Q: InterAction is part of the Modernizing Foreign Assistance Network’s Reform Within Reach campaign, advocating for a reform of the United States’ foreign assistance policy. Why is this kind of reform necessary, and what shape should it take?

A: InterAction was a founding member of the Modernizing Foreign Assistance Network, and has been actively involved in the reform agenda here in the U.S. In this capacity, we have advocated for a number of significant reforms largely because the U.S. foreign assistance structure is broken, with close to 30 U.S. agencies involved in foreign assistance and no clear overall strategy.

In this regard, we’ve advocated with MFAN for significant reforms. These include an adoption of a national development strategy by the U.S. government, which is an effort that seems to have been successful; a rewrite of the U.S. Foreign Assistance Act, and we’ve been closely engaged with Congress on the details of what a new Foreign Assistance Act would look like; and a shift to ensure greater country ownership of U.S. Foreign Assistance.

It is important to understand that when we say ‘country ownership,’ we are not just talking about nation-states, but about broader societal ownership of the development process, which means funding of government programs but also significant funding for civil society efforts, public- private partnerships with businesses and active engagement by the international NGO community in partnership with local civil society in building local capacity.

All of these efforts have a significant momentum in the U.S., and we are witnessing one of the most significant potential reforms in U.S. foreign assistance in over a generation.

Read the full interview with Sam Worthington here

Recently, the effort to improve our global development policy has become an increasingly important topic of discussion between Congress, the Obama administration and the aid community. At the recent InterAction Forum 2010, held from June 2-4, USAID administrator Rajiv Shah spoke during the opening plenary session, and commented on the agency’s commitment to working closely with Congress on foreign assistance reform. He said, “We have the unique opportunity to frame what development should be for the next 50 years. President Obama… sees development as a cornerstone of his national security strategy.” Shah cited Haiti as an example of the successes of evidence-based development, mentioning the great strides in improving access to clean water since the start of the post-quake recovery process. You can read more about Rajiv Shah’s opening remarks from InterAction and from our blog earlier this month.

At the closing session, Cheryl Mills, Chief of Staff for U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, emphasized the importance of a Haitian-led recovery effort stating, “NGOs must allow themselves to be coordinated so that capacity-building activities lead to a real transfer of skills.” In the panel following the session, former President Bill Clinton, UN Special Envoy to Haiti echoed this sentiment. “We know we have succeeded in Haiti when we have worked ourselves out of the job,” Clinton said.

In May, a draft of the Presidential Study Directive, A New Way Forward for Development was leaked, demonstrating the president’s intention to reform the U.S. foreign assistance system in a meaningful way. InterAction applauds the paper’s recommendations to:

• include the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) administrator on the National Security Council;
• enhance partnership with non-state actors, both donor and recipient, in order to increase the impact of U.S. programs;
• and restore important policy and planning functions to USAID.

Learn more about InterAction’s take on the paper here, or read about MFAN’s stance.

In the end, InterAction believes that the reduction of poverty and disease in the developing world is essential to U.S. national interests and reforming our aid structure is the smart thing to do.

“I believe the next 12 to 18 months is a unique point in time. I don’t think the window will last much longer than that. And I think we have to do this in this moment.  Part of this opportunity is driven by political opportunity. This is a president who deeply believes in development. And in his Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech and more recently in the administration’s national security strategy, very clearly outlined how development is the common basis – shared prosperity is the common basis of our long-term security and our deep partnerships with populations all around the world.”

“These are the types of insights that we need to do a very effective job of learning and building into all of our practices across USAID.  And so I would ask this community to focus more aggressively on evidence-based development, on country-owned planning and alignment, on creating the incentives for good and accountable governance and on building real local capacity in the institutions where we want to work.”

“The reform agenda starts with building out real policy and budget capability at the agency. We absolutely have to have the ability to speak with one voice and communicate a strong development perspective not just in the interagency or not just at the NSC but, frankly, all around the world where development partners and development practitioners look to this agency and this community of leaders to offer thoughts and insights that will take our field forward and take the practice of this discipline forward.”

