pkp2__ understanding aid to ard and food security: us

7/30/2019 PKP2__ Understanding aid to ARD and food security: US

1/41

Global Donor Platformfor Rural Development

WORKING PAPER

THE UNITED STA

TES


2/41

The Global Donor Platform for Rural Development commissioned three comprehensive studies to capture Plat-

form members knowledge on key issues affecting the delivery and impact of aid in ARD:

PKP 1 Policy coherence for agriculture and rural development

PKP 2 Aid to agriculture, rural development and food security Unpacking aid flows for enhanced

effectiveness

PKP 3 The strategic role of the private sector in agriculture and rural development

The PKPs are the products of extensive surveys of Platform member head office and field staff, visits to countryoffices, workshops dedicated to sharing findings and refining messages, and successive rounds of comments on

drafts.

On the basis of each PKP, separate policy briefs will be published.

For more information on the PKPs visit donorplatform.org

This working paper is only available electronically and can be downloaded from the website of the Global Donor Platform for Rural Development at:

www.donorplatform.org/resources/publications

Secretariat of the Global Donor Platform for Rural Development,

Dahlmannstrasse 4, 53113 Bonn, Germany

Email: [email protected]

The views expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of individual Platform members.

All rights reserved. Reproduction and dissemination of material in this information product for educational or other non-commercial purposes is

authorised, without any prior written permission from the copyright holders, provided the source is fully acknowledged. Reproduction of material inthis information product for resale or other commercial purposes is prohibited without written permission of the copyright holders. Applications for

such permission should be addressed to: Coordinator, Secretariat of the Global Donor Platform for Rural Development, Dahlmannstrasse 4, 53113

Bonn, Germany, or via email to: [email protected].

Global Donor Platform for Rural Development 2011

About the

Platform Knowledge Piece series


3/41

Platform Knowledge Piece 2:

Aid to agricul tur e, ru ral developm ent and food security: US wor king paper 1

Contents

Contents ...................................................................................................................................................... 1

Tabl es, figu r es & boxes .............................................................................................................................. 2

Abbreviations............................................................................................................................................... 3

Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................... 3

Aid Agency in Perspective ........................................................................................................................................ 4

Historical Overview 4Programmes, Accounts and Agencies: an introduction to the complex appropriations procedures of USGovernment .............................................................................................................................................................. 5ARD& FS pol icy and Inst it ut ions ............................................................................................................................... 9Aid Flow to ARD&FS ............................................................................................................................................... 11

Definitions of ARD&FS aid ..................................................................................................................................... 11 The r ole an d im pact of di ffe r ent r epor tin g for m ats ............................................................................................. 12Tren ds in ODA infor m ati on captur ed in CRS and AidDat a ................................................................................... 14For eign Assist ance F ram ewor k dat a fr om 2006 onwar ds ................................................................................... 18Aid All ocati on vis- a- vis pol icy object ives............................................................................................................... 21

Conclu sions and Recom m endat ions ..................................................................................................................... 23

References ................................................................................................................................................ 25

Sources of Data: ..................................................................................................................................................... 26Interviewees: ........................................................................................................................................................... 26

Appendix I .................................................................................................................................................. 27

Appendix II ................................................................................................................................................. 28

Appendi x III Com par ison of AFF, AFF+, ARD& FS, USG/FAF .................................................................. 30


4/41



List of tables, figures and boxes

TablesTable 1. USG FAF cl assif icat ions r elevant to ARD&FS ........................................................................................... 6

Table 2. Major fu ndin g accou nt s sup por tin g USAID progr am s ............................................................................. 7

Table 3. Mon etis ation of Titl e II gr ant s .................................................................................................................. 22

Table A1. USAID organisational chart ................................................................................................................... 27

Figures

Figu r e 1: Tota l aid and aid to ARD& FS .................................................................................................................... 4

Figur e 2. Sector al location s of USG ODA wit hin agr icul tu r e (mil li on US$). ........................................................ 16

Figur e 3: Com par ison of Aid Data and CRS for AFF, AFF+ and ARD& FS ............................................................ 15

Figure 4: USG funding to Agriculture 1973-2010: comparison of definitions ..................................................... 16

Figur e 5: Total Aid to ARD& FS by region (Aid Dat a) ............................................................................................. 16

Figur e 6: Tren ds i n all ARD&FS sub sect or s (1995- 2008) ................................................................................... 17

Figure 7: Funding to Agriculture and estimated funding to ARD&FS ................................................................. 18

Figur e 8: Foreign Ass ist ance bu dget (incl udin g supp lem ent ar ies) ..................................................................... 19

Figur e 9: Shares of expendit ur e to ARD& FS subsector s wit hin th e FAF database 2006-2011 ........................ 20

Boxes

Box 1: Part nership t o Cut Hunger and Poverty in Afr ica methodology for a br oad definition of Agricul tur e ..... 8

Box 2: System s f or plann ing, budget ing, m anagem ent and r eport ing Aid in US................................................ 19


5/41



Acronyms and abbreviationsARD&FS Agricultu re, rur al development and food security

BFS Bur eau for Food Securit y

CAADP Com prehensive Africa Agricult ur al Development Progr amm e

CBJ Congressional Budget Justification

CRS Creditor Reportin g System

DA Developm ent Assistance (USAID account)

DAC Development Assistance Com m ittee

EGAT Bur eau for Economic Gr owt h, Agricu lt ur e and Trade (USAID)

ESF Economic Support Fund (USAID account)

FAA Foreign Assistance Act

FACTS Foreign Assistance and Coor dination Trackin g System

FAF Foreign Assistance Fram ework

FTF Feed the Futur e

GAFSP Global Agricultu re and Food Securit y Program (Worl d Bank)

GAO Governm ent Accountabil ity Office (United States)

MCC Mill ennium Chall enge Corpor ation

NGO non-governm ental organisation

ODA official developm ent assistance

ODI Overseas Developmen t Instit ute (United Kingdom )

OECD Or ganisation for Economic Co-oper ation and Developm ent

PCHPA Partner ship to Cut Hunger and Poverty in Africa

PPL Bur eau for Policy, Planning and Learning (USAID)

SO Str ategi c object ives (USAID)

SoS Secretar y of State

USAID United States Agency for Inter national Developm ent

USDA United States Depart m ent of Agricultu re

USG United States Governm ent


6/41


Aid to agricul tur e, ru ral developm ent and food securit y: US work ing paper 3

IntroductionThe donor case studies are part of a larger examination of aid to agriculture, rural development and

food security (ARD&FS) aiming to contribute to strengthening the basis for mutual accountabil i ty inthe sector by impr oving the understanding and handling of inform ation on aid flows t o the sector.

The broad context of t he study is to assess the extent t o which aid data reflect t he policy prior ities of

donors and recipients and whether th ere are accepted good practices for m easuring, tr acking and

accounting for aid flows to ARD& FS that serve to str engthen coherence between policy, planning and

resource allocation and enhance development effectiveness.

The main purpose of the five donor studies is to analyse how well aid reporting r eflects donor policies

and programmes in the sector and to identify good practice in measuring and accounting for aid to

ARD& FS. The case study on the US Governm ent aim s to pr ovide insights into the w ay major bilater al

institutions operate with respect to reporting aid data and the coherence between their policies and

aid flows, complementing two further studies on bilateral donors, two on multi laterals and three on

aid recipient countr ies.

The case study was conducted th rough:

A series of interviews at the headquarters of the United States Agency for InternationalDevelopment (USAID) in Washington DC with senior managers and staff in the Bureau for

Economic Growth, Agriculture and Trade (EGAT), the Bureau for Policy, Planning and Learning

(PPL) and the Bur eau for Food Securit y (BFS), and additional int erviews with Ju lie Howard of the

Partner ship to Cut Hunger and Povert y in Africa (PCHPA); Review of reports with key ARD&FS information, especially the title XII report, Congressional

Budget Justification, and PCHPA review of United States funding t o agricult ure;

Analysis of data from the Creditor Reporting System (CRS) of the Organisation of Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD ) Development Assistance Comm ittee (DAC) and AidData

figures for World Bank lending to ARD&FS for the period since 1995; and

Accessing report s, data, press releases and other docum ents on ARD&FS on the USAID websiteand other United States Governm ent (USG) websites.

