VZCZCXYZ0001
RR RUEHWEB
DE RUEHNR #0328/01 0410934
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 100933Z FEB 10
FM AMEMBASSY NAIROBI
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 0795
RUEHC/USAID WASHDC 0009
INFO RHEHAAA/NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL WASHINGTON DC
RUCPDOC/DEPT OF COMMERCE WASHINGTON DC
RUEATRS/DEPT OF TREASURY WASHINGTON DC
RUEHAN/AMEMBASSY ANTANANARIVO 0001
RUEHC/DEPT OF AGRICULTURE WASHINGTON DC
RUEHDR/AMEMBASSY DAR ES SALAAM 0044
RUEHDS/AMEMBASSY ADDIS ABABA 0031
RUEHKH/AMEMBASSY KHARTOUM
RUEHKI/AMEMBASSY KINSHASA
RUEHKM/AMEMBASSY KAMPALA
RUEHLG/AMEMBASSY LILONGWE
RUEHLGB/AMEMBASSY KIGALI 0010
RUEHLS/AMEMBASSY LUSAKA 0001
RUEHLU/AMEMBASSY LUANDA 0001
RUEHNR/AMEMBASSY NAIROBI
RUEHSA/AMEMBASSY PRETORIA 0034
RUEHTO/AMEMBASSY MAPUTO 0001
RUEHWD/AMEMBASSY WINDHOEK
UNCLAS NAIROBI 000328
SIPDIS
STATE FOR C MARISA PLOWDEN AND F ROBERTA CAVITT
USAID FOR AFR/SD JEFF HILL, TOM HOBGOOD, MCURTIS, AND ELOKEN, DCHA/PPM SBRA
DLEY, EGEA MYATES, AND COO JKUNEN AND GMARICLE
STATE PASS USTR
STATE PASS PEACE CORPS
STATE PASS MCC
STATE PASS USADF
E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: ECON EAGR EAID ETRD KGHG SENV ENRG PREL KE
SUBJECT: KENYA: SUMMARY OF REGIONAL CONSULTATIVE WORKSHOP ON GHFSI
AND GCC
------------
INTRODUCTION
------------
1. USAID/East Africa hosted a Whole of Government workshop in
Nairobi, Kenya February 1-5, 2010 on the implementation in eastern
and southern Africa of the Global Hunger and Food Security
Initiative (GHFSI), as well as on the planning of investments
related to global climate change (GCC). Over 120 people active in
these two areas from six U.S. Government agencies -- State, USAID,
USDA, USTR, MCC, the Peace Corps, and the US African Development
Foundation (USADF) -- attended the workshop. Participants came
from Washington and from the ten missions active in the GHFSI --
East Africa and Southern Africa regional, Kenya, Uganda, Rwanda,
Ethiopia, Tanzania, Zambia, Malawi, and Mozambique -- as well as
from the missions in Sudan, the Democratic Republic of Congo,
Madagascar, Angola, and Namibia. There was good representation
from the country and regional teams, including economic,
commercial, environmental, and agricultural officers from the
embassies, as well as management, program, and technical officers
from USAID.
2. The Mission Directors from East Africa, Ethiopia, Sudan, and
Tanzania, and the Deputy Directors from Kenya, Mozambique, and
Southern Africa participated, particularly on the final day. They
expressed support for both initiatives, and provided practical
suggestions on how to expedite implementation. The Regional
Director for Africa of F, the Office of Foreign Assistance,
participated in a number of the sessions.
--------------
GHFSI Outcomes
--------------
3. Mutual understanding of recent developments in the USG strategy
for the Global Hunger and Food Security Initiative, including the
five core principles guiding the initiative: 1) comprehensive plan;
2) country-led and owned; 3).strategic coordination; 4)
multilateral cooperation; and 5) sustained commitment. The meeting
was a valuable opportunity for the USG professionals responsible
for implementation in the field to discuss issues with key
representatives of the inter-agency team from Washington.
4. The three days of meetings on the Global Hunger and Food
Security Initiative produced the following outcomes:
-- Sharing of experiences among agencies and missions on how the
Whole of Government approach can best contribute to African
country-led and regional strategies and investment plans oriented
around the Comprehensive Africa Agricultural Development Program
(CAADP), supported by national governments and multiple donors.
There were presentations on how multilateral organizations and
funding mechanisms complement USG-supported programs.
-- Sharing of experiences from country teams on their progress
putting Whole of Government principles into operation at the field
level.
-- Clarification of the steps to be taken by the missions in 2010
to put in place a new architecture for the implementation of
effective programming of significantly expanded activities to meet
the major objectives of the GHFSI. These are: 1) Improved economic
performance of the agricultural sector, 2) Improved nutritional
status, and 3) Improved capacity of vulnerable households to meet
their food needs.
