To join MFAN’s effort to urge President Obama to show leadership on foreign assistance reform and strengthen the U.S. commitment to development, please sign our Open Letter to the President, which has already been endorsed by more than 70 organizations and prominent individuals.

CQ WEEKLY – IN FOCUS
July 19, 2010

Backers Say Time Is Ripe For Foreign Aid Overhaul

By Emily Cadei, CQ Staff

The earthquake that slammed Haiti in January also rocked the U.S. Agency for International Development and its brand-new administrator, Rajiv Shah, who were promptly assigned to head up the civilian U.S. response to the disaster. The experience of the next several months afterward was eye-opening and “helped me shape my agenda for reform for the agency writ large,” Shah said in a speech last month.

That agenda is packed, given the multitude of challenges facing USAID, an agency once viewed as the country’s lead repository for expertise on international development. But its role has declined over the past decade into what the chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Democrat Howard L. Berman of California, describes as “somewhat of a contracting agency where money passes through without a creative and well-staffed process.”

Shah says the rapid mobilization of USAID after the quake demonstrated that much of that expertise, although often dormant, still exists. The Haiti response, he said in an interview, shows there are “so many different ways where this agency could be nimble, it could move quickly, it could be focused on results,” as opposed to “just getting money out the door.”

Development experts say that while Shah is moving ahead with a package of operational changes at USAID, both President Obama and Congress will ultimately need to weigh in to better delineate both the over-arching strategy and the chain of command for U.S. international development operations in the 21st century. While there is a broad consensus about the general changes that need to be made, many of the more controversial details still need to be decided, including how the authority gets divvied up among the government agencies involved.

Congress is driving the reassessment of development policy already under way with a series of legislative initiatives from Berman and the two leaders of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee: Chairman John Kerry, a Massachusetts Democrat, and top Republican Richard G. Lugar of Indiana. But before progressing further, these lawmakers and development officials are waiting for the White House to deliver its vision for development as a pillar of its foreign policy, as well as demonstrate the political leadership to implement that vision.

Backers of a foreign aid overhaul say they will need buy-in across parties, congressional chambers and branches of government. These development boosters say that Obama elevating the role of foreign aid in places such as Afghanistan, combined with a group of allies in important positions — including Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and top Senate and House leaders — makes the next 18 months a rare window of opportunity to reconfigure the architecture for international development to an extent not seen in half a century, since Cold War foreign aid policies were set by the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961. If they don’t succeed, backers of an overhaul worry that it could be another 50 years before they get as good a shot.

Beyond the Crisis

A disaster like the quake in Haiti “plays to AID’s strength, because it has a very strong, positive history in responding to humanitarian emergencies,” says George Ingram, a former deputy assistant administrator at the agency who’s now co-chairman of the Modernizing Foreign Assistance Network, a coalition put together two years ago to advocate for aid changes.

“What doesn’t get attention is those 50 to 60 countries that are relatively stable, not-so-well- or moderately well-performing, and are really the countries that are struggling for how to do development better,” Ingram says. “That’s sort of the day-to-day meat and potatoes of USAID.” The challenge, he says, is to put in place a structure that lifts some of the stifling bureaucracy and allows USAID “to do what Shah wants to do — be more creative, be more responsive, be more analytical, engage your local stakeholders more.”

Shah, who before joining the Obama administration spent seven years working on global economic development for the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, expressed the desire to introduce “some of the flexibility we have in our humanitarian relief operations,” such as in Haiti, more broadly across the organization. “I would like to replicate that capability throughout our agency,” he says.

Flexibility is exactly what Berman is hoping to achieve with a rewrite of foreign aid policy that he and his committee staff have been working on for the past two years. After a series of meetings and discussions with lawmakers, government officials and representatives of nonprofit aid organizations, Berman unveiled an initial draft this month. If Democrats hold the House this fall, he hopes to win passage of the legislation next year.

Drafters are hoping to write a bill that, in the words of one Berman committee aide not authorized to speak about the matter, would embody “a new grand bargain” of “accountability in exchange for flexibility.” The president would have to provide more detailed information about his international development plans and set ways to measure their results, the aide says, and in exchange Congress would “lighten up on the very specific directives and earmarks.”

The trick will be in getting all involved — lawmakers, the White House, the State Department and the non-governmental organizations — to endorse that system. Of course, the legislation would have some specific mechanisms for limiting congressional earmarks for specific projects — by creating, for example, accounts that would be reserved for certain countries or types of aid, such as for farmers or HIV/AIDS eradication.

But mostly, the drafters are hoping an overhaul of the system will by itself reduce the inclination to earmark. “When you have a coherent, intelligent process, where there is a rational examination by the agency, a rational process of determining some national priorities and a built-in flexibility to allow a significant amount of resources to be shaped by the mission and the country,” says Berman, “I think the temptation to do this becomes less.”