The study is subject to thr ee significant caveats. The first is that t he researchers had l im ited access to

USAID staff in the research process. Second, comprehensive data from the internal systems have

been difficult to access, though the new Foreign Assistance and Coordination Tracking System

(FACTS), Foreign Assistance Framework (FAF) and foreignassistance.gov tools have enabled

collection of and access to good data on Department of State and USAID flows since 2006. Finally, we

were not able within the scope of this research to directly correspond with officials from the

Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) or other agencies that deliver USG aid to ARD&FS.


7/41



Aid agency in perspective

Historical overview

In 1961, President Kennedy introduced the Foreign Assistance Act (FAA) in an effort to centr alise andrationalise the adm inistrat ion of foreign aid within the USG.1 The act established a development arm of

government, USAID, as an agency subordinate to the Department of State. Since the FAA, aid

legislation has expanded, numer ous new agencies for delivery of aid have been form ed and an arr ay of

earmarks and directives have been created by the legislature to provide further guidance to the

delivery and focus of international aid. The result is a bewildering set of procedures under which

USAID and other USG depart m ents and agencies delivering aid m ust operate.2

United States aid has generally increased over the years, though trends do appear with changing

administrations or events. Figure 1 shows the general trend of aid flows and the share of aid to

ARD& FS, using data from the CRS. It should be noted, however, that t he coverage of aid report ed to

the CRS has improved, particularly in recent decades, and before 2000 there may be significant

underreporting.

Aid increased significantly during t he pr esidency of George W. Bush compar ed with the Clinton years,

particularly in agriculture. Average aid levels rose from US$20 bil l ion per year during the Clinton

years to US$22 bil l ion under George W. Bush; however, the share to ARD&FS rose from 6.8% to

12.7%.3 The Bush administr ation also established two major new delivery channels, the M CC and the

President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR). The former is a major new funder to

agricult ure pr ojects alongside the United States Departm ent of Agricult ure (USDA).

Figure 1. Total United States Government aid and aid to ARD&FS (mil l ion US$).

Source : CRS.

In his second term, President Bush introduced the F-Process, a policy designed to create a single

policy, planning and reporting fr amewor k for foreign assistance governm ent wide. In accordance with

this policy, most agencies are n ow appropriating funds, and report ing expenditur e against FAF sector

1

22 March 1961.2 Bur al l et al . (2009).3 AidData.org (2011). Figures in constant US dollars (2000).

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

1973

1975

1977

1979

1981

1983

1985

1987

1989

1991

1993

1995

1997

1999

2001

2003

2005

2007

MillionUS$

Total Aid Aid to ARD&FS


8/41



classification and total USG aid by sector is now much more accessible. The F-Process policy also

reorganised the institutional structure to some extent, raising the ranking of USAID by making the

Administrator of USAID concurrently a Deputy Secretary of State. While raising the ranking of the

USAID Administrator, this also increased the role of the State Department, through its new Foreign

Assistance Bur eau, in planning and negotiating the USAID budget. Consequentl y the r ole of the State

Depart m ent in designing development policy is much gr eater, especially as FAF is more detailed than

its pr edecessor, th e Strategic Objectives classification for appropriation.

Subordinate to the State Department, development aid has always operated as an arm of foreign

pol icy, but the F- - of-

explicit. Indeed former Secretary of State (SoS) Condoleezza Rice referred to the approach as the

thr ee Ds: defense, diplomacy and developm ent. The phrase has continued to be used by the Obama

administr ation, part icularl y SoS Hil l ary Clinton in f oreign policy str ategy, though the concern about t he

nd more

separate instit utional m andates for each of the thr ee Ds.4

Programmes, accounts and agencies: an introduction to the complex appropriations

procedures of US Government

The changing policy and institut ional environment in which official development assistance (ODA) is

programmed to agriculture is an important consideration of this study. Currently, the important

segments of classification to identify which funds are allocated to ARD&FS are: (1) policy or

programmatic classification, determined by FAF; (2) the account by which funds are appropriated,

which is captur ed in the Congressional Bu dget Justification (CBJ)6; and (3) the administr ative unit that

impl ements t he planned activities.

FAF, intr oduced in 2006, provides the fram ework for allocating and accounting for ODA. This is br oken

into six broad progr ams : Achieving Peace and Securit y; Governing Justly and

Democratically; Investing in People; Promoting Economic Growth and Prosperity; Providing

Hum anitarian Assistance; and Progr am Development and Administr ative Costs. Each of these has an

additional three tiers of programmatic classification: program area,7 program elem ent and program

subelements. Funds allocated to bureaus and major offices including country missions are received

(but not subelement) within their budget organisation.8 The programs and program elements relevant

for ARD&FS are shown in Table 1.

4 Epstein (2011).66

are publ ished by funct ion, which includes a number of related departments and agencies. The relevant

document for the Department of State and USAID is Funct ion 150, Internat ional Af fairs, which groups al l

spending on ODA, including that w hich is appr opr iated by USDA but im plem ented by USAID (Tit le I I ).7 See Annex 2 for the ful l FAF classi f icat ions with program and program elements. The ful ly detai led FAF

standardised st ructure with subelements and def ini t ions can be accessed at the Department of State

website: ht tp: / /www.state.gov/ f /c24132.htm.8 While the subelement level exists within the c lassi f icat ion i t is not used ei ther in al locat ion or in

repor t ing by budget organisat ions.


9/41



Table 1. USG FAF classifications relevant to ARD&FS.

Achieving

Peace and

Security

1.4 Counter Nar cotics 1.4.2 Alt ern ative

Development and

Altern ative Livelihoods

Agricultural l ivelihood

alternatives to narcotics

production

Governing

Justly and

Democratic

al ly

2.4 Civil Society 2.4.1 Civic Part icipation Women s equalit y

Investing in

People

3.1 Healt h 3.1.1 HIV/AIDS Lim ited, is focused on

treatment

3.1.9 Nutr ition Nutr ition service delivery and

policy environm ent

3.3 Social and Economic

Services and Protection

for Vulnerable

Populations

3.3.3 Social Assistance Contains som e r ur al

development

Promoting

Economic

Growth

4.2 Trade and Investm ent 4.1.2 Monet ary Policy General budget suppor t

4.2.1 Trade and Investm ent

Enabling Environm ent

Trade facil i tation and

investment

4.3 Financial Sector 4.3.1 Financial Sector

Enabling Environm ent

Financial policy and

management

4.3.2 Financial Sector

Capability

Formal-sector f inancial

intermediaries

4.5 Agricultur e 4.5.1 Agricultu ral Enabling

Environment

Policy, regulation and public

investment policy support;

includes forestry, wildlife and

fisheries

4.5.2 Agricultural Sector

Capacity

Includes forestry, wildlife and

fisheries. Investments in

management, productivity,

markets, mit igation/safety

nets, research

4.6 Private Sector

Competitiveness

4.6.1 Business Enabling

Environment

Business support services

4.6.2 Private Sector

Productivity

Agro-industries, forest

industr ies, texti les/l eather


10/41



.

FAF does im prove the underst anding of governm ent- wide aid expenditur e on ARD& FS activities, but it

has been operational since only 2006, and even then with only limited coverage.9 Prior to this,

strategic o

classifications. As a result, t im e-ser ies analysis using these data is constr ained.

USAID is the prim ary United States agency that spends ODA. However, only a r elatively sm all amount

of the funds adm inistered by USAID are appropr iated under the USAID operating expenses account.

The remainder is allocated to a variety of other accounts. The size of comm itm ents to t hese accounts

is made public annually in the Foreign Operations CBJ, making it easily accessible and with fairlyconsistent definitions over time. However, the information is high level, making detailed analysis of

strategic allocations to ARD&FS difficult to extract. USAID has a number of separate accounts that

work as channels of funding administer ed by the agency. The m ain accounts funding aid to agricu ltu re

are the Developm ent Assistance (DA), the Econom ic Suppor t Fund (ESF) both admin ister ed by USAID

and the Title II Food Aid Account appropriated by the Department of Agriculture, 10 each of which is

classified as ODA. With the introduction of FAF the alignment of the accounts to specific objectives and

types of funding w as made clear er. Table 2 shows which objectives receive funding fr om which of t he

three major accounts. Additionally, DA and ESF are now split between different types of developing

country

Table 2. Major funding accounts support ing USAID programs.

