.
The Obama Administration’s Feed the Future
Initiative
Randy Schnepf
Specialist in Agricultural Policy
Marian L. Lawson
Specialist in Foreign Assistance Policy
Nicolas Cook
Specialist in African Affairs
October 5, 2015
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R44216
c11173008
.
The Obama Administration’s Feed the Future Initiative
Summary
The Obama Administration’s Feed the Future (FTF) Initiative is a U.S. international development
program (launched in 2010) that invests in food security and agricultural development activities
in a select group of developing countries in an effort to reduce hunger, malnutrition, poverty, and
food insecurity. The bulk of FTF funding supports 19 “focus countries” selected based on their
needs and the opportunities to achieve success. FTF supports additional countries under regional
programs and through assistance to two “strategic partners,” India and South Africa, to increase
regionally based sustainable development capacities.
The FTF initiative originated largely as the U.S. component of the international response to the
heightened food insecurity that resulted from the global food price crisis of 2007-2008. In July
2009, at the G8 Summit in L’Aquila, Italy, President Obama pledged to provide at least $3.5
billion over three years to a global agriculture and food security initiative—referred to as the
Global Partnership. In total, the international donor community pledged $22 billion to promote
global agricultural development, improved nutrition, and food security. Since its origin, FTF has
expanded into a whole-of-government effort. In addition to the Global Partnership, FTF also
supports implementation of President Obama’s 2010 Policy Directive on Global Development
and coordination of previously existing U.S. agricultural development policies.
Key features of FTF include that it uses a published set of metrics to justify U.S. investments in
each recipient country and each development program; emphasizes coordination and partnering
with recipient-country organizations, private sector entities, and international organizations to
implement FTF activities; relies on a set of common goals and measurable indicators to monitor
and evaluate progress; and provides annual reports to Congress. Furthermore, the FTF strategy
for investing in international development is being extended, under a whole-of-government
framework, to all U.S. international agricultural development programs, including the Food for
Peace Title II non-emergency (i.e., development) food aid, the Food for Progress program, and
McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition program.
From FY2010 through FY2014, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) has
spent $4.7 billion in direct food security and agricultural development activities under FTF.
Another $6.6 billion has been spent on FTF-related activities by other federal agencies under the
FTF’s whole-of-government approach. This amounts to a combined total of $11.3 billion in U.S.
outlays on agricultural development and nutrition activities in FTF focus countries since FY2010.
Over these five years, USAID has reported some initial success in reducing the prevalence of
poverty and chronic malnutrition in several of the focus countries; however, results to date are
available for only a select group of focus countries.
Because FTF is a presidential initiative, its institutional longevity beyond the current Obama
Administration is uncertain. Congress is presently evaluating the overall merits of FTF and
whether to permanently authorize it in statute. Several issues related to FTF are of potential
interest to Congress. The FTF whole-of-government approach, which involves coordinating
activities and budgetary resources across different government agencies, can be difficult to
implement if interagency roles and responsibilities are not clearly defined. Similarly, linkages
between FTF, with its 19 focus countries, and Food for Peace food aid programs (which have a
broader target group, depend primarily on in-kind food aid, are funded from agricultural
appropriations, and are under the jurisdiction of the House and Senate Agriculture committees)
may not be congruent. Finally, some persons within civil society have expressed concerns that
FTF’s goal of country-led planning could devolve into government-led planning with no or a very
limited role for civil society organizations.
Congressional Research Service
c11173008
.
The Obama Administration’s Feed the Future Initiative
Contents
Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1
Background ..................................................................................................................................... 2
Feed the Future Strategy .................................................................................................................. 4
Focus Countries ......................................................................................................................... 5
Developing and Implementing a Country Investment Plan (CIP) ............................................ 7
Partnering and Coordination ..................................................................................................... 7
Partnerships with Other Stakeholders ................................................................................. 7
Coordination with Multilateral Institutions......................................................................... 8
Regional Organizations ....................................................................................................... 9
Whole of Government (WOG) ................................................................................................ 10
FTF Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) Approach ................................................................ 12
Results Framework: Targeted Investments ....................................................................... 12
Standard Performance Indicators ...................................................................................... 13
Local Engagement and Capacity Building in Program Design and M&E ........................ 13
Transparency ..................................................................................................................... 14
Research and Capacity Building ............................................................................................. 14
Cross-Cutting Issues ................................................................................................................ 15
Gender Issues .................................................................................................................... 15
Climate Change and Environment .................................................................................... 15
Funding .......................................................................................................................................... 16
Status and Accomplishments ......................................................................................................... 19
FTF Progress Report ............................................................................................................... 19
Gender Progress Report .......................................................................................................... 19
Issues for Congress ........................................................................................................................ 23
Efforts to Institutionalize Feed the Future ............................................................................... 23
Whole of Government ............................................................................................................. 23
Country-Led Planning ............................................................................................................. 24
Linkages with Food for Peace Food Aid ................................................................................. 25
Figures
Figure 1. USAID-Led Whole-of-Government Approach to the FTF Initiative .............................. 11
Figure 2. Feed the Future Results Framework (RF) ...................................................................... 13
Tables
Table 1. U.S. Budget Commitments to the L’Aquila Food Security Initiative ................................ 3
Table 2. Feed the Future Focus Countries ....................................................................................... 6
Table 3. Global Agriculture and Food Security Program (GAFSP) Budget Requests and
Appropriations, FY2010-FY2016 ................................................................................................ 9
Table 4. Feed the Future Implementing Agencies, Selected Funding Allocations, FY2010-
FY2014 ....................................................................................................................................... 17
Table 5. Feed the Future Allocations by Focus Country, FY2010-FY2015 Est. ........................... 18
Congressional Research Service
c11173008
.
The Obama Administration’s Feed the Future Initiative
Table 6. Feed the Future Progress Toward Aspirational Five-Year Goals ..................................... 21
Table 7. Feed the Future Selected Global Results, FY2011-FY2014 ............................................ 22
Appendixes
Appendix. Performance Indicators ................................................................................................ 27
Contacts
Author Contact Information .......................................................................................................... 31
Congressional Research Service
c11173008
.
The Obama Administration’s Feed the Future Initiative
Introduction
Established in 2010, “Feed the Future” (FTF) is a major Obama Administration foreign assistance
initiative designed to alleviate global poverty and improve health and food security. It supports
both implementation of President Obama’s 2010 Policy Directive on Global Development1 and
U.S. food security pledges made at the G8 Summit in 2009. FTF employs a whole-of-government
approach to achieve these ends. While FTF adds to the suite of existing U.S. international
development programs and outlays, it has pioneered new approaches for achieving cross-sectoral
international development goals and for aligning existing U.S. food and agriculture programs.
The Administration views FTF as promoting a range of international agricultural development
best practices and strategies. FTF acts as a coordination mechanism for all U.S. international
agricultural and food security development programs.
FTF is a new federal investment paradigm targeting sustainable reductions in international
hunger, malnutrition, and food insecurity. FTF seeks to foster transparency and accountability and
track and assess program implementation progress through the use of publicly released metrics to
justify U.S. investments in each recipient country and each development program, indicators to
monitor and evaluate progress, and annual reports to Congress. The U.S. Agency for International
Development (USAID) selects the main FTF recipient countries—known as “focus countries”
under the initiative—based on their needs and opportunities for reducing food insecurity. Under
USAID’s selection process, FTF aid targets some of the world’s poorest countries, but also
channels investments to countries that show the greatest potential to achieve progress. FTF also
emphasizes sustainable and collaborative approaches to development. Key FTF operating
principles include:
recipient-country ownership of and commitment of resources to country-specific
investment plans;
reliance on measurable indicators to assess initial needs; monitor progress toward
targets; and evaluate whether corrections, adjustments, or wholesale changes are
needed mid-course;
use of a whole-of-government implementation strategy that cuts across existing
U.S. international development programs to facilitate coordination and
potentially prevent duplication and gaps; and
an emphasis on coordinating and partnering with recipient-country organizations
and private sector entities, as well as with other donors and international
organizations.
Following the inception of FTF in 2010, USAID has reported results from selected countries.
Because FTF is a presidential initiative, its institutional longevity beyond the current Obama
Administration is uncertain. Congress is presently evaluating the overall merits of FTF and
whether to permanently authorize it. This report discusses FTF’s origins; intent; implementation
(including its monitoring and evaluation strategy); government-wide, inter-agency approach; and
funding. This report also reviews the current status of FTF implementation and possible issues for
Congress.
1 White House, Fact Sheet: U.S. Global Development Policy, September 22, 2010.
Congressional Research Service
1
c11173008
.
The Obama Administration’s Feed the Future Initiative
Background
The Administration established FTF to support implementation of President Obama’s 2009
pledge to reduce global hunger—a multi-year U.S. food security commitment made at the G8
Summit in 2009—and his 2010 Policy Directive on Global Development. FTF was also
motivated by the recognition that global investment in the agricultural sectors of many of the
world’s poorer nations had declined in recent decades. Investment in developing-country
agriculture by the major donor community had fallen off sharply over the previous two decades—
the share of total official development assistance devoted to agriculture had fallen to 6% by 2008,
down from 17% in the late 1980s.2 Matters were made worse by the global financial crisis that
began in 2008 and the subsequent global recession, which left an international wake of rising
unemployment and ever-tightening budgetary resources.
The Administration created FTF to act as a key framework for enhancing U.S. agricultural
development focused on food security and poverty alleviation goals within broader U.S.
international development efforts—a key foreign policy priority of the Obama Administration. In
his first inaugural address, President Obama signaled that alleviating global hunger would be a
top priority of his Administration.3 Later, in 2010, he issued a Presidential Policy Directive (PPD)
on Global Development, which defined socioeconomic development as “vital to U.S. national
security” and as “a strategic, economic, and moral imperative for the United States.”4 Three inter-
related presidential initiatives, the Global Climate Change Initiative, the Global Health Initiative,
and FTF, are the core policy and program tools for achieving the goals of the PPD, which lays out
the key precepts that define the operation of FTF.
The Administration also established FTF, in part, as a vehicle for delivering on U.S.
commitments to the international response to heightened food insecurity resulting from the 2008
financial crises and subsequent global recession. The global food price crisis of 2007-2008
pushed food prices for many basic staples out of reach for many of the world’s poorest, most
vulnerable people.5 The result was an increase in the proportion and absolute number of hungry
people worldwide to historic levels. In 2009, the United Nation’s Food and Agriculture
Organization (FAO) estimated that the total number of undernourished people in the world had
reached more than 1 billion.6 This estimate, later revised downward to 870 million, triggered new
interest in global food security issues.
In July 2009, at the G87 Summit in L’Aquila, Italy, President Obama pledged to provide at least
$3.5 billion over three years (FY2010 to FY2012) to global food security programs as part of the
Global Partnership for Agriculture and Food Security (hereinafter the Global Partnership), a
2 These statistics refer to official development assistance for the agriculture sector, including forestry and fisheries, of
the 22 countries that are members of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)
Development Assistance Committee (DAC). OECD-DAC, Measuring Aid to Agriculture (April 2010), found at
http://www.oecd.org/dac/stats/44116307.pdf.
