humanitarian needs worldwide and $1.4
billion in Food for Peace Title II funds, including $390 million
allocated for Title II development programs.
Chronic drought cycles and persistent development and humanitarian
needs will necessitate continued, robust assistance in the Horn of
Africa in FY 2013. USAID plans to continue prioritizing life-saving
initiatives to reduce mortality associated with food insecurity and
prevent a return to famine conditions in Somalia, while supporting
resilience and asset-building programs that will help mitigate the
impacts of future crises in affected areas throughout the region.
Question. FWD Campaign--I understand that for the first time USAID
has partnered with the Ad Council to raise awareness of the serious
plight of more than 10 million people who have been at risk from the
drought on the Horn of Africa. What is the status of this effort, and
how much funding has it raised from individual donors?
Answer. The purpose of the campaign, which launched in September
2011, was to inform, connect, and engage the American public with the
crisis in the Horn of Africa. Despite the severity and size of the
crisis nearly 60 percent of Americans knew nothing of the crisis, or
were unaware of the situation.
The text-to-give piece of the campaign, which USAID endorsed, was
run by a consortium of NGOs. World Vision organized and managed the
text campaign, distributing funds to the consortium of organizations.
No funds went through USAID or the Ad Council.
The campaign's tag line, ``Do More than Donate, FWD the Facts,''
highlighted the need to raise awareness of the situation. To date, the
campaign has garnered more than 150 million FWD actions through
Facebook, Twitter, e-mail, and YouTube.
FWD campaign public service announcements (PSAs), which featured
celebrities, professional athletes, and well-known personalities, have
aired nearly 20,000 times, reaching an audience of more than 45 million
people, and representing more than $1.1 million in donated advertising
time.
As a part of the FWD campaign, USAID partnered with several major
corporations to raise awareness--including Google, Verizon, Facebook,
MTV, Twitter, YouTube, Cargill, and General Mills. YouTube dedicated
space to the FWD campaign on their homepage and worked with ``YouTube
Celebrities'' to create additional FWD campaign PSAs (see youtube.com/
FWD). Cargill donated more than 5 million dollars' worth of rice to the
World Food Programme to help feed people in the Horn of Africa.
administration initiatives
Feed the Future
The administration is requesting $1.2 billion in FY13 for its
agriculture programs, the majority of which, about $1 billion, will
fund its food security program, Feed the Future. The Initiative has
designated 19 countries as focus countries, which means that these
countries have completed or are in the process of completing Country
Investment Plans (CIPs) with the United States and are held to high
standards in terms of transparency and the demonstration of country
ownership of the goals of agricultural growth and improving nutrition.
Question. Of the 19 focus countries in the program, how many now
have completed Country Investment Plans (CIPs) with the United States?
Answer. We know that sustainable development goals cannot be
achieved by our efforts alone. Country-owned approaches and building
local capacity are the foundation for countries to improve food
security and promote transparency. Feed the Future partnered with
selected countries and other stakeholders to assist host countries in
developing and implementing their own multiyear Country Investment
Plans (CIPs) for agricultural development, such as those under the
Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Program (CAADP). These
plans are based on transparent and inclusive consensus-building
processes, including engagement of the private sector, civil society
and other stakeholders, and take into account the interests of women
and other disadvantaged groups. In addition, CIPs lay out priority
areas, clear costing and projections of financial need, defined
targets, and desired results.
A review of the technical rigor of the CIP is conducted by a
multistakeholder team comprised of technical experts, development
partners, and other stakeholders from civil society and the private
sector to identify gaps or weaknesses in the CIP and create a clearly
defined action plan for addressing them. The focus country government
must demonstrate broad consultation and coordination has occurred with
key stakeholders around the development of the CIP and financial
commitment to the CIP, including the creation of a policy reform agenda
to improve environment conducive for investment essential for
sustainability and success.
To date, seventeen Feed the Future focus countries have technically
sound and peer-reviewed CIPs: Bangladesh, Cambodia, Ethiopia, Ghana,
Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Kenya, Liberia, Malawi, Mali, Nepal,
Rwanda, Senegal, Tanzania, Tajikistan, and Uganda. Mozambique is
coordinating the review process before adoption. Through Feed the
Future support, Zambia signed the CAADP Compact in January 2011 and is
finalizing its CIP before conducting a technical review.
Question. Feed the Future was originally conceived as an initiative
that placed focus countries in two different ``phases.'' Is this still
the case? If so, which focus countries are in which phases, and how
does the phase of a country's status affect how the USG works with
these countries through the Feed the Future initiative?
Answer. State and USAID are making deep investments in 19 countries
through Feed the Future--representing 53 percent or $534 million of the
total FY 2013 request of $1 billion. Focusing significant resources on
a select set of countries will allow us to demonstrate that major
progress is attainable to meet our food security goals. Modeling USAID
Forward, Feed the Future invests in country-owned implementation plans
that support results-based programs and partnerships, so that
assistance is tailored to the needs of individual countries through
consultative processes, and plans are developed and led by country
governments.
Phase II investment countries are selected based on recommendations
that take into account assessments of a technically sound country
investment plan and implementation strategy, coordination, and
consultation with key stakeholders, and country commitment and
capacity. The three criteria for elevation to Phase 2 status were
detailed in the Feed the Future guide released to the public in May
2010. To qualify, a country must have:
A technically sound country investment plan;
Completed coordination and consultation with key
stakeholders;
Commit to creating a conducive policy environment.
In addition, Feed the Future uses additional public performance
data such as democratic rights indicators as well as agriculture
business and economic growth enabling environment indicators. These
indicators ensure selection transparency and promote improved
performance on macroindicators that will impact U.S. agriculture
assistance. These indicators will ensure that the number of countries
that meet these criteria matches budgetary realities and that these
countries share the administration's commitment to democracy and
governance.
Within the $534 million FY 2013 request for 19 focus countries,
$135 million, or 25 percent, is requested for Phase II countries. Ghana
and Tanzania are the first countries to meet Phase II criteria, based
on their sound Feed the Future strategy and country environment
conducive to agriculture-led growth. Ghana is a strong performer and
partner for the USG, with high-level commitment to agricultural
development in the northern region of the country and to increasing
private sector investment in agriculture. Ghana performs well on
governance criteria, rated as ``free'' and ranked in the 3rd quartile
worldwide for corruption. Tanzania is a showcase for public/private
partnership in agricultural growth, exemplified by the development of
its Southern Agricultural Growth Corridor; this strategic investment
blueprint decided jointly with government, donors, and private sector
is a model for other African countries. Tanzania also performs well on
governance criteria--and ranked in the 2nd quartile for corruption.
Currently, we are reviewing seven countries for Phase II investments
based on their Feed the Future strategy, country environment, and
performance under Phase I investment levels.
As we accelerate implementation of Feed the Future over the coming
year, we will continue to evaluate the application of the concept of
two different phases.
Question. How is the Feed the Future Initiative engaging U.S.
farmers, as well as agricultural research institutions and land-grant
universities, to expand capacity in the 19 countries participating in
the Initiative.
Answer. The FY 2013 budget requests $142.3 million in research and
development to reduce long-term vulnerability to food insecurity and
harness science and technology to help populations adapt to
increasingly erratic production seasons. These efforts stand alongside
the administration's ongoing commitment to humanitarian assistance that
alleviates the immediate impacts of hunger and undernutrition. Economic
studies on sources of agricultural growth have consistently found that
investments in agricultural research, when effectively combined with
links to public and private extension and commercial partnerships, have
been a major driver of that growth. Scientific breakthroughs in
agriculture achieved investment rates of return of 11 to 33 percent in
Africa alone.
Feed the Future partners with U.S. farmers through the Farmer-to-
Farmer Program, in which a wide range of U.S. universities, NGOs and
cooperatives provide U.S. expertise. The Farmer-to-Farmer program links
U.S. farmers to host individuals and organizations to build local
institutions and linkages to resolve local problems. Programs build
institutions and transfer technology and management expertise to link
small farmers with markets that exploit comparative advantages in
production, processing, and marketing in order to generate rapid,
sustained, and broad-based economic growth in the agricultural sector.
Farmer-to-Farmer works with FTF focus countries as well as other
countries. USAID and the program implementers are exploring
opportunities to increase Farmer-to-Farmer participation with mission
investments in value chains, capacity-building, and market development.
On the research side, USAID's Collaborative Research Support
Programs (CRSPs) have undertaken a series of steps that enhance their
relevance to FTF and the focus countries in particular. In a number of
cases, CRSPs have wound down activities outside of the FTF focus
regions, and redirected those resources toward programs that more
directly mesh with other FTF investments. In addition, in association
with the Board for International Food and Agricultural Development
(BIFAD), we are supporting a strategic review on how to best support
and engage the land-grant community in Feed the Future, via CRSP and
similar mechanisms.
USAID recognizes the unique global asset presented by the CRSPs and
the land-grants more generally, and is exploring additional
opportunities for engaging them. Capacity-building of the full range of
agricultural innovation systems partners is a growing area of
investment under Feed the Future, and U.S. land-grant institutions play
an integral role. We have new land-grant-based programs in graduate
student training, U.S. researcher involvement, extension and other key
aspects of FTF. We are continuing to refine a capacity-building
framework in support of USAID and USG investments in FTF that will
increasingly draw on the expertise and program resources of land-grant
universities.
Question. How are you engaging the private sector, which is also a
way to find efficiencies and cost savings?
Answer. Feed the Future views the private sector as an equal
partner in the development community and embraces its role in creating
jobs, enabling economic growth, and bringing much-needed innovation and
expertise to the countries and people that we aspire to serve. The
private sector is particularly important in increasing the
sustainability of U.S. assistance and fostering private sector-led
growth in emerging markets, which is critical to reducing poverty,
fighting hunger, and improving nutrition. In addition to the private
sector, Feed the Future builds off the U.S.'s comparative advantage in
advanced technologies through its emphasis on promoting innovation.
This agenda goes beyond science and technology to include the use of
innovative financial instruments such as indexed insurance and more
inclusive agriculture financing, as well as a new application of
existing technologies to increase food security.
The FY 2013 President's budget request for Feed the Future includes
$32 million to promote and leverage increased private sector investment
in Feed the Future focus countries. Engagement of the private sector at
all stages of this initiative, from the development of Agriculture
Country Implementation Plans to program execution, is critical to the
success and sustainability of our investments. FY 2013 funded programs
will increase private sector investment in focus areas, mitigate
private sector risks, access private sector innovation, improve the
enabling environment for greater private sector investment, and
facilitate the commercialization of new technologies that improve
agricultural production. This funding will also be used to catalyze new
private/public partnership models and promote innovative investment
models.
To leverage private sector investments and intellectual capital, we
have:
Signed a Memorandum of Understanding with Walmart to
increase production of high quality vegetables and fruits for
the Central American regional markets by supporting new, small,
and medium independent growers and exploring linkages to
Walmart's national, regional, and global supply chains.
Helped establish the Southern Agricultural Growth Corridor
of Tanzania (SAGCOT), a public/private partnership that aims to
boost agricultural productivity in Tanzania and the wider
region. SAGCOT will promote ``clusters'' of profitable
agricultural farming and services businesses, with major
benefits for smallholder farmers and local communities.
Announced a unique, trilateral partnership between PepsiCo,
USAID, and the World Food Programme that will provide a
nutritionally fortified feeding product while helping to build
long-term economic stability for smallholder chickpea farmers
in Ethiopia by involving them directly in PepsiCo's product
supply chain.
Launched an alliance with the World Cocoa Foundation and the
Sustainable Trade Initiative (IDH) to invest in sustainable
cocoa programs in West Africa. The partnership includes private
sector participation from key chocolate-producing companies
including Cargill, The Hershey Company, Kraft Foods, Lindt &
Sprungli, Nestle, and Mars, among others.
Question. As the Feed the Future Initiative enters its 4th year
with your FY13 budget request, what is the status of the monitoring and
evaluation (M&E) of the program?
Answer. Feed the Future established a rigorous monitoring and
evaluation (M&E) system that monitors performance and measures progress
toward Feed the Future goals at the country, regional, and initiative
level. Feed the Future M&E system development required that all USAID
missions define the development hypotheses behind their strategies,
develop a country-specific results framework that aligns with the FTF
framework, clearly identify beneficiaries, undertake baseline studies,
and establish targets for all indicators.
Key M&E accomplishments are:
Design and public vetting of a comprehensive list of
indicators for Feed the
Future that will be used by all USG agencies who are supporting
Feed the Future activities.
Development of the Feed the Future Monitoring System, an
online performance monitoring system used by USAID, MCC, USDA,
Peace Corps, and the Department of Treasury to track Feed the
Future investments in the field.
Creation of the Feed the Future learning agenda, which
identifies the development questions based on our investments
that we will answer through impact evaluations, performance
evaluations, standard monitoring, and policy analysis.
Development of a tool--The Women's Empowerment in
Agriculture Index--to measure changes in women's empowerment in
the agriculture sector. The concept of Women's Empowerment in
Agriculture is broad and multidimensional and measures change
in the following: decisions over agricultural production;
access to and decisionmaking power over productive resources;
control over use of income; leadership roles within the
community; and time use.
Question. Have you found areas of both strength and weakness in the
program through your M&E framework? If so, what are you doing to
bolster, and perhaps scale, successful components, as well as address
and reevaluate weaker components?
Answer. The FY 2013 budget requests $15 million for a fully
resourced monitoring and evaluation (M&E) system that will continue to
monitor performance and measure progress toward Feed the Future goals
at the country, regional, and initiative level. Feed the Future is
committed to rigorous monitoring and evaluation of our investments in
order to facilitate strategic planning, performance-based management,
and monitoring and evaluating results. In the last 2 years, we
developed a comprehensive M&E framework, which involved extensive
review and analysis among all the various Feed the Future stakeholders.
The M&E framework has evolved substantially based on feedback received.
For example, based on the feedback, we are expanding the scope to
better incorporate resilience measures undertaken by Feed the Future
and Food for Peace. In addition, to address concerns in the ability to
measure the impact of our investments on women, Feed the Future
incorporated into its M&E system the Women's Empowerment in Agriculture
Index, which measures progress in gender integration. The concept of
Women's Empowerment or Inclusion in Agriculture is broad and
multidimensional and measures change in the following: decisions over
agricultural production; access to and decisionmaking power over
productive resources; control over use of income; and time use.