9 MCC has only just star t ed to descr ibe i ts expenditur es in FAF classi f icat ions.10 Another piece of legis lat ion, T i t le XI I Famine Prevent ion and Freedom from Hunger, provides a legal

obl igat ion for United States universi t ies to play a leading role in the implementat ion of the

secur i ty, human health, agr icul tural growth, t rade expansion,agr icu l ture in a l l i t s d imens ions through

r esear ch, educat ion, extension/ out r each, and pol icy for mul at ion .

4.7 Economic Opport unit y 4.7.1 Inclu sive Financial

Markets

Policy and investment for

microfinance and semi-

formal intermediaries;

development services and

support t o value chains

4.8 Environm ent 4.8.1 Natur al Resources

and B iodiversity

All forestr y and fisheries

Providing

Humanitari

an

Assistance

5.1 Protection Assistance

and Solutions

5.1.2 Assistance and

Recovery

Food and nutrition

commodities and services;

l ivelihood support,

infrastructure rehabi l i tation

and services


11/41



Key accounts for

agricul ture

ESF DA, ESF DA, ESF,

Title II

DA, ESF,

Title II

Title II

Because there was no standard, constant definition of agricultural development assistance it wasimpossible to pr ovide a precise measure or accounting of USG development assistance to agricultur e

prior to 2006. PCHPA has published regular analyses of spending on agricultu re in

Africa, creating a methodology for examining flows. 11 Similarly to the Overseas Development

ODI definition of ARD& FS, PCHPA focuses on a broad definition and includes all

activities and investments that contribute to the abil i ty of agriculture to foster rural and economic

development and reduce poverty and hunger .12 The definition includes activities in trade promotion

and export capacity, agribusiness, rural physical infrastructure and activities to improve market

access. The significant deviation fr om ARD&FS is that it does not include emer gency

agricultural support. The PCHPA methodology and justification for both the definition of agriculture

and the need for a broad understanding of the agricultural development domain (see Box 1 below)tackle similar issues to this study and the assumptions and justifications in this study largely mirror

the in dependent decisions by PCHPA.

Box 1. PCHPA methodology for a broad definit ion of agr icult ure.

investm ents and activities whose prim ary purpose is to contribut e to the abil i ty of agricult ure t o foster

rural economic development and reduce poverty and hunger. It includes natural resources

m anagem ent and the many other activities that contr ibute to impr oved productivity but also effort s to

create an enabling policy and institutional environment for agriculture in Africa (ranging from

improved land tenure systems to l iberalized trade rules to applied agricultural research), develop

markets for agricul tural inputs and outputs, bui ld rural roads and other physical infrastructure

necessary for market access, facil i tate rural employment through agribusiness and value-added

processing of agricult ur al comm odities, and build agricultur al export capacity and opport unity.

Although this broader conception is much closer to r eality than a narr ow one, it blur s the definition of

agricultural development assistance. One could argue that support for basic education and health

services in rural communities should be included because it helps build the human capacity needed

however, because doing so would obscure any distinction between investments whose primarypurpose is to support agriculture-led, rural economic growth and ones that have broader social

purposes and effects.

The fact is that no single, agreed-upon definition of agricultural development assistance currently

exists. In fact, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and other donor agencies may

refer to some of the activities and investments that fall within our working definition of the term as

11 Taylor and Howard (2005).12 Taylor and Howard (2005).


12/41



somewhat problematic and imprecise, and cannot be done simply by drawing figures from currently

available public reports. However, this disadvantage is more than offset by the advantage of

recognizing that agriculture is not an isolated activity. It is central to facil i tating the multifaceted

process of economic development in sub-Saharan Africa and reducing poverty and hunger on the

African continent.

ARD&FS policy and institutions

The longest run ning m ajor intern ational assistance policy curr ently funded by the USG is Title II, also

USDA. Title II is an account authorised

for provision of food assistance in response to disasters and for development -

orientated resources to address underlying causes for food insecurity. The volumes of aid delivered

thr ough Title II stayed at around US$1 bil l ion t hroughout the Clinton er a, but by 2003, Bush had

doubled the size of the programme.13 Title II funds are appropriated by USDA and administered by

USAID.

In 2002, shortly after the beginning of the Bush administ ration , USAID intr oduced the Initiative to End

Hunger in Africa, a strategy targeted at building economic growth by supporting smallholder farmers.

The Initiative explicitly l inks t his growt h to political instabil i ty, confl ict and Amer ican jobs and expor ts.

This rhetoric on the importance of coordination between defence, foreign policy and development

str ongly influenced the Bush approach to agricultur e and to development m ore broadly and continued

to find tr action later in the Obama administ ration wit h the Feed the Future Initiative.

Al locations of USAID resources for agricul tural development are guided by USAID Agricul tur e

Strategy and the cascading regional str ategies. Of t hese regional str ategies, the Africa Str ategy has

since been l ink ed to the Compr ehensive Africa Agricultur al Development Program m e (CAADP) under

in a broad collaboration between African

states and donors. While USG has been comm itted to agricultu re as a core focus in development for

years wit h th is Agricultur e Str ategy, it is only in the last f ew years t hat the policy has been backed up

with additional resources.14

Overall , the share of ODA to agricultu re did increase under Bush, though the PCHPA

argues that, due to earmarks and other constraints, USAID funding alone was unable to mobil ise

addit ional resources for agricul ture. Much of the growth of United States funding to agricul ture is

attributed to the growth of the MCC and its support to agriculture-related activities. MCC funding is

delivered in a series of large mu lti- year com pacts with part ner countr ies and each compact has one ormore project components.

The food cr ises of 2007/8 associated with global food prices r ises prom pted a global r esponse, and the

-8 meeting in July 2009, Obama

committed the USG to provide $3.5 bil l ion in food security and agricultural development over three

years. In 2009, the State Department launched the Global Hunger and Food Security Initiative, a

whole-of-government strategy in alignment with the F-Process. This initiative has since been

TF) and is financed from the DA, ESF and Assistance for Europe, Eurasia

13 USG (2004).14 Taylor and Shiferaw (2009).


13/41



and Centr al Asia accounts. The com m itm ent is being delivered in 20 FTF part ner countr ies16 through

USAID field offices, regional programmes and contributions to the World Bank multidonor trust fund,

the Global Agriculture and Food Security Program (GAFSP).

While aid to ARD& FS is appropriated under a num ber of different accounts, institutionally t he bulk of

the ARD&FS activities are implemented by USAID field offices. MCC also implements an increasing

share of ARD&FS activities, but the l im itations of research for this study have meant t his expenditur e

was not examined in detail. The institutional set up of USAID includes centr al bur eaus located at the

headquart ers, r egional bur eaus and field offices. Annex 1 provides an organigram of USAID including

the new B FS, which is now the focal point for m ost of the ODA to ARD&FS. BFS uses funds from both

the DA and ESF grants (development interventions) as well as from the Title II account, which also

includes some emergency food security funding. The recent establishment of this bureau follows on

from the Global Food Securit y Act (2009), also known as the Lugar -Casey Bil l ,17 which is designed to

set a clear, whole-of-government strategy for food security and rationalise the management of food-

security activities thr ough a focal point, the BFS. Previous to the establishm ent of the B FS, the Bur eau

for Economic Growth, Agricult ure and Trade oversaw policy for th e majorit y of ARD& FS flows.

While USAID and MCC are t he dominant institut ions in im plement ing ARD&FS ODA, a number of other

agencies and departments appropriate or administer funding. Title II Food for Peace funding

mentioned earlier is appropriated by the Foreign Agricultural Service in USDA, but administered by

USAID. The African Development Foundation is also identified as a significant implementer of small

grants t o agricultur e activities. Minor independent agencies that contribute sm all am ounts to ARD& FS

activities include the United States Trade and Development Agency (technical assistance and

feasibil i ty studies for trade opportunities), the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (loan

guarantees, insurance and other support f or United States pr ivate investment in developing countries)

and the Peace Corps (volunteer TA). Funding is also provided through m ult i lateral channels , includingent Association and more recently the GAFSP trust fund;

regional development banks; the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations; the

International Fund for Agricult ur e and Development ; and the World Food Progr amm e.