3 See President Barack Obama’s first Inaugural Address, January 20, 2009, at http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/20/us/
politics/20text-obama.html.
4 White House, Fact Sheet: U.S. Global Development Policy, September 22, 2010.
5 During 2007-2008, food prices, especially for staple commodities such as wheat and rice, dramatically increased
worldwide, causing political and economic instability in many countries. For more information, see CRS Report
RL34474, High Agricultural Commodity Prices: What Are the Issues?, by Randy Schnepf.
6 FAO, The State of Food Insecurity in the World 2010, Rome 2010, at http://www.fao.org/hunger/en/.
7 The G8 countries are Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States.
Congressional Research Service
2
c11173008
link to page 7 link to page 7 link to page 7 link to page 7 link to page 13 .
The Obama Administration’s Feed the Future Initiative
component of the L’Aquila Food Security Initiative,8 which was intended to promote global
agricultural development, improved nutrition, and food security (Table 1).9 The G8 summit
leaders and other countries and institutions in attendance announced the launch of the Global
Partnership and established a goal of mobilizing at least $20 billion over three years to finance the
initiative.10
In September 2009, in Pittsburgh, the G2011 Summit endorsed the L’Aquila Food Security
Initiative and, in addition, called for the establishment of a World Bank food security trust fund to
finance medium- and long-term investments in agricultural productivity and market access in
low-income countries.12 The fund, called the Global Agriculture and Food Security Program
(GAFSP), was established in 2010. Also, countries that did not attend the earlier G8 Summit—
Belgium, Finland, Norway, and Switzerland—pledged to support the Global Partnership and to
commit an additional $2 billion to the effort, making a new total of $22 billion pledged by the
international donor community.13 By the end of 2013, U.S. commitments of $4.2 billion were in
excess of the initial L’Aquila pledge of $3.5 billion (Table 1).
Table 1. U.S. Budget Commitments to the L’Aquila Food Security Initiative
Pledges as of December 31, 2013 ($ millions)
U.S. Government Agency
Commitments
Disbursements
USAID
$2,757.4
$1,582.2
GAFSPa (U.S. Dept. of Treasury)
$469.2
$469.2
Mil ennium Challenge Corporation (MCC)b
$982.0
$240.2
Totals
$4,208.6
$2,291.8
Source: U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), Feed the Future Progress Report, 2014, May 2014, at
http://feedthefuture.gov/progress.
Note: The global pledge of $22 bil ion for food security is also referred to as the Global Partnership. The data in
this table are not adjusted for inflation.
a. See text box, “The Global Agriculture and Food Security Program (GAFSP),” on page 8 and Table 3 below
for details on GAFSP and U.S. contributions.
b. For more information, see CRS Report RL32427, Millennium Challenge Corporation, by Curt Tarnoff.
The U.S. commitment to the Global Partnership provided the basis for a new U.S. government
effort across the suite of existing international development programs that address poverty, health,
and food security. In May 2010, the Department of State officially launched the Administration’s
8 For more information see the U.S. State Department at http://www.state.gov/s/globalfoodsecurity/rls/rpt/laquila/.
9 White House, Office of the Press Secretary, “Food Security: Investing in Agricultural Development to Reduce Hunger
and Poverty,” July 10, 2009, at http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Food-Security-Investing-in-Agricultural-
Development-to-Reduce-Hunger-and-Poverty/.
10 L’Aquila Joint Statement on Global Food Security, July 10, 2009, at http://www.g8italia2009.it/static/G8_Allegato/
LAquila_Joint_Statement_on_Global_Food_Security%5B1%5D,0.pdf.
11 The G20 countries include the G8 and Argentina, Australia, Brazil, China, India, Indonesia, Mexico, Saudi Arabia,
South Africa, South Korea, and Turkey. The European Union also is a member of the G20.
12 Article 39 of the Leaders’ Statement at the G20 Summit in Pittsburgh contains the G20 endorsement of the Global
Partnership and calls for the creation of a World Bank multilateral trust fund to scale up agricultural assistance to low-
income countries; the statement is available at http://www.pittsburghsummit.gov/mediacenter/129639.htm.
13 White House, “The Pittsburgh Summit: Partnering on Food Security,” fact sheet, September 25, 2009, available at
https://www.whitehouse.gov/files/documents/g20/Pittsburgh_Fact_Sheet_Food_Security.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
3
c11173008
.
The Obama Administration’s Feed the Future Initiative
global hunger and food security initiative, which it called Feed the Future (FTF),14 using existing
authorities provided in the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (P.L. 87-195), as amended.15 Later that
year, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) was named the lead agency
responsible for implementing FTF.16 The Administration created the Bureau for Food Security
within USAID in November 2010 to manage both the FTF initiative and other previously
established USAID agricultural development programs.
FTF has two deputy coordinators:17
a Deputy Coordinator for Development, based at USAID, who coordinates
implementation of FTF across the U.S. government, oversees its execution and
reports on results, and leads engagement with the external community to ensure
that food security remains high on the development agenda; and
a Deputy Coordinator for Diplomacy, based at the State Department, who leads
all aspects of U.S. diplomacy related to food security and nutrition, including in
support of FTF.
Feed the Future Strategy
According to USAID, the overarching goal of FTF is to sustainably reduce global hunger and
poverty by tackling their root causes using proven strategies. Furthermore, USAID contends that
FTF uses management approaches that have proven to be effective in low-income countries:
developing strategies and interventions in coordination with stakeholders; committing to sound
investments through reliable partners; and adjusting program elements based on analyses of
performance reports.18 Also, according to USAID, experience has shown that in order to meet
FTF objectives, host governments must be committed to the effort. Therefore, FTF focuses on
countries that have placed high priority on poverty and hunger reduction and have adopted
national plans—called Country Investment Plans (CIPs)—to combat those problems. According
to USAID’s Feed the Future Guide, FTF prioritizes investments that have the potential to achieve
lasting and large-scale impacts—that is, outcomes that can most easily be expanded beyond an
activity’s initial zone of influence (ZOI) and be sustained over time.19 To implement FTF, the
United States works with host governments, international and regional development partners, and
other stakeholders.
The Rome Principles for Sustainable Global Food Security20
FTF builds on the five principles for sustainable food security—referred to as the Rome Principles—first articulated at
L’Aquila and endorsed at the 2009 World Summit on Food Security in Rome. The so-called Rome Principles are a set
of five aid effectiveness principles that seek to
14 White House, “President Obama’s Global Development Policy and Global Food Security,” September 22, 2010, at
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2010/09/22/fact-sheet-us-global-development-policy.
15 The President is granted broad authority to conduct international assistance by §103(a)(1) and international disaster
assistance by §491(b) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended (22 U.S.C. 2151a and 2292).
16 U.S. Department of State, Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review (QDDR), 2010.
17 For more information, see https://www.feedthefuture.gov/about.
18 See USAID, Feed the Future Guide, May 2010, at http://feedthefuture.gov/resource/feed-future-guide.
19 USAID, Feed the Future Guide, May 2010, p. 15.
20 The “Rome Principles” are available at http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/wsfs/Summit/Docs/
Final_Declaration/WSFS09_Declaration.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
4
c11173008
.
The Obama Administration’s Feed the Future Initiative
increase investment through country-owned plans that support results-based programs and
partnerships and that help tailor assistance to the needs of individual countries through consultative processes
and plans that are developed and led by the recipient country governments;
improve strategic coordination at the national, regional, and global levels and among donors to
improve governance and resource allocation by and among the diverse stakeholders—including the private
sector and civil society—to achieve common objectives, while avoiding duplication and response gaps;
support comprehensive strategies to immediately tackle hunger among vulnerable populations and, in the
medium to long term, foster integrated, sustainable agriculture, food security, nutrition, and rural development
activities;
enhance multilateral institution effectiveness by ensuring that these entities’ priorities and approaches are
aligned; investments and improvements in multilateral efficiency, responsiveness, and effectiveness of institutions
are coordinated and sustained; and financial and technical gaps relating to common goals are addressed; and
deliver on sustained, accountable, and measurable commitments using benchmarks and targets to
measure progress toward shared goals while holding investors and stakeholders publicly accountable for
achieving results, thus optimizing returns on investments and the future viability of the effort.
Focus Countries
According to USAID’s Feed the Future Guide, FTF investments are prioritized for those
countries where the Rome Principles can best be realized in practice. FTF “Focus Countries” are
the primary recipients of assistance under FTF; however, FTF also aids other countries through
regional programs. USAID selects focus countries based on assessments that measure suitability
for inclusion in FTF using the following set of five criteria:21
1. Level of need. Need is based on income levels, poverty, the Global Hunger Index
compiled and published annually by the International Food Policy Research
Institute (IFPRI), and the IFPRI categorization of level of food security, among
other factors.22
2. Host government commitment, governance, leadership, and political will.
FTF assessments are based on a range of factors, including basic political
stability and the absence of conflict; the quality of governance; the overall
economic policy environment; the commitment to design and implement a high-
quality strategy to enhance food security; and the willingness to invest in
agriculture, to place a high priority on food security for all of their citizens, and
to commit to working in partnership with, among others, donors, civil society,
international organizations, and the private sector.
3. Potential for agriculture-led growth. Within the FTF strategy, the principal
mechanism for reducing extreme hunger and poverty is agricultural-led growth.
Thus, it prioritizes countries where poverty is still predominantly rural and where
21 However, USAID will continue to provide assistance for agricultural development to some other countries where the
overall political and investment environment may not be conducive for a major scale-up in investments, or where other
donors are playing a major role in food security. In these countries, USAID commits to align ongoing programs with
FTF objectives and to invest according to the Rome Principles to the extent possible.
22 IFPRI is part of the network of international agricultural research centers known as the Consultative Group on
International Agricultural Research (CGIAR). IFPRI focuses on improving the understanding of national agricultural
and food policies to promote the adoption of innovations in agricultural technology. The Global Hunger Index is
compiled by IFPRI in conjunction with Deutsche Welthungerhilfe and Concern Worldwide. The 2009 edition was
instrumental in selecting the FTF focus countries, available at http://library.ifpri.info/.
Congressional Research Service
5
c11173008
link to page 10 link to page 22 .
The Obama Administration’s Feed the Future Initiative
significant potential for improvements in agricultural productivity, income
generation for the poor, and market development exists.
4. Opportunity for regional synergies through trade and other mechanisms.
Priority is given to countries that present strong opportunities to strengthen
regional trade and development corridors, integrate markets, accelerate regional
growth, and play a major role in regional trade.
5. Resource availability. A central tenet of the FTF strategy is that creating lasting
progress in food security will require deep investments in agricultural, economic,
and social systems. To achieve this, USAID targets FTF resources toward
countries that commit their own resources toward achieving the Millennium
Development Goals (MDGs); however, USAID takes resource constraints into
consideration.23
Based on these criteria, FTF has prioritized investment in 19 focus countries (Table 2). Africa,
with 12 focus countries, has been a major recipient of FTF investments (a breakout by focus
country of FTF outlays is available in Table 5).
Table 2. Feed the Future Focus Countries
Region
#
Countries
Africa
12 Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya, Liberia, Malawi, Mali, Mozambique, Rwanda, Senegal, Tanzania,
Uganda, Zambia
Asia
4 Bangladesh, Cambodia, Nepal, Tajikistan
Latin America
2 Guatemala, Honduras
Caribbean
1 Haiti
World Total
19
Source: USAID, Feed the Future, at http://feedthefuture.gov/countries.