-- Presentations and discussions on the planning and implementation
of programming in key component areas. These were: 1)
Vulnerability, reaching the ultra-poor and linking development with
humanitarian assistance; 2) Nutrition; 3) Gender mainstreaming; 4)
Transport corridors and regionally integrated markets; 5) Building
capacity in public and private institutions; and 6) NRM, climate
change, and food security.
-- Discussion in small groups of opportunities for joint planning
and potentially coordinated procurement in program areas common
across country teams. Points of Contact for each group will follow
up with plans for further consultations and designs. The areas
were: 1) Capacity building; 2) Reaching the very poor; 3)
Nutrition, 4) Seed and fertilizer supply chains, 5) Livestock and
pro-pastoralism programs; and 6) natural resource management and
climate change.
-- Second drafts of the Implementation Plans (IPs) for all of the
participating Missions for FY 2010, as well as the Diplomatic
Strategies of each mission were discussed in side meetings. The
final IPs, due March 1, will include summaries of the Diplomatic
Strategies.
-- Of the eight focus countries represented at the meeting, two -
Rwanda and Ethiopia - have already signed a CAADP country compact,
and Rwanda has had its Investment Plan endorsed by a technical
review team organized by the AU/NEPAD. A report on the high-level
meeting held in Rwanda in December, 2009 provided a concrete
example of the factors and processes involved. USAID and other
members of the country teams have taken responsibility to work with
the agricultural donor groups in the six additional countries, as
well as on regional compacts in the COMESA and SADC regions, to
move the process forward. The key steps are: 1) the development of
a sector-wide strategy based on stock-taking and evidence drawn
from analysis; 2) the signing of a CAADP compact by relevant
ministries and development partners, establishing their commitments
to the strategy; 3) the development of an investment plan and
policy action plan based on that strategy; and 4) a technical
review of those plans, leading immediately to implementation. The
AU and NEPAD will be distributing guidelines for post-compact
investment planning and review to help guide that process. By the
end of FY 2010, it is expected that six additional in east and
southern Africa countries and one of the Regional Economic
Communities will have reached at least stage two, the signing of a
compact.
-- A draft Results Framework for the Initiative was presented and
draft indicators against which expanding activities will be
monitored were shared. Participants were encouraged to provide
comments and feedback by March 15.
-- Proposed methods for impact assessment were discussed, as well
as the Mutual Accountability Framework being developed for all of
the partners linked to CAADP.
-- Identification and discussion of key management issues of
staffing, procurement, technical support, etc. that will need to be
resolved in each mission in 2010 as the GHFSI and programs in
climate change are scaled up. USAID Mission Directors, program
officers, and Acquisition and Assistance officers from Washington
and from the region participated actively in these discussions, to
find solutions.
------------
GCC Outcomes
------------
5. The two-days of meetings on Global Climate Change produced the
following outcomes:
-- Mutual understanding of how the U.S. Government is moving
forward in the context of the Copenhagen Accord with programs in
support of low-carbon economic growth and adaptation to the
probable effects of climate change.
-- Preliminary agreement on how programs in the field should be
planned and implemented.
-- Agreement on a recommendation to build strong regional programs
capable of implementing key regional priorities, and of providing
technical support to bilateral missions in close consultation with
Washington.
-- Agreement that Whole of Government country teams in Africa will
be fully involved in shaping the development of the climate change
program.
-- Discussion of the need to balance the integration of climate
change programs into the GHFSI and other portfolios of the missions
in Africa on the one hand, and the needs of Washington-based
offices to track progress of narrowly targeted policy priorities on
the other.
--------------------------
Workshop sessions on GHFSI
--------------------------
6. Representatives of offices in Washington provided an overview
of recent developments. The GHFSI is a global, multi-agency USG
effort, led by an inter-agency team chaired by the Counselor and
Chief of Staff to the Secretary of State. USAID is taking a lead
role in implementation, working closely with the OMB, the Treasury,
USDA, the Millennium Challenge Corporation, (MCC) the office of the
Trade Representative (USTR), and others in a coordinated, Whole of
Government approach. Africa is in the spotlight because the
chronically poor and hungry constitute a larger proportion of the
population than in any other region of the world, and because in
spite of national economic growth, the proportion of the population
classified as poor has been increasing in many countries in recent
years. The Global Hunger and Food Security Initiative, which may be
branded "Feed the Future," incorporates the objectives and
principles laid out at the G8 summit at L'Aquila, Italy and the
Food Security Summit in 2009. An updated version of the strategy
document was distributed. A draft results framework was presented
and draft indicators were distributed for discussion and feed-back.