Forging Consensus

Such a grand bargain would also require an unprecedented level of coordination between the executive branch and Congress. “The biggest thing that needs fixing is to get the Congress and the administration maybe not on the same page but on the same playing field,” instead of everybody “going at it in their own little way,” says Ingram.

The Obama administration is in the midst of two major policy reviews — the Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review being run by the State Department, and a National Security Council review of foreign aid, both of which have dragged on longer than initially intended.

The administration kick-started the reviews last year after Berman wrote language into the State Department reauthorization bill that would mandate the processes. The bill quickly stalled in the Senate after passing in the House, but it’s clear that “Congress got this process going,” says David Beckmann, president of the anti-hunger advocacy group Bread for the World, and Ingram’s co-chairman at MFAN.

Until both policy reviews are complete — likely by early fall — the administration has declined to provide any formal feedback to Congress’ activities to overhaul the foreign aid process. But development experts are starting to get restive, with several former USAID administrators issuing calls in the past few days for faster action.

One thing they would like to see the president outline is an over-arching rationale for American foreign assistance programs. “Only the president can clarify the mission,” says Gregory Adams, aid effectiveness director at the global humanitarian group Oxfam. Obama, he says, needs “to define what we are going to do and what we’re not going to do and how we make choices about that.” The legislation from Congress, Adams says, can then provide “the statutory framework to support that.”

The same groups of people are also looking for the president to take a stand on the long-running debate over the relationship between the State Department and USAID. During George W. Bush’s presidency, the aid agency was effectively subsumed more deeply under State. But for years, there has been a debate over how much autonomy USAID should have — something that has played out most recently over Caribbean earthquake relief.

“The Haiti response has made clear a lot of the divisions going on between State and USAID over who should be in charge and what should happen,” one senior congressional aide says. This split in authority was evident in something as simple as the State Department’s briefing last week on the six-month anniversary of the quake. Cheryl Mills, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton’s chief of staff and lead counselor on issues surrounding Haiti, fielded questions while Shah played backup.

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee was so concerned about the lack of a clear government head of the Haiti rebuilding effort that it proposed, as part of a relief measure it approved in May, establishing a new coordinator position under Clinton to oversee the government’s policies.

Clinton’s involvement in development, as well as that of some of her key deputies — including Jacob J. Lew, her deputy secretary for management who was tapped last week to become White House budget director — is lauded by many development boosters, but it has added heat to the turf battle still playing out.

State has already signaled its displeasure with part of Berman’s plan. An internal department e-mail, sent earlier this month to solicit comments on the chairman’s draft, noted it would create a development policy committee that included the secretary of State “only as a co-equal member as opposed to placing her as the lead, as had been earlier requested.” Other provisions “do not vest authorities in the secretary, as had been requested for comparable provisions.”

Berman has held off taking an explicit position on just how the relationship between State and USAID should break down. But, he says, “As a general principle I want to elevate the role of development, and therefore I want to elevate the role of AID.”

Clinton, he acknowledged, is “a big friend and big booster of development,” but to make the changes enduring, “you can’t make decisions based on any one person that is in any one position at a given time.”

FOR FURTHER READING (Note: a subscription to CQ is require to access additional reading.): Lew, p. 1759; fiscal 2011 foreign aid spending, CQ Weekly, pp. 1629, 1274; State Department reauthorization (HR 2410), p. 44; fiscal 2010 foreign aid spending (PL 111-117), p. 28; background, 2009 CQ Weekly, p. 1303; Foreign Assistance Act (PL 87-195), 1961 Almanac, p. 293. The Senate Foreign relations’ Haiti relief bill is S 3317 .

Today, MFAN is proud to announce the launch of its Reform Within Reach campaign aimed at getting President Obama to show leadership on foreign assistance reform and strengthen America’s commitment to development.

To serve as the rallying cry for the campaign, MFAN created the “Open Letter to President Obama on the U.S. Commitment to Global Development.”  This letter, which has already been signed by 50 organizations, calls for President Obama to create America’s first-ever Global Development Strategy and partner with Congress to rewrite the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961.

We need your help in getting the message out and letting President Obama know that his leadership on reform is critical to achieving U.S. foreign policy goals.  This issue is even more important with the Millennium Development Goals Summit fast approaching in New York in September, when the eyes of the world will be on the fight against global poverty and the U.S. role in that fight.  As you’ll remember, one year ago, President Obama made a promise at the UN General Assembly to return to the MDGs Summit with a plan for how the U.S. will strengthen its contribution on development.  We must hold him accountable to that pledge.

Action is needed now.  You can take the following steps to join us in this important call to action:

• Join individuals from across the country and sign the Open Letter
• Download a badge for your Facebook, MySpace, or other profile page to show you support more effective foreign aid
• Read about how reform will make even more U.S. aid success stories possible
• Tweet:  “I signed a letter urging Pres Obama to increase U.S. foreign aid’s impact.  YOUR TURN! http://bit.ly/12FBms #ReformWithinReach” and follow us @ModernizeAid to see how momentum for reform is building

U.S. Global Leadership Coalition – “USGLC Disappointed with House Cuts to International Affairs Budget” (Andy Amsler): USGLC released the following statement from Executive Director and MFAN Principal Liz Schrayer saying, “The U.S. Global Leadership Coalition (USGLC) is greatly disappointed that House Appropriators have cut funding for the International Affairs Budget and is concerned about the impact this will have on our national and economic security.  Now is not the time to shortchange our non-military tools of development and diplomacy given today’s global challenges.”