Note: Initially, USAID also selected Nicaragua as a focus country; however, it was dropped early on, as it did
not sufficiently meet the criteria.
The FTF initiative also includes “aligned agricultural programs” in additional countries.24 These
countries receive some assistance for agricultural development, but are not FTF focus countries.
FTF also funds cooperative agricultural development programs with “strategic partner countries,”
which include Brazil, India, and South Africa. Strategic Partner programs seek to further enhance
and “leverage the significant expertise, research capabilities, investment, and leadership” of
strategic partner countries with respect to increasing global food and nutrition security “for the
benefit of FTF focus countries.”
23 The MDGs are eight international development goals and targets that 192 nations and many multilateral
organizations collectively agreed to achieve by 2015. The MDGs are being succeeded by a similar but broader set of
goals dubbed the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), which include ending poverty and hunger, combating
climate change, and achieving gender equality, among other ends, by 2030. See CRS In Focus IF10249, The Post-2015
Global Development Agenda, by Marian L. Lawson.
24 FY2015 countries with aligned agricultural programs include Burma, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Egypt,
Georgia, Guinea, Nigeria, Sierra Leone, South Sudan, Yemen, and Zimbabwe. The State Department and USAID also
requested aligned funding for Timor-Leste in FY2016. See State Department Congressional Budget Justification for
each respective year.
Congressional Research Service
6
c11173008
.
The Obama Administration’s Feed the Future Initiative
Developing and Implementing a Country Investment Plan (CIP)
FTF uses a four-step approach to develop and implement a CIP. First is the selection of the focus
countries based on the five criteria described above. USAID expects participating countries to
take a lead role in developing their CIP, including by identifying needs, specifying priorities, and
helping to develop strategies for best utilizing resources toward meeting FTF goals.
Second is strategic planning. The focus country and U.S. government (USG) work together to
develop CIPs—including an implementation roadmap, identification of participating
stakeholders, and a structure for periodic reviews. As part of this phase, the USG makes
foundational “Phase I” investments to help countries develop implementation plans, conduct
policy reform as needed, and build country capacity for scalable implementation.25
The third stage is implementation, during which the USG makes Phase II or core investments, via
participating partners, in activities that target the acceleration of inclusive agricultural sector
growth and improved nutritional status. USAID provides technical assistance and helps to
develop or improve accountability systems.
Fourth is review and scaling up. USAID measures progress on FTF objectives against the FTF
Results Framework (described later in this report). A review of all FTF programming is to occur
annually and be presented to Congress in an annual progress report. Based on resource
availability, USAID expands successful activities from the initial zone of influence (ZOI) to
larger populations.
Partnering and Coordination
In addition to partnering with focus-country governments, FTF envisions working with a broad
range of development stakeholders and multilateral institutions.
Partnerships with Other Stakeholders
An important aspect of FTF is for the USG to engage in joint development ventures with a range
of partners to invest in the design, implementation, monitoring, and evaluation of FTF-related
activities.26 Potential partners include not only host country governments, but also other
international-development stakeholders—for example, affected populations, nongovernmental
organizations (NGOs), foundations, universities, local civic and religious groups, private sector
entities, labor unions, women-focused organizations, and donors and multilateral institutions.
The rationale for extensive partnering is to leverage U.S. resources through a wide range of
stakeholders in order to tap their diverse, often unique capacities. Such stakeholders often have
close ties to local communities and in many cases may already have made commitments toward
the FTF goals of reducing poverty and hunger. Extensive partnerships for planning and
implementing activities may help to produce more targeted, locally tailored interventions. Also,
the commitment of resources from various actors may provide a greater potential to produce a
sustainable result than if the USG were the sole investor. Under shared stakeholder-backed
projects, the USG co-designs, co-funds, and co-implements a project, thus sharing the risks,
responsibilities, and results based on the resources and expertise that are available to each focus
25 Scalable implementation refers to the idea that the program can easily be expanded from the initial project ZOI to
encompass a larger region and eventually the entire nation.
26 USAID, Feed the Future Guide, May 2010, p. 4.
Congressional Research Service
7
c11173008
link to page 13 .
The Obama Administration’s Feed the Future Initiative
country.27 An additional potential result of this partnering approach is the strengthening of focus
country capacity to engage in results-based planning and robust stakeholder consultation.
Coordination with Multilateral Institutions
According to USAID’s Feed the Future Guide, robust multilateralism improves coordination
among development partners and reduces the management burden of host governments.28 Thus,
FTF emphasizes coordination at the global level with donors and multilateral institutions,
particularly as relates to advocacy, resource mobilization, sharing information and best practices,
tracking investments and results, and supporting country-owned processes. Relevant multilateral
institutions include a number of United Nations (U.N.) agencies, funds, and programs;
international financial institutions, including the World Bank and regional development banks;
and the OECD, among others.
According to the Feed the Future Guide, multilateral institutions, given their convening authority
and technical expertise, play a central role in efforts to enhance food security. They provide
emergency assistance, undertake analysis and research, offer a platform for sector-wide
investments in agriculture, and provide a significant portion of the external financing for
investment projects and programs in developing countries. In an effort to institutionalize
coordination among multilateral institutions, the G-20 leaders, meeting in a summit held in
Pittsburgh in 2009, called for the establishment of a multi-donor trust fund called the Global
Agriculture and Food Security Program (GAFSP). GAFSP is the multilateral component of FTF.
The Global Agriculture and Food Security Program (GAFSP)
The GAFSP is a multilateral mechanism, administered by the World Bank, that funds projects supporting the
agricultural investment plans of poor countries.29 GAFSP financing is available to members of the World Bank’s
International Development Association (IDA) only, specifically those that are eligible to receive financing from IDA.30
Additional need-based screens, such as undernourishment levels, per capita gross domestic product (GDP), suitable
policy environment, and the development of a comprehensive agricultural development strategy, further restrict
country eligibility. An important objective of the GAFSP is to consolidate donor resources where a multilateral
approach holds a comparative advantage either because of economies of scale or donor capacity. This fund leverages
the existing resources of multilateral institutions, their expertise and experience, and their presence in low-income
countries to meet needs that donors and country partners often find difficult to address in a timely or efficient
manner on their own. The GAFSP wil also finance private sector activities to help catalyze investment along the
agricultural value chain.
Since its inception in 2010, the GAFSP public sector window has awarded $1 bil ion in grant financing to 30 low-
income countries in Asia, Latin America, and Africa.31 In October 2012, the United States pledged to commit $1 for
every $2 from other donors up to a total U.S. contribution of $475 mil ion.32 As of December 2014, other donors
had committed $242 mil ion in additional funding, which was matched by the United States with $121 mil ion from
FY2014 appropriations. Fundraising efforts are ongoing. The Department of the Treasury expects at least an
additional $80 mil ion in new commitments from other donors by the beginning of FY2016. This would require at
least $40 mil ion from the United States to meet its matching challenge. See Table 3 for annual U.S. contributions to
27 For examples of successful partnership types, see http://feedthefuture.gov/partnership-stories.
28 For more discussion see USAID, Feed the Future Guide, May 2010, p. 4-5.
29 For more information see http://www.gafspfund.org/.
30 Known as the World Bank’s fund for the poorest, the IDA aims to reduce poverty by providing interest-free credits
and grants for programs that boost economic growth, reduce inequalities, and improve people’s living conditions. For
more information on IDA and countries currently eligible to receive IDA financing, see http://www.worldbank.org/ida/.
31 Office of Management and Budget, The Appendix, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2016,
“Department of State and Other International Programs,” at https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Appendix.
32 Ibid.
Congressional Research Service
8
c11173008
link to page 13 link to page 13 link to page 13 link to page 13 .
The Obama Administration’s Feed the Future Initiative
the GAFSP.
Table 3. Global Agriculture and Food Security Program (GAFSP) Budget Requests
and Appropriations, FY2010-FY2016
($ Millions)
Fiscal Year
Requested
Enacted
FY2010
67
67a
FY2011
408
100
FY2012
308
135
FY2013
134
128b
FY2014
135
133
FY2015
—
—c
FY2016
43
nad
Source: Various annual President’s Budget Requests (Requested) and congressional appropriations (Enacted)
made under annual State, Foreign Operations (SFOPS) appropriations acts.
Notes: na = not available. Appropriations are made to the U.S. Treasury for distribution to the World Bank’s
Global Agriculture and Food Security Program (GAFSP). The data in this table are not adjusted for inflation.
a. USAID transferred the $66.6 mil ion in FY2010 from the Development Assistance account to the U.S.
Treasury.
b. FY2013 appropriations occurred under a continuing resolution. The enacted numbers shown in this table
are pre-sequestration estimates based on the previous year’s (FY2012’s) funding level.
c. A precise GAFSP funding level was not identified; instead funds appropriated under title III—Food Security
and Agricultural Development fund component—of the FY2015 Appropriations Act may be used for
GAFSP, but not to exceed 33% of the total amount.
d. Congress has not yet enacted FY2016 SFOPS appropriations.
Regional Organizations
According to USAID’s Feed the Future Guide, regional coordination allows countries to share
experiences, provide peer support, address cross-border trade issues, harmonize regulatory
standards and practices, and benefit from trade flows, and FTF supports such ends in its three
core regions and in the Middle East. In 2003, African leaders made a historic pledge to develop
rigorous agricultural development strategies and to increase their own investments in agricultural-
led growth through the African Union’s Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Program
(CAADP), a pan-continental initiative of the African Union. Through CAADP, FTF works with
the African regional economic communities—Southern African Development Community
(SADC), Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), and Common Market for
Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA). In addition, many individual FTF country plans and
strategies are premised on or align with separate national agricultural development CAADP
“compacts” that also guide country agricultural development goals and activities.33 In other
regions of the world, FTF works with organizations such as the Asian Development Bank and the
Inter-American Institute for Cooperation on Agriculture to encourage technical and political
33 CAADP Compacts vary, but generally center on creation and use of guidelines and capacity-building relating to
program technical implementation, evidence-based analysis and decision-making, and impact monitoring and
evaluation. See African Union/CAADP, Country Compacts, http://www.caadp.net/country-compacts.
Congressional Research Service
9
c11173008
link to page 15 link to page 21 link to page 21 .
The Obama Administration’s Feed the Future Initiative
support for the development of regional strategies that link to country-level planning and
implementation around food security.
Whole of Government (WOG)
Although USAID is the lead FTF agency, the initiative operates within a whole-of-government
framework and ensures coordination of efforts across 11 U.S. government agencies that have
programs addressing an aspect of international poverty, health, and food security (see box below
and Figure 1). Six of the FTF implementing agencies—USAID, USDA, Millennium Challenge
Corporation (MCC), Treasury, Peace Corps, and U.S. African Development Foundation
(USADF)—support field activities and report into the FTF initiative’s annual results (Table 4).
Although USAID leads FTF implementation, it does not directly control all of the funds cited in
Table 4 under other USG agencies. Instead, it seeks to increase collaboration and
complementarities between various program activities of the different agencies as they relate to
FTF, including focus country selection, partnering, and monitoring and evaluation.