16

Selected on a set of cr i ter ia including need, agr icul tural potent ial , resource avai labi l i ty , regionalsynergies and opportun ity for partner ship. See USG (2010).17 US Senate (2009) Global Food Secur i ty Act . Avai lable at : ht tp: / / lugar .senate.gov/ food/ legis lat ion/ .


14/41



Aid flow to ARD&FS

Definit ions of ARD&FS aid

Measuring the flows of USG ODA to ARD&FS activities is complicated by the range of differentdefinitions employed by different institut ions and different databases over t ime. At t he global level, the

CRS has collected data on ODA in a common format since the 1960s and as such provides the only

tim e-ser ies set of data on USG ODA.

In the CRS, the narrow definition for agriculture (called AFF in this study) uses three main sector

codes for agriculture (311), forestry (312) and fishing (313). However, it is possible to construct an

expanded definition of ARD&FS by selecting the appropriate CRS 5-

broader definition adds rural development, development food aid and emergency food aid to AFF. A

further fully expanded definition adopted by this study includes shares of budget support and trade

and is ter m ed ODI ARD&FS (see Annex 2), with the following com ponents:

agricult ural pr oduction, processing and mark eting (thr ee sectors) ru ral socio-economic development (four pur pose codes) emer gency rel ief and welfare (thr ee purpose codes)Within USAID, the policy framework and methodology for defining and measuring sectoral

classifications for aid spending have had two separate periods in recent decades. From 1994 to 2006

the Strategic Objectives (SO) definitions were the framework for defining aid. These were relatively

flexible in number and in definition over tim e,

the pil lars were relatively constant over the period, partly because there were clear l inks to policy-

specific bureaus within USAID: Economic Growth, Agriculture and Trade; Global Health; andDemocracy Conflict and Humanitarian Assistance. Of these, the most relevant policy area for

agr icul tur e- Encour aging Broad- Based Econom ic Gr owth and

Agricultural Development 18 Subprogrammes of this SO did not have exclusive agriculture or

economic growth focus, but rather a mixture, making extraction of agriculture-related activities

difficult. Furthermore, individual country strategies developed by regional offices and field offices in

collaboration with partner countries had countr y strategic objectives that varied widely.

Within the USG, it is only since 2006 that there has been a common, government-wide format for

describing ODA flows, the FAF, and the use of this framework is sti l l being rolled out across USG

institut ions. USAID began both appropriating and r eporting it s activities in FAF classification in 2006.

Prior to FAF, individual institutions would have reporting frameworks developed in accordance with

institut ional policies. Table 1 in the previous section describes the rel evant pr ogram element s within

this classification for the ARD& FS definition this st udy is using. These data have been m ade publicly

accessible on the internet and the available database presents detailed and comprehensive

information at project level with account; FAF objective, program and program element;

commitments; implementing agency; recipient; year and several other key variables. However, the

data available publically do not go below program-element level, making a detailed extraction and

analysis of t he ARD& FS definition fr om the FAF database not possible in this st udy. MCC intends to

begin reporting in FAF format, but as yet MCC data within the classification are not available on the

18 As i t was t i t l ed in 2001; in later years, t r ade was added to this SO.


15/41



publicly accessible FAF database.19 The MCC website provides information on compacts with partner

countr ies, but not any br oad data on al locations to governm ent objectives.

Officials within USAID that are responsible for reporting to CRS cast doubt on data submissions to

CRS, particularly prior to 2001, suggesting that CRS has been given an increasingly accurate set of

data but both total volume and allocations to different subsectors are neither comprehensive nor

entirely accurate.20 Despite this, the USAID Economic Analysis and Data Services unit makes it clear

that t here is not a one- to- one relationship between CRS and FAF.21 Generally, CRS is more detailed,

but due to different choices in disaggregation there are cases where the detail in FAF is lost and

others w here the detail in CRS is lost in t ranslation.

The role and impact of different r eport ing formats

Within the United States, appropr iated accounts, institutional all ocations and the earm arks applied to

funds during the appropriation process are the most visible and relevant for decisions within the

Senate and House of Representatives. The fact t hat all ocations to these accounts bear only a l im ited

linkage with the purpose of the expenditure when it comes to implementation means that the role of

the legislature in directing the actual expenditure is not as direct as it is in other countries. The way

the legislatur e has attem pted to circum vent this issue is by applying earm arks or additional accounts

linked to specific activities (such as the Title II Food for Peace account). This game between the

executive agencies and the l egislature in term s of dictating the u se of public m oney has advanced to a

particul arly complex level.22

The F-Process and FAF coding is now used within the appropriation request documents, the CBJ,

which does give the legislatur e a m ore direct w indow into the intended purpose of the spending. The

FAF definition of agriculture is broader than the typical narrow definition. The detailed programme

structure definitions 23 describe agriculture as including the core areas of agricultural policy,

regulation, research and service delivery support, but also elements of agribusiness, l ivelihood

development, markets and trade capacity and rural and agricultural finance (but not emergency food

aid, l ivelihoods development rel ated to HIV and som e of th e tr ade and business activities). This brings

it much closer to the ODI ARD&FS definition but diverges from the CRS AFF+ definition, which

includes emergency food aid but not peripheral agricultural activities l ike agribusiness, trade and

finance support.

non-agricul tural areas.

Annex 3 provides a compar ison of t he AFF, AFF+, ODI ARD& FS and FAF classifications.

19 See www .foreignassistance.gov.20 Interv iew with Bi l l McCormick, February 2011. This wi l l be discussed in more detai l below. The view on

accuracy and comprehensiveness is not independent ly ver i f ied. However, Mr McCormick is the pr imary

source for t his evidence as he is the sole of f icer responsible for overseeing the ver i f icat ion and submission

of data to CRS since 2001.21

USAID (2010a).22 Bur al l et al . (2009).23 DoS (2010).


16/41



However, FAF objectives have been crit icised for being too broad and unfocused, and not so much a

set of goals as a set of activities or accounting devices.24 The same paper argues that FAF helps to

il lust rate br oadly what United States aid is doing, but does not help guide r esource allocation towards

specific unifying objectives. This suggests t hat FAF objectives are m ore akin to sector classifications

d to political goals or

objectives with changing administrations. While themes are particularly important for tracking the

delivery of specific political priorities, sector definitions are usually used more as a relatively stable

descriptive tool for the type of activities undertaken in t he pursuit of the political objectives.

Nevertheless, FAF goals are included in CBJ documents. This entails a legally binding approval of

funding to the specific sector and subsector w ithin FAF. The impact of t his is impor tant to consider in

terms of implementation: funds are appropriated under the detailed FAF subsector definition prior to

activities being programmed.25 In programming, planning for activities cannot always be forecast in

detail and needs to be responsive to partner-country demand; the detail of the legally binding FAF

coded appropriations can, in some cases, constr ain the program m ing and require either cum bersome

revision of the legally binding appropriations or, alternatively, incentivise a disconnect between

appropriation and impl ement ation. The detail of FAF, compared wit h the l ess disaggregated and more

flexible Str ategic Objectives approach, mak es this problem m ore l ik ely to occur .26 The pay-off her e is

that having sector-based allocations identified in the appropriations documents wil l provide a strong

pressure to ensure these activities are funded, but may lead to a distortion of either the reporting of

activities or the optimal m ix of activities when it comes to implem entation.

Externally, CRS is useful for academic pur poses due to its em phasis on time series and inter nationally

comparable data formatting. It has no legal role, and the coding itself is not used for any

accountabil i ty pur poses. These qualities m ean that, whil e it m ay be flexible for analysis, its accuracy indescribing legally binding appropriations or the monitoring of institutionally accountable

implementation activities is weak. CRS reporting has l ittle or no impact on monitoring of global

commitments of the USG, partly due to the lack of a l inkage to legally approved appropriations data

administr ative and instr um ent- based definitions.

