Food for Thought: New Guide to U.S. Food Security Initiative Outlines Detailed, Thoughtful Approach

Strategy documents from the U.S. and other donors over the last few years almost always leave something to be desired.  The documents are usually vague.  They’re frequently heavy on rhetoric but light on action and measurable objectives, and they often propose doing a lot of everything everywhere rather than laying out a detailed and focused yet flexible approach.That’s why the new guide to the U.S. “Feed the Future” global food security initiative is such a breath of fresh air.  The document, released last Thursday and previewed in a speech by USAID Administrator Raj Shah at a symposium on global agriculture and food security hosted by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, offers a coherent, thoughtful, detailed strategy for the new three-year, $3.5 billion program.  It remains unclear exactly how this program will fit into the current U.S. aid architecture and the long-delayed reform effort (see my colleague Sarah Jane Staats’ post that raises questions about who’s in charge, the initiative’s architecture and funding stream, and coordination with other development tools at the USG’s disposal).  But the new strategy document has a lot to like, including:1)      Focused yet flexible priority-setting based on country needs and U.S. comparative advantages;2)      A well thought-out plan for building local capacities and policy environments necessary for scaling-up country-led programs;3)      And a clear commitment to learning through monitoring and evaluation.An important question remains: will Congress give the new initiative the patient support it needs to succeed in its implementation?Focused yet flexible priority-setting based on country needs and U.S. comparative advantages The new strategy lays out a number of specific interventions that the initiative could support, yet it emphasizes that “investments will vary by country and will depend on the country’s highest priorities and the investments of the country itself, as well as the investments of other donor and key actors.”  Also important is the fact that, instead of trying to do some of everything, investments will “build on existing successes, our expertise and strengths, and be concentrated in strategic areas based on our comparative advantages” such as research and innovation and private sector-led growth.  This will ensure that U.S. support is targeted to those areas where its unique strengths give it the potential to have the greatest impact and will ensure that efforts are not spread too thin.Also good to see is that the document describes relatively well-defined criteria for how the 20 focus countries have been chosen.  While the chosen criteria are somewhat subjective and open to interpretation, the fact that specified criteria even exist is an improvement over initiatives like PEPFAR, where the rationale that guided the choice of its original 15 focus countries has never been clear. Well thought-out plan for building local capacities and policy environments necessary for scaling-up country-led programs The new strategy outlines a clear, two-phased approach to supporting food security in its focus countries.  In Phase I, efforts will be largely devoted to “foundational” investments – technical, political, and financial support to help countries develop their national food security strategies, conduct policy reform, and their implementation capacity.  Countries that transition to Phase II will see increased funding of “core” investments aimed at inclusive agricultural sector growth and improved nutritional status.  In order to transition from Phase I to Phase II, countries will have to produce a technically sound national food security strategy; demonstrate evidence of coordination and consultation with key stakeholders; and demonstrate commitment and capacity as indicated by financial commitment and progress in policy reform.  Those countries that already meet these criteria can skip Phase I altogether.This approach has a number of strengths, including the recognition that country contexts (including different levels of capacity, varied political commitment, and diverse policy environments) highly influence programs’ ability to succeed.  Addressing capacity, policy, and political constraints before throwing large amounts of money at a problem rather than as an afterthought is farsighted and could avoid some of the pitfalls of a PEPFAR-like “emergency” program.  At the same time, laying out a clear process for transitioning from initial “foundational” investments to “core” investments in Phase II is important for ensuring that programming is responsive to changing conditions in host countries.  More detail is needed, however, as to exactly what criteria and indicators the U.S. government will use to determine which countries qualify for Phase II is needed. Clear commitment to learning through monitoring and evaluation Last but not least, there is a clear commitment in the strategy to meaningful monitoring and evaluation of the new initiative.  The strategy commits to systematic qualitative and quantitative assessments of the U.S. contribution to broader changes and trends and to rigorous impact evaluation for a subset of innovative programming.  It also recognizes that objectives and corresponding indicators “will vary in importance, applicability, and feasibility” depending on the country context and that the main goal of data collection should be to inform future program design.In his speech at the Chicago Council’s symposium, Administrator Shah said that the new initiative would be collecting baseline data from the start, a crucially important piece of any serious effort to evaluate impact.  He also noted that many programs supported by the new initiative were bound to fail, and that the main goal of the proposed evaluation would be to learn from these efforts to improve programming for the future.  He wisely urged Congress to show some patience with the new initiative and give it room to meet its goals in the long term.Will Congress step back to allow the program to succeed (and fail!)?A key question remains: will Congress give the initiative the time, leeway, and patient oversight it needs to alter the way in which the U.S. government does development?  Given near universal Congressional praise for PEPFAR and initial criticism of the slow pace of the MCC, it’s clear that programs that produce rapid results as measured by outputs rather than those that contribute to longer term development impacts generally have an easier time gaining widespread support among members of Congress.  Building capacity and improving policy environments is hard but essential, and showing results for long term endeavors takes time.  Many interventions worth trying are also bound to fail, but with good evaluation, we can learn from these failures to implement more successful programs in the future.If the promising Feed the Future strategy is to be successful, Congress will have to give the new initiative some leeway to set its own priorities globally and at the country level; to pursue longer term development objectives; and to take risks while using meaningful evaluation to learn from both successes and failures.  Fortunately, there are several leaders in Congress who have been working closely with the administration to ensure a successful food security initiative, including Senators Lugar and Casey, who have introduced the Lugar-Casey Food Security bill.  At the same time, those implementing the program within the administration must regularly consult with their congressional counterparts on substantive issues to ensure productive collaboration in the future.