U.S. Government Feed the Future Partner-Agencies and Their Roles34
USAID—provides overall leadership of Feed the Future. USAID directly programs agriculture, nutrition, and
development food assistance funding (including Food for Peace Title II emergency and non-emergency programs),
while it also coordinates, implements, and assesses FTF programming at country and regional levels.
Department of State—uses diplomatic efforts to keep food security and nutrition high on the global political
agenda, to improve strategic coordination, and to increase global resources from other donors for food security and
nutrition. Advances policy reforms that strengthen the effectiveness of food security investment, strengthens national
frameworks for adoption and regulation of agricultural biotechnology, and partners with relevant United Nations
agencies and other international organizations on global food security, nutrition, and the FTF agenda.
USDA—supports agricultural development through research and extension; data and economic analysis; market
information systems and statistics; and in-country and U.S.-based capacity building, including enhancing
implementation of trade-related sanitary and phytosanitary standards. USDA further supports the USG’s global food
security efforts through the McGovern-Dole (MGD) International Food for Education and Child Health and Nutrition
program, which focuses on improving the literacy of school-aged children and children’s health and nutrition, and
through the Food for Progress (FFPr) program, which seeks to improve agricultural productivity and expand trade
and markets. USDA provides various types of training through the Borlaug and Cochran Fellowship professional
technical training and col aborative research programs, as well as through the MGD and FFPr programs. USDA also
leads the USG’s open data in agriculture efforts through the Global Open Data for Agriculture and Nutrition initiative
(GODAN), which supports global efforts to make agricultural and nutritionally relevant data available, accessible, and
usable for unrestricted use worldwide.35
Department of the Treasury—coordinates multilateral development bank (MDB) support for food security,
including contributions to the GAFSP.36 Promotes rigorous monitoring and evaluation of MDB projects and GAFSP
investments. Encourages alignment of GAFSP investments with U.S. food security priorities. Oversees other MDB
funding for agriculture, including activities of the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), the African
Development Bank, the Asian Development Bank, and the World Bank.
Department of Commerce—promotes trade and investment through the International Trade Administration and
provides weather and climate forecasting and guidance to some FTF focus countries on climate change mitigation and
sustainable fisheries through the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC)37—supports country-led programs for agriculture- and food
security-related investments through MCC compacts, including irrigation, roads, ports, post-harvest infrastructure,
34 USAID, Feed the Future Results Summary, 2015, July 2015, pp. 14-15, at http://feedthefuture.gov/progress2015.
35 For more information, see http://www.godan.info/.
36 CRS Report RS20792, Multilateral Development Banks: U.S. Contributions FY2000-FY2015, by Rebecca M.
Nelson.
37 The MCC is an independent agency, established in 2004 separate from the U.S. Department of State and USAID,
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
10
c11173008
.
The Obama Administration’s Feed the Future Initiative
property rights and land policy, productivity and business training, agricultural finance, institutional and policy reform,
and nutrition. As of July 2015, 22 out of 29 signed MCC compacts have included food security-related investments.
Office of U.S. Trade Representative (USTR)—advances work on trade and investment policy, including trade
facilitation and other efforts to reduce barriers to efficient markets consistent with international obligations in the
World Trade Organization, through bilateral discussions such as Trade and Investment Framework Agreements, and
through free trade agreements.
Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC)—supports U.S. private investments in some FTF focus
countries through political risk insurance, debt financing, and support to private equity funds.
U.S. African Development Foundation (USADF)—builds the capacity of local farmer associations and food
processors in some African FTF focus countries. Also expands economic activities in rural communities and involves
smallholders in local, regional, and international markets.
U.S. Peace Corps—deploys Peace Corps Volunteers to support community economic development, agriculture,
environment, and nutrition.
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)—offers scientific and technical expertise to enhance resilience to recurring
drought. Provides remotely sensed seasonal forecast-derived products on crop performance indices for more
informed recovery, response, and preparedness. Provides expertise on an integrated approach for sustainable water
resources and management.
Figure 1. USAID-Led Whole-of-Government Approach to the FTF Initiative
Source: Government Accountability Office (GAO), Global Food Security: USAID Is Improving Coordination But
Needs to Require Systematic Assessments of Country-Level Risks, GAO-13-809, September 2013, p. 14.
Notes: Country-level activities occur within each of the 19 FTF countries.
(...continued)
that conducts bilateral foreign aid.
Congressional Research Service
11
c11173008
link to page 17 link to page 17 link to page 32 .
The Obama Administration’s Feed the Future Initiative
FTF Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) Approach
The FTF implementation strategy includes a monitoring and evaluation (M&E) component
designed to enable monitoring of FTF implementation progress and to hold FTF investments and
their stakeholders accountable. USAID provides FTF funding and technical assistance to focus
countries in support of M&E. M&E tracks the progress of FTF investments against a Results
Framework (Figure 2) that maps linkages between program activities and their intended
outcomes. USAID evaluates the performance of FTF investments within a zone of influence
(ZOI) by assessing their impact on key performance indicators. Measured results are compared
against initial baseline values to assess progress, and against preestablished targets to determine
the degree of any progress.
USAID and the focus country cooperating sponsors use the M&E system to provide regular
feedback to facilitate planning and help improve the design and operation of ongoing programs.38
Among the questions that M&E seeks to inform are: What are FTF investments buying? Are FTF
activities, projects, and programs accomplishing what was intended? Are FTF efforts impacting
the overall goal to reduce poverty and hunger? Are barriers hindering the progress or performance
of FTF programs? What changes would support broader or deeper FTF program impacts? Which
FTF activities are working and can be scaled up to a larger ZOI?
To this end, FTF employs the following M&E tools: (1) a Results Framework, which is the
conceptual and analytic structure that establishes the goals and objectives of the FTF Initiative
and links them to specific indicators;39 (2) a performance monitoring process and standard
performance indicators to track progress toward desired results; (3) local capacity-building to
improve the quality and frequency of data collection and use; (4) evaluations to determine the
measureable effects of FTF investments; and (5) knowledge-sharing activities to foster learning
and use of M&E findings.
Results Framework: Targeted Investments
USAID has constructed a Results Framework that maps linkages between program activities and
their intended outcomes as they relate to the overall goal of sustainably reducing global hunger
and poverty. The Results Framework outlines linkages through four levels of desired results that
are intended to feed into each other from bottom to top (Figure 2 and Table A-1):
first, the overall goal—sustainably reducing global hunger and poverty;
second, two objectives—to promote inclusive agricultural sector growth and to
improve nutritional status, especially among women and children;
third, eight intermediate results (IR)—that relate directly to the two objectives; and
fourth, several sub-intermediate results (Sub IR)—that act as building blocks
toward achieving progress at the IR level.
38 USAID, “Volume I: Monitoring and Evaluation Under Feed the Future,” M&E Guidance Series, February 2014, at
http://www.feedthefuture.gov/sites/default/files/resource/files/ftf_guidance_volume1_overview_2015.pdf.
39 Summary Chart of Feed the Future Indicators, October 31, 2014, USAID Feed the Future website, at
https://www.feedthefuture.gov/resource/summary-chart-feed-future-indicators.
Congressional Research Service
12
c11173008
link to page 31 link to page 31 link to page 32 
.
The Obama Administration’s Feed the Future Initiative
Figure 2. Feed the Future Results Framework (RF)
Four Levels: Overall Goal, First Level Objectives, Intermediate Results (IR), and Sub-Intermediate Results
Source: USAID, “Volume I: Monitoring and Evaluation Under Feed the Future,” M&E Guidance Series, February
2014, p. 2.
Note: The RF levels, with associated indicators, are listed in “Summary Chart of Feed the Future Indicators,”
October 31, 2014, at https://www.feedthefuture.gov/resource/summary-chart-feed-future-indicators.
Standard Performance Indicators
Each activity within each level has its own set of indicators.40 For example, for the improved
agricultural activity “intermediate result,” indicators include the number of farmers who have
applied improved technology or management practices and incremental farm-level sales
attributed to FTF interventions. As with most foreign assistance monitoring and evaluation, the
indicators used to date tend to measure FTF outputs (people trained, partnerships formed, etc.).
FTF does report on outcomes, such as reduced stunting and poverty, but generally does not
conduct impact evaluations using control groups. According to USAID, by assessing the link
between an intervention and an outcome, the impact evaluation process provides empirical
evidence on the effectiveness of an intervention to inform policy and investment decisions. For a
full list of FTF indicators, see the Appendix.
Local Engagement and Capacity Building in Program Design and M&E
The FTF strategy advocates and supports investment in strengthening national statistical systems
and capacity in data use to inform policy, development priorities, and program design. To
facilitate the development and execution of impact evaluations by the focus country, USAID
engages local groups or host government agencies in the process from the beginning to formulate
evaluation priorities, learn proper evaluation methodologies, and collect and analyze data. In
addition, certain tools used for data collection against performance indicators, such as household
40 For more information on performance indicators, see the Appendix and Table A-1 at the end of this report.
Congressional Research Service
13
c11173008
.
The Obama Administration’s Feed the Future Initiative
surveys or population sampling, include local groups or host government staff, such as the
national statistics office, to build capacity to conduct the same methodologies in the future.
Ideally, with a strengthened system for program-specific data collection USAID, cooperating
sponsors, and focus countries will be better able to measure progress and make adjustments to
CIP implementation for food security.
Transparency
In addition to annual reporting to Congress, FTF envisions sharing its M&E findings regarding
progress toward overall FTF goals externally. It is expected to do this with both development
stakeholders and the general public. The Feed-the-Future website (http://www.feedthefuture.gov/)
and the new Foreign Assistance Dashboard (http://www.foreignassistance.gov/) will provide such
opportunities.
Research and Capacity Building
FTF includes investments in research in support of its food security and nutrition goals as
delineated by the Results Framework. A consultative process among USAID, USDA, university
partners, and other stakeholders was used to develop an explicit FTF-funded research strategy.41
Key considerations for FTF food security and nutrition goals are the constraints of limited
agricultural land availability and increased climate variability. In this regard, the FTF research
strategy projects that additional resources must be directed to support and develop scientific and
technological innovations that increase agricultural productivity in an environmentally sound
manner while improving the availability of nutritious foods.42
The FTF Food Security Innovation Center (FSIC) leads USAID’s implementation of the FTF
research strategy.43 The FSIC has organized projects around seven key program areas: climate-
resilient cereals; legume productivity; advanced approaches to combat pests and diseases;
research on nutritious and safe foods; markets and policy research; sustainable intensification;
and human and institutional capacity development.
Investments in the FTF research strategy are done through research partnerships across the USG,
the private sector, U.S. and non-U.S. universities, CGIAR centers, focus-country national and
regional research programs, and NGOs. In the past, USAID-funded research collaborations with
U.S. land-grant universities as the principal implementing partner were referred to as
Collaborative Research Support Programs (CRSPs). Under FTF, CRSPs are now called
Innovation Labs. Currently there are 24 FTF Innovation Labs—each lab focuses on a different
agricultural production activity.44 In line with the capacity-building strategy of FTF investments,
FTF collaborative research arrangements are to be designed to engage developing country
partners in ways that build the capacity of both women and men.