This com bination of num erous coding uses in a single standard m ay have som e academicall y valuable

qualities, but for administrative or accounting purposes it is problematic as it is vital to keep these

various segm ents of description of a single activity very m uch isolated for clar ity of the coding schema.

To explain the issue, the following are a few examples of the crossover between codes: Budget

suppor t as a pur pose code (CRS code 51010) describes a modal i tyof funding; Agriculture (code 311xx)

m atches the FAF sector

is implicitly a cross-cutting themewithin the FAF classification, appearing in various sector- specific

activities; 27 Funding to NGOs (non-governmental organisations) (code 920xx) corresponds to an

24 USAID of f ic ials quoted in Bur al l et al . (2009).25 Though in pract ice, appropr iat ions wi l l of ten cover extensions of exist ing progr amm es.26 Interv iews wit h USAID staf f .

27

The Worl d Bank uses a dedicated separate segment of coding to describe them es, one of which isRural Developm ent.


17/41



administrative 28 classification within USG definitions. To give an example of this last area, funding to

In repor ting t o CRS, USAID chooses not t o use these am biguous 920xx codes.29

As a further caveat on the accuracy of CRS information it is important to note some of the specific

details in t he consolidation and reporting process to CRS. Reporting t o CRS occurs entir ely separatel y

from the intern al planning, budgeting and monitoring pr ocesses. Data from USAID, and m ore recentl y

MCC, is taken from CBJ (commitments) and internal systems (disbursements) by PPL, where staff

translate the data from United States classification formats to CRS formats. A major issue with CRS

report ing has been the volume of funds captur ed and, while th is has been impr oving, it has been only

in recently years that that department has been confident that USAID, USDA and MCC ODA

commitments and disbursements have been fully captured. 30 Prior to 2001, the bureau cannot

guarantee accuracy and suggests that volum es are l ikel y to be significantly higher than CRS figures

suggest. Further m ore, classifications do not directly coincide and the tr anslation process is com plex,

leading to certain biases in the intrasectoral allocations to subsectors. For example, as an implicit

rule, the staff of PPL have at times uti l ised the code 31110, Agricultural Policy and Administrative

Management, as a default category within agriculture when there was no clear l ink between

classification systems. Additionally, since the curr ent staff that com pile the CRS data have been active

(2001) the aid flows have had a more diverse set of subsectors of agriculture used in the report,

including several definitions outside AFF+ such as agr ibusiness and trade and investment (see Annex

3 for the crosswalk comparison), which supports the statements of these staff and other USAID

officers that th e reporting has been improving in accuracy.

Figure 2. Sector allocations of USG ODA within agriculture (mil l ion US$).

S o u r c e : C R S . N B . T h e s e d a t a c o v e r o n l y t h e s i x l a r g e s t s u b s e c t o r s o v e r t h e p e r i o d , w h i c h t o t a l

8 6 % o f t h e t o t a l r e s o u r c e . F o r a g r a p h o f t h e f u l l s e t o f s u b s e c t o r s a n d t o t a l v o l u m e s o v e r t h e

p e r i o d s e e A n n e x 3 .

Trends in ODA information captur ed in CRS and AidData

28

Also can be cal led inst i tut ional or organisat ional c l assi f icat ion.29 USAID (2010b).30 Interv iew, Mr McCorm ick, Februar y 2011.


18/41



For the purposes of this paper and within the Platform Knowledge Pieces we primarily use the CRS

database for broad government-wide and time-series information as it is the best-suited of the

databases to provide that type of analysis. The AidData database also provides time-series data on aid

to flows t o agricultur e. The data in this database are dr awn fr om CRS and augm ented with additional

detail (see Figure 3). AFF+ and ODI ARD&FS definitions show relatively similar levels. AidData figures

do find greater fu nding in some years, but are alm ost identical to the CRS figures in recent years.

CRS data show r elatively stable ODA to agricul tur e in the 1970s and 1980s, a decline in comm itm ents

to agricult ure fr om w ithin the 1990s during the Clinton administr ation, a spike at the end of the decade

and growt h of aid to t he sector t owards th e end of the decade. Examining t he expanded definitions of

agriculture, the trend of decreased aid during the 1990s is much more pronounced (see Figure 3).

Overall , USG aid expendit ur e appears pr one to fairl y significant change year on year, wit h spikes

comm on. Since the 2000s, aid volum e has incr eased significantly.

Figure 3. Comparison of AidData and CRS for AFF, AFF+ and ODI ARD&FS definitions of USG ODA

(mil l ion US$).

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

PC ARDFS CConst Value (CRS) ARD&FS CConst Value (AidData)

DAC AFF+ Cconst (CRS) DAC AFF+ Cconst (AidData)

DAC AFF Cconst (CRS) DAC AFF Cconst (AidData)


19/41



Figure 4. USG funding to agricul tur e, 1973 2010 (mil l ion US$): compar ison of definit ions.

S o u r c e : C R S . N B . U S G d a t a d o n o t i n c l u d e e m e r g e n c y f o o d a i d . D a t a a r e n o t a v a i l a b l e a td i s a g g r e g a t e d l e v e l t o b e a b l e t o c al c u l a t e t h e b r o a d d e f i n i t i o n v o l u m e s u s i n g t h e s e d a t a .

Regionally, the major tr ends are a br ief spike in spending in Europe at the end of t he 1990s 31 and then,

during the Bush Administration, a large increase to spending in sub-Saharan Africa and significant

increases in spending in South and Centr al Asia.

Figure 5. Total USG ODA to ARD&FS by region (mil l ion US$).

S ou r c e : A i d D a t a .

Between 1995 and 2010 six main categories of spending accounted for approximately 85% of total

commitments to ARD&FS, using the ODI definition:32 food security; emergency food aid; agricultural

31 This is explained by a large amoun t of spending on food secur i ty in Russia aroun d 1999 coinciding with

the Chechnya war.32 None of the r emaining 43 CRS ARD&FS purpose codes with any al located funding h as greater t han a 3%

share of the total spend over the per iod.

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

1973

1975

1977

1979

1981

1983

1985

1987

1989

1991

1993

1995

1997

1999

2001

2003

2005

2007

2009

ARD&FS AFF AFF+ USG Agriculture

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

4,500

Millionsof$US

South of Sahara

South America

South & Central Asia

North of Sahara

North & Central America

Middle East

Far East Asia

Europe

Other/Unspecified


20/41



policy, administration and reform; a share of general budget support; and a share of material relief

assistance and services. General budget support is almost exclusively used in Israel and a small

amount in other middle-eastern and south Asian countries. The evidence shows some increases in

agricultural policy spending and alternative development spending, the policy-based areas of

expenditure. However, the bulk of the commitments are for food security activities, and increasingly

for em ergency food aid.

Figure 6. Trends in USG ODA to all ARD&FS subsectors, 1995 2008 (mil l ion US$).

Source : CRS.

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Agricultural extension and training

Agricultural marketing, storage and transportation

Agricultural policy, administration and development, including agrarian reform and alternative development

Agricultural production inputs

Agricultural research and plant and animal health

Banking and financial services

Basic nutrition

Business support services

Emergency food aid

Fishing policy, development, education/training, research & services

Food crop production

Food security programmes

Forestry policy, development, education/training, research & services

General budget support

Industrial and export commodities

Material relief assistance and services (estimate of agricultural share)

Natural resource management (land and water)

Non-agricultural alternative development

Rural development

Social mitigation of HIV/AIDS

Support to NGOs

Trade policy and facilitation

Women's equality organisations and institutions


21/41



Foreign assistance framework data from 2006 onwards

Domestic data on total USG spending to agricul tur e is difficult to calculate prior to the intr oduction of

FAF in 2006. Indeed, the fir st adm inistrator of the new BFS, Erica Navarr o, states that before 2005 it is

nearly impossible to get information on Agriculture spending 33 The framework defines agriculture

clearly as a subcom ponent of Econom ic Development. Sim ilarl y to the Worl d Bank, the USG does not

various sectors as a crosscutt ing them e or issue. As a result i t is im possible to extract t he element of

This is l ikely to be one of the reasons that the estimated FAF

figures for ARD&FS are significantly lower than the CRS figures (see Figure 7). However, the major

reason for the lower figures is that the FAF database includes only Department of State and USAID

funding. USDA, MCC and other less- prolific f unders of ARD& FS ODA activities are not yet r eporting in

FAF classifications. This is significant as USDA accounts for Title II Food for Peace funding and MCC

funding has been a m ajor source of USG aid funding to agricult ur e.