Feed the Future is improving the quality and rigor of program
evaluation of food security programs at the local level. We are also
promoting the use of impact evaluations to more effectively assess the
results and long-term sustainability of our Feed the Future
investments. Currently, monitoring systems are tracking near-term
performance of our new programs in the field. Several more years of
performance data will be needed before we can draw definitive
conclusion with respect to the design and implementation of our
programs. As time goes on, we will be able to pull more from this
robust M&E system to contribute to the more effective program design
and implementation of future food security activities.
Question. What progress is being made through the Feed the Future
Strategic Partnerships with Brazil, India, and South Africa?
Answer. The FY 2013 President's budget requests $7 million for
strategic partnerships in Brazil, India, and South Africa to leverage
the expertise, resources, and leadership of these countries for the
benefit of focus countries. These countries were selected because of
their influence on neighboring focus countries, their role as a
regional anchor for food security, and/or their potential to contribute
to the development of focus countries outside their region.
Through strategic partnerships, we seek to foster trilateral
cooperation in the following areas:
Joint research and dissemination of technical assistance
related to agriculture, nutrition, and poverty reduction that
builds on the technical expertise in strategic partner
countries.
Promotion of regional or bilateral economic reforms based on
the strategic partner's participation in regional economic
organizations or trade relationships.
Development of a strategic partner's role as a regional
anchor through projects and policies that increase its
stabilizing influence on focus countries.
Political leadership to advance action in the focus
countries.
Mobilization of the private sector to participate in
private/public partnerships and to invest in focus countries.
In India, Feed the Future partnered with the Government of India
trilateral activity that would train Africans from Kenya, Liberia, and
Malawi on agribusiness and management at agricultural training
institutes that are part of the Ministry of Agriculture. The Ministry
of Agriculture requested proposals from three training institutes and
has received two proposals so far from the National Institute of
Agricultural Extension Management and the National Institute of
Agricultural Marketing. Training should begin in the next couple of
months.
In South Africa, the government is taking a leadership role to
provide technical assistance to SADC-level priority activities such as
regional seeds harmonization by providing training to seed
certification agents; the Free Trade Area that will increase
intraregional trade; and formation of the Sub-Regional Research
Organization--the Centre for the Coordination of Agriculture Research
and Development for Southern Africa (CCARDESA) that will coordinate
agriculture research, innovation, and development in the region. In
2011, the South African Government signed 19 Bilateral Assistance
Agreements with countries in the region to assist them to develop their
agriculture sectors and to address food security issues according to
their needs.
With Brazil, we have developed a successful strategic cooperation
partnership in Mozambique where USAID and the Brazilian Cooperation
Agency have jointly designed activities in collaboration with the
Government of Mozambique. This allows the Mozambique Ministry of
Agriculture to help farmers increase the productivity of their
horticulture crops, as well as to improve post-harvest packing,
storage, and processing of the produce. For example, a vegetable
processing and distribution center will be built in the area of the
Farmers Association of Maguiguane, which will benefit 480 farmers. In
addition, the techniques, models, and knowledge from this processing
and distribution center will also be transferred to Mozambique's
national agricultural research institute.
Question. How are the regional programs coordinated with programs
within the focus countries to ensure that no duplication occurs?
Answer. One of the key principles of FTF is to support country-led
agriculture and food security efforts, including the development of
country-owned food security strategies and investment plans that govern
the programming of USAID resources within a country. In addition,
regional Feed the Future investments are guided by regional multiyear
strategies, also developed in close consultation with bilateral
missions, and reviewed by USAID's Bureau for Food Security and
interagency partners before approval. Our regional programs for food
security focus principally on harmonizing standards and regulations to
facilitate increased cross-border and regional trade of various
products and increase private sector investment opportunities. USG
investments at both the national and regional level are coordinated
through this approach to increase the impact of our investments.
More broadly, in sub-Saharan Africa, the Comprehensive Africa
Agriculture Development Program (CAADP), a continentwide, African
Union-led commitment to agriculture that is changing the way
governments, donors, private sector and other stakeholders invest in
agriculture and food security, plays an important role in coordinating
investments across donors at the national and regional levels. At least
22 CAADP compacts and 18 CAADP Country Investment Plans have been
developed in Africa. These compacts and investment plans define
evidence-based agricultural and food security roadmaps for achieving
the Millennium Development Goal of halving poverty and hunger, and
provide country-specific frameworks for all new and ongoing investment
in agriculture and food security, including bilateral and multilateral
assistance. The USG, other bilateral donors, international
organizations like the Food and Agriculture Organization, the
International Fund for Agriculture Development, and the World Bank
(including the Global Agriculture and Food Security Program) are deeply
committed to coordinating and aligning their investments in support of
these compacts and investment plans, and this is accomplished through
development partner working groups at both the country and regional
level, and the CAADP Donor Partners working group at a headquarters
level. Similar national strategies are also in design or in place in
Asia and Latin America to ensure efficiency and greatest impact at the
country and regional level.
Question. Have you received feedback on Feed the Future, positive
and/or negative, from focus countries, NGOs, universities, the private
sector and other non-USG entities involved with the implementation of
Feed the Future? How is USAID incorporating this feedback into the
evaluation and implementation of Feed the Future?
Answer. Since the start of the Feed the Future Initiative, non-USG
entities have played a major role in the design and success of the
initiative. Based on extensive consultation and outreach with NGOs,
foundations, and the private sector, we took the following steps in
Feed the Future:
Highlighted the importance of gender equality in addition to
the need for expanded opportunities for women and girls;
Deepened the discussion of environmentally sustainable and
climate-resilient agricultural development;
Elaborated on nutrition programming and key links between
nutrition and agricultural-led growth. These efforts are
aligned with GHI principles and often targeted in the same
geographic zones to maximize impact;
Expanded on the importance of financial inclusion (e.g.,
microcredit), especially for women and the very poor; and
Incorporated water issues, including water resources
management, as an important component of our approach.
Civil society and community groups have an important role to play
in advocating for grassroots solutions to complex food insecurity
issues. For this reason we are encouraging USAID missions and embassies
to work directly with civil society to identify constraints to their
broader participation--or recognition--in country-led food security
efforts. We are including local civil society institutions in our
capacity-building efforts, and, in Africa, we have pledged to work with
the CAADP ``Non-State Actor'' working group in 10 countries to
implement the AU-NEPAD guidelines for civil society consultation and
engagement. We are also consulting with our own nongovernmental
partners to determine whether there are specific opportunities for
partnership in countries where agriculture may have a potential to
create or increase ``space'' for civil society on issues like the legal
enabling environment and policy advocacy.
We have also heard from several NGOs on the lack of civil society
engagement in the implementation of Feed the Future. As a result, we
have actively sought out input from the NGO community on all aspects of
the Feed the Future initiative. In 2011, Feed the Future held seven
Civil Society Outreach Meetings. These in-person and online
consultations, which solicited feedback from civil society members on
various aspects of the initiative, had 1,241 participants over the
course of the series. Feed the Future indicators were also publicly
vetted before final adoption. Because of the outreach done through the
CSO meetings and the vetting of the indicators, in June of 2011 a
number of NGOs wrote a thank-you note to Administrator Shah to express
their appreciation. Finally, Feed the Future is expanding its use of
social media, creating a new interface for civil society to interact
with initiative programs and thought leaders. Moving forward, we
continue to partner and consult with NGOs, the private sector, and
other non-USG entities to ensure a sustainable, long-lasting solution
to food security.
In collaboration with Association of Public Land Grant Universities
and the Board of International Food and Agriculture Development, USAID
and USDA jointly developed the Feed the Future global Hunger and Food
Security Research Strategy. Feed the Future conducted a series of
consultations to engage the research community to provide feedback on
the prioritization of the research agenda and on its implementation. We
received valuable feedback and input from the U.S. academic community,
developing country research partners, international agricultural
research institution scientists, the private sector, and NGOs. These
consultative activities included a workshop at Purdue University in
January, 2011, an e-consultation in May that received input from around
the world, and a research forum in Washington, DC, focused on
implementation of the research strategy. As a result, research
activities are anchored geographically by four major production
systems: the Indo-gangetic plains of South Asia, the Sudano-Sahelien
zone in West Africa, the Maize-mixed systems in Eastern and Southern
Africa, and the Ethiopian Highlands.
Question. Feed the Future also delegates funds to ``aligned
agricultural programs'' in other countries that, to my knowledge, are
not considered ``focus'' countries. In some cases, this funding
actually exceeds funding to focus countries. What is the purpose of
these aligned agricultural programs?
Answer. The FY 2013 request includes $100 million for agriculture
programs in these countries that continue to support other important
foreign policy or development goals such as stabilization and economic
growth. This represents a reduction of $54 million (35 percent) from
the FY 2011 enacted level. The purpose of this reduction is to
concentrate FTF resources in priority countries and programs. Since FY
2010, Feed the Future has reduced the number of countries receiving
agriculture assistance by 38 percent from 56 countries to 35 countries.
Many of these programs had small agriculture assistance programs
between $125,000 to $1 million that were having little impact in
addressing global hunger and food security.
In addition, while the United States is committed to the vital
issue of food security, it has a longstanding commitment to providing
agricultural assistance to some of the world's most vulnerable people.
Our efforts will be determined by the level of need and by evidence
that the investments being made are having an impact.
Question. Are CIPs being negotiated with these other countries, or
is there some other mechanism to ensure that our priorities are aligned
and that these countries have similar commitments to agricultural
development and transparency?
Answer. Funding for Feed the Future aligned resource countries
represents 10 percent--$100 million--of the total FY 2013 budget
request. The FY 2013 budget requests funding for 13 aligned agriculture
programs, a reduction from 23 countries in FY 2011. In these countries,
agricultural development remains critical to achieving core U.S.
development and foreign policy goals, including combating extremism,
achieving political and economic stability, reducing sources of
conflict, reducing poverty, and accelerating and sustaining broad-based
economic growth. Nevertheless, programs in aligned countries will be
assessed and guided by the same key principles governing Feed the
Future, including accountability.
One of the key principles of Feed the Future is to support country-
led agriculture and food security efforts, including the development of
country-owned food security strategies and investment plans. In sub-
Saharan Africa, this support is provided within the framework of the
Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Program (CAADP), a
continentwide, African Union-led commitment to agriculture that is
changing the way governments, donors, private sector and other
stakeholders invest in agriculture and food security. At least 22 CAADP
compacts and 18 CAADP Country Investment Plans in Feed the Future focus
and aligned resource countries have been developed in Africa. Of the
four African aligned resource countries, Nigeria has a CIP, while the
Democratic Republic of Congo is developing one. In Latin America and
Asia, the strength of agricultural institutions and the private sector
provides a foundation to achieve these same aims.
In addition, in each FTF aligned country, Feed the Future is part
of each U.S. Mission's Country Development Cooperation Strategy (CDCS),
which defines development objectives and maximizes the impact of
development cooperation in-country. Missions work closely with host
country governments and citizens, civil society organizations, the
private sector, multilateral organizations, other donors, the State
Department, and other USG agencies to develop a CDCS that is results-
oriented, and demonstrates partnership with host countries to focus
investment in key areas.
Question. What is the reason why these countries are receiving
funds through the Feed the Future initiative as opposed to Food for
Peace Title II development (nonemergency) assistance, and what
coordination is there between the Bureau for Food Security and the Food
for Peace office to ensure that there is no duplication in programs?
Answer. In general, Title II development food assistance programs
are community-based programs targeted to very poor or ``ultra-poor''
households--``the poorest of the poor.'' Many of these households
depend on agriculture for livelihoods--either from farming their own
land or working on someone else's land, but despite this they are
unable to meet their family's basic food and nonfood needs for 12
months of the year. Productivity constraints--poor or limited land
holdings and labor constraints in some cases, lack of infrastructure
and/or access to markets and inputs in other cases--make it very
difficult for these communities and households to break out of poverty.
Title II development programs work at a local level to address these
constraints--aiming to provide a ``hand-up'' toward increased food
security. Title II development programs have a proven success record in
many underserved communities around the world.
Feed the Future (FTF) programs are more value-chain oriented--
aiming to address constraints to agricultural productivity both within
targeted geographic areas and, in terms of policy, at a national level.
For example, if lack of access to fertilizer and improved seed is a
significant constraint to productivity, FTF programming will work with
the private sector and government to identify the roadblocks and
develop a solution. These could include creating a regulatory framework
to allow for greater private sector participation in seeds markets, or
developing a network of agrodealers that can provide improved seed and
fertilizer to farmer groups. Post-harvest loss is another good example.
While Title II development programs often work at the household level
to reduce post-harvest loss and improve food safety through better
drying and storage technologies, FTF programming targets the next level
up--working with the private sector and farmer groups to develop a
warehouse receipts program capable of serving thousands of communities,
so that we can have impact in reducing poverty at a significant scale.
There is inherent complementarity in these programs--with Title II
development programs providing a ``hand-up'' to acutely vulnerable
populations and FTF helping communities at scale participate in
commercial agriculture to ``move out'' of poverty. The staff of the
Bureau for Food Security and the Food for Peace Office are working to
ensure the complementarity of their respective programs.
Question. The Feed the Future initiative is frequently
characterized as a ``whole-of-government'' approach. What other U.S.
Government agencies are involved in the Feed the Future initiative? How
is their participation funded and coordinated? What successes has the
whole-of-government approach had in implementing the Feed the Future
Initiative?
Answer. Feed the Future is aimed at promoting a comprehensive
approach to food security by accelerating economic growth and raising
incomes through greater agricultural productivity, increasing incomes
and market access for the rural poor and smallholders, and enhancing
nutrition. Through December 2011, the USG has contributed $2.68 billion
toward increasing food security. This includes $166 million to the
Global Agriculture and Food Security Program and $968 million from the
Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC), and $55 million on
collaborative work between USAID and USDA. Our efforts are complemented
by country-owned strategies and coordinated with those of other donors
and stakeholders, including the interagency. Taking a whole-of-
government approach to implementation of Feed the Future ensures that
we are able to effectively leverage the relevant capacities of
different departments and agencies. Thus, the USG has drawn on the
expertise and experience of a number of federal agencies since the
beginning, including Departments of State, Agriculture, and Commerce,
the MCC, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, the Overseas
Private Investment Corporation, Peace Corps and the U.S. African
Development Foundation.