In addition to Innovation Labs, USAID and USDA also collaborate under the Norman Borlaug
Commemorative Research Initiative (NBCRI). The NBCRI is intended to strengthen international
public goods research in ways that generate technologies and knowledge that support agricultural
41 For source information on the FTF research strategy, see http://feedthefuture.gov/research. The supporting document
is Feed the Future: Global Food Security Research Strategy, U.S. Government Working Document, USAID, May
2011, available at http://www.feedthefuture.gov/resource/feed-future-research-strategy.
42 Ibid., p. 2.
43 For more information see http://feedthefuture.gov/article/feed-future-food-security-innovation-center.
44 A listing of Innovation Labs is available at http://feedthefuture.gov/article/feed-future-innovation-labs.
Congressional Research Service
14
c11173008
.
The Obama Administration’s Feed the Future Initiative
productivity both in the United States and developing countries.45 In addition, the Borlaug 21st
Century Leadership Program, first announced in June 2011, represents a new effort to train
individuals and strengthen developing country public and private institutions.46 Other USG
agencies, such as the National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health, may also
contribute to the broader research objectives and goals of FTF.
Cross-Cutting Issues
FTF plans and strategies identify gender equity, environmental stewardship and protection, and
climate change as key priorities that it says all initiative investments and activities must address.
Gender Issues
Empowerment of women through gender integration is a major theme of the FTF initiative. The
FTF implementation strategy contends that (1) reducing gender inequality and recognizing the
contribution of women to agriculture are critical to achieving global food security, and (2)
consistent and compelling evidence shows that improvements in the status of women are
associated with increases in agricultural productivity, reductions in poverty, and improvements in
household nutrition.47 As a result, FTF integrates gender-based analysis into all of its investments
and employs the Women’s Empowerment in Agriculture Index (WEAI) to measure gender
integration.48
The WEAI also seeks to identify ways to overcome the obstacles and constraints that limit
women’s inclusion in the agriculture sector.49 The WEAI is a measure of the roles and extent of
women’s engagement in the agricultural sector in five domains: (1) decisions about agricultural
production; (2) access to and decision-making power over productive resources; (3) control over
use of income; (4) leadership in the community; and (5) time use. In addition to the WEAI,
gender-specific data is available for several of the other performance indicators, thus permitting
comparisons of how FTF program effects vary across gender.50
Climate Change and Environment
Working in concert with the U.S. Global Climate Change Initiative,51 USAID contends that FTF
investments in agricultural productivity support assessment of the potential vulnerabilities and
impacts of climate change; development and deployment of climate-smart technologies and
management practices; and policies that encourage the necessary investments and enabling
environments to mitigate risk, improve resilience, and increase food security despite changing
climate patterns.52
45 See http://blogs.usda.gov/2010/07/28/usda-partners-with-usaid-to-end-global-hunger-with-science-and-innovation/.
46 For more information, see http://feedthefuture.gov/resource/borlaug-21st-century-leadership-program-fact-sheet.
47 For more information, see http://feedthefuture.gov/approach/Gender—Integration#focus-areas.
48 See USAID, IFPRI, and Oxford Poverty and Human Development Initiative, Women’s Empowerment in Agriculture
Index, 2012, viewed at http://feedthefuture.gov/sites/default/files/resource/files/weai_brochure_2012.pdf.
49 For more information, see http://www.feedthefuture.gov/lp/womens-empowerment-agriculture-index.
50 USAID, “Volume 6: Measuring the Gender Impact of FTF,” M&E Guidance Series, March 2014, at
http://feedthefuture.gov/sites/default/files/resource/files/ftf_guidanceseries_vol6_genderimpact_march2014_0.pdf.
51 For more information, see http://www.usaid.gov/climate/us-global-climate-change-initiative.
52 See http://feedthefuture.gov/sub-approach/climate-smart-development. See also USAID, “Volume 7: Measuring
Natural Resources Management and Climate Change Resiliency Under Feed the Future,” M&E Guidance Series,
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
15
c11173008
link to page 21 link to page 21 .
The Obama Administration’s Feed the Future Initiative
Funding
Congress has provided funding for FTF programs through the annual Department of State and
Foreign Operations (SFOPS) appropriations bill. Congress does not specify a funding level for
Feed the Future as a whole, but rather allocates funds for bilateral food security and agricultural
development activities (implemented by USAID, MCC, and other agencies such as the Peace
Corps), for multilateral food security accounts, and for global health. FTF-related nutrition
activities receive a portion of this funding. The Administration then determines whether or how to
allocate these appropriations to the FTF framework. As a result, it can be difficult to determine
FTF funding based on appropriations acts, and the data in Table 4 rely on FTF outlays reported
by the Administration. Since 2010, Congress has allocated nearly $1 billion annually to food
security and agricultural development activities under SFOPS appropriations.
Under the whole-of-government approach, FTF’s operational strategy applies to other federal
programs that invest in international agricultural development, even those that derive funding
outside of appropriated FTF funding in the SFOPS appropriation. Whole-of-government outlays
on food security and agricultural development programs grew nominally (i.e., in non-inflation
adjusted terms) from $1.7 billion in FY2010 to $2.6 billion in FY2013 before declining slightly to
$2.4 billion in FY2014 (Table 4). In addition, FTF efforts are complemented by U.S. spending
for nutrition-specific activities under other global health programs53 and multilateral institutional
investments in both health and food security.54
(...continued)
January 2014, at http://feedthefuture.gov/sites/default/files/resource/files/ftf_guidanceseries_vol7_nrm_climate.pdf.
53 CRS Report R43115, U.S. Global Health Assistance: FY2001-FY2016, by Tiaji Salaam-Blyther.
54 Other U.S. and international donor funds made through various multilateral institutions—e.g., the World Bank’s
GAFSP and the U.N.’s FAO, IFAD, and WFP—also complement FTF programs; however, these multilateral programs
are not discussed in this report.
Congressional Research Service
16
c11173008
link to page 21 link to page 21 link to page 21 link to page 21 link to page 21 link to page 21 link to page 21 link to page 21 link to page 21 link to page 22 link to page 13 .
The Obama Administration’s Feed the Future Initiative
Table 4. Feed the Future Implementing Agencies, Selected Funding Allocations,
FY2010-FY2014
$ Millions
FY2010
FY2011
FY2012
FY2013
FY2014
USAIDa
USAID Feed the Futureb
813.1
968.4
972.7
957.1
978.0
Nutrition (Global Health Programs)c
75.0
89.8
95.0
95.1
115.0
Food for Peace Title II Development Aidd
385.5
422.6
426.8
299.9
254.6
Treasurye
GAFSPf
66.6
99.8
135.0
128.2
133.0
IFAD
30.0
29.4
30.0
28.5
30.0
Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC)g
100.9
247.2
324.1
746.3
565.0
USDAh
Food for Progress
88.2
127.5
239.9
149.6
127.5
McGovern-Dole IFECN
126.3
143.5
173.4
183.5
164.8
Cochran Fellowship Program
0.3
0.2
0.8
3.0
2.6
Borlaug IAST Fellowship Program
0.2
0.3
1.7
1.0
1.2
Peace Corpsi
—
—
23.0
23.9
26.5
U.S. African Development Fund (USADF)j
7.9
10.7
6.9
5.1
6.6
Total Funding Allocations
1,694.0
2,139.4
2,429.3
2,621.2
2,404.8
Source: USAID, Feed the Future Results Summary, 2015, July 2015; at http://feedthefuture.gov/progress2015.
GAFSP = Global Agriculture and Food Security Program; IFAD = International Fund for Agricultural
Development; and IAST = International Agricultural Science and Technology.
Notes: The most recent data is available through FY2014. In preparing this table, USAID has combined outlays,
enacted appropriations, and obligations as described in the table notes below. Thus, data in this table are
representative of funding for FTF implementation as reported by the Administration. Certain federal agencies
participate in FTF by providing policy and diplomatic support (i.e., activities that are difficult to measure and
assign a dol ar value to) and are not represented in this table. The data in this table are not adjusted for inflation.
a. USAID funding is the amount allocated for FTF programs, excluding agriculture, food security, and nutrition
funding for Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq. FY2010 USAID Feed the Future figures are base funding only and
do not include a $62.1 mil ion Haiti supplemental appropriation.
b. Dol ar amounts in this row are USAID’s reported outlays for FTF activities.
c. Dol ar amounts in this row are USAID’s reported outlays for certain FTF nutrition activities.
d. Annual Agricultural Appropriations fund Food for Peace Title II programs; however, USAID implements the
funds and programs. According to the 2014 farm bil (P.L. 113-79; §3012), USAID shall make available not
less than 20%, nor more than 30%, of Title II funds to carry out non-emergency (i.e., development) food aid,
with a minimum of $350 mil ion each fiscal year. For details, see CRS Report R41072, U.S. International Food
Aid Programs: Background and Issues, by Randy Schnepf.
e. GAFSP and IFAD figures represent enacted amounts.
f.
Dol ar amounts in this row correspond with the third column of Table 3.
g. These figures represent disbursements of food security-related investments from MCC Compacts.
h. Funding represents obligations for these programs.
i.
Represents estimated funding for Peace Corps Volunteers working in agriculture, environment, and health
(nutrition and water/sanitation) programs.
Congressional Research Service
17
c11173008
link to page 22 link to page 22 link to page 22 link to page 21 .
The Obama Administration’s Feed the Future Initiative
j.
Represents funding obligated for new grants that build the capacity of local farmer associations and food
processors in nine African FTF focus countries. Also expands economic activities in rural communities and
involves smallholders in local, regional, and international markets.
Table 5. Feed the Future Allocations by Focus Country, FY2010-FY2015 Est.
$ Millions
FY2010
FY2011
FY2012
FY2013
FY2014
FY2015a
Total Focus-Country Outlays
372.6
474.1
513.2
489.2
493.0
482.5
Ethiopia
29.0
35.0
50.0
47.8
50.0
50.0
Ghana
33.0
45.0
45.0
43.0
45.0
45.0
Kenya
29.0
33.0
50.0
47.8
44.5
41.5
Liberiab
22.1
25.0
8.0
7.7
—
7.0
Malawi
12.0
15.0
13.0
17.2
17.0
15.0
Mali
27.0
37.0
27.0
11.5
18.0
24.5
Mozambique
13.0
18.0
18.0
27.7
22.5
22.5
Rwanda
25.0
28.0
31.0
32.9
33.0
28.0
Senegal
26.3
20.0
17.0
16.2
22.0
27.0
Tanzania
15.0
35.0
70.0
66.9
70.0
70.0
Uganda
29.8
31.0
32.5
32.5
30.0
30.0
Zambia
18.0
15.0
8.0
5.7
8.0
10.0
Sub-Total: Africa
281.1
337.0
369.5
356.4
360.0
371.5
Bangladesh
15.0
40.0
50.0
47.8
50.0
46.0
Cambodia
7.0
10.0
8.0
7.6
8.0
8.0
Nepal
9.0
10.0
10.0
9.6
10.0
8.0
Tajikistan
11.6
13.4
10.0
9.6
8.0
5.0
Sub-Total: Asia
42.6
73.4
78.0
74.7
76.0
67.0
Guatemala
13.0
13.0
13.0
14.2
14.0
17.0
Haitic
25.9
35.7
35.7
28.9
28.0
10.0
Honduras
10.0
15.0
17.0
15.0
15.0
17.0
Sub-Total: C. Am. & Caribbean
48.9
63.7
65.7
58.1
57.0
44.0
Source: Personal communication between USAID and CRS, September 1, 2015.