Figure 7. USG ODA funding to agriculture and estimated funding to ARD&FS (million US$).

S ou r c e : F o r e i g n a s s i s t a n c e . g o v .

b a s e d o n d a t a f r o m f o r e i g n a s s i s t a n c e . g o v a n d F A F t o C R S c r o s s w a l k f r o m U S A I D ' s E c o n o m i c

Ana lys i s and Da ta Serv i ces .

The FAF database is compiled fr om the comm itted CBJ (budget r equest) data from 2006 onwards wit h

supplementary funding also included. It should be noted that the process for tracking aid flows isconfounded to some degree by the number of different systems used in budgeting, planning,

procurement, m onitoring and r eporting of inform ation.34

33 Correspondence and inter v iews with USAID staf f .34 See USAID Annual Financial Report 2009.

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Agriculture (FAF) ARD&FS (FAF) AFF (CRS)

AFF+ (CRS) ARD&FS (CRS)


22/41



Box 2. Systems for planning, budgeting, management and reporting aid in the United States.

Recently int roduced, is the tool used to consolidate all agency planning, monitoring and data

m anagem ent across agencies. Agencies use separate tools. Also r ecently implem ented, the

The CAsh

Reconciliation Tool ( ) is a separate system for reconcil ing with the Department of Treasurysystems and field offices continue to use this. The Global Acquisition and Assistance System ( )

is USAID s acquisition and assistance software that is being roll ed out and has the function of tr acking

USAID s resources globally. A has been implemented to

help managers with budgeting and planning, although the Peru field office has introduced an

and the agency is considering r oll ing t his out m ore widely. Finally, the 2009 Financial

Report also states that m oving towards an integr ated financial m anagement system is the end goal of

reform s to the system.

At a glance, the main priorities based on commitments captured in FAF (provided in CBJ, andcoordinated by FACTS) are peace and security and health, though economic development has been

increasing.

Figure 8. USG ODA foreign assistance budget (including supplementaries) (million US$).

S ou r c e : f o r e i g n a s s i s t a n c e . g ov . N B . F i g u r e s p r o v i d e d b y t h e s i t e a r e i n n o m i n a l U S d o l l a r s .

The data show growth of appropriations for economic development has been driven by commitments

to agriculture, both higher in volume and in annual growth than other sectors within economic

development. Within the closest estimates of the ODI ARD&FS definition as interpreted in FAF

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

MillionsUS$

Assistance for Europe, Eurasia and Central Asia

Development Assistance

Economic Support Fund

Food for Peace Title II

Global Health and Child Survival - USAID


23/41



classification schem e,35 overall appropriations have grown substantially in the last years (see Figure

9).

Figure 9. Shares of USG ODA expenditure to ARD&FS subsectors within the FAF database, 2006 11

(mil l ion US$).

S o u r c e : f o r e i g n a s s i s t a n c e . g o v N B . F i g u r e s p r o v i d e d b y t h e s i t e a r e n o m i n a l $ U S . F i g u r e s a r e

e s t i m a t e s b a s e d o n a v a i l a b l e d a t a , u s i n g t h e c l o s e s t a p p r o x i m a t i o n o f t h e A R D & F S d e f i n i t i o n

w i t h i n t h e a v ai l a b l e d a t a .

The source of the increase in funding for ARD&FS has been dominated by the ESF account and the DA

account, both appropriated and adm inistered by USAID. These two f unds accounted for 80% of funds

to th e domain. Title II, while averaging an appropriation of US$200 mill ion per year between 2006 and

2011, accounts for only 7.2% of ARD&FS funding over t he period.

The examination of particular legally binding directives, such as PL 480 Title II Food Aid and Title XII

University Research on Agriculture, does lead to a closer examination of particular areas of

agricult ure spending under the m andate of the legislation. Title II Food for Peace spending happens to

be clearly identifiable as it is ent irely appropriated un der a single account by USDA and the spending

is administered by USAID. However, Title II implementation, largely the delivery of food aid, can be

substit uted by the monet isation of food assets and the proceeds spent, usually by USAID, wit hlimited monitoring of revenues or costs 36 (see the following section for more detail). Reporting for

Food for Peace is undert aken at pr oject or country level, but a com prehensive annual r eport is l im ited

to a two- page fact sheet.37

Title XII legislation of the Foreign Assistance Act requires that som e funding for agricul tur e under the

Foreign Assistance Act is im plem ented by United States universities t o ensure science and technology

35

See Annex 2 and 3. These use the of f ic ial USAID cr osswalk between FAF and CRS def ini t ions.36 GAO (2007).37 See ht tp : / /www.usaid.gov/our_work / humani tar ian_assis tance/ f fp / resources .html .

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Environment

Trade and Investment

Protection, Assistance and

Solutions

Private Sector Competitiveness

Nutrition

HIV/AIDS

Financial Sector


24/41



applications are included in the focus of the strategy. 38 The Title XII monitoring has relatively

comprehensive annual reporting, some of which can be located online, with a substantial annual

report to Congress. However, t he natur e of the l egislation does not pr ovide for an isolated account, but

a general requirement for funding to flow through United States academic institutions during

implementation. Confusion can emerge as university implementation can be a component of larger

programmes administered by other agencies, and it takes detailed and manual examination of

contracts to establish this.39

Aid al location vis-a-vis pol icy objectivesThe complexity of the appropriations process and the fact that decisions about

development assistance funding are shaped by so many executive institut ions as well as Congress has

meant that priorities established by USAID officials are very difficult to translate into new budget

allocations.40 The inflexibil i ty of funding due to earmarking has resulted in fragmentation of policy as

initiatives are introduced and in some cases new institutions or accounts are created to finance and

impl ement the activities. The F-Process has helped to coordinate t hese efforts over the past decade,

and the recent new initiatives related to agricul tur e have been incorporat ed into FAF.

Title II funding has had a remar kable longevity, though financing has risen and fallen over the years.

The earmark is fairly discrete in purpose in terms of appropriation, and provides a mechanism for

distributing United States grain and financing food security operations in partner countries. The

account provides both emergency food aid and non-emergency food-security aid. Evidence from the

United States Government Accountability Office (GAO) reveals a further use of the Title II facility that is

not captur ed adequately in r eports, nor observable in publ ically available statistics such as CRS: sale

of food stocks to generate cash. Monetisation of Title II-funded food stocks to finance developmentprojects is found to be an inherently inefficient use of resources 41 Additionally, without electronic

collection of data, monitoring the size and volume of the practice, externally or internally of the

institut ion, is problematic. The financial r esources gained fr om the sale are spent on funding NGOs in

a wide range of activities from health care to nutrition education to agricultural infrastructure. 42 An

examination of monetisation by two NGOs in 2006, World Vision and Save the Children, was positive

about the practice, finding that the practice had l ittle to no impact in distorting world prices but was

beneficial in pr oviding m uch- needed food resources in developing countr ies.43 Interviews wit h USAID

staff suggest that the proceeds of monetisation became an increasingly attractive source of funding

for field offices at tim es where developm ent funding for agricultu re (from DA and ESF accounts) was

more constrained. Since the critical GAO report of 2007, the practice of monetisation has beenreduced but is sti l l high (see Table 3). Officers in USAID headquarter s suggest t hat t his has squeezed

available resources for funding NGOs within partner countries, and the Lugar-Casey Bil l has

contribut ed to the rationalisation and more r obust management of the r esource from Title II.

38 See ht tp: / /pdf .usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PDACP680.pdf .39 Interv iew wit h USAID staf f .40 Taylor and Howard (2005).41

GAO (2007).42 GAO (2007).43 Shaw and MacKay (2006).