To coordinate Feed the Future implementation, USAID established the
Bureau for Food Security (BFS). BFS facilitated interagency strategic
reviews of all 22 Feed the Future focus country implementation
strategies. Representatives from various USG departments and agencies
discussed and provided feedback to USG country team presentations
before final strategy submission. As a result of this USG whole-of-
government approach, Feed the Future investments in-country are
focused, leveraging USG resources to create the greatest impact.
For example, USAID is working with USDA to implement a 3-year
program aimed at mitigating the threat of wheat stem rust, particularly
a virulent variety called Ug99, to wheat crop production areas in
developing countries. This is part of an overall research and
development effort that continues the global effort to develop new
rust-resistant varieties and supports efforts to introduce new,
disease-resistant wheat varieties. This program addresses an urgent
threat, since failure to curb the incidence of virulent wheat diseases
would have severe adverse impacts in developing countries that rely
heavily on wheat for food security.
In Mozambique, U.S. Government programs support a transition from a
reliance on food assistance to a reliance on more market-driven and
science-based agricultural production and economic growth. This new
coordinated value chain approach in Mozambique is increasing production
yields and quality, linking producers to markets, and building the
capacity of institutions to meet the international food safety
standards required by increasingly sophisticated markets.
A poultry industry initiative implemented under Food for Progress
in the northern part of Mozambique, jointly funded by USAID and the
USDA, was aimed at establishing new institutions and strengthening
existing ones, as well as implementing policies and regulations that
would expand the agricultural sector and make it economically
sustainable. The implementing partner, TechnoServe, worked with local
industry and with the Government of Mozambique to create a formal
poultry association, establish standards for inputs and poultry
production and processing, provide technical assistance to producers,
improve access to microfinance, and teach business development and
management services. Cargill and the University of Minnesota also
provided technical assistance in livestock management and food safety.
As a result of these activities, producers increased their annual
incomes by $2,000 per year, and industry created over 3,500 jobs. In
addition, a Wisconsin-based investor group, with TechnoServe's
facilitation, established a soybean farm to supply the feed industry.
The farm is cultivating 500 hectares and will scale up to 10,000
hectares, with consideration being given to adding maize production as
well.
Question. In your FY 2013 budget request for the Feed the Future
Initiative, you request $120.3 million for research and development,
$300,000 of which would go toward the Board for International Food and
Agricultural Development (BIFAD). How will the $120 million be spent on
research and development?
Answer. The FY 2013 budget requests $142.3 million for research and
development, $400,000 of which would go toward BIFAD. Economic studies
on sources of agricultural growth have consistently found that
investments in agricultural research when effectively combined with
links to public and private extension and commercial partnerships have
been a major driver of that growth. Research investments, customized to
respond to regional and country-specific priorities, will generate a
continuous flow of new technologies that lead to higher levels of
output from existing levels of resource utilization.
The FY 2013 budget request will fund research predominantly in four
production systems where agricultural development has the potential to
address high rates of poverty and undernutrition: the South Asian Indo-
gangetic plains, the East and Southern Africa Maize-mixed systems, the
West African Sudano-Sahelien system, and the Ethiopian Highlands. Our
investments range from longer term research to address major global
challenges to applied and adaptive research guided by host-country
priorities for nearer term impact.
Based on the 2011 Feed the Future Research Strategy, our programs'
focus will be on:
Addressing animal and plant diseases: We are applying
advanced technology solutions to address animal and plant
diseases that constrain production of nutritious staple foods.
Investments will help to protect the 26 million cattle at risk
from East Coast Fever in Africa, improve productivity of small
ruminants, and avert catastrophic yield losses in
underresearched crops including cassava, potato, and bananas.
U.S. scientific leadership in biotechnology will be invaluable
to addressing these constraints.
Improving legume productivity: We are investing in research
to improve pest
resistance and heat and drought tolerance in legumes, which are
essential to increasing system productivity and ensuring
household nutrition and women's incomes. Feed the Future is
supporting research programs led by U.S. universities, the
CGIAR, national agricultural research systems, and USDA to
increase legume yields, which have lagged behind progress made
in other crops due to underinvestment.
Developing high-yielding, climate-resilient cereals:
Investments will focus on research on climate-resilient crops
and livestock, including drought and heat tolerance in cereals,
grain legumes, and other crops. These activities will increase
access to existing technologies, which can help increase the
resilience of smallholder farmers and herders when faced with
drought, for example, by using conservation agriculture and
holistic rangeland management. Funding will also support
efforts that anticipate the increasing impact of climate
change, such as the development of heat and drought-tolerant
maize.
Question. Is the United States on track to provide its commitment
of $3.5 billion for Feed the Future pledged at L'Aquila in 2009? Other
donors (G8 and G20 countries) pledged an additional $18 billion to the
L'Aquila global food security initiative. Are these other donors
meeting their commitments to the L'Aquila food security initiative? Do
the United States and other donors share the same goals and agree on
the same approaches to accelerating agricultural growth and enhancing
the nutritional status of women and children in poor countries? How are
U.S. and other donor activities coordinated at the country level,
including through GAFSP?
Answer. At the 2009 G8 summit in L'Aquila, Italy, the G8 and over
40 other countries and international organizations signed the L'Aquila
Joint Statement on Global Food Security, thereby launching the L'Aquila
Food Security Initiative (AFSI). Under this initiative, signatories
pledged to mobilize over $22 billion over 3 years and agreed to take a
comprehensive approach to ensuring food security, coordinate
effectively, support country-owned processes and plans, engage
multilateral institutions in advancing efforts to promote food security
worldwide, and deliver on sustained and accountable commitments. At the
Rome summit on World Food Security later in 2009, all 193 members of
the U.N. system endorsed the five principles enshrined in the L'Aquila
Joint Statement on Global Food Security as the ``Rome Principles.''
In L'Aquila, President Obama pledged that the United States would
commit at least $3.5 billion to agriculture development and food
security over 3 years, and that it would implement its food security
programs in accordance with the Rome Principles. The President's pledge
led to the creation of the U.S. Government's global hunger and food
security initiative, Feed the Future (FTF), launched in early 2010.
Through March 2012, the United States has committed $2.706 billion
against its AFSI pledge. As FY 2012 funds are obligated, subject to
congressional notification, we fully expect to show, by the end of
fiscal year 2012, that the United States will have met the President's
commitment of at least $3.5 billion toward global food security.
G8 and other countries that committed funding under the L'Aquila
Food Security Initiative include: Australia ($360 million), Canada
($1.037 billion), the European Commission ($3.8 billion), France
($2.161 billion), Germany ($3 billion), Italy ($428 million), Japan ($3
billion), the Netherlands ($2 billion), Russia ($330 million), Spain
($696 million), Sweden ($522 million), and the United Kingdom ($1.718
billion). Countries' progress toward meeting their commitments will be
outlined in the G8 Accountability Report, to be published in
conjunction with the G8 summit in May, which will show that the AFSI
donors have met almost 100 percent of their financial commitments (but
have not yet disbursed all of those funds).
The FY 2013 FTF request of $1.2 billion includes a $1 billion
request for agriculture and rural development, $90 million for
nutrition and $134 million requested through the Department of Treasury
for the Global Agriculture and Food Security Program and will fund the
4th year of this Presidential Initiative. The request continues to
address the root causes of hunger by helping countries increase
agricultural-led growth by raising agricultural productivity, improving
access to markets, increasing the incomes of the poor, and reducing
undernutrition--especially of women and children--through sustained,
long-term development programs. In priority countries or ``focus
countries,'' it is accelerating progress toward the Millennium
Development Goal of halving the number of people living in extreme
poverty and suffering from hunger and undernutrition.
Feed the Future programs also focus on reducing long-term
vulnerability to food insecurity, especially in the Horn of Africa and
the Sahel, and harness science and technology to help populations adapt
to increasingly erratic production seasons. These efforts stand
alongside the administration's ongoing commitment to humanitarian
assistance that alleviates the immediate impacts of hunger and
undernutrition.
Global support for the Rome Principles, which underpin the United
States own strategy for Feed the Future, provides a foundation for
donor engagement and coordination in partner countries. We have worked
in concert with host governments and other donors active in the
agriculture sector in FTF focus countries to finalize the development
of sound national agricultural investment plans against which donors
and others can align commitments.
Canada exercised strong leadership as chair of AFSI in 2010,
leading donors toward defining the terms of their L'Aquila pledges. The
2010 G8 Muskoka Accountability Report tracked G8 members' progress
toward fulfilling their L'Aquila and other development-related pledges.
In 2011, under the chairmanship of France, AFSI donors reported
progress toward meeting their pledges in terms of funds committed and
funds disbursed, which were published in the 2011 Deauville
Accountability Report.
As AFSI chair in 2012, the United States is leading AFSI
participants to deepen accountability and transparency to their
L'Aquila pledges. Following the leadership of the United States, AFSI
donors have agreed to provide country-level information on their food
security investments, in addition to information on funds committed and
disbursed. This country-level information will include the partner
countries in which AFSI donors invest, the amount of funds invested
there, the programs implemented, the results expected and those
achieved to date, and AFSI donors' fulfillment of the AFSI (and Rome)
Principles. The 2012 G8 Accountability Report will include this
information, in addition to a scorecard by which donors assess their
progress toward fulfilling their AFSI commitments.
The Global Agriculture and Food Security Program (GAFSP) is a
multilateral trust fund created to assist in the implementation of
pledges made by the G8 and other donors at L'Aquila and was set up in
response to a request from the G20 in Pittsburgh in September 2009.
GAFSP supplements funding to country and regional agriculture and food
security investment plans, in consultation with partner countries,
donors and other stakeholders. Among AFSI donors, the United States,
Canada, Australia, Netherlands, and Spain contribute funds to GAFSP.
Feed the Future is an example of how the United States has provided
leadership in the fight against hunger and poverty. The President's
pledge at L'Aquila catalyzed commitments from other donors and
institutions in support of food security. Our global leadership on this
issue brought other donors to the table in support of country-led
processes for developing and implementing food security investment
plans. In 2012, the United States is leading AFSI participants toward
greater accountability and transparency in fulfillment of our
individual and collective L'Aquila pledges.
Question. Both the Global Climate Change Initiative and the Feed
the Future Initiative focus on the importance of climate-resilient
crops in achieving their respective goals. What coordination is
occurring between the two initiatives to ensure that no duplication is
occurring?
Answer. Climate change is inextricably linked to food security
because of its wide-reaching impact on agriculture and landscapes.
Studies carried out by USAID's Famine Early Warning System Network
(FEWS NET) have found that total rainfall in east Africa has never been
lower than over the last 5 years. Since 1980, total rainfall during
east and southern Africa's long rainy seasons has declined an estimated
15 percent.
Ethiopia, one of the most food insecure countries in the world,
sits in the cross-hairs of these climate change patterns, and is
endeavoring to cope with the multiple threats to food security, access
to water, and even certain livelihoods. The productivity--and soon,
even the basic viability--of its long-cycle crops is at risk. These
crops, which provide up to 85 percent of the food grown in Ethiopia,
are planted in the same April-May period that has seen 15-percent
declines in rainfall. The interaction between drought and declining
agricultural capacity could be explosive, dangerous, and costly. Under
the most likely scenarios, cereal production in Ethiopia--and, indeed,
much of east Africa--may drop 30 percent by 2030. During that period,
food aid to the region would have to triple to make up for the
shortfall.
Under the Feed the Future initiative, USAID will invest in specific
adaptive strategies which complement the activities undertaken under
the global climate change initiative, such as sustainable
agroecological methods and research into drought-resistant seeds. Of
the $142 million in agriculture research and development requested in
the FY 13 budget for Feed the Future, $85 million will be spent in sub-
Saharan Africa to increase productivity through breeding and genetics
research for major food crops such as maize, sorghum, and rice, and to
integrate adaptive technologies and practices in the production of
various crops. There is also the potential for significant mitigation
of carbon emissions from agricultural lands through agroforestry and
the adoption of perennial crops, which sequester carbon and reduce
other agricultural-based emissions.
Farmers across the Sahel have had to adapt to climatic variability
for decades, and they have been a model for USAID as we develop and
scale up adaptation techniques. Over the last 25 years, as land
pressure and variability increased, Sahelian farmers adapted by turning
to natural forest management. Trees are less susceptible to rainfall
fluctuations, and tree products such as fruits, gums, and wood can find
ready domestic and export markets. Niger's farmers are managing nearly
5 million hectares of farm forests, which were simultaneously yielding
tree products and improving soil productivity. During the aftermath of
Niger's 2005 drought and food crisis, one study found that villages
that had established farm forests suffered no increase in child
mortality, and while unable to produce grains, these villages were
still able to sell tree products to purchase food. By adapting to their
changing environment, Niger's tree farmers found a way to survive
through a drought crisis--which, in the coming years, may unfortunately
become less of an anomaly and more of a regular cycle.
However, integrating adaptive strategies of this type into food
security programs on the ground will only get us so far. Two elements
of the adaptation program under the global climate change initiative
(GCCI) will both improve and reinforce the
on-the-ground field work that we are already doing through the Feed the
Future initiative:
Improving access to science and analysis for decisionmaking:
Information and tools help nations and communities estimate the
probability of different kinds of climate effects and project
their likely impacts, assess the relative costs and benefits of
different interventions, and find ways of encouraging adoption
of the most cost-effective innovations. USAID invests through
the Global Climate Change Initiative in scientific capacity,
improved access to climate information and predictions, and
evidence-based analysis to identify vulnerable sectors,
populations, and regions and to evaluate the costs and benefits
of potential adaptation strategies. These investments will
result in better-informed choices among decisionmakers and
increase the probability of success in reducing vulnerability
to climate change.
Improving governance systems around adaptation to climate
change: Through the Global Climate Change Initiative, USAID is
supporting efforts to integrate climate information and
analysis into inclusive, transparent decisionmaking processes,
effective governmental coordination that is responsive to the
needs of local constituents, improved public communication and
education, and strengthened community, civil society, and
private sector engagement. We will support processes that
include a broad range of host-country stakeholders, including
women, vulnerable populations, and indigenous and other ethnic
minorities.