Notes: This table includes USAID Feed the Future allocations that are specific to the 19 focus countries. It does
not include funding for strategic partners, regional programs, research and development, monitoring and
evaluation, markets, partnership and innovations, economic resilience, and aligned agricultural programs. In
preparing this table, USAID has combined outlays, enacted appropriations, and obligations as described in the
table notes from Table 4.
a. FY2015 data are estimates.
b. In FY2014, Liberia continued implementation of FTF programs with available prior year resources.
c. Figures do not include $62.1 mil ion in FY 2010 supplemental funding for Haiti.
Congressional Research Service
18
c11173008
link to page 25 link to page 26 link to page 26 .
The Obama Administration’s Feed the Future Initiative
Status and Accomplishments
USAID publishes an annual FTF progress report that includes data measuring progress made
from baseline measures and toward aspirational targets based on select indicators.55 USAID
publishes FTF progress reports as part of its effort to establish a transparent set of overarching
guidelines for justifying and implementing U.S. non-emergency food aid and agricultural
development activities.
FTF Progress Report
In 2012, USAID set as aspirational five-year targets, to be achieved by 2017, to reduce by 20%
the prevalence of extreme poverty56 and by 20% the prevalence of stunted57 children under five
years of age in the ZOI where FTF programs are concentrated. USAID expects these reductions
to translate into about 12 million people no longer extremely poor and 1 million children
prevented from stunting. As of 2014, USAID reports that progress had been made in three of the
focus countries with respect to a reduced prevalence of poverty and five countries with respect to
a reduced prevalence of stunting. However, USAID did not report on the status of progress
toward these aspirational goals in any of the remaining focus countries (Table 6).
The most recent FTF progress report includes data from performance indicators of investments
made through FY2014.58 Rather than tracking the effects of FTF in focus countries on direct
beneficiaries, USAID measures how effectively the FTF affects the most vulnerable populations
in the geographic ZOI within focus countries where programs are being implemented and
resources coordinated (Table 7).
Gender Progress Report
Gender-targeted programs have the same goals of contributing to reductions in poverty and
hunger as other FTF programs. The first report on gender within the FTF focus countries—
referred to as the joint WEAI baseline report59—was released in May 2014 and contained the
initial baseline values for 13 of the 19 focus countries.60 Future progress reports are anticipated to
be able to compare changes from the baseline values. In addition to the gender index (WEAI),
several of the performance indicators include disaggregation by gender, which allows gender-
specific comparison (Table 7).
According to the joint WEAI baseline report, when improved gender access to resources can
foster large improvements in reaching program goals, then the WEAI is most useful in helping to
prioritize and target activities. With this in mind, the joint WEAI baseline report identifies several
preliminary results to improve gender-related program design.
55 USAID, Feed the Future Progress Reports, various issues, at https://www.feedthefuture.gov/progress.
56 Extreme poverty is defined by the World Bank as people living on less than $1.25 per day.
57 Stunting is a height-for-age measurement that is a reflection of chronic undernutrition. This indicator measures the
percent of children 0-59 months who are stunted, as defined by a height for age Z score < -2.
58 Performance progress is measured as the percent change in impact indicator values for poverty and stunting from the
baseline value, not the percentage change point.
59 Ibid.
60 Measuring Progress Toward Empowerment: Women’s Empowerment in Agriculture Index: Baseline Report,
produced jointly by USAID, IFPRI, and the Oxford Poverty and Human Development Initiative (ORPHI), May 2014;
hereinafter referred to as the joint WEAI baseline report, 2014.
Congressional Research Service
19
c11173008
.
The Obama Administration’s Feed the Future Initiative
First, the WEAI scores had a large range from a high of 0.98 (in a range of zero
to 1) in Cambodia to a low of 0.66 in Bangladesh.61
Second, the greatest constraints on empowerment among women in agriculture
were a lack of access to credit and the power to make credit-related decisions;
excessive workloads; and a low prevalence of membership in social groups or
agriculture-related associations.
Third, the baseline WEAI values also revealed substantial differences in the
relative empowerment of women compared to men across the focus countries.
Fourth, the baseline WEAI values revealed that the primary constraints to
women’s empowerment varied across regions—in Asia it was lack of group
membership, while in East and Southern Africa it was access to and decisions on
credit and excess workload.
61 Values for the WEAI range between 0 and 1, with higher numbers indicating greater empowerment. For a description
of the WEAI factors and their weighted value, see http://www.feedthefuture.gov/tags/weai.
Congressional Research Service
20
c11173008
link to page 25 link to page 25 link to page 25 link to page 25 .
The Obama Administration’s Feed the Future Initiative
Table 6. Feed the Future Progress Toward Aspirational Five-Year Goals
Impact,
Country
Region, Period
FTF Activity Involved
Reductionsa in Childhood Stuntingb of 20% to Be Achieved by 2017
Bangladesh
14% reduction:
USG implements large-scale nutrition projects, Food for Peace development
(38.2% to 32.7%) programs, and maternal and child health activities across the FTF ZOI.
in FTF ZOI
Col ectively, these projects have reached more than 2 mil ion children annually
2011 to 2014
with nutrition interventions.
Cambodia
21% reduction:
USG supported nutrition counseling for caregivers of undernourished children,
(41.2% to 32.6%) mass media nutrition education campaigns, growth monitoring, and nutrition-
in FTF ZOI
sensitive horticulture. USDA’s McGovern-Dole IFECN programs provided take-
2010 to 2014
home rations to families and training in child health and nutrition. The USG
reached more than 130,000 children with nutrition interventions in 2014.
Ethiopia
9% reduction:
USG investments including the President’s Initiative to End Hunger in Africac and
44.4% to 40.2%
nutrition education programs. For example, in 2014 the USG trained more than
Nationally
20,000 people in nutrition and reached over 1.3 mil ion children under five with
2011 to 2014
evidence-based nutrition interventions, such as micronutrient supplementation.
Ghana
33% reduction:
USG investments in agricultural and maternal and child health programs including
28.0% to 18.8%
nutrition-specific activities (such as management of severe malnutrition) and
nationally
nutrition-sensitive agriculture (including promotion of household water and
2008 to 2014
sanitation, horticulture, livestock, and safety net programs). In 2014,
approximately 230,000 children were reached directly with such interventions.
Kenya
25% reduction:
USG invested in nutrition interventions and training. For example, in 2014, USG
36.3% to 26.3%
efforts reached over 3 mil ion children under five with nutrition interventions and
in FTF ZOI
provided nutrition training to more than 6,000 health care providers, community
2009 to 2014
health workers, agriculture extension agents, and others.
Reductions in Povertyd of 20% to Be Achieved by 2017
Bangladesh
16% reduction
USG provided over $200 mil ion, including over $100 mil ion in Food for Peace
in FTF ZOI
development programming. In FY2014, FTF helped over 1.97 mil ion smallholder
2011 to 2015
farmers utilize new technologies or management practices, including efficient
fertilizer techniques, high-yielding rice varieties, and improved practices for
horticulture and aquaculture.
Uganda
16% reduction
FTF has provided more than $150 mil ion to improve agricultural productivity
in FTF ZOI;
(especially for beans, maize, coffee, and horticulture), nutrition, and other aspects
20% reduction
of food security. USDA has improved market linkages, trained smallholder farmers
nationally
in conservation farming and farm management, increased access to financial
2009-2010 to
services, provided financial literacy training to agribusinesses, and increased access
2012-2013
to improved inputs and output markets.
Honduras
27% reduction
FTF focuses on coffee and horticulture value chains, improved land preparation,
in FTF ZOI
crop and water management practices, and diversified livelihoods.
2012 to 2014
Source: USAID, Feed the Future Results Summary, 2015, July 2015, at http://feedthefuture.gov/progress2015.
Notes: FTF ZOI = Feed the Future Zone of Influence; USG = U.S. government.
a. All reductions are from initial baseline values established in the starting year of the indicated time period.
b. Stunting is a height-for-age measurement that is a reflection of chronic undernutrition. This indicator
measures the percent of children 0-59 months who are stunted, as defined by a designated height-for-age
ratio.
c. A multi-year effort to help fulfil the Mil ennium Development Goal of reducing the number of hungry
people on the continent by 2015.
d. Extreme poverty is defined by the World Bank as people living on less than $1.25 per day.
Congressional Research Service
21
c11173008
link to page 26 link to page 26 link to page 26 link to page 26 link to page 27 link to page 27 link to page 27 link to page 27 link to page 27 .
The Obama Administration’s Feed the Future Initiative
Table 7. Feed the Future Selected Global Results, FY2011-FY2014
Numbers shown are attributed to U.S. government assistance under FTF
Performance Indicatora
FY2011b
FY2012
FY2013
FY2014
Improved Agricultural Productivity
Rural households benefiting from FTF activitiesc
5,588,674
8,580,458
11,406,015
18,982,327
Hectares under improved technologies or practicesd
2,397,456
3,241,549
3,747,065
3,177,123
Farmers using improved technologies or practices
1,226,119
5,248,659e
6,525,677
6,799,319
Male-to-female ratiof
55:45
73:27
71:29
64:36
Expanded Markets and Trade
Value of incremental salesg
$38,080,821
$100,366,589 $174,302,362 $532,082,927
Increased Investment in Agriculture & Nutrition-Related Activities Leveraged by FTF
Value of agricultural and rural loans
$208,750,220
$121,925,081 $184,813,756 $671,831,928
Enterprises, including farmers, receiving loans
6,740
205,991
332,489
883,423
Male-to-female ratio
na
52:48
64:35
51:49
Public-private partnerships formed
442
544
1,149
2,209
Value of new private sector investment
$26,768,561
$115,301,742 $162,985,629 $151,752,806
Improved Use of Nutrition Service
Children under-5 reached by nutrition programh
8,814,584
12,038,528
12,699,186
12,343,776
Male-to-female ratio
na
50:50
50:50
56:44
Health facilities able to treat acute under-nutritioni
85
1,141
848
2,029
Capacity Building
Individuals receiving agr.-related M.A. or Ph.D.
905
932
928
1,300
Male-to-female ratio
58:42
58:42
56:44
55:45
Source: USAID, Feed the Future Results Summary, 2015, July 2015; at http://feedthefuture.gov/progress2015.
Notes: na = not available. No documented baselines are available for these indicators prior to FY2011, when
the FTF developed its zones of influence and monitoring and evaluation system. In addition, the data presented
may not be comprehensive. Participating agencies do not necessarily report on all countries with programs or on
all indicators. U.S. government agencies reporting into the FTF Monitoring System include USAID, USDA, MCC,
Treasury, Peace Corps, and the USADF. FTF began tracking results in FY2011, when the initiative developed
multi-year strategies, defined its zones of influence, and implemented its monitoring and evaluation system.