25/41



Table 3. Monetisation of Tit le II grants.

The USAID Agricul tur al Strategy of 1994 had very l i tt le im pact on funds t o the sector, at l east during

the r est of the 1990s. Increases to agricult ure -r elated activities began to gr ow substantially during t he

Bush era. The Agriculture Strategy remained the primary strategy document for USAID financing ofagricult ure (and sti l l is). However, the new MCC developed a separate str ategy and the earm arks such

as Title II (food security) and Title XII (agricult ure f unding thr ough United States academ ic institut ions)

continue to control significant portions of spending. There is at least a fram ework in place for a whole-

of-government approach to appropriating and monitoring ODA spending with FAF, but institution-

specific policies do appear to have been adjusted to align with this.

The World Bank influence has been a strong determinant of funding increases to ARD&FS activities.

The World Bank Agriculture Department had strong leadership and momentum coming out of the

World Development Report 2008, but it was the food crisis that proved the motivation for funding

allocation to follow policy em phasis. The Worl d Development Report process tuned in t he NGOs to the

issues in the broad agriculture agenda, building a greater consensus between the World Bank, USG

and civil society on the approach to agricultural development. This consensus and additional

discussions in other policy arenas, particularly CAADP, provided a ready framework for

imp lementat ion w ith the s igni fi cant i ncreases of funds p romised under the L Ini t ia ti ve . The food

crisis r esponse by the Bank was r apid and Worl d Bank Pr esident Robert Zoell ick h as been personally

engaged in th e process.

Analysis and response to the food crisis of 2008 made it clear how vulnerable (west) African countr ies

were to prices. The USG has had a traditional identity as a leader in food aid and crisis response, but

the analysis emerging has made a compell ing case for a sustainable and integrated approach to

agriculture which addressed not only crisis response but development of stable agriculturalproduction to pre-empt crises in the future. The World Resource Institute,44 Brookings Institute45 an d

others have examined the food crisis and its effect on security in the l ight of l im ited resources. Price

volati l i ty particularly was found to have clear effects on security issues and political and economic

security were seen to have a significant impact on reducing the threat to security crises (and

consequently security spending).

44 Sugg (2008).45 Unger (2008).

2006 69 15

2007 74.3 15

2008 66.3 15

2009 58.1 15


26/41



Amongst the broad range of civi l society groups engaged in agriculture-related activities, those

typically focused on emergency relief were increasingly convinced of the importance of building

domestic capacity and establishing r egional food security. As a result , the focus is now m oving away

f rom a

became the vehicle for mobil ising resources for the commitment (and has components across

agriculture, infrastructure and natural resources management) and BFS was established within

USAID, dedicated t o agricult ure and food security.

The recent relevant changes within the financing and management of United States ODA, and

particul arly food security, have been substantial: high-

Future); strategic consensus on agricultural policy; institutional restructuring to provide dedicated

management; strategic restructuring to introduce a whole-of-government planning approach; funding

from Title II, DA and ESF brought under a single policy (Feed the Futu re); and legislation to under pin

the instit utional and str ategic change (Lugar- Casey Bil l). With t hese changes, and an explicit str ategic

acknowledgement of a l inkage between food security and broader security improvements, there has

been a very str ong policy em phasis towards food security as a m ajor policy focus.

Funds are now clearly being allocated to t his policy area. Evidence shows that funding has incr eased

significantly to ARD&FS activities in the past years: funding to the agriculture sector in isolation as

described within the FAF reporting fr amewor k m ore than t ripled between 2008 and 2011 (see Figure 7

in the previous section).

Conclusions and recommendationsThere has been a decided confluence of policy, legislation and resource allocation to ARD&FS withinUnited States aid flows, but resources have proved to be l inked most clearly to specific presidential

administration rather than any clear strategic policy change. The most visible changes in funding to

ARD&FS over recent years have been l inked directly to change in administration. The Clinton years

show particular ly low levels of funding, while th e Bush administr ation increased funding considerably,

but largely to emergency response or direct food-security activities. The Obama administration has

increased funding even more and allocated funds to a more comprehensive range of ARD&FS

activities, and a sm aller share to em ergency relief effort s. The Agricul tur al Strategy in 1994 made very

little impact on funding levels and FAF has not changed allocations; indeed it was designed to

coord in ate rath er th an i nf l uen ce ai d f l ow s. Th e L commi tme nt b y Pre si den t Ob ama an d th e

subsequent Feed the Future initiative are the defining actions which committed new resources toARD&FS.

The disconnect between FAF and the legislatur e s objectives in affecting aid appropr iations has left

some concern about the effectiveness of the whole-of-government approach in effectively

rationalising the role of the legislature in influencing the delivery of aid. The F-Process and

impl ementat ion of FAF has been beneficial in establishing a comm on classification for identifying and

monitoring aid expenditures as a whole and to agriculture in particular. However, the issue here is

that FAF sits between a budget planning role and a strategic policy role. The former needs a stable

descriptive standard for inst itutions to identify the activity mix t hey wil l em ploy to deliver on policy. The

latter requires a more flexible thematic standard that is used to hold institutions to account in policy

impl ementat ion. As it is cur rent ly being used for both rol es, its rol e in planning activities is weak and

subject to significant change while its role in appropr iation is sti l l secondary to the fir m er account and


27/41



institut ional classifications of aid flows used in t he appropriations pr ocess. While t he SOs wer e broad,

allowing for relative flexibil i ty in programming aid, FAF has much greater disaggregation in its

classifications that are required within the CBJ. This has the effect of either constraining

progr amm ing of aid or leading to significant revisions as program m es are designed and approved.

The reporting framework for financial commitments and activity is fragmented, making a

comprehensive examination of source of finance, implementing agency, activities undertaken and

performance impossible. CBJ provides comprehensive financial commitment information by account

and institution and this information is also provided for USAID and Department of State online in

database form. Annual financial statements are provided by institution 46 and the USAID report does

provide high-level indicators for agricultural outcomes and financial figures for high-level FAF

classifications. For more detailed physical activity information and performance reporting, country-

level r eports or legall y required report s for specific Titles are the m ost relevant source. There is some

progr ess towards coordination of financial and physical planning and perfor m ance monitoring w ith the

intr oduction of FACTS, but ther e is a sti l l a wide arr ay of data m anagem ent and m onitoring systems in

place that differ am ong institutions, making a compr ehensive appr oach compl icated.

Reporting to CRS is separated entirely from the regular reporting systems and processes, is

improving in reaching an accurate volume over time but encounters significant issues in achieving

accuracy of m ore detailed shares.

46 USAID Annual F inancial Statement resource s i te: ht tp: / /www.usaid.gov/performance/afr / index.html


28/41



References

Bur all, S., White, J.M. and Bl ick, A. (2009) The Impact of US and UK L egislatur es on Aid Delivery. Economic Pol icy

Paper Series 09. Washington DC: The Germ an Marshal l Fund of t he United States.

DoS (United States Department of State) (2010) Foreign Assistance Standardized Structure and Definitions

[online]. Available at: www .state.gov/f

Epstein, S. (2011) Foreign Aid Reform, National Strategy, and the Quadrennial Review. Washington DC:

Congressional Research Service

GAO (Govern m ent Accountabilit y Office) (2007) Report to the Comm ittee on Agr icult ur e, Nutr ition and For estry, US

Senate. Washin gton DC: GAO.

Rubin, D. (2008) Title XII: The Vision, the Institut ions and t he Activities. Bethesda: The Cultur al Pr actice, LLC.

Shaw, R and MacKay, C (2006) An analysis of PL 480 monetisation data [online). Available at:

worldvision.org/resources.nsf/main/Monetization_Data_Study.pdf.

Simmons, E. and Shiferaw, D. (2010) Expanding Commitments to Food Security and Agricultural Development.

Washington DC: Partner ship to Cut Hunger and Poverty in Africa.

Sugg, Z. (2008) Food Prices Trigger Questions about Global Food Security. Washington DC: World Resources

Institute.

Taylor , M. and Howar d, J. elopm ent Assistance for Sub-

Saharan Afr ica. Washington DC: Partner ship to Cut Hunger and Poverty in Africa.