These additional activities complement and support the on-the-
ground work already being integrated into the Feed the Future
Initiative through multiyear strategies.
The Bureau of Food Security has core country teams working on Feed
the Future activities and draws on climate-change expertise from
USAID's EGAT and AFR Bureaus. Within FTF, we have also integrated
indicators related to natural resources management and climate
resilience into our monitoring and evaluation system so that we can
track the effectiveness of our programs. In addition, many of the USAID
staff working on these two issues are located in the same field offices
and work together to build sustainable economic growth.
Both initiatives provide important components to addressing climate
change stresses on food security. Especially in the Africa region,
these programs are being designed in partnership in order to enhance
complementarities and to build stronger capacity among our partner
countries to address these critical issues.
Question. With regard to the Global Health Initiative, how are you
setting priorities between disease treatment and infrastructure
strengthening?
Answer. Through the Global Health Initiative (GHI), U.S. Government
assistance is tailored to the needs of developing countries to ensure
that investments are coordinated and in alignment with country
priorities, as reflected in their national health plans. These plans
are at the core of countries' efforts to mobilize resources and
coordinate with partners for sustainable improvements in health.
Achieving sustainable health outcomes requires a deliberate effort
to strengthen country health systems and transition to country-owned
health delivery platforms, overcoming barriers that constrain the
delivery of effective health interventions, including disease
treatment. Measures to strengthen health systems and assess their
efficiency and effectiveness have been developed with partner countries
and donors and build upon existing health programs to strengthen
country health systems and country delivery platforms.
Ultimately, a functioning health system requires that a trained
health worker be in the right place, and with the right skills,
sufficient motivation and compensation, and the essential equipment and
medical supplies necessary to deliver the services people need.
Question. In what ways are policies moving to country ownership as
opposed to being donor driven, especially in a resource constrained
environment?
Answer. The U.S. Government strives to maximize the impact of each
dollar it spends on foreign assistance. Developing the capacity of
local governments, civil societies and private sector organizations in
the countries in which we work is a primary objective of U.S. foreign
assistance, as well as a means by which other U.S. foreign assistance
objectives are achieved. While effective assistance has long been a
goal of the U.S. Government, this imperative is even greater in the
context of the constrained resource environment. In order to deliver
assistance more effectively than ever before, achieving greater impact
in a more sustainable manner and at a lower cost, we are ensuring that
the principles laid out in the Presidential Policy Directive on Global
Development, the Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review, the
USAID Policy Framework 2011-2015, USAID Forward, and the Feed the
Future and Global Health Initiatives are incorporated throughout our
work. The President's Malaria Initiative is an excellent example where
the strengthening of country national malaria control programs is a
major focus.
These principles include placing greater emphasis on building
sustainable capacity among our developing country partners at the
national and community levels to provide basic services over the long
term. The United States is committed to aligning U.S. Government
investments with partner country plans and strategies, primarily
through technical assistance, project-level support, and capacity-
building of governments and other local institutions. The United States
is helping build the capacity of governments to strengthen public
stewardship of the private sector and establish and evaluate their own
public/private partnerships. These investments will contribute to
robust and sustainable systems that will ensure quality and
sustainability. These processes are a central component of our USAID
Forward reforms, where the Agency is changing its business processes
and contracting with and providing grants to more and varied local
partners, and creating true partnerships to create the conditions where
aid is no longer necessary in the countries where USAID works.
Ultimately, governments--together with nongovernmental
organizations, civil society organizations, affected communities,
faith-based organizations, the private sector and others in countries--
must decide upon their countries' needs and strategies. They are
responsible for making and sustaining progress, and they must be
accountable to those served by their health systems.
Question. Last summer, my staff and I were in contact with your
office in regard to polio eradication efforts in Pakistan. After
numerous conversations, I received a letter from Deputy Secretary Nides
informing me that the State Department was prepared to shift $4.5
million from FY 2010 maternal and child health programs to bolster
polio eradication efforts in Pakistan. This was to be combined with $2
million that was already allocated for these efforts for FY 2011. Were
those funds actually shifted?
Answer. Yes. Overall, a total of $10 million in FY 2010 and FY 2011
funds were programmed for polio eradication in Pakistan. This includes
the additional $4.5 million in FY 2010 funds, the original $3.5 million
of FY 2010 funds, and the $2 million in FY 2011 funds, allocated to
bolster polio eradication initiatives implemented by the World Health
Organization (WHO) and UNICEF in Pakistan.
Question. How much is expected to be spent on continued eradication
efforts in Pakistan?
Answer. The FY 2013 Congressional Budget Justification includes $2
million for polio eradication efforts in Pakistan. In FY 2013, USAID
will reassess the epidemiologic and funding requirements. Projected
support for both UNICEF and WHO is expected to remain at about $2
million per year, unless there are compelling emergency funding needs.
Pakistan receives significant donor funding for polio eradication
efforts, particularly from Japan, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation,
the World Bank, Britain, and the United States. The Saudi Government,
through the Islamic Development Bank, and the Gates Foundation, is
currently working to establish a significant new funding mechanism.
Question. The administration's FY 2013 budget gives a large
increase to GAVI
Alliance to help meet the administration's multiyear pledge. Will those
additional funds come at the expense of other USG vaccination programs,
both bilateral and multilateral?
Answer. The FY 2013 budget request includes $145 million for the
USG contribution to the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization
(GAVI Alliance). Vaccines are among the most cost-effective public
health interventions. This Alliance--with donor and host country
governments, civil society and the private sector partners--leverages
USG resources and helps to ensure that our health dollars have the
greatest impact. For example, the USG pledge has allowed GAVI to
negotiate a 67-percent price reduction on rotavirus vaccines so that
children in low-income countries can be protected against this cause of
diarrheal disease. The priority will be the rollout of pneumococcal
conjugate and rotavirus vaccines to combat pneumonia and diarrhea, the
two leading killers of children, and strengthening logistics systems.
Combined with other donors, the USG contribution will enable the
GAVI Alliance to immunize an additional 243 million children in
developing countries over the next 5 years. The USG commitment
leverages billions of dollars that other donors have committed to GAVI,
multiplying the impact of our funding more than eightfold.
The administration recognizes that vaccines alone cannot achieve
the objectives set forth by the international community to
significantly reduce childhood deaths due to vaccine preventable
diseases. Therefore, in addition to the GAVI Alliance contribution, the
USG is playing an active role in assisting countries to build the
systems to bring lifesaving vaccines to every child in a sustainable
manner. USAID collaborates with other USG agencies, as well as
international organizations, private sector groups and the NGO
community, to ensure that countries have access to the support that
they need to bring the vaccines purchased through GAVI to every child.
Bilateral and multilateral activities to build immunization capacity at
the local and national level in recipient countries will continue to
receive support to ensure that vaccine investments made through the
GAVI Alliance are maximized.
Question. What is the proposed FY 13 funding level of non-GAVI
related vaccination programs?
Answer. The non-GAVI immunization funding by USAID is approximately
$48 million annually. In addition to the GAVI Alliance contribution and
bilateral funding for immunizations, the USG plays an active role in
assisting countries to build systems to bring lifesaving vaccines to
every child in a sustainable manner.
Question. I was pleased to learn of the recent polio eradication
effort success in India; however, I am troubled about the setbacks we
have seen with efforts in Afghanistan's polio eradication program. The
United States has been a strong partner on this front. Is there more
that the United States could be and should be doing to increase the
immunization rates in Afghanistan?
Answer. We share your concerns about polio incidence in
Afghanistan. USAID is providing strong support to facilitate polio
eradication efforts by working in partnership with the Ministry of
Public Heath in Afghanistan and the United Nations. Given the public
health emergency situation, USAID is exploring how we can leverage our
existing programs and resources across all sectors to help UNICEF and
WHO's polio eradication efforts nationally, and in high-risk districts
where wild poliovirus still circulates.
Supplemental activities currently being examined include:
increasing awareness and acceptance of polio vaccination in conjunction
with UNICEF's plan for a multimedia mass communication campaign
customized for the local context; enhancing local ownership and
coordination in partnership with the Global Polio Eradication
Initiative in Afghanistan; increasing vaccination coverage, including
through strengthening the existing surveillance network and routine
immunization infrastructure; improving the capacity of the vaccinator
pool; and doing more work at the border to prevent cross-border
transmission.
global climate change
Question. Please describe some examples of programs you are funding
within the Global Climate Change adaptation pillar.
Answer. Climate change presents countries with new challenges to
development that are beyond the scope of normal sectoral work, and for
which new approaches and capacities are essential. For example,
countries must now understand risks like sea level rise, glacier melt,
and hazards like fires, diseases, and flash floods spreading to new
areas; develop methods and capacities for analyzing risks and
responses, impact modeling and cost-benefit analysis; promote policy
instruments to spur clean, resilient development; engage especially
vulnerable stakeholders in climate change responses; and create
incentives for the private sector to invest in resilient, low-emission
growth.
These tasks cannot be addressed thoroughly through existing
development programs; they go beyond what existing programs are
designed to do. USAID's adaptation programs are designed to respond to
these challenges and will be fully aligned with USAID's development
priorities, but they will be uniquely guided by the climate change
stresses and opportunities that partner countries face.
Some global, regional, and bilateral examples of such programs are
below:
Globally, USAID is investing funding in the Famine Early
Warning System (FEWSNet) to support climate change adaptation
planning by identifying potential threats to food security,
using meteorological data for monthly food security updates,
developing regular food security outlooks and alerts, and
promoting response planning efforts. FEWSNet identifies
national priority zones and populations for adaptation
activities in Africa and conducts climate change assessments to
better understand variability in seasonal climate patterns.
Enhanced monitoring and assessment activities provide earlier
information on challenges to the food and water security of
communities most vulnerable to climate change.
In Senegal, USAID is working with the Ministry of Maritime
Economy to incorporate climate change adaptation into fisheries
policies and planning, in line with the priorities of Senegal's
National Adaptation Plan of Action. Senegal's coastal areas and
marine fisheries are particularly vulnerable to climate change
impacts such as higher temperatures and sea level rise. This
program's ecosystem-based approach to adaptation in coastal
areas is focused on protecting mangroves, estuaries, sea grass
beds, dune communities, and other systems on or near shorelines
and the benefits they provide.
In Bangladesh, an adaptation and biodiversity conservation
program is working in the Sundarbans--the largest mangrove
forest in the world--and Bangladesh's first line of defense
against rising seas and natural disasters. As a result of USAID
interventions, the Bangladesh Forest Department has endorsed an
Integrated Resource Management Plan for the Sundarbans to
mitigate the effects of natural disasters and provide
additional income for poor communities. USAID programs also
integrate climate change considerations into community response
capabilities and preparedness for natural disasters that are
expected to become stronger and more frequent due to climate
change.
In Ethiopia, USAID is improving the livelihoods of targeted
pastoralists and ex-pastoralists in the lowlands, working to
reduce their vulnerability to climate change impacts. The
project strengthens the economic base of chronically food-
insecure and vulnerable households through livelihood
diversification, increasing pastoral household incomes, and
improving their resilience and adaptive capacity to climate
change. A portion of the program also facilitates emergency
response to help protect people's livelihoods from risks or
crises that would otherwise hinder broader development efforts.
To build resilience to climate change impacts and other related
hazards using science-based decisionmaking, USAID will strengthen
livestock-based early warning and response systems by establishing
community-based response funds and management systems and
institutionalizing the early warning and response mechanism within the
government system.
Question. How will these programs demonstrate results? How will you
measure success and effectiveness with U.S. taxpayer investment in
these programs?
Answer. As you are well aware, 1 year ago, the Agency issued a new
Monitoring and Evaluation Policy to renew USAID's leadership on
monitoring and evaluation. Moving forward, USAID climate change and
development programs will implement the requirements of this new policy
which will allow us to monitor, modify, and learn from activities in
this emerging discipline.
In addition, the Agency has developed a comprehensive climate
change results framework and a set of metrics to measure progress,
which will be refined over time as lessons and trends emerge. Over the
next few years, the Agency will evaluate results from several key
climate change integration pilots that are testing different approaches
to integrating adaptation and mitigation into other USAID development
endeavors. For instance, a pilot to help smallholder farmers in the
Dominican Republic adapt their agricultural and business practices to
better cope with climate variability and change will help the Agency
evaluate the efficacy of its adaptation interventions and better
integrate climate adaptation into its broader food security portfolio.
In addition, Agency GCC and monitoring and evaluation specialists are
engaging actively with other donors and experts to develop more robust
adaptation indicators that will better estimate the impact of climate
adaptation programs.
In addition, for many years, USAID has required quantification of
the emissions reduced or avoided from its climate change programs, with
total emissions reductions reported in our standard annual performance
reporting. Missions are now reporting on mandatory, standard and
voluntary indicators.
foreign aid transparency
Question. At the Fourth High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness in
Busan, Korea last year, Secretary Clinton committed the United States
as a new member of the International Aid Transparency Initiative
(IATI). Please describe what this commitment will require of USAID.
Answer. The U.S. Government commitment to the International Aid
Transparency Initiative (IATI) followed on 2 years of work by the
administration to standardize and centralize access to and
visualization of information on U.S. foreign assistance. This work
enabled Secretary Clinton to make the announcement in Busan. Along with
19 of the executive branch agencies that manage foreign assistance,
USAID will report its data and information in the data fields and at
the intervals that are now standardized across the U.S. Government. For
USAID, this largely entails programming our systems to produce the
reports needed to make the information available in the standard and
format that the Foreign Assistance Dashboard requires. It will then be
converted to the IATI format by the Dashboard support team.
Question. How will the information differ from that USAID is
posting on the Foreign Assistance Dashboard?
Answer. The Dashboard collects a broader set of information for
U.S. purposes than is required of International Aid Transparency
Initiative (IATI). During the course of developing the U.S. agenda for
action on aid transparency, the interagency working group closely
tracked the development of the IATI standard, and the team supporting
the Dashboard has ensured that the data fields required by IATI are
built into the data requirements for the Dashboard. To be clear: the
Dashboard consists of two parts--a data repository and a Web site.
Information from the data repository will be converted to the IATI
format and available via a Dashboard ``button'' which will generate a
report in the IATI format.
Question. Does the work in these two systems now make one
redundant?