“We need you to do some things differently. We need you to be transparent about getting more money out of the Beltway and into the countries and into the communities where we’re trying to serve. We need you to make the decision to invest in training local resources, instead of choosing to fly in American experts, wherever you’re given that choice. And we frankly need to ask your governing boards to do something different and brave.”

MFAN member Todd Shelton, senior director of policy and communications at InterAction, was quoted in the National Journal about the forum.  On restoring autonomy to USAID, Shelton said, “Development and humanitarian relief should be seen as a distinct discipline with its own thinking and budgeting capacity.  For our policy decisions regarding developing countries to be effective, there has to be a stronger, clearer empowered voice at the interagency table than there currently is or has been in recent years.”

Stay tuned for more coverage of the InterAction forum!

]]> http://www.modernizingforeignassistance.org/blog/2010/06/07/usaid-administrator-shah-opens-annual-interaction-forum/feed/ 1 http://www.modernizingforeignassistance.org/blog/2010/04/07/mfan-principal-carol-peasley-on-the-road-ahead/ http://www.modernizingforeignassistance.org/blog/2010/04/07/mfan-principal-carol-peasley-on-the-road-ahead/#comments Wed, 07 Apr 2010 14:05:37 +0000 admin http://www.modernizingforeignassistance.org/blog/?p=1503 Carol Peasley, MFAN Principal and President of the Center for Development and Population Activities (CEDPA), wrote a great piece yesterday for the Huffington Post on how to sustain momentum for foreign assistance reform in the challenging year ahead.  She cites MFAN among a list of advocacy groups – including MFAN partner organizations the Center for Global Development, Oxfam America, and InterAction – that have been successful in putting reform on the map.  Peasley argues that reform means both an updated system and a change in the way of doing business that requires strong leadership at USAID.  Read the full piece below, and tell us what you think  is the best way to build effective instruments and approaches to foreign assistance.

The Huffington Post

Foreign Aid Reform: The Road Ahead

Carol Peasley

April 6, 2010

Over the past two years, experts on global development have come to a consensus that the current system for managing U.S. foreign aid is outdated, is insufficiently coordinated, and lacks an overarching strategy. These shortcomings have made aid less effective than it should be.

Reforming foreign aid is thus now on the map, thanks to many groups including the Center for Global Development, Oxfam America, the Modernizing Foreign Assistance Network, and InterAction, among others. The question is, how can we get to our destination?

Much of the recent debate has been about structure and the strength of the “development voice” in foreign policy. In other words, on how much prominence the U.S. strategy should give to development, compared to defense and diplomacy, which together are the “three pillars” of U.S. foreign policy. Even though these issues are not fully resolved, we need to move on to the next phase of the debate: HOW assistance is provided and HOW it is implemented. These are the factors that determine whether aid is effective, whether real impact is achieved, and whether results are sustainable.

At the heart of the discussion has been the most basic principle of aid effectiveness: that sustainable results are best achieved when host countries own and lead the development process. But, how best to do this? How best to provide assistance to achieve results and build sustainable, local capacity?

All of us involved in the debates bring different perspectives to the table, and the discussion has therefore been rich. What does “host country ownership really mean?” How much is “owned” by governments? How much by civil society? How do we get a “whole of society” ownership and leadership?

Even when the right balance of “ownership” is achieved, donors need to decide the degree to which aid should be channeled directly to host country governments. Most observers agree that the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) had shifted too far away from direct support to governments over the past decade, but how far should it go in reversing course? And, even if one does directly invest more in host country government efforts, how best to do it? Through basket funding? Through sector program assistance? Through generalized budget support? Through line-item “projectized” support? Through innovative new approaches such as “Cash on Delivery?” Through multilateral mechanisms such as World Bank Trust Funds or the Global Fund for AIDS?

The answers to these questions have major implications for aid effectiveness – and for international nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and contractors that implement most U.S. financed development programs. Is there still a role for these international organizations and for the technical assistance they provide? If so, how should it be structured to assure consistency with the goal of host country ownership? Should international NGOs be intermediaries, sub-contracting to local NGOs? Or, should it be the other way around, local NGOs sub-contracting with international NGOs for the services they want?