Taylor , M. and Shiferaw, D. . Washington DC:

Partnership to Hunger and Poverty in Africa.

Unger, N. (2008) A New Face of Hunger Should Prompt a New Approach to Foreign Aid (online). Available at:

http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2008/0502_foreign_aid_unger.aspx.

USAID (United States Agency for Int ernational Developm ent) (2009a) Fiscal Year 2007 Title XII Report t o Congress.

Washingt on DC: USAID.

USAID (United States Agency for Intern ational Developm ent) (2009b) USAID Agricult ur e Strategy. Washington DC:

USAID.

USAID (United States Agency for International Development) (2010a) Concerns About Mapping OECD/DAC

Purpose Codes to US fr amew ork . Economic Analysis and Data Services. Washington DC: USAID.

USAID (United States Agency for Intern ational Developmen t) (2010b) Crosswalk of Purpose Codes to Fram ewor k

Progr am Elemen t. Economic Analysis and Data Services. Washington DC: USAID.

USAID (United States Agency for Intern ational Developmen t) (various years) Annual Financial Statement (online).

Available at: http://www.usaid.gov/performance/afr/index.html. Accessed May 2011.

USG (United States Governm ent) (2004) Celebrating Food for Peace 1954 2004. Washingt on DC: United States

Agency for International Development.


29/41



USG (United Stat es Gover nm ent) (2009) Global Food Secur ity Act. Washingt on DC: USG.

USG (United States Government (2010) Feed the Future Guide. Washington DC: USG. page 15. Available at:

www.feedthefuture.gov/FTF_Guide.pdf.

Sources of dataUSG FAF database: www.for eignassistance.gov

CRS database: h tt p:// stat s.oecd.or g/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=CRSNEW

AidData database: www.aiddata.org

Interviewees

Gary Alex (EGAT)

Winston Allen (PPL)

John Becker (Office of Development Partner s)

David Hegw ood (EGAT)

Emil y Hogue (BFS)

Will iam McCorm ick (PPL)

Susan Thom pson (AFR)

Julie Howard


30/41



Annex 1

Table A1. USAID organisational chart.


31/41



Annex 2

Achieving Peace and Securit y 1.1 Count er- Terr orism

1.2 Combatin g Weapons of Mass Destr uction

1.3 Stabilisation Operations and Security Sector

Reform

1.4 Counter-Narcotics

1.5 Transnational Crime

1.6 Conflict Mit igation and Reconciliation

Governing Justly and

Democratically

2.1 Rule of Law and Hum an Rights

2.2 Good Gover nan ce

2.3 Political Com petition and Consensus Building

2.4 Civil Society

Investing in People 3.1 Healt h

3.2 Education

3.3 Social and Economic Ser vices and Prot ection for

Vulner able Populations

Promoting Economic Growth

and Prosperit y

4.1 Macroeconomic Foundation for Growt h

4.2 Trade and Investm ent

4.3 Financial Sector

4.4 Infrastructure

4.5 Agriculture

4.6 Private Sector Competit iveness

4.7 Economic Opport unit y

4.8 Environment

Providing Humanitarian

Assistance

5.1 Prot ection, Assistance and Solutions

5.2 Disaster Readiness

5.3 Migration Management


32/41



Program Development and

Administr ative Costs

6.1 Program Design and Learning

6.2 Administr ation and Oversight


33/41



Annex 3: Compar ison of AFF, AFF+, ODI

ARD&FS and USG FAF definitions of

ARD&FS relative to DAC pur pose codes

12140: Basic nutr ition Direct feeding progr amm es

(maternal feeding, breastfeeding

and weaning foods, child feeding,

school feeding); determination of

micronutrient deficiencies;

provision of vitamin A, iodine, iron

etc.; monitoring of nutritional

status; nutrition and food hygiene

education; household food securit y

100% 3.1.9

Health/nutr i t ion

15170: Women's equality

organisations and

institutions

50% 2.4.1 Civic

Participation

16064: Social mitigation of

HIV/AIDS

Special programmes to address the

consequences of HIV/AIDS, e.g.social, legal and economic

assistance to people l iving with

HIV/AIDS including food secur ity and

employment; support to vulnerable

groups and children orphaned by

HIV/AIDS; human rights of

HIV/AIDS-affected people

50% 3.1 1 Healt h/ HIV-

AIDS

24010: Financial policy and

administrative

management

Finance sector policy, planning and

programmes; institution capacity

building and advice; financial

mar kets and systems

10% 4.3.1 Finan cial

Sector Enabling

Environment

24030: Formal sector

financial intermediaries

Al l formal-sector f inancial

intermediaries; credit l ines;

insurance, leasing, venture capital

etc. (except when focused on only

one sector)

10% 4.3.2 Finan cial

Sector Capacity

24040: Informal/semi-

formal financial

Microcredit, savings and credit

cooperatives etc.

10% 4.7.1 Inclu sive

Financial Mark ets


34/41



intermediaries

25010: Business support

services and instit utions

Support to trade and business

associations, chambers of

commerce; legal and regulatory

reform aimed at improving business

and investment climate; private

sector institution capacity building

and advice; trade information;

publ ic pr ivate-sector network ing

including trade fairs; e-commerce.Where sector cannot be specified:

general support to private-sector

enterprises (in particular, use code

32130 for enterprises in the

industrial sector)

10% 4.6.1 Business

Enabling

Environment

31110: Agricultural policy

and administrative

management

Agricultural sector policy, planning

and program mes; aid to agricul tural

ministries; institution capacity

building and advice; unspecified

agricul ture

100% 100% 100% 4.5.1 Agricultural

Enabling

Environment

31120: Agricultural

development

Integrated projects; farm

development

100% 100% 100% 4.5.1 Agricultural

Enabling

Environment

31130: Agricultural land

resources

Including soil degradation control;

soil improvement; drainage of

waterlogged areas; soil

desalination; agricultural land

surveys; land reclamation; erosioncontrol , desertification control

100% 100% 100% 4.5.2 Agricultural

Sector Productivity

31140: Agricultural water

resources

Irrigation, reservoirs, hydraulic

structures, groundwater

exploitation for agricult ur al use

100% 100% 100% 4.5.2 Agricultural

Sector Productivity

31150: Agricultu ral inputs Supply of seeds, fert i l isers,

agricul tural machinery/equipment

100% 100% 100% 4.5.2 Agricultural

Sector Productivity


35/41



31161: Food crop

production

Including grains (wheat, r ice, barl ey,

maize, rye, oats, mil let, sorghum);

horticulture; vegetables; fruit and

berries; other annual and perennial

crops. [Use code 32161 for agro-

industries.]

100% 100% 100% 4.5.2 Agricultural

Sector Productivity

31162: Industrial

crops/export crops

Including sugar; coffee, cocoa, tea;

oil seeds, nuts, ker nels; fibr e crops;

tobacco; rubber. [Use code 32161

for agro-industries.]

100% 100% 100% 4.5.2 Agricultural

Sector Productivity

31163: Livestock Anim al husbandr y; anim al feed aid. 100% 100% 100% 4.5.2 Agricu lt ur alSector Productivity

31164: Agrarian refor m Including agricult ural sector

adjustment

100% 100% 100% 4.5.2 Agricultural

Sector Productivity

31165: Agricultural

alter native development

Projects to reduce i l l icit drug

cultivation through other

agricul tural marketing and

production opportunities (see code

43050 for non-agricultural

alter native developm ent)

100% 100% 100% 4.5.2 Agricultural

Sector Productivity

31166: Agricultural

extension

Non- form al tr aining in agricultu re 100% 100% 100% 4.5.2 Agricultu ral

Sector Productivity

31181: Agricultural

education/training

100% 100% 100% 4.5.2 Agricultural

Sector Productivity

31182: Agricultural

research

Plant breeding, physiology, genetic

resources, ecology, taxonomy,

disease control, agricultural

biotechnology, including livestock

research (animal health, breeding

and genetics, nutrition, physiology)

100% 100% 100% 4.5.2 Agricultural

Sector Productivity

31191: Agricultu ral services Mark eting pol

pkp2__ understanding aid to ard and food security: us

Documents