7. Presentations on the UN High Level Task Force on Food Security
and on multi-donor trust funds managed by the World Bank provided
the context within which the USG initiative is working as part of
broader multi-lateral efforts. The CGIAR system of international
agricultural research centers has mobilized multilateral support
for many years. The centers have long-term presence in many
countries, and have built the capacity of national systems to
generate applied research, policy options, and technology
dissemination through partnerships. A lunchtime talk by a woman
African scientist supported by the AWARD program provided concrete
examples of the benefits.
8. African governments, in partnership with the private sector,
civil society, and the international donor community, have taken a
leadership role through the Comprehensive Africa Agricultural
Development Program (CAADP). Africa-wide, thirteen countries have
completed CAADP Country Compacts, which are endorsements by
governments and development partners of evidence-based sector-wide
strategies. After these are signed, the next step is to work
towards comprehensive plans for investment and policy reform that
will be externally reviewed by a team of experts mobilized by the
AU and NEPAD. An additional seven to eight countries and at least
two regional economic communities (RECs) are expected to sign
Compacts by the end of this fiscal year. CAADP is a country-led,
not an exclusively government-led process. The process must include
effective consultations with private sector and civil society
organizations, as well as with the agricultural donor groups. A
policy reform agenda is a key element in every strategy. USAID and
other members of the country teams have taken responsibility to
work with the agricultural donor groups to advance the CAADP
process as the keystone partnership for the GHFSI in Africa. A
presentation of the process in Rwanda, which is furthest along,
provided a framework for discussion on how to adapt the process to
circumstances in each country. In discussion, it was pointed out
that national policies that affect the predictability of commodity
prices and the stability of market conditions have a critical
impact on farmers' incentives to invest to increase production for
markets. Good governance more generally is an important component
of effective programs with public institutions. The countries and
sub-regions where hunger and food security are the most serious
often have problems of policy and governance as well. The country
strategies must deal with these issues.
9. In Washington, the Whole of Government approach has brought
together State, Treasury, Agriculture (USDA), Trade (USTR), the
Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC), and other agencies with
USAID to develop the GHFSI. The draft Implementation Plans
developed by each of the USAID missions in the target countries
have been reviewed by the interagency teams. In addition, the
country teams led by State have submitted Diplomatic Strategies
tied to the Initiative. These lay the foundation for the Whole of
Government process in the field, identify key areas for policy
reform, and name country and regional forums for disseminating
information. Presentations by representatives the MCC, USTR, and
USDA, as well as one sent from Treasury, explained how their
programs can contribute, and provided information on how country
teams can best link with their programs and resources.
Representatives from each country team summarized their progress,
and the DCM for Kenya expressed strong support for the integrated
approach. The Peace Corps and the USADF also participated in the
meeting. The final IPs, due March 1, will incorporate the technical
programs, updated Whole of Government linkages, and the diplomatic
strategies.
10. A key objective of the GHFSI in 2010 is to lay evidence-based
foundations for further scaling up in 2011 and beyond. The core
objectives of the initiative are 1) Improved economic performance
of the agricultural sector, 2) Improved nutritional status, and 3)
Improved capacity of vulnerable households to meet their food
needs. Linked to these are a number of other key topic areas.
Presentations and working groups discussed how country teams can
best address these issues, and how they can work together to
assemble relevant analysis, plan and perhaps also to jointly
implement certain activities. Among the issues discussed were the
following:
-- Reaching the poor and vulnerable: linking humanitarian
assistance with agriculture-based growth;
-- Regional integration and transport corridors, to increase
regional trade and the availability of staple foods through
improved access to markets for producers and reduced transactions
costs;
-- Building integrated, cross-sectoral programs in nutrition, to
set standards of accountability for measurable decreases in the
prevalence of underweight children and to support country-led
processes to reduce under-nutrition;
-- Incorporating women and youth into development processes;
-- Integrating natural resource management and adaptation to the
effects of climate change into programs linked to the GHFSI;
-- Building programs in support of livestock productivity and
trade, with as focus on mobile pastoral production systems in the
extensive semi-arid regions too dry for other kinds of agriculture,
increasing the resilience of very poor people and reducing
conflict; and
-- Coordinated capacity-building, to provide short-term training to
African partners in public and private institutions to strengthen
their capabilities to contribute to programs and objectives of
CAADP.