Answer. The Dashboard and International Aid Transparency Initiative
(IATI) complement each other. The IATI is an agreement on a common
international standard (i.e., what information is required) and format.
There is no storage function associated with IATI. Each IATI member is
responsible for its own data storage. The Dashboard serves as that
storage function. It will centralize information and convert the
Dashboard information into the required IATI data fields into the
agreed IATI format and make it available on the Dashboard Web site for
retrieval by any party that wishes to avail itself of IATI-compliant
information. Thus, the two functions dovetail and do not overlap.
______
Responses of USAID Administrator Rajiv Shah to Questions Submitted
by Senator Robert P. Casey, Jr.
Question. The transition of security and governance to the lead of
the Afghan people by 2014 is a complex operation involving many moving
parts and challenges. One such challenge is Presidential Decree 62,
whereby President Hamid Karzai ordered that private security companies
operating in Afghanistan disband. After an initial renegotiation of the
order's terms, it was determined that the dissolution deadline was set
for March 2012, except security contractors employed by NATO and USFOR-
A, which would be permitted to disband a year later, in March 2013.
Responsibility for securing millions of dollars' worth of projects
would shift to the Afghan Public Protection Force (APPF), a state-owned
enterprise that hoped to absorb Afghan security contractors as the
foreign firms that employed them disbanded.
In a January 2012 assessment, the Special Inspector General for
Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR) stated that the APPF was unable to
carry out a number of tasks, including executing and maintaining the
business operations necessary to remain viable; recruiting, vetting,
training, paying, equipping deploying, and sustaining guard forces to
meet contract requirements; and more. As of December 31, 2011, the APPF
had 6,558 personnel, according to the Combined Security Transition
Command-Afghanistan (CSTC-A). SIGAR estimated that APPF would need a
force of 20,375 to match the number of private security company (PSC)
contractors working for the Department of Defense in Afghanistan as of
December 2011.
How many private security contractors are currently working
for USAID implementing partners? Is the APPF on track to
provide a viable alternative to the PSCs currently working for
USAID implementing partners by the end of this month, either in
number or in quality of service?
Answer. Logistical and management challenges remain as the Afghan
Public Protection Force (APPF) reaches full operating capacity. The
APPF Advisory Group (AAG), with the support of the U.S. Embassy and
USAID, is working intensively with the Afghan Government to ensure that
the transition of guard security to the APPF proceeds at pace. The
conversion to the APPF on March 20, 2012, was assisted by the decision
of the Ministry of Interior to offer the option of interim security
services licenses to private security contractors (PSCs) whose clients
were already in the process of transitioning to the APPF.
The staffing capacity of the APPF for development projects, in
terms of actual guard force, is being filled in large part by staff
converting from the existing PSCs, supplying a qualified and known
resource to implementing partners. Currently, there are approximately
2,900 personnel guarding USAID-funded projects; 1,100 of those guards
are now serving under the APPF, with the remaining guards soon to
follow as the transition continues. In addition, USAID implementing
partners can employ the services of an Afghan Government-licensed and
approved risk management company to assist in managing the respective
APPF personnel as well as to provide mentoring, training, and guidance
to the APPF staff.
Also of importance, the AAG, comprised of officials from the Afghan
Ministry of Interior with assistance from ISAF and the USG, remains
engaged at the highest levels of the Afghanistan Government and at the
command and control level of the APPF to help with the transition.
Question. On February 25, in the Afghan Ministry of the Interior
(MOI) building, an Afghan believed to be an MOI employee shot and
killed two American servicemembers. NATO Commander Gen. John Allen
responded by immediately ordering all NATO advisors out of Afghan
ministries in Kabul. Have any implementing partners expressed concern
over putting their security in the hands of armed Afghans, given
escalating tensions?
Answer. The safety and security of both USAID staff and
implementing partner personnel who work with USAID in Afghanistan are
of the highest priority to our Agency. Many people working with USAID
in Afghanistan have sacrificed to support U.S. national security and to
help bring stability to the people of Afghanistan. None of USAID's
implementing partners have indicated that they will cease operations in
Afghanistan as a result of the transition from PSCs to the APPF. It is
important to remember that the APPF model anticipates that the same
guard force employed by PSCs will voluntarily transfer to the APPF. So
the same people that have provided security, in some cases for years,
will be on the job as APPF guards. The transition model is a two-part
process. First, partners contract with the APPF for services, and their
PSC guards convert to APPF guards; which means same guards, different
uniforms. Second, the partner may choose to contract with a risk
management company to provide security advice, training, and
consulting.
Question. How will the implementation of Presidential Decree 62
impact ongoing USAID projects in Afghanistan? Has there been any
systematic effort to determine which projects will continue, under new
security arrangements with the APPF, and which implementing partners
will be unable or unwilling to shift security contracts to the APPF?
Answer. After Presidential Decree 62 was issued, USAID made a
concerted effort with its partners to reduce overall reliance on PSCs.
Many of our partners do not use PSCs, or have reduced their need for
these services through community engagement and other tested
approaches. All USAID implementing partners using PSCs were required to
submit contingency plans to USAID that described their proposed actions
should the APPF be unable to provide the necessary level of security.
In total, 32 out of 91 USAID projects have indicated intent to contract
with APPF for security services; out of this total, 23 have signed
contracts with the APPF and the remaining are in process.
USAID, in coordination with DOD, has met several times both in
Kabul and in Washington, DC, to discuss the transition to APPF with
implementing partners and offer guidance on the transition to APPF. The
APPF is providing interim security service licenses to private security
contractors for a limited time to facilitate an orderly transition.
None of our partners that require security services have expressed
unwillingness to contract with the APPF. As with anything new, however,
issues will need to be resolved throughout the transition phase. In
this regard, the APPF Advisory Group has been staffed to help
facilitate dialogue between the partners and the APPF as well as to
provide technical advice to the APPF.
Question. USAID's work for women in Afghanistan has achieved
undeniable progress over the past decade, including marked improvements
in the maternal mortality rate, increases in the number of girls in
school, and economic growth opportunities. However, as the U.S.
military begins its drawdown from the country and the nature of the
U.S. mission in Afghanistan changes, our entire mission in Afghanistan
will undergo significant changes.
Will USAID's commitment to women's programming in
Afghanistan change along with the U.S.-NATO force drawdown and
the anticipated downturn in foreign funding available? What is
USAID doing now to ensure that Afghan-led groups continuing
women's initiatives are adequately equipped, trained, and
empowered to continue their work once the American presence has
diminished?
Answer. USAID is fully committed to ensuring that the progress made
in women's rights and empowerment is an enduring legacy of our
assistance to Afghanistan. We will continue to support and expand on
hard-fought gains. For example, under the Taliban, only 900,000 boys
and almost no girls were enrolled in schools. Today, more than 7
million children are enrolled in schools, 35 percent of whom are girls.
Life expectancy for women has increased from 45 to 64 years, over 25
percent of seats in Parliament are held by women, and in the last 5
years, nearly 120,000 girls have graduated from secondary school and an
estimated 40,000 are enrolled in public and private universities. USAID
will continue to support and expand on these hard-fought gains.
Over the past 4 months, USAID has solidified its commitment to
women's programming with the Gender Equality and Female Empowerment
Policy and the Counter Trafficking in Persons Policy. Both policies are
in line with the December 2011 National Action Plan on Women, Peace and
Security and the related Presidential Executive order on the same topic
which seek to fully integrate the role of women in peace processes. Our
activities are closely aligned with the National Action Plan for the
Women of Afghanistan (NAPWA), which reflects Afghan women's own
priorities for their political, economic, and social empowerment. As
Secretary Clinton has reiterated, one of our fundamental conditions for
insurgents who want to reconcile is that they must commit to abide by
Afghanistan's Constitution and the rights enshrined in it, most
particularly women's rights. USAID is taking several steps to reinforce
our commitment to empowering women which include:
The issuance of a Mission Order on Gender in September 2011
which institutionalizes a gender approach for all USAID
Afghanistan programming.
Evidence of this focus is represented in our
``Stabilization in Key Areas'' program, which will have a
Gender Advisor at each of the regional platforms, working
with the Contracting Officer's Representative, to enhance
coordination and effective project design.
The start of over 20 gender analyses of existing and new
programs to ensure that current and future programming is
compliant with Agency policy as put forward in the recently
released directives referenced above. These analyses will
facilitate maximization of USAID funding.
The more than doubling of spending attributed to women and
girls since 2008, and the creation of a fully staffed new
Gender Unit in 2010.
In addition, we continue to incorporate women into traditional
development programs. In the past year alone we have provided more than
500 grants for capacity-building for civil society, basic education,
women's equality under the law, land reform, microenterprise, and
political and social advocacy. USAID advises the Ministry of Women's
Affairs to help it fulfill its mandate of advocating for policies that
promote and protect women's rights. Specifically, USAID is working with
the Ministry on implementation of the NAPWA. We are also fully engaged
with organizations such as the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights
Commission and the Afghanistan Women's Network to ensure that they are
capable of driving a women's rights agenda as well as a gendered
approach to development.
We are also developing a new strategy and package of programs that,
together, will be called ``Women in Transition'' This effort will focus
on providing mainstream business and employment opportunities for women
through targeted technical and vocational training, business
development services and small and medium enterprise financing. Both
the strategy and programs are designed to firmly entrench women as
leaders in the development of their own country.
Question. Yemen is the poorest country in the Arab region, where
the average citizen survives on less than $2 a day and one-third of the
population is undernourished. As fuel prices continue to soar, the
country's water and food shortages worsen and the Yemeni currency
continues to devalue. Some estimate that Sana'a could be the first
capital to run out of water, sometime within the next decade.
CRS noted in a December report that in FY 2012, the
administration sought $120.16 million in foreign assistance to
Yemen, a sum far less than that for other regional recipients.
The FY 2013 request for federal assistance for Yemen is just
under $77 million, far less than the FY 2012 request. What
factored into the large decrease in the request?
Answer. Yemen remains an important strategic partner of the United
States. Yemen's FY 2012 653(a) budget of $70.4 million was indeed lower
than the President's request, due in part, to budget pressures on the
International Affairs (Function 150) budget.
The centrally managed humanitarian assistance accounts [such as
International Disaster Assistance (IDA), Food for Peace (PL 09480) and
MRA (managed by State/PRM)], and globally managed accounts [such as
Transition Initiatives (TI)] which have been vital to U.S. assistance
efforts over the last year are not included in those totals. These
funds are requested globally rather than on a country-specific basis,
and will increase overall resources dedicated to advancing our
objectives in Yemen.
As you well know, in recent years, the Congress provided additional
flexibility to handle the Arab Awakening through the Middle East
Response Fund (MERF) and the new Global Security Contingency Fund
(GSCF). In FY 2011, Yemen received an additional $8 million from the
$135M MERF for transition and elections needs in Yemen. In FY 2012,
Congress provided funding for the GSCF (funded through the State and
DOD budget), and $90M has been set aside for FY 2012 MERF (funded
through ESF and INCLE), from which Yemen may benefit. If the
administration's requested $770 million in FY13 for the Middle East and
North Africa Incentive Fund (MENA IF) is approved, those funds mayalso
increase contributions to Yemen.
Question. The FY 2013 budget request includes $38 million in
Economic Support Funds for Yemen. This request is $10 million more than
was allotted for similar programming in 2011. While worsening
humanitarian and economic conditions in Yemen justify this assistance,
what steps is USAID taking to address the implementation obstacles
posed by deteriorating security conditions and political instability?
Answer. While the security conditions and political instability in
Yemen do pose program implementation challenges, USAID has continued to
provide assistance on the ground. USAID's Office of Transition
Initiatives (OTI) has been in Yemen since 2010 and did not withdraw or
change geographic focus as a result of the deteriorating security
condition--their programing was maintained in both the south and the
north--including in towns and governorates that have been the hardest
hit by conflict. Additionally, OTI has opened new offices in three key
urban centers: Sana'a, Taiz, and Aden. USG food and nutrition programs
are implemented by the World Food Programme and NGOs which have had
continued access into most of the affected areas.
USAID's other bilateral programs have responded to the challenges
in Yemen by shifting toward hiring local NGOs and partners and by
hiring local staff to work in areas of high security risk. While OTI's
programs did stay in the more challenging areas, some of our partners
had to shift their work to more permissive areas including larger urban
areas (Sana'a, Aden, Taiz, and Ib).
In addition, USAID's implementing staff colocated their field
offices with relevant local government partners, including the local
branches of Health, Agriculture, and Education Ministries, and also
colocated with Local Councils. Additionally, our implementing partners
have worked to strengthen their own security protocols, including
having a low-profile footprint and using GPS trackers and satellite
phones to improve communications.
Question. Long before the city of Taiz saw fighting between
government and opposition forces, this Red Sea port city was making
headlines for its severe water shortages. Under the best of
circumstances, water was delivered once every 3 weeks, and families
prioritized paying for water right above health, education, and other
expenses. What are USAID's short- and long-term plans to increase water
security in Yemen?
Answer. USAID will support a dialogue with the major stakeholders
on the water concerns in Yemen including representatives from the
Yemeni Government, water utilities, private water firms, agriculture/
farming groups, and donor countries/international organizations. A
dialogue will bring major stakeholders together to discuss the issue
and is intended to encourage consensus around major water management
and conservation issues. Currently, the Dutch and German Governments,
and World Bank are playing a major role on water issues, and we will
work more effectively with them to coordinate on both policy
recommendations and technical assistance. USAID is currently programing
in areas including water for agriculture, water conservation and
storage technologies--including small-scale infrastructure programs
with communities.
In addition to policy changes that need to take place, large
infrastructure projects, including irrigation systems and water
filtration/desalination plans, are also part of the solution to address
the water problem. Due to the high costs of such projects, we will work
to ensure coordination with other donors in identifying solutions.
Question. Assistance to Lebanon has more than tripled since 2006.
In that time, Hezbollah has increased its powers within the Lebanese
Government, and now plays an active role in Lebanese politics.
Hezbollah holds two ministry positions, and the Hezbollah-led March 8
Alliance holds 57 parliamentary seats. Hezbollah's continued ties to
Iran and Syria remain concerning, especially as the Assad regime
continues its assault against Syrian citizens, and as concerns over the
potential for weaponization of Iran's nuclear program grow.