USAID has used additional information provided after publication of progress reports for previous years to
adjust previously reported results from FY2011 to FY2013.
a. For more information, visit the FTF Indicator Handbook at http://www.feedthefuture.gov/progress.
b. Reporting was incomplete in 2011, the first year of the FTF Monitoring system. Figures do not reflect the
ful impact of FTF programs that year.
c. This indicator counts households with at least one member who is a beneficiary of an FTF activity, meaning
that the member directly receives goods or services provided by the activity. The intervention must be
significant, and an individual is not to be counted if merely reached by an activity through brief attendance at
a meeting or gathering.
d. For example, use of improved seeds and other crop genetics, fertilizer and other soil-related technologies,
irrigation and water management, or new management practices.
Congressional Research Service
22
c11173008
.
The Obama Administration’s Feed the Future Initiative
e. FTF changed the criteria for this indicator, resulting in a revised value for FY2012.
f.
The male-to-female ratio represents the gender shares across program participants.
g. Incremental sales reflect increases in sales above the value at baseline. In 2014, significant increases in
incremental sales were seen as a result of increased productivity of horticultural and climate-resilient
commodities, which have scaled up over the past several years. They comprise a portion of total sales,
which equaled more than $1.4 bil ion in FY2014.
h. USAID anticipates some double-counting among overlapping projects working in the same regions of some
countries. Such double-counting cannot be calculated with precision due to the logistics of working in the
field. Individual USAID projects count children only once even if they are reached several times. Feed the
Future, Food for Peace Development, and Global Health Nutrition programs all deliver nutrition
interventions as part of a multi-sectoral effort to combat malnutrition.
i.
USAID defines severe acute undernutrition as a very low weight for height, visible severe wasting, or the
presence of nutritional edema. Decreasing child mortality and improving maternal health depend heavily on
reducing malnutrition, which is responsible, directly or indirectly, for 35% of deaths among children under
age 5 (World Health Organization). The value for this indicator decreased in FY2013 compared with
FY2012 because USAID terminated investments in a large community health activity in Malawi. USAID
understands that most or all of those health clinics are stil operating; however, they are not counted in
FY2013 because the activity supporting and reporting on them is no longer active.
Issues for Congress
Efforts to Institutionalize Feed the Future
In its present form, FTF is an ad-hoc Obama Administration initiative. According to the
Administration, the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended, provides authority for FTF.62
There is no guarantee that future administrations will recognize or use that same authority. Bills
have been introduced in the current 114th Congress (H.R. 1567 and S. 1292) that are intended to
permanently authorize the Obama Administration’s FTF Initiative.63 However, to date, neither of
these bills has moved out of committee.
Whole of Government
The FTF initiative adopted a whole-of-government approach ostensibly to coordinate related
activities and to tap into expertise residing outside of the principal agency in charge of foreign
assistance and development, USAID. The extent to which FTF capitalizes on the expertise and
budgetary resources of different government agencies is difficult to measure. According to one
analyst:64
Success will depend on the lead agency’s ability to overcome inherent problems, and that
often depends on the nature of the lead agency’s political position within the
administration. Collaborating is time consuming particularly in the beginning when time
must be spent defining interagency roles and responsibilities. Every agency within a
whole of government construct has its own structure, culture, and decision making
process that may not be compatible in terms of budgeting, transparency or accountability.
Each agency’s congressional oversight and appropriations panels may be unevenly
committed to the effort. The programs of various agencies do not always lend themselves
62 §103(a)(1) and §491(b) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended; (22 U.S.C. 2151a and 2292) grant the
President broad authority to conduct international assistance activities and international disaster assistance,
respectively.
63 Similar bills were introduced during the previous 113th Congress (H.R. 5656 and S. 2909).
64 Connie Veillette, Hunger and Whole of Government, Lugar Center, March 24, 2015.
Congressional Research Service
23
c11173008
.
The Obama Administration’s Feed the Future Initiative
to common frames of evaluation, monitoring, and correlating adjustments. Each of these
challenges is mirrored and often amplified within U.S. embassy country teams.
In a September 2013 report, GAO found that administration of FTF has remained dominated by
USAID:65
USAID leads the whole-of-government approach by better coordinating and integrating
partner agencies’ knowledge and expertise at three levels: at headquarters in Washington,
D.C.; in each of the 19 FTF focus countries; and between the countries and headquarters.
In headquarters, USAID and FTF partner agencies established joint strategies and new
data management systems to track funding and results across the U.S. government. At the
country level, in GAO’s survey of U.S. FTF partner agency representatives in 19 FTF
focus countries, 93 percent reported coordinating with USAID.
Country-Led Planning
The FTF Guide points out that “country-led planning” of FTF activities is a key factor for
ensuring country ownership, program relevance, and sustainability of impacts over time. In the
past, some Members of Congress have voiced concern over country-led planning because it
diminishes donor control and oversight, specifically in aligning with donor-specific objectives.
Others have voiced concern that some developing countries lack the capacity to develop robust
strategic plans, and may have limited capacity to carry out accountability and transparency
measures required by donors. Still others within civil society have argued that the country-led
planning process may in fact become a government-led strategy, possibly excluding focus country
civil society and nongovernmental organizations (CSOs and NGOs) or private sector actors.
While the FTF Guide emphasizes partnering across a range of civil society organizations within
focus countries, the actual measurement of their level of effective participation is likely
subjective. GAO, in its September 2013 report, found that (at that time) USAID had facilitated a
country-led approach but had not systematically assessed risks associated with this approach.66
USAID has facilitated the approach by providing assistance to the host governments in
developing country plans and coordinating on FTF with country stakeholders, including
nonprofit and for-profit organizations. U.S. FTF partner agency representatives
answering GAO’s survey reported working with multiple country stakeholders on FTF.
In its March 2010 report, GAO found that the country-led approach was vulnerable to a
number of risks, including insufficient capacity of host governments to meet funding
commitments for agriculture. USAID has since made some progress in monitoring these
risks, including tracking the number of focus countries that increase public expenditure
for agriculture. However, GAO’s current study found that USAID’s FTF multiyear
country strategies did not systematically assess risks to the country-led approach.
Although USAID country guidance documents indicate that country teams must assess risks
associated with USAID’s development objectives, the agency does not require country teams to
systematically assess and mitigate risks to the country-led approach. Without requirements for
FTF country staff to identify and mitigate risks associated with the country-led approach, the U.S.
government’s ability to achieve its goals for improving global food security could be limited.
65 GAO, Global Food Security, USAID Is Improving Coordination But Needs to Require Systematic Assessments of
Country-Level Risks, GAO-13-809, September 2013. The challenges of inter-agency, whole-of-government
coordination are also documented at GAO, Global Food Security: U.S. Agencies Progressing on Governmentwide
Strategy, But Approach Faces Several Vulnerabilities, GAO-10-352, March 2010.
66 Ibid.
Congressional Research Service
24
c11173008
.
The Obama Administration’s Feed the Future Initiative
Linkages with Food for Peace Food Aid
Under the FTF’s whole-of-government approach, Food for Peace (FFP) development food aid
programs are part of the FTF initiative, at least to the extent that they coordinate with the FTF
goals and monitoring and evaluation strategy. FFP development programs include non-emergency
Title II activities, as well as the Food for Progress and McGovern-Dole IFECN programs.67
The funding for FFP development programs derives from non-FTF appropriations. FFP Title II
and McGovern-Dole funding derives from annual agricultural appropriations. Food for Progress
receives mandatory funding through USDA’s Commodity Credit Corporation. FFP Title II food
aid (historically referred to as P.L. 480) is arguably a larger component of U.S. food security
assistance than FTF. The Administration’s FY2016 request includes $1.4 billion for FFP Title II
food aid compared with an FTF budget request of $0.9 billion. The independent nature of such
appropriations, as well as the dedicated authorities under which these programs operate, may
mean that they are not well suited or structured for integration with FTF or other complementary
programs. This likely does not pose major challenges to the goals set out under FTF. In practice,
there has long been at least some coordination and complementarity between these programs. In
some cases, USAID has played a key or lead role in their administration. USAID, for instance, is
the implementing agency for both FFP Title II and FTF. The broad application of FTF guidelines
to FFP programs closely dovetails with the preexisting objectives of FFP. This may ensure more
effective joint coordination, monitoring, and reporting on progress toward common, measurable
goals.
A separate concern is the FFP program’s continued reliance on in-kind donations. This reliance
brings it into potential conflict with FTF goals of improving agricultural productivity and
enhancing rural incomes in focus countries that receive both donations under FFP and
investments under FTF. The United States continues to rely primarily on in-kind transfers of
domestically purchased commodities (acquired by USDA and transferred to USAID for
shipment), shipped primarily on U.S.-flag vessels, as the basis for international food aid (referred
to as “tied food aid”).68 FFP programs are, by law, restricted to in-kind transfers of U.S.-sourced
commodities. In the past decade, several studies and GAO reports have provided evidence of
economic inefficiencies and potential market distortions associated with in-kind food aid
compared with cash-based assistance.69 In particular, monetization of in-kind food aid—in which
imported food aid is sold on local markets to generate funds for development programs—has the
potential to depress local market prices, as well as small farmer revenues and production
incentives. Both the George W. Bush and Obama Administrations (via their annual budget
requests), as well as certain Members of Congress, via bills in the 113th (H.R. 5656 and S. 2909)
and 114th (S. 525) Congresses, have proposed making changes to the structure and intent of U.S.
food aid programs. Proposed changes include, among others, expanding flexibility in the use of
cash-based forms of assistance and eliminating both cargo preference and monetization.
However, none of these proposed changes has been approved by Congress.
Another issue related to FFP Title II food aid concerns whether its substantial emergency
donations are purely humanitarian in nature (rather than including an FTF development aspect),
and to what extent, if any, they are subject to the FTF operating strategies of monitoring and
67 Feed the Future, M&E Guidance Series, “Frequently Asked Questions: Feed the Future Monitoring and Evaluation
Approach,” February 2014, p. 13.
68 CRS Report R41072, U.S. International Food Aid Programs: Background and Issues, by Randy Schnepf.
69 Ibid.
Congressional Research Service
25
c11173008
.
The Obama Administration’s Feed the Future Initiative
evaluation.70 USAID may use FFP Title II in-kind donations for both emergency and non-
emergency (or development) assistance. Since 2003 nearly 75% of Title II food aid has been
emergency food aid. Despite the emphasis on coordination of U.S. food aid programs, little
mention is made of whether and how U.S. emergency food aid fits into the overall FTF strategy.
Key questions related to FFP food aid programs include: How or should emergency food aid
reinforce the objectives of FTF? Conversely, could there be adverse effects for FTF activities
from in-kind food aid projects? Finally, to what extent are FTF guidelines being applied to
McGovern-Dole and Food for Progress programs when they are implemented in non-focus
countries?
70 Other U.S. government agencies supporting food security programs and services with non-FTF funding (e.g., MCC,
USDA, etc.) have pledged to use, at a minimum, the eight identified whole-of-government indicators even though they
are encouraged to use as many of the 57 as applicable to their work.
Congressional Research Service
26
c11173008
link to page 32 link to page 34 .