Many of us, including my organization CEDPA, have traditionally worked through local NGOs in the field and have always focused on local capacity building, but even we will need to change how we work. We, too, will need to relook at how we are organized in the field. Should we have local offices to direct our work in developing countries, or only affiliations with truly independent local NGOs that provide the leadership on the ground?

All of us will need to make changes – and we need to be engaged now with USAID and others in the government on how best to build new, more effective assistance instruments and approaches.

Unfortunately, some of the recent dialogue on foreign aid reform comes close to “contractor bashing.” That is not helpful, and it confuses the issue. All agree that USAID has contracted out too many of its responsibilities, but that is not to say there is no longer a role for technical assistance contracting. U.S. contractors and NGOs, working in partnership with local entities, can strengthen local capacity and facilitate global exchanges of information and lessons learned. The key is to define the appropriate role of the contractor or NGO upfront – and to make sure that the focus is always on partnership and capacity building.

And, now to the bottom line. While encouraged by the quantity of dialogue, it is very disparate. Some is taking place in think tanks; some as new government initiatives are crafted, such as the Global Health and Food Security Initiatives; and some on Capitol Hill. Some is being done within USAID; some as part of other government deliberations; and some by NGOs under the leadership of groups like InterAction.

USAID must play a much stronger leadership role in these efforts. It can and must provide a common roadmap that keeps us moving toward our destination, bringing the multiple strands together and helping us reach a new foreign assistance framework that places development at the center. Otherwise, I fear we will lose sight of our ultimate goal: to alleviate extreme poverty, create opportunities for growth, and advance human rights in developing countries.

In an effort to address the many global challenges the U.S. faces today through increased partnership and multilateral engagement, Congressman Russ Carnahan (D-MO) and Congressman Anh “Joe” Cao (R-LA) created the American Engagement Caucus.  The new caucus establishes a forum for Members to discuss best practices and lessons learned from international bodies like the United Nations and the African Union and partnerships made between countries to overcome threats.  A statement from the caucus reads “America’s security, economic, environmental, and moral interests are inextricably linked with those of the international community.  The United States must find creative new approaches for working with other nations to create a safer, more peaceful, prosperous, and just world.”

MFAN Principal and President and CEO of InterAction Sam Worthington noted, “We are pleased to have the opportunity to work with the new American Engagement Caucus and Representatives Carnahan and Cao as we draw on our common goal of an American foreign policy that demonstrates in word and deed the desire of the American people to work in a bipartisan manner with all of our partners and with multilateral institutions to build a more just and sustainable world.”

The American Engagement Caucus is guided by the following principles:

• Smart Power: To achieve its security objectives, America must project smart power—a blend of military strength and creative diplomacy. America always reserves the right to act in service of its national interests, but prefers and prioritizes international cooperation to address common concerns and shared objectives
• Don’t Go It Alone: In today’s interconnected world, America can’t go it alone. International cooperation is a better way of addressing some of the world’s key problems, whether they are economic problems, environmental problems, or problems of peace and war.
• Cooperation and global partnerships are essential for security: Given threats from terrorist groups ad unstable foreign regimes with nuclear capabilities, working with other countries around the world is essential to our security. Other nations can help shoulder the burden of counterterrorism efforts, especially in regions where the U.S. may lack access and leverage. And America must balance our military might with diplomacy in order to successfully address global security challenges like nuclear proliferation and terrorism.
• International engagement expands trade opportunities: By creating new international markets, we cancapitalize on the power of American innovation to spur economic development and job growth here at home.
• A srong relationship between the U.S. and the United Nations is key to rebuilding alliances and keeping us safe: Our standing in the world is in large ways shaped by and representative of our engagement with the United Nations. It is in America’s economic, environmental and security interest to work with the UN to solve global challenges.
• America’s economic and environmental interests are irrefutably connected: Addressing climate change through new, clean energy strategies will reduce our dependence on oil, revitalize the American heartland and give developing countries a chance to meet their own energy needs and alleviate poverty.