A January 2011 CRS report stated that, ``Critics of U.S.
policies aimed at weakening Hezbollah argue that while the
United States has taken measures to support the Lebanese state,
it has not simultaneously taken direct action to limit the
influence of Hezbollah in Lebanon and in the region.'' What
steps is USAID taking to ensure that U.S. funding is not
supporting Hezbollah or its efforts at this critical time?
Answer. Consistent with Executive Order 13224, terrorist sanctions
regulations administered by the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC)
within the U.S. Department of Treasury, the material support and
terrorist financing criminal statutes found at 18 U.S.C. 2339A, 2339B,
and 2339C, as well as other related Executive orders, statutes, and
executive branch policy directives, USAID has over the years taken a
number of steps to minimize the risk that agency funds and other
resources might inadvertently benefit individuals or entities that are
terrorists, supporters of terrorists, or affiliated with terrorists,
including Hezbollah. They are noted below.
Safeguards to Minimize Risk of Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTOs)
Financing
Mandatory antiterrorism certification clauses within all
assistance agreements, including subgrants;
Checks by all partner organizations against the Office of
Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) public database, the U.N.'s 1267
Committee List on Al-Qaida and the Taliban and Associated
Individuals and Entities, and the State Department's Terrorist
Exclusion List;
The Contracting/Grant Officer makes a responsibility
determination of proposed personnel by contractor or grantee/
cooperation agreement recipient against the above databases;
Prime awardees are required to conduct open source
antiterrorism checks and due diligence on subawardees and key
individuals of the subawardees;
Technical officers, prime awardees, and subgrantees are
required to implement monitoring and oversight procedures to
safeguard against U.S.-provided assistance being diverted to
support terrorist activities; and
USAID coordinates closely with the Embassy country team on
localized threat information and takes that into account in
program implementation and monitoring efforts.
Implementing Partner Level Vetting Mechanisms
All grant recipients are thoroughly vetted in accordance with USG
requirements, as follows: The vetting process is completed during the
grant application phase and documented in accordance with the program's
established procedures. It is standard practice to vet all of a grant
recipient organization's board members, key organization staff, and
staff who will work on the implementation of the specific grant
activity. It is the responsibility of prime awardees to vet
subcontractors and grantees. Staff who are selected and employed for
work on a grant activity after the grant is signed are also vetted, and
a confirmation of all those that are vetted is included in the grant
file. Vetting of grantee organization personnel is completed using the
following Web sites:
Terrorist Exclusion List: http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/fs/
2004/32678.htm.
Foreign Terrorist Organizations: http://www.state.gov/s/ct/
rls/fs/37191.htm.
OFAC & EPLS: www.epls.gov.
U.N. List: http://www.un.org/Docs/sc/committees/1267/
1267ListEng.htm.
In addition to formal vetting through the Web sites listed above,
implementing partner staffs conduct additional due diligence on
potential organizations and staff through meetings and discussions with
community members, other civil society organizations, previous donors
if applicable, and other stakeholders.
Question. How do USAID programs limit the influence of Hezbollah?
Answer. USAID has revamped its program to address key USG strategic
interests, focusing on maintaining high-profile, high-impact programs
that promote the message that the people of the United States support
the Lebanese people.
USAID is refocusing its democracy and governance programs to
promote social media and other technology-based tools that expand
citizen participation and leadership in the political process. A
particular objective involves expanding the ability of citizens to
affect the upcoming 2013 Parliamentary elections--the next major event
on Lebanon's political calendar.
Additionally, USAID funds are strengthening public institutions
that offer alternatives to the social services offered by Hezbollah and
its allies, particularly education and local government services. USAID
recently announced a new program that will fund Lebanese
nongovernmental organizations to manage in-kind competitive grants for
municipal development projects that respond to the governance and
economic needs of citizens. The project will be implemented throughout
the Lebanese governorates of North, Bekaa, Mount Lebanon, South
Lebanon, and Nabatiyeh.
USAID will continue to support programs aimed at limiting the
influence of extremist groups on Lebanese youth--including Hezbollah
and Sunni extremist groups present in Lebanon--through programming in
the education and civil society sectors. For example, USAID completed
partial renovation of 37 public schools last autumn and is now
developing ``Bills of Quantity'' for renovation work of 293 more
schools over the next three summers.
Other examples of USAID assistance that appeal to Lebanon's
citizenry and limit Hezbollah influence include:
Need-based university scholarships to Lebanese universities;
Local/village-level support for schools in areas open to USG
support;
Agriculture support that pulls rural farmers into export and
processing to substantively and permanently increase
incomes through expanding private enterprise for
production, processing, and marketing. (These results give
rural communities proof that non-Hezbollah supported
economic growth provides meaningful, sustainable, and
direct benefits.); and
Reforestation programs that effectively expand the cedar
forests decimated over the past decades. Hezbollah has a
major reforestation activity and the USG intervention has
the possibility of garnering significant and positive
public exposure.
Question. In 2009 Senator Lugar and I introduced the Global Food
Security Act, which sought to improve the U.S. emergency response to
food crises, establish a Special Coordinator for Global Food Security,
increase resources for long-term rural development programs, and
enhance human capacity through higher education for agriculture and
extension. Shortly thereafter, President Obama launched the Feed the
Future initiative, pledging $3.5 billion to help poor countries fight
hunger by investing in agricultural development.
The Global Food Security Act would have instituted increased
authorized funding levels for agriculture, rural development, nutrition
and the Collaborative Research Support Program (CRSP), as well as
created a $500 million Emergency Food Assistance Fund to be
administered by USAID. The administration's Feed the Future initiative
is ambitious--$3.5 billion over 3 years, and aims to cover much of the
same ground proposed in the Global Food Security Act--yet without a
specific authorization from Congress. Sarah Jane Staats, with the
Center for Global Development, states, ``Indeed, it is hard to find
fault within the [Feed the Future] initiative; the challenge is what
lies just beyond its reach: a U.S. global development strategy and a
streamlined organizational structure that reduces sector and
initiative-based fragmentation in our aid architecture.''
Does the administration anticipate the need for
congressional authorization of the Feed the Future initiative
to maintain support for this program? What is the
administration doing to ensure that the efforts contained
within the Feed the Future initiative become part of a long-
term, strategic plan for global food security?
Answer. The Feed the Future Initiative establishes the United
States as a political and moral force in the fight against hunger and
poverty. Much of Feed the Future's durability as a new model stems from
the creation of an overarching whole-of-government strategy, the Feed
the Future Guide, to combat food insecurity and undernutrition. As
previous GAO reports have concluded, U.S. Government efforts on food
security lacked a cohesive interagency strategy. The U.S. Feed the
Future initiative has been successful in laying out that strategy and
leveraging the expertise and talents of the relevant agencies across
the U.S. Government--State, USDA, Peace Corps, MCC, Treasury, USTR,
Commerce, OPIC and others, both in Washington planning and overseas
implementation.
Furthermore, the Bureau for Food Security was established at USAID
with the explicit goal of institutionalizing Feed the Future and food
security work within the Agency, understanding the need to integrate
the strategy into the core business of the Agency. While there is
little doubt that congressional authorization of the Feed the Future
initiative could certainly maintain and build support from partners and
constituents and provide more permanency, stability, and visibility on
this important issue, we have worked hard to ensure that the
interagency model that has been established and the heavy foundations
laid by Feed the Future will not be easily undone and should continue
to drive a unified USG long-term strategy for fighting global food
insecurity and undernutrition for years to come.
Under the existing legislative authority, Feed the Future has been
able to design and implement food security activities that have
produced significant results. In FY 2011 alone, Feed the Future
investments assisted over 3 million farmers in applying new
agricultural production technologies and management practices,
increasing the value of export sales by $86 million. Nutrition
interventions resulted in the decrease in the prevalence of underweight
children under age 5 participating in USAID programs, from 27 percent
in FY 2010 to 25 percent in FY 2011. In the 3 years since the L'Aquila
summit, the United States has gone from a low of $245 million in
agricultural investment in 2008 for State/USAID and Treasury to $888
million in 2010, $1.1 billion in 2011, and a request of $1.2 billion in
2013.
______
Responses of USAID Administrator Rajiv Shah to Questions Submitted
by Senator Tom Udall
Question. New Mexico, like many of the countries USAID works in, is
a water-scarce state. Therefore, I can understand the importance of
improving the efficient use of water. One of the projects USAID has
highlighted is just across the border in Mexico. Projects in Mexico
included a project in San Pablo which ``USAID helped strengthen the
Groundwater Technical Committee of the Central Valley, which developed
a system of efficient irrigation options for the region . . . USAID
conducted workshops to educate farmers about how to intensively produce
organic vegetables and other basic crops while efficiently using water
and energy resources.'' According to USAID's Web site, the income of
famers has increased 80 percent. This is astounding and a great example
of sustainable development. This project was begun in 2003.
Can you speak about other similar projects in Mexico and
elsewhere, which are working to improve sustainable development
through efficient use of water?
Answer. USAID is proud of the results achieved under the cited
project in Mexico. Building on success with the Groundwater Technical
Committee of the Central Valley, USAID expanded its water quality work
to the national level by including these activities within the Mexico
Competitiveness Program (MCP), which began in 2008 and ends in November
2012.
Through the MCP, USAID strengthened the capacity of the National
Association of Water and Sanitation Enterprises (ANEAS) to provide
efficient service to customers. With USAID assistance, ANEAS adopted
technical standards to improve meter measurement verification, legal
affairs, automated document generation, and customer service
information. As a result, ANEAS now has measurable performance criteria
that serve to benchmark and improve the capacity of its managers and
workers, and delivers improved utility services to customers throughout
the country.
In addition to its work with ANEAS, USAID helped the National Water
Commission (CONAGUA) draft regulation for pollution control in the
Turbio River. USAID also worked with CONAGUA to develop models for
calculating particulate emissions and the pollution effects on
infrastructure projects, including dams. As a result, CONAGUA has
improved its capacity to forecast and control river contamination.
Question. USAID's Climate Change and Development Strategy/2012-2016
outlined several guiding principles. These principles are based on the
challenges USAID has determined that climate change poses to the
development goals of the United States. The strategy specifically
stated, ``Climate change is a fundamental stressor that can undermine
past development gains and threatens future advances.'' The strategy
itself calls for a dual approach of incorporating both dedicated
programming in mitigation and adaptation, and integration of climate
change into the agency's broader development work.
Can you please explain how USAID is attempting to integrate
climate change into the agency's broader development work and
what goals USAID is hoping to achieve by creating better
integration?
Answer. In support of the new Climate Change and Development
Strategy, USAID has embarked on a series of integration pilots that
will help to develop a suite of practices and tools that can be adopted
throughout the Agency's development portfolio. Pilots will emphasize
integration of climate change considerations into other administration
priorities such as the Feed the Future and Global Health Initiatives,
sustainable economic growth, water, gender, democracy and governance,
youth, and security. Pilots will demonstrate the potential to generate
lessons and tools over the next 1 to 4 years. An integration pilot, for
example, might test ways to reduce energy consumption as part of a
USAID agriculture program. The results will inform the Agency's wider
development portfolio moving forward.
Consideration of climate change in strategic planning, program
design, and project implementation across a wide range of development
sectors is essential to the success of USAID's mission. To enhance the
ability of staff to do integrated programming, USAID has already
developed and fielded specific training modules on Integrating Global
Climate Change in Development, as well as sector specific training
modules, and has developed climate change guidance for country
strategies. We are analyzing ways to enhance Agency project design,
management, monitoring and evaluation practices to be better able to
integrate climate change issues.
Another aspect of the Agency's integration work is to incorporate a
development perspective into foreign policy debates and international
dialogues related to climate change. USAID's participation in these
dialogues is meant to ensure that development considerations are given
due attention in climate change deliberations and international
discussions are shaped in ways that provide support to developing
countries facing climate change challenges.
Question. USAID's Climate Change and Development Strategy/2012-2016
also highlighted the need to ``Value Ecosystem Services.'' The strategy
stated that, ``Well-managed ecosystems provide myriad services such as
food, water supply and filtration, carbon storage, erosion control,
flood protection and biological diversity.'' New Mexicans who are
worried about exacerbated flooding after last summer's wildfires know
very well the importance of a strong ecosystem to protect the watershed
against erosion.
Can you please explain why such programs are important and
how they will help local economies develop strongly--in
essence, how environmental protection improves the likelihood
that there will be sustainable economic development in
countries overseas?
Answer. Environmental protection is crucial to human well-being,
sustainable development and poverty reduction. Ecosystems provide us
with a variety of goods and services upon which we all depend,
including food, fuel, clean water and protection from natural hazards.
Threats to the environment are numerous and include habitat loss and
degradation, overexploitation of natural resources, pollution and
climate change. USAID is working around the globe to address the root
causes of environmental degradation, while at the same time, improving
the well-being of the people who rely on those resources. There are
many ways in which USAID is able to support sustainable economic
development through environmental protection and conservation
activities. Some of these are highlighted below.
The primary economy of rural populations in the developing world is
based on rain-fed agriculture, fisheries, and livestock herding. All
three sectors are heavily affected by climatic variability, to the
detriment of the farmers, fishers, and pastoralists who rely on them.
The evidence shows that the largest threat to rain-fed agriculture and
healthy rangeland is not overall water scarcity, but extreme rainfall
variability. This variability means: more intensive rainfall events
leading to more runoff and erosion and less rain water infiltrating the
soil; longer intervals between rainfall events meaning that a crop's
root zone will undergo drying at critical times leading to lower
yields; changing rainfall patterns meaning shorter growing seasons and/
or complete loss of growing seasons. However, through cost-effective
technologies and environmental protection programs, including rainfall
management practices, farmer and fisher-managed natural regeneration,
conservation agriculture, sustainable agroforestry, and modern
fisheries management, USAID has helped to increase productivity and
reduce vulnerability to these threats.
USAID also supports ``Payments for Environmental [or Ecosystem]
Services'' (PES) and ``Certified Wildlife-FriendlyTM
Enterprises'' (WFE). These are market-based approaches to provide
incentives to local landowners and resource users to implement improved
resource management practices that maintain major ecological services
and biodiversity to the economy. USAID has supported development of
numerous PES and WFE systems for biodiversity conservation (e.g., in
Cambodia, Guatemala, Kenya, Nepal, Tanzania), watershed management
(e.g., Bolivia, Ecuador, Mexico, Vietnam), and forest carbon
sequestration (e.g., Brazil, Cambodia, Guatemala, Kenya, Madagascar,
Malawi, Mexico, Nepal, and others under development). Downstream
beneficiaries and tourists reward poor farmers, pastoralists,
indigenous peoples, and forest dwellers for maintaining valuable
ecosystem services, thereby reducing the service providers' perceived
need to degrade those services in order to support their own families.