-----------------
Management Issues
-----------------
11. Within USAID in particular, key management issues of staffing,
procurement, technical support, etc. will need to be resolved in
each mission in 2010 as the GHFSI and programs in climate change
are scaled up. All of the missions urgently need more people,
including qualified and experienced professional staff. In
addition, "surge teams" of experts available from Washington and
the regional missions must be expanded to assist in program
designs, reviews, evaluations, etc. Ways must be found to deal
effectively with very real constraints including National Security
Decision Directive 38 (NSDD-38) ceilings on staff, office space,
housing, support budgets, ICASS charges, and lengthy administrative
approval processes. Concern was expressed about onerous reporting
requirements. It was recommended that the GHFSI indicators and
reporting requirements, as well as the definitions of funding
categories, should be integrated with existing mechanisms as much
as possible. Participants called for more certain budget levels in
out years, to facilitate multi-year programming. The Mission
Directors and other senior staff participated actively in these
discussions, and expressed agreement on the need to work together
to find solutions.
12. Led by members of USAID's Office of Acquisition and Assistance
from Washington and the region, the group discussed flexible ways
of setting up grants and contracts to scale up activities. The
field is receiving mixed signals. On the one hand, the OMB recently
issued a paper calling for reductions in costs and risks to the
government, reducing reliance on IQCs, and encouraging smaller
implementing agreements with increased participation by small
businesses and African partners. On the other, the missions and
country teams are being encouraged to find mechanisms to reduce the
number and complexity of procurement mechanisms and management
units. New requirements for Congressional notification for proposed
procurements above specified thresholds are in the FY2010
Appropriations Bill. There is a strong need for a general waiver
for the GHFSI in 2010. A offices both in Washington and in the
field are over-stretched already. A specialists should be brought
into the early stages of planning, so that programs can be scaled
up quickly and effectively, using appropriate mechanisms within the
framework of agency and administration policies.
13. The U.S. Government interagency team met with representatives
from nongovernmental organizations, trade associations, and
development agencies. This included local and international
organizations resident and working in Kenya and East Africa. The
consultation provided an opportunity to update the group on the
consultation process, to document and review the principles
underlying the initiative and describe the planning for
implementation that is taking place. The meeting participants were
appreciative of the consultations the U.S. Government has
supported. They raised questions regarding the place of youth in
the framework, as well as the need to fully recognize producer and
community organizations as strategic partners. They encouraged the
U.S. Government to support integrated programs that do not
stovepipe programming for each initiative or program area.
-----------------------------------
Workshop sessions on Climate Change
-----------------------------------
14. USAID/East Africa hosted U.S. Government staff from missions
across Southern and Eastern Africa and offices in Washington to
plan for scaling up USAID's climate change investments. The two
days included discussions on how USAID is organizing to address
climate change, an update on outcomes from the UN negotiations in
Copenhagen in December that will impact USG policy and programs,
and emerging analysis on opportunities for USAID climate change
investments in Africa. Several USAID missions shared their
experience in addressing climate change issues through existing
investments in biodiversity, clean energy, and disaster response
and readiness.
15. In Copenhagen, the U.S. committed to spending $1 billion on
REDD+ (UN Collaborative Programme on Reducing Emissions from
Deforestation and Forest Degradation in Developing Countries) -
related activities over the next three years. In addition, the U.S.
will contribute its share of an international commitment to
spending $10 billion per year on climate change over the next three
years, rising to $100 billion per year by 2020. Lastly, pending
legislation in Congress is likely to shape the direction of the
USG's climate change investments. USAID is still determining
Copenhagen's impact on priorities, programs, and reporting on
investments.
16. In meetings with AFR/SD and EGAT, each mission provided
updates on national policy development on climate change and
discussed potential USAID investment areas and technical assistance
needs. Missions also provided input to emerging priorities.
Although there were some areas where the data did not reflect the
current situation, many missions felt that the analysis did provide
a sound basis on which to lay out budget priorities.
17. Missions identified the need for strong regional climate
change programs to provide technical support to bilateral missions
and which are themselves supported by Washington. Missions also
expressed that they want the field to be more involved in shaping
the development of the climate change program. Participants felt
that there was a disconnect between Washington's expectation that
climate change funds meet narrowly targeted policy priorities and
field missions' emphasis on integrated programming that meets key
development priorities, including climate change. Further
clarification was requested on whether the USG can support GCC
programs in countries that have not yet signed the Copenhagen
Accord. Lastly, missions identified the need to clarify how to
address the impacts of climate change on global food security as
well as the broader climate change agenda that includes both low
carbon development and adaptation to climate change across a range
of sectors.
18. Questions and issues from all participants were collected
throughout both sessions of the workshop. Many of these were
discussed in the meetings, and other will be addressed through the
interactive website: Food Security, Sustainable Trade, and
Environmental Resilience (FOSTER)
(http://communities.usaidallnet.gov/foster).
RANNEBERGER