Current membership for the American Engagement Caucus includes:

• Russ Carnahan (D-MO)
• Anh “Joseph” Cao (R-LA)
• Brad Miller (D-NC)
• Laura Richardson (D-CA)
• Bill Delahunt (D-MA)
• Joe Sestak (D-PA)
• Dave Loebsack (D-IA)
• Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX)
• Mike Honda (D-CA)

Click here to read an op-ed from The Hill on the American Engagement Caucus

Bread for the World

• Incoming USAID Chief Needs Clout
• “We are hopeful that Dr. Shah’s unique combination of knowledge about global health, agriculture, and other issues will allow him to provide a strong and indispensable development voice as major decisions are made about U.S. foreign policy,” said Rev. David Beckmann, president, Bread for the World. “Since he has lived in a developing country, he knows first-hand the importance of long-term, sustainable development – in contrast to the State Department’s typically short-term, political approaches.”

Center for Global Development

• CGD President Nancy Birdsall on Raj Shah Nomination as USAID Administrator
• “When pushed on the issue of sufficient stature to carry out the massive reform agenda at the agency, Birdsall responded, “While a year ago, we all may have been focusing on the issue of high-profile stature, at this point the question should be: what does Raj need to succeed? And what he needs is the Administration to bolster his capacity and authorities to successfully elevate and empower a distinct development perspective and voice in the important interagency debates happening right now – the PSD, the QDDR, rethinking our approach to Afghanistan and Pakistan.” So, concretely, what does that mean? Says Birdsall, “that means the White House needs to give him a seat at the National Security Council and the State Department needs to give him back policy and budget authority of USAID operations.”

InterAction

• Historic Challenges and Opportunities Face USAID Nominee
• “The challenges are many, but USAID administrator‐nominee Shah has a historic opportunity to shape the way U.S. foreign assistance is done for at least the next 50 years. Rep. Howard Berman (D‐CA) and other congressional leaders are looking to the new administrator to help guide discussions around climate change, food security, a rewrite of the outdated 1961 Foreign Assistance Act and countless other issues.”

ONE Campaign

• ONE Welcomes USAID Administrator Nominee Rajiv Shah
• “Today’s nomination is a major step in the right direction. It is imperative that USAID has the resources and authority to deliver American investments abroad as efficiently and as effectively as possible. It’s also important they play a central role in the global development policy efforts currently underway at the White House, with the State Department and in Congress.”

Oxfam America

• Oxfam America on Dr. Rajiv Shah, Obama’s Nominee for USAID Administrator
• “Shah assumes responsibility over USAID at a crucial moment in history. For many years, USAID has been under-resourced and politically marginalized. But today’s international challenges – from the financial crisis to climate change — make it more important than ever to rebuild USAID from a compliance agency for NGOs and contractors to what it once was: the world’s most prestigious development agency…But there’s also growing momentum for a new era in US foreign aid, with a number of processes already underway that will reshape US global development policy. Additionally, bipartisan legislation has been introduced in both the House and Senate to initiate foreign aid reform, as well as strengthen and elevate USAID.”

Save the Children

• Save the Children Applauds the Nomination of Dr. Rajiv Shah for USAID Administrator; Urges U.S. Development Policy Reforms
• “Save the Children is very encouraged by the nomination of Rajiv Shah – a man clearly committed to improving the health and well-being of the world’s poor,” said Charles MacCormack, President and CEO of Save the Children. “Dr. Shah’s expertise and accomplishments in global health, agriculture and science will enable him to provide a strong and unique voice for development at our nation’s foreign policy table. That strong voice, especially if backed by significant reforms to U.S. development policy, is critical to addressing the urgent needs of the world’s sick, hungry, and vulnerable children,” MacCormack added.

U.S. Global Leadership Coalition

• USGLC Applauds Choice of Dr. Rajiv Shah as USAID Administrator
• “Rajiv Shah is a fresh and dynamic addition to President Obama’s foreign policy team. Dr. Shah will bring expertise and energy to a critical agency in need of strong, empowered leadership. His career in global development, global health and agricultural development give him real perspective to lead USAID. He is already an important player in the Administration’s food security initiative, and his additional background in fighting global poverty and promoting global health make him an ideal candidate for this important post.”