This improves the likelihood of sustainable economic development for
all.
Another way in which USAID supports environmental protection in
support of economic development is through community-based conservation
initiatives, in which local communities are empowered to manage
resources to achieve conservation and livelihood objectives. In
Namibia, USAID's investment in the LIFE (Living in a Finite
Environment) project spawned a communal conservancy movement in that
country that continues to grow and deliver development impacts in
biodiversity conservation, improved livelihoods, civil society
engagement, improved food security and resilience to climate change.
Community management of resources has led to the remarkable recovery of
wildlife species, economic growth founded on market demand,
partnerships with the private sector, and food security. More than 16
percent of the country's surface area is now managed by conservancies
and one-eighth of its citizen's benefit from the conservancy movement.
Annual programmatic income and benefits to community members have
increased from nothing in 1994 to over $5.7 million in 2008.
Question. Last years' floods in El Salvador have had a devastating
impact on the health and welfare of the people in El Salvador. What is
USAID doing to help El Salvador, a country which is in one of the most
violent regions of the world, get through this devastating natural
disaster and how is USAID's budget helping the people of El Salvador
avoid further instability which may occur as a result of the flood's
economic impacts?
Answer. In response to Tropical Depression 12 E in October 2011,
USAID provided a total of $862,699 in emergency supplies such as
hygiene kits, kitchen sets, potable water containers, medical supplies
and equipment, school materials, transitional shelters and fuel for
Salvadoran Civil Defense operations.
Even before this particular natural disaster, USAID worked closely
with El Salvador's Civil Defense on disaster mitigation and response in
vulnerable communities. USAID provided training, conducted rescue
simulations and established community disaster response committees.
This preparedness was markedly evident in this last emergency,
particularly compared to past disasters, as the country was able to
react quickly and prevent the loss of lives. USAID continues its
collaboration and training with El Salvador's Civil Defense, while
USAID environmental projects work at the community level to improve
natural resource management, which will help to mitigate global climate
change effects that increase El Salvador's vulnerability to natural
disasters.
Under the Partnership for Growth, USAID has aligned all of its
assistance to tackle the major constraints to growth in El Salvador--
the crime rate, which is one of the highest in the world, and the low
economic productivity. Over the long term, reducing crime, increasing
economic opportunities and sound environmental management will ensure
the stability that El Salvador needs to grow and prosper.
USAID is working with the Salvadoran Government, the private
business sector and local civil and community organizations on crime
prevention activities that provide at-risk youth safe school
environments, after school tutoring and recreation and vocational
training. With USAID assistance, municipalities are developing crime
prevention plans. A community policing project has helped reduce crime
in selected communities by up to 33 percent and USAID justice and
transparency activities provide training and assistance to the courts,
the Attorney General and Public Defender offices to reduce impunity as
a deterrent to crime.
Also under Partnership for Growth, USAID programs continue to help
El Salvador recover from a series of economic shocks in 2009, as the
global financial crisis unfolded, and spur economic growth through
programs created to ensure job creation and the protection of
vulnerable populations. Activities include job skill training designed
to match the supply of labor with private sector demands. Another
program provides at-risk youth the skills necessary to secure decent
employment. An alliance with a local Salvadoran organization and
private business support, is working in nine at-risk communities
surrounding an important business and commercial neighborhood in San
Salvador to provide technical assistance and training in micro
enterprise development and career enhancing opportunities.
Beginning in early 2011, USAID channeled assistance through the
``Mitigating the Global Financial Crisis Effects in El Salvador'' host
country system program. The program includes two components: an
education stipend for families whose children meet a school attendance
threshold; and a temporary income support program that provides cash
payments and vocational training to unemployed youth and women heads of
households in exchange for service in a variety of community
development projects. USAID is also working with the government of El
Salvador on fiscal policy and expenditure management. A municipal
competitiveness activity is helping 50 local governments to improve
their business enabling environments, attract new trade and investment,
increase economic activity, and create more employment at the local
level. USAID is also providing assistance in the development of 17
Small Business Development Centers.
Question. The 2010 GAO report on Afghanistan Development titled
``USAID Continues to Face Challenges in Managing and Overseeing U.S.
Development Assistance Programs'' contained numerous recommendations.
Recommendations included (1) ensure programs have performance
indicators and targets; (2) fully assess and use program data and
evaluations to shape current programs and inform future programs; (3)
address preservation of institutional knowledge; and (4) improve
guidance for the use and management of USAID contractors. USAID
concurred with the recommendations and my question for you is, what
progress has USAID made in implementing these recommendations, and how
much progress is needed to finish the implementation of these
recommendations?
Answer. Accountability and oversight is an area that USAID
leadership has focused on extensively as a key pillar of the Agency's
USAID Forward reform agenda. In Afghanistan, we have learned hard
lessons in what is one of the most challenging environments in the
world and made important corrections in the implementation of
assistance to enhance effectiveness, accountability and sustainability.
First, we are ensuring that our programs are increasingly effective by
setting clear goals and measuring results. When programs are not
working, we shut them down.
Second, we have built additional layers of accountability to
continue to ensure U.S. funds are used for their development purpose.
Fighting fraud and waste is one of our highest priorities, and we have
greatly enhanced oversight mechanisms to continue to address these
matters. For example, our Accountable Assistance for Afghanistan
initiative (A3) has increased vetting and oversight of USAID projects.
We have put in place an independent third-party monitoring and
evaluation team, with the addition of field offices in Kandahar and
Jalalabad, to extend the agency's oversight reach to these regions.
Third, we are working to ensure that our efforts are sustainable.
In 2011, we undertook an intensive review of our entire portfolio in
Afghanistan, focusing our efforts on delivering results that build
Afghan self-sufficiency and will be maintained into the future by
Afghans and given the tough conditions in Afghanistan for implementing
development assistance, we are constantly refining our approaches to
improve oversight of projects. We have made extensive progress in the
areas identified by the GAO recommendations outlined in July 15, 2010,
testimony before the House Appropriations Committee's Foreign
Operations subcommittee (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d10932t.pdf):
(1) Ensure programs have performance indicators and targets--USAID
employs an extensive performance management process designed to
maximize the impact of U.S. foreign assistance programs and manage for
results while improving knowledge, practices, transparency, and
accountability of USAID programs. A framework of clear, measureable
goals and expected results is the heart of effective programming.
USAID/Afghanistan ensures that programs have performance indicators and
targets through:
Results Framework: A Results Framework visually represents
the development hypothesis, defines goals, development
objectives, and multilevel results, along with corresponding
performance indicators for each objective and result. Results
Frameworks serve as the basis for project design, monitoring,
evaluation, performance management and reporting, and
ultimately, Performance Management Plans (PMP). Afghanistan's
Results Framework includes Embassy programs, making it the
first whole Chief of Mission PMP. It was established in the
fall of 2010 and has been utilized since the first quarter of
FY 2011.
Performance Management Plans (PMP): The PMP provides an
outline of targets for the eight overarching assistance
objectives, with related intermediate results and indicators.
The PMP covers the entire USG foreign assistance portfolio in
Afghanistan, including outputs, intermediate outcomes,
outcomes, and impacts, which are derived from the Results
Framework, and provides indicators linked to those results.
USAID implementing partners create their own, separate,
project-level PMPs that include indicators from the mission's
PMP. They report their progress back to the mission on a
quarterly basis via USAID/Afghanistan's Afghan Info system,
which is USAID's information storage and retrieval system
dedicated specifically to Afghanistan.
(2) Fully assess and use program data and evaluations to shape
current programs and inform future programs--USAID utilizes multiple
mechanisms to fully assess progress by using program data and
evaluations to shape current and future programs in Afghanistan. USAID
is incorporating robust monitoring and evaluation (M&E) through the
following mechanisms:
Third-party Monitoring and Evaluation: Third-party monitors
enable USAID staff to have better visibility of projects and
assess progress on the ground. USAID has had an M&E contract
with an outside firm since 2006 that provides the entire USAID
mission with M&E services and special projects services. The
mission is committed to maintaining the constant presence of a
missionwide third-party monitor in addition to support from
other third-party monitors as needed. Since November 2009, over
40 assessments have been completed by the third-party monitor
in addition to special assessments completed as needed. For
example, USAID has recently started a separate M&E contract
with MSI and CAERUS that will be dedicated specifically to
evaluating stabilization programming.
Establishment of a Monitoring and Evaluation Unit: In 2011,
the mission established a separate M&E unit to improve project-
level oversight, ensure compliance with required agency
policies, and see that relevant information is shared and
understood widely within the mission. This includes ensuring
all evaluation findings are shared and submitted through the
Development Experience Clearinghouse within 3 months of
completion. All USAID technical offices have designated M&E
liaisons, who meet with the core M&E Unit and help ensure that
technical offices follow the appropriate M&E guidance. The M&E
Unit also maintains the Mission Evaluation Schedule, which sets
a timeline of expected evaluations and assessments.
Utilization of onsite monitors (OSM): As of May 2012, USAID/
Afghanistan has made 318 onsite monitor designations to help
monitor programs. OSMs are USAID employees stationed at the
field level. They work with project managers to monitor
projects; provide information; help manage programs; and
communicate strategic thinking. Visits by OSMs supplement the
efforts of contracting and assistance officers in the mission,
who are also encouraged to visit their project sites to the
maximum extent allowable under Chief of Mission authority.
How these components work together is exemplified in the
Partnership Contracts for Health Services (PCH) Program implemented by
the Government of Afghanistan's Ministry of Public Health (MoPH) and is
considered government-to-government assistance. The MoPH reports on the
performance of PCH to USAID using a set of agreed indicators each
quarter. MoPH conducts annual household surveys in 13 provinces to
measure progress on 10 indicators in the key areas of reproductive
health, safe motherhood and child health. Monitoring efforts using the
tools outlined above facilitate discussions with the MoPH on
identifying how technical assistance programs can or should be adjusted
to achieve the most impact.
(3) Address preservation of institutional knowledge--Preserving and
utilizing institutional knowledge is difficult in Afghanistan where
there are short tours of duty and limited local staff. To apply lessons
learned to on-going and future programs USAID is utilizing three
innovative mechanisms:
Afghan Info: Afghan Info is the Agency's information storage
and retrieval system for Afghanistan. Starting in 2010, the
mission began using Afghan Info, a database through which
implementing partners directly report results against project
indicators. The database covers all USAID projects in
Afghanistan, including agriculture programs and roads projects.
Since February 2012, the system has transitioned to a new Web-
based platform that will allow us to provide increased
oversight of partner reporting and provide the mission with
additional management tools, including project evaluation
documentation, and project financial data. To improve data
quality, USAID has incorporated a Contracting Officer approval
mechanism to ensure the accuracy of partner submissions on a
quarterly basis. Additionally, geospatial data is included in
Afghan Info for all USAID projects with specific locations. By
knowing the location of the project sites and examining program
performance, USAID will (1) ensure better integration of its
programs and coordination among its implementing partners; (2)
manage resources; and (3) maximize impact of its programs.
Afghan Info also acts as a mechanism to allow OSMs to report
their site visits directly against partner site reports and
build in safe-guards against reporting errors.
AfPak Hands Program: The Af/Pak Hands program was launched
in 2011 to maximize the appointments for Foreign Service
Limited (FSL) employees who have completed at least 1 year of
field service in Afghanistan or Pakistan. Individuals selected
for the AfPak Hands Program serve on a 1-year rotation to the
United States in support of USG programs, if they commit to
return to the field for an additional year at the end of their
tour in the United States. The AfPak Hands Program allows USAID
to gain important institutional knowledge through successful,
field tested employees, enabling USAID/Washington and the USG
to draw on their experience implementing programs in
Afghanistan when formulating policy and new programs.
Foreign Service National (FSN) capacity building: USAID is
continuing to train its FSN staff to be able to better manage
and monitor our programs. FSNs in Afghanistan, as they do in
all USAID missions, also help to provide continuity and
preserve institutional memory for USAID/Afghanistan.
(4) Improve guidance for the use and management of USAID
contractors--In conjunction with the Quadrennial Diplomacy and
Development Review (QDDR), the USAID Forward reform agenda identifies
acquisition as a key part of the management agenda, and subsequently,
actions are underway through USAID Forward to improve the Agency's
guidance on contractors agencywide. Guidance for the use and management
of USAID contractors is being strengthened by increasing the USAID
acquisition work force; allowing personnel to spend more time on
individual award activities; and providing closer analysis of the use
and management of USAID contractors.
At the mission level, in response to the above and to address
several recommendations from USAID's Accountable Assistance for
Afghanistan (A3) initiative, several steps have been put in place to
ensure the improved guidance for the use and management of USAID
contractors. Chief amongst these is the initiation of a Compliance
Program with the purpose of taking a proactive approach in identifying
and correcting deficiencies in compliance amongst both USAID
Implementing Partners in Afghanistan and internal USAID procedures.
This program will consist of a dedicated staff of compliance
specialists to ensure improved management and oversight of USAID
contractors as well as an external review of all awards. The key goals
of this program are increased effectiveness of programs; strengthened
internal controls; improved program oversight and reporting; and
preventing and reducing fraud. Other measures that have been taken
include limiting the number of subcontractors to prevent the brokering
of contracts and no longer allowing construction work to be performed
under assistance awards to allow for greater control and oversight.
Question. Access to clean drinking water is major issue in
developing countries, and an issue which can present many security
issues for the women and family members who may be tasked with
traveling long distances to procure safe drinking water. While I was in
India I was able to participate in the opening of a water health
project in a village outside of Hyderabad, and witness first-hand how
this project would change the quality of life of the villagers. This
project was somewhat unique, in that it employed Ultraviolet technology
to help clean the water for consumption. Can you please describe how
the budget for FY 2013 will support the efforts to bring clean
drinkable water to more people in developing countries and how such
programs help improve the economic viability of the people who have
access to clean water?