The Obama Administration’s Feed the Future Initiative
Appendix. Performance Indicators
Program evaluation involves evaluating actual measurable criteria described and measured by a
performance indicator. Examples include improvements in a child’s physical growth, expanded
crop area under a new technology or management practice, output per unit of an agricultural
production activity, or the percent of national budget allocated to nutrition or agriculture. FTF has
established a list of 57 indicators to measure progress toward each result in the four levels of the
Results Framework (RF) (Table A-1).71
To prioritize FTF investments, each focus country determines which section of the RF is most
applicable in its country context and which linkages will have the greatest potential for change.
All countries share the top three layers of the RF (the Goal, Objectives, and Intermediate Results).
Under the second level—the objectives—the RF posits six indicators (three for each objective)
for measuring results with respect to achieving the objective. Accelerating inclusive agricultural
growth is assessed by (1) agriculture sector GDP; (2) per capita expenditures of rural households;
and (3) the women’s empowerment in agriculture index (WEAI, discussed earlier). Similarly, to
measure progress toward the objective of improving nutritional status, especially of women and
children, the RF lists three nutrition-oriented indicators: (1) prevalence of stunted children, (2)
prevalence of wasted children, and (3) prevalence of underweight women.
The third RF level of eight intermediate results (IRs) is specified under the two objectives. For
example, IRs for agricultural sector growth are measures of improved agricultural productivity
and expanding markets and trade. IRs for the nutrition objective include improved use of
maternal and child health and nutrition services and improved access to diverse and quality foods.
The fourth level of the RF—specific Sub-IRs—varies by country and region. Each focus country
selects project-level indicators from the set of 57 indicators to best measure progress against the
chosen sections of the RF. A baseline for each indicator assesses initial need and provides a
reference for measuring progress. For each indicator selected, countries set targets and routinely
track progress toward them. While countries monitor performance against applicable output and
outcome indicators for their projects and programs, an M&E contractor will monitor higher-level
impact indicators, such as “prevalence of poverty,” to maintain consistency in reporting across
focus countries and to reduce workload in the field. FTF performance management plans (PMPs)
are developed by the FTF mission (i.e., the whole-of-government U.S. team) for each country. In
addition, FTF implementing partners will develop PMPs for all projects supported by the mission.
Of the 57 FTF performance indicators, 8 are required and 21 are required if applicable for FTF
missions in an effort to ensure comprehensive reporting on FTF objectives. Additional indicators,
including custom indicators tailored to measure specific projects, can be used as needed. USAID
identifies 8 indicators as whole-of-government (WOG) indicators (Table A-2).72 These are
indicators that other U.S. government agencies supporting food security programs and services
with non-FTF funding (e.g., MCC, USDA, etc.) have pledged to use. USAID encourages use of
as many of the 57 indicators as applicable to their work.
71 A detailed breakout of the results framework, indicators, and for each indicator, the underlying rationale, how it is
defined, measured, the data source, the level of collection (e.g., zone of influence, national, etc.), who collects the data,
the frequency of collection, and the level of disaggregation (e.g., gender) is available in the USAID document, Feed the
Future Indicator Handbook: Definition Sheets, U.S. Government Working Document, updated October 18, 2013.
72 The eight WOG indicators are at http://www.feedthefuture.gov/sites/default/files/resource/files/
ftf_results_framework_2013.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
27
c11173008
.
The Obama Administration’s Feed the Future Initiative
Table A-1. Feed the Future Results Framework with Related Indicators
Results Framework (RF): Level and Indicators (#)
RF: Level One—Overall Goal and Indicators
OVERALL GOAL: Sustainably Reduce Global Poverty and Hunger
1- Prevalence of underweight children under five years of age
2- Prevalence of Poverty: Percent of people living on less than $1.25/day
RF: Level Two—Objectives and Indicators
Key Objective 1- Inclusive Agricultural Sector Growth
1- Percent change in agricultural GDP
2- Daily per capita expenditures (as a proxy for income) of USG-assisted areas
3- Women’s Empowerment in Agriculture Index (WEAI)
Key Objective 2- Improved Nutritional Status, Especially of Women and Children
1- Prevalence of stunted children under five years of age
2- Prevalence of wasted children under five years of age
3- Prevalence of underweight women
RF: Level Three—Intermediate (IR), and Level Four—Sub-Intermediate Results, and Indicators
IR 1- Improved Agricultural Productivity
1- Gross margin per hectare, animal, or cage of selected product (activities vary by country)
Sub IR 1.1: Enhanced Human and Institutional Capacity Development via FTF Assistance
1- Number of farmers and others using applied improved technologies or management practices
2- Number of individuals receiving long-term agricultural productivity or food security training
3- Number of individuals receiving short-term agricultural productivity or food security training
4- Number of food security for-profit private enterprises, producers organizations, water users associations,
women’s groups, trade and business associations, and community-based organizations receiving FTF assistance
5- Number of members of producer organizations and community-based organizations receiving FTF assistance
6- Number of people implementing risk-reducing practices/actions to improve resilience to climate change
7- Number of private enterprises (for profit), producers organizations, water users associations, women’s groups,
trade and business associations, and community-based organizations that applied new technologies or
management practices
Sub IR 1.2: Enhanced Technology Development, Dissemination, Management and Innovation
1- Hectares under new or improved/rehabilitated irrigation or drainage services as a result of FTF assistance
2- Number of hectares under improved technologies or management practices as a result of FTF assistance
3- Number of rural households benefiting directly from USG interventions
4- Number of technologies or management practices in one of the fol owing phases of development:
…in Phase I: under research as a result of FTF assistance
…in Phase II: under field testing as a result of FTF assistance
…in Phase III: made available for transfer as a result of FTF assistance
Sub IR 1.3: Improved Agricultural Policy Environment (increase productivity)
Congressional Research Service
28
c11173008
link to page 34 .
The Obama Administration’s Feed the Future Initiative
Results Framework (RF): Level and Indicators (#)
1- Number of agricultural and nutritional enabling environment policies completing the fol owing processes/steps of
development as a result of FTF assistance in each case:
Stage 1: Analysis
Stage 2: Stakeholder consultation/public debate
Stage 3: Drafting or revision
Stage 4: Approval (legislative or regulatory)
Stage 5: Ful and effective implementation
2- Number of national policies supporting regionally agreed-upon policies for which a national-level implementation
action has been taken as a result of FTF assistance (Regional missions only)
IR 2- Expanding Markets and Trade
1- Value of incremental sales (col ected at farm- level) attributed to FTF implementation
2- Percent change in value of intra-regional trade in targeted agricultural commodities (for regional missions)
3- Value of exports of targeted agricultural commodities as a result of FTF assistance (for bilateral missions)
Sub IR 2.1: Enhanced Agricultural Trade
Sub IR 2.2: Property Rights to Land and Other Productive Assets Strengthened
1- Number of households with formalized land
Sub IR 2.3: Improved Market Efficiency
1- Total increase in installed storage capacity (m3)
2- Kilometers of roads improved or constructed
Sub IR 2.4: Improved access to business development and financial and risk management services
1- Value of Agricultural and Rural Loans
2- Number of MSMEs,a including farmers, receiving FTF-assisted access loans
3- Number of MSMEs, including farmers, receiving FTF-assisted business development services
IR 3- Increased Investment in Agriculture and Nutrition-related Activities Leveraged by FTF
1- Number of public-private partnerships formed as a result of FTF assistance
2- Value of new private sector investment in the agriculture sector or food chain
3- Number of firms (excluding farms) or CSOs engaged in agricultural and food security-related manufacturing and
services now operating more profitably (at or above cost)
Sub IR 3.1- Increased Public Sector Investment
1- Percentage of national budget allocated to nutrition
2- Percentage of national budget allocated to agriculture
IR 4- Increased employment opportunities in Project-level, targeted value chains
1- Number of jobs attributed to FTF implementation
IR 5- Increased resilience of vulnerable communities and households
1- Prevalence of households with moderate or severe hunger
2- Number of FTF social assistance beneficiaries participating in productive safety nets
3- Depth of Poverty: Mean percent shortfall relative to the $1.25 poverty line
4- Number of vulnerable households benefiting directly from FTF interventions
IR 6- Improved Access to Diverse and Quality Foods
1- Prevalence of children 6-23 months receiving a minimum acceptable diet
Congressional Research Service
29
c11173008
.
The Obama Administration’s Feed the Future Initiative
Results Framework (RF): Level and Indicators (#)
2- Women’s Dietary Diversity: Mean number of food groups consumed by reproductive-age women
3- Prevalence of women of reproductive age who consume targeted nutrient-rich value chain commodities
4- Prevalence of children 6-23 months who consume targeted nutrient-rich value chain commodities
5- Total quantity of targeted nutrient-rich value chain commodities produced by direct beneficiaries that is set aside
for home consumption
IR 7- Improved nutrition-related behaviors
1- Prevalence of exclusive breastfeeding of children under six months of age
IR 8- Improved utilization of maternal and child health and nutrition services
1- Number of people trained in child health and nutrition through FTF-supported programs
2- Prevalence of anemia among women of reproductive age
3- Prevalence of anemia among children 6-59 months
4- Number of children under five reached by FTF-supported nutrition programs
5- Number of health facilities with established capacity to manage acute undernutrition
6- Number of children under five years of age who received vitamin A from FTF-supported programs
Source: Summary Chart of Feed the Future Indicators, October 31, 2014; USAID Feed the Future website, at
https://www.feedthefuture.gov/resource/summary-chart-feed-future-indicators.
Notes: FTF Results Framework has four levels of results: goals, objectives, intermediate results (IR), and sub-
intermediate results (Sub IR). Each of these levels has its own set of indicators.
a. Micro (1-10), small (11-50), and medium (51-100) (parenthesis = number of employees) enterprises
(MSMEs).
Table A-2. Feed the Future Whole-of-Government Common Indicators
Level Three—Intermediate Result (IR) and Indicators (#)
IR 1- Improved Agricultural Productivity
1-
Number of individuals who have received U.S. government (USG) supported short-term agricultural sector
productivity or food security training.
2-
Number of farmers and others who have applied new technologies or management practices as a result of USG
assistance.
3-
Number of hectares under improved technologies or management practices as a result of USG assistance
4-
Number of food security private enterprises (for profit), producers organizations, water users associations,
trade and business associations, and community-based organizations (CBOs) receiving USG assistance.
5-
Number of private enterprises, producers organizations, water users associations, women’s groups, trade and
business associations, and community-based organizations (CBOs) that applied new technologies or
management practices as a result of USG assistance.
IR 2- Expanding Markets and Trade
6-
Kilometers of roads improved or constructed
7-
Value of Agricultural and Rural Loans
8-
Number of households with formalized land
Source: USAID, Feed the Future, online document, downloaded August 3, 2015 from
http://www.feedthefuture.gov/sites/default/files/resource/files/ftf_results_framework_2013.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
30
c11173008
.
The Obama Administration’s Feed the Future Initiative
Author Contact Information
Randy Schnepf
Nicolas Cook
Specialist in Agricultural Policy
Specialist in African Affairs
rschnepf@crs.loc.gov, 7-4277
ncook@crs.loc.gov, 7-0429
Marian L. Lawson
Specialist in Foreign Assistance Policy
mlawson@crs.loc.gov, 7-4475
Congressional Research Service
31
c11173008