Answer. In FY 2013, the President's request for Water programming
is $299 million, which directly contributes to protecting human health,
humanitarian crises, broad-based economic growth, enhanced
environmental and national security and developing public participatory
processes that improve transparency and accountability. Specifically,
the funding will support:
Implementation of USAID's dynamic new water strategy now
under development.
Continued implementation of the Senator Paul Simon Water for
the Poor Act by USAID to expand access to safe water and
sanitation and improve hygiene for people around the world;
this includes a special focus on supporting access by women to
safe water and sanitation.
Provision of water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) services
to several million people with first-time improved access to
water and sanitation; this supports USAID's overall efforts to
reduce childhood deaths due to waterborne diarrheal disease.
Increasing emphasis on sanitation and hygiene to stay on
target, as a development agency, to meet the Millennium
Development Goal for drinking water. There is still much to
do on sanitation.
Shifting from a subsidy model to one that creates demand
and new sources of finance for the poor.
Developing enabling policies, training, and capacity-
building needed to ensure that water projects are
sustainable.
In addition the Agency also will support water related
activities in its Feed the Future and Global Climate Change
programs in FY 2013. For example, in Haiti, the ``Watershed
Initiative for National Natural Environmental Resources
(WINNER),'' project is promoting agricultural intensification,
sound natural resources management, and reductions in
environmental vulnerability, while increasing both farm and
nonfarm incomes in priority watersheds.
Question. In your professional opinion, what will be the major
economic challenges Afghanistan will face as the U.S. military proceeds
with a transition to an Afghan led military mission . . . a transition
which I hope will be accelerated . . . and what is USAID doing to
prepare for this future?
Answer. Afghanistan faces two major economic challenges during
transition. The first is sustaining economic growth. Since 2002,
economic growth has averaged nearly 10 percent annually and has been
positively impacted by international community spending in the services
sector. The second related economic challenge will be Afghanistan's
projected fiscal gap. While domestic revenue has risen to nearly 11
percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP), international assistance still
covers much of the country's military, and civilian operational and
development needs. With the military drawing down, Afghanistan will be
responsible for more of its own security costs. Continued USAID
assistance will be critical to help Afghanistan address its future
economic challenges. USAID has prioritized economic growth in our
assistance program and is working closely with donor and U.S.
Government (USG) counterparts to increase Afghanistan's economic
stability. As outlined in the 2011 U.S. economic report to Congress
(response to section 1535(c) of the Ike Skelton National Defense
Authorization Act (NDAA), for Fiscal Year 2011 P.L. 111-383), the USG,
including USAID, will focus on boosting investment in Afghanistan's
productive sectors; e.g. agriculture, trade and mining, and reinforcing
the major pillars of growth--e.g. the business enabling environment.
Economic reform and growth in these areas will help generate important
sources of revenue to help Afghanistan narrow its projected fiscal gap.
Once operational, the mining sector is expected to add revenue
equivalent to another 1 percent of GDP per year.
______
Responses of USAID Administrator Rajiv Shah to Questions Submitted
by Senator Marco Rubio
Question. Please provide a detailed justification of the
administration's decision to cut funding for democracy programs in Cuba
by 25 percent to $15 million in its FY 2013 budget request.
Answer. The U.S. commitment to human rights and democracy in Cuba
remains strong. We will continue our robust program providing
humanitarian support to political prisoners and their families,
building civil society and expanding democratic space, and facilitating
the information flow in, out, and within the island.
The request for $15M is based on our assessment of needs on the
ground, and on-island and off-island capacity to carry out programs. In
addition, the combined pipeline (FY09 to FY11) for Department of State
and USAID implementers is about $42 million. Assuming full funding for
FY12 ($20 million) and FY13 ($15 million), we will have sufficient
funding ($77 million total) to carry out the purposes of the program
over the next 3 years.
Question. In its FY 2013 budget request, the administration has
requested a 57-percent increase in U.S contributions to the Global Fund
over last year's contributions. At the same time, the administration is
proposing a $500 million cut to the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS
Relief (PEPFAR), which has traditionally enjoyed strong bipartisan
support in Congress.
Please provide a detailed justification of how the
administration plans to fulfill its commitment to put 6 million
HIV/AIDS victims on life-sustaining antiretroviral treatment by
2013.
Please provide a detailed account of the administration's
reasoning to dramatically shift the focus of U.S. funding for
global health programs from bilateral programs to multilateral
organizations.
Answer. Since the beginning of the Obama administration, PEPFAR's
focus has been on results--lives saved. The President set ambitious new
goals on World AIDS Day 2011, including support for treatment of 6
million people, reaching more than 1.5 million HIV-positive pregnant
women for prevention of mother-to-child transmission and supporting
more than 4.7 million voluntary medical male circumcisions by the end
of fiscal year (FY) 2013. With the FY 2013 budget, we can achieve these
goals, continue the strong history of U.S. leadership on HIV/AIDS, and
continue to work for an AIDS-free generation. The FY 2013 budget was
developed in a tight fiscal environment, and PEPFAR made tough,
strategic choices in weighing the best way to save the most lives. In
light of the President's commitment, we carefully considered the PEPFAR
bilateral funding level needed to ensure that the targets will be
achieved. By focusing on proven interventions and increasing access to
life-saving antiretroviral treatment by 50 percent, we can help
dramatically decrease new infections and meet the goals.
Every dollar that we invest is going farther, and continued savings
will allow for the number of persons on services to grow. In FY 2013,
PEPFAR will continue efforts to achieve greater impact and efficiency
through smart investments, improve the quality of collected data, and
target investments to maximize impact by ensuring country programs
address the realities of the epidemic at the local level. As an example
of how PEPFAR has been able to increase its impact, PEPFAR has reduced
the cost of treatment per person per year from over $1,100 to $335,
with lower costs of drugs, bulk purchasing, and simple changes like
shipping medication by ground instead of air reducing the cost of
treatment dramatically. In terms of infrastructure and workforce,
PEPFAR investments have resulted in a decline of per-patient site-level
cost by 80 percent in the 2 years following establishment of a
treatment site. PEPFAR has become more efficient in using health care
workers, with tasks being more appropriately allocated among trained
health professionals, ranging from physicians to community health
workers. We are also focusing resources on the interventions that have
the greatest impact. By focusing on evidence-based prevention
interventions, including increasing access to life-saving
antiretroviral treatment by 50 percent, we are dramatically decreasing
new infections, and saving money by preventing the need for treatment.
In terms of shared responsibility, PEPFAR is seeing countries devote
increased resources to HIV and the health sector. South Africa--the
country with the largest HIV burden in the world--has dramatically
increased its financing of its response to over $1 billion per year. In
addition, increased investments through the Global Fund also free up
PEPFAR resources to do more. Given these factors, we are confident that
we will be able to reach the goals under this budget.
In terms of the allocation between bilateral and multilateral
programs, the PEPFAR bilateral program is not a stand-alone program,
and global AIDS funding is a shared responsibility. In most countries
with PEPFAR support, treatment and prevention programs exist with the
support of country investments, PEPFAR and the Global Fund. Joint
funding and program collaboration between PEPFAR and the Global Fund,
in support of national programs, are allowing for more of the HIV need
to be met. PEPFAR has been able to leverage Global Fund resources to
reach more of the unmet need in resource-limited countries. As we move
aggressively toward a sustainable response, PEPFAR, the Global Fund and
partner countries are working more closely together--which will
ultimately produce an overall decrease in PEPFAR's programming costs
even as services are expanded to reach more people. In addition to
these country-level impacts, each dollar from the United States for the
Global Fund leverages $2.50 in contributions from other donors--
increasing our impact. Moving forward, PEPFAR will analyze on an annual
basis what is needed to continue to put us on a path to an AIDS-free
generation--shared responsibility, including a strong bilateral program
complemented by a strong multilateral program and country investments--
and allocate funding accordingly.
Question. The administration has announced that USAID will take the
lead in coordinating the President's Global Health Initiative by the
end of this year.
Please explain, when do you anticipate that happening, and
what additional authorities, if any, will USAID be given to
manage that initiative successfully and ensure the greatest
impact in GHI countries?
Answer. Secretary Clinton has not yet made a decision on the
transition of Global Health Initiative (GHI) leadership to USAID.
USAID is continuing to increase efficiencies and eliminate
redundancies in our global health programs by working closely with our
interagency colleagues to tap into the expertise residing in sister
agencies to deliver health results and achieve the most impact for
every dollar.
In addition, USAID is already playing a leadership role on GHI
country support activities, and monitoring and evaluation, and we
continue to identify ways to strengthen our work in these areas and
further increase our collaboration with the interagency.
USAID has demonstrated strong leadership in the President's Malaria
Initiative (PMI) and Child Survival, as well as tuberculosis, orphans
and vulnerable children, maternal health and other health areas. A
recent PMI external evaluation stated that under USAID's leadership
``PMI is, by and large, a very successful, well-led component of the
USG Global Health Initiative.'' In 10 PMI focus countries--Angola,
Ghana, Kenya, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Rwanda, Senegal, Tanzania, and
Zambia--all cause mortality rates among children under 5 have dropped
16-50 percent, with PMI efforts being a major contributor.
How will PEPFAR be affected by the transition of GHI to
USAID?
Answer. As stated in the Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development
Review (QDDR), we do not expect to see a transfer of PEPFAR authorities
or budgets to USAID as part of a GHI transition.
Question. The administration is proposing the creation of a $770
million Middle East and North Africa Incentive Fund to complement
traditional bilateral U.S. assistance to the countries in the region.
Please provide an explanation of the role you expect USAID
to have in implementing this fund.
Answer. USAID's development planning and implementation expertise
will be a necessary component as follows:
The MENA IF is designed to drive political change through
high-impact development assistance. In this context, USAID will
play an important role in the policy development, programming,
implementation, and monitoring of MENA IF-supported activities.
Policy/Strategy Development: USAID will work closely with
the State Department and others to identify country-specific
reform needs and priorities, their relationship to U.S.
interests, and the programs and frameworks necessary for
reforms to take hold and succeed.
Program Design: USAID will work with the State Department
and other interagency stakeholders to engage with the partner
country to design specific MENA IF-funded projects.
Program Implementation and Monitoring: The precise
mechanisms for implementation and oversight responsibility will
depend on the project, and determining the most appropriate USG
agency to carry out the program.
______
Responses of USAID Administrator Rajiv Shah to Questions Submitted
by Senator James M. Inhofe
Question. I understand that you received the book I sent you,
entitled, Sheltered by the King, by my good friends, Mart Gable-Tsadick
and Demme Tekle-Wold. They run Project Mercy, Inc. (http://
www.projectmercy.org) a Christian, nonprofit organization located in
Yetebon, Ethiopia, founded in 1977. Over the past 11 years, Project
Mercy's original mission of caring for street orphans has expanded to
include emergency relief to African refugees and community development
programs like literacy outreach and health care education. Marta and
Demme are now interested in applying for assistance through USAID for
their ever expanding programs. I believe strongly in their vision and
mission to help the less fortunate in a struggling part of the world.
Would you please supply my office with the relevant
information necessary for Project Mercy to apply for USAID
assistance?
Answer. USAID generally undertakes direct assistance programs to
benefit developing countries through competitive grants and cooperative
agreements. This ensures that all activities are concentrated on
predefined objectives to maximize impact; and that they are consistent,
mutually reinforcing and draw support from the best available sources.
USAID publishes Annual Program Statements and Requests for Assistance
on http://www.grants.gov to advertise competitive assistance programs.
Detailed instructions on how to apply for each USAID-solicited program
are contained in each solicitation. Each solicitation also includes a
point of contact and contact information.
On occasion, USAID issues assistance awards based on unsolicited
assistance applications. While unsolicited applications can be received
and reviewed for funding, potential applicants should be aware that
only in highly exceptional cases are such applications likely to be
approved for funding. We suggest Project Mercy view the ``Guide To
USAID's Assistance Application Process and to Submitting Unsolicited
Assistance Applications'' (http://www.usaid.gov/policy/ads/300/
30354s1.pdf) if interested in submitting an unsolicited proposal for
USAID review.
For additional information on partnering with USAID, Project Mercy
should
feel free to contact Ms. Lily Beshawred, Senior Program Officer at the
USAID Mission in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, at +251-111-206002 or via e-
mail at lbeshawred@usaid.gov.
Question. It was raised during your testimony that USAID is
requesting $469.5 million in fiscal year 2013 funding for President
Obama's Climate Change Initiative. While the administration's budget
request has stated that this represents a decline of 2 percent for
Climate Change, it is troubling that this program is only reduced by
the same overall reduction of the USAID budget, namely 2 percent.
In this fiscal climate of constraint, would it not make more
sense to reduce the Climate Change Program more than other more
noncontroversial programs?
Answer. USAID's environmental resources are strategically
programmed to focus and concentrate investments for maximum impact.
USAID's direct investments in adaptation prioritize small island
developing states, least developed countries, especially in sub-Saharan
Africa, and glacier dependent countries. Investments in clean energy
focus on a mix of major emitters and countries with the commitment to
reduce emissions through energy efficiency and development and
deployment of renewable energy resources. Sustainable landscape funding
focuses on countries with globally important forest landscapes, such as
the Amazon and Congo basins.
Helping countries manage climate and weather-related risks prevents
loss of life and property. The livelihoods of 2.5 billion people
directly depend on climate-sensitive economic activities, such as
agriculture, fisheries, forestry, and tourism. The poor in developing
countries will likely be the first and hardest hit by climate change
impact and are the most likely to lack the capacity to cope with
economic and environmental shocks.
At the same time, more than 90 percent of projected growth in
energy demand will come from developing countries over the next 30
years, according to the International Energy Agency. Economic growth
that is more energy- and water-efficient will be cleaner, reduce
dependency on scarce international resources, and reduce the potential
for conflict between nations. USAID's work creates an environment for
private sector investment, providing new markets for U.S. technologies.
The World Bank and U.S. Geological Survey estimate that every
dollar spent on disaster preparedness saves $7 dollars in disaster
response. Helping countries manage environmental and weather-related
risks prevents loss of life. Left unaddressed, economic losses from
climate-related disasters and damage in some developing countries could
be as high as 19 percent of Gross Domestic Product by 2030.
|
NEWSLETTER
|
|
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list
|
|
|