Center For Global Development – “House Cuts President’s FY2011 Development Budget” (Sarah Jane Staats): “House appropriators marked up the FY2011 foreign affairs spending bill at $52.656  billion yesterday. The subcommittee mark up is roughly $4 billion above last year’s enacted levels, but also $4 billion below the president’s request for FY2011. My takeaway: this budget looks like more of the same and is a long way from a new approach to global development.”

ONE – “Taking a Step Back on America’s Commitments” (Sheila Nix): “Congress has decided to step back on America’s commitments to a global food security initiative — a decision that will have a ripple effect on budgets to come… ONE hopes that Congress will continue America’s world leadership in difficult times, restore the International Affairs budget, and keep its commitments to the most vulnerable people in the world.”

What do you think about the House decision to cut the International Affairs Budget?  Leave your thoughts in the comments section below.

June 28, 2010 (WASHINGTON) – This statement is delivered on behalf of the Modernizing Foreign Assistance Network (MFAN) by Co-Chairs David Beckmann and George Ingram:

MFAN commends President Obama for showing leadership on development with his statement at the G8 Summit in Muskoko.  We continue to strongly support the Administration’s efforts to elevate and institutionalize the idea, most recently articulated in the National Security Strategy, that fighting global poverty is a “moral, strategic, and economic imperative for the United States,” as well as a key component of our “comprehensive, integrated” foreign policy in a world of complex challenges.

We eagerly await the impending release of the development policy directive highlighted in the G8 statement, and we support the general themes of growth, innovation, partnership, and accountability that were affirmed in the document.  We are particularly hopeful that the directive will answer a critical question that has not yet been addressed by the Administration: How will the U.S. foreign assistance system be modernized to institutionalize the importance of development, make U.S. assistance more responsive to local priorities, and deliver transformative results for the poor people we are trying to help?

In conjunction with the release of the directive, we call on the Administration to take three important steps to catalyze and strengthen the reform process:

• Fill the senior leadership void at the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), which currently lacks the full complement of Deputy Administrators and Assistant Administrators needed to effectively execute the Administration’s new approach;

• Prepare America’s first-ever Global Development Strategy ahead of the Millennium Development Goals (MDG) Summit in September, in order to set a strategic foundation for U.S. development efforts and deliver on the President’s pledge to announce “a plan” for how the U.S. will contribute to eradicating extreme poverty by the MDG deadline in 2015; and

• Announce now that the Administration will work with Congress to modernize foreign assistance in a durable way, including by rewriting the antiquated Foreign Assistance Act of 1961.

We look forward to continuing to work with the Administration and Congress to make U.S. foreign assistance more effective in support of global development and poverty reduction.

Global Development in the U.S. National Security Strategy

Noam Unger, Fellow, Global Economy and Development

The Brookings Institution

President Obama’s national security strategy sets the stage for his administration to put a premium on global development cooperation. But, will the administration follow through?

The unveiling of the full strategy makes clear that U.S. global development policies will factor into each of the strategy’s four major pillars: security, prosperity, values and international order. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton spoke at Brookings yesterday about the strategy and despite talking about development at times during her remarks, the degree to which development is infused in the strategy was not particularly underscored. Given her track record of speaking passionately and extensively on development, I was surprised that she did not explicitly emphasize its importance.

The point in the national security strategy on being strong at home in order to lead globally is understandably a separate but important pillar for U.S. security and global leadership. Nevertheless, aspects from all the other key points in the strategy connect to America’s ability to promote global development and effectively assist people around the world. In the security section, development features primarily through the lens of stabilization, reconstruction and conflict prevention. In the prosperity section, the focus is on global public goods and investments in sustainable and long-term development. The values section references a slew of development principles and actions – as Clinton noted in her speech that “democracy, human rights and development are mutually reinforcing.” Lastly, the section on international order highlights the administration’s intent to renew U.S. multilateral development cooperation.

In recent months, the administration has publicly said favorable things on a broad range of development topics, such as the linking of climate change adaptation and development aid, of health threats and health systems, of sustainable results and a reasonable time horizon for investment, of programming decisions and evidence-based research, of capacity building and local ownership of development projects. Obama and his team have also demonstrated a high level of commitment to development issues on the international stage. However, the problem is not in the administration’s rhetoric.

The problem is that the U.S. needs to fundamentally reform its internal systems for managing and implementing its global development policies. This includes foreign assistance, but it also includes areas such as trade, agriculture, international finance and migration. As USAID Administrator Rajiv Shah has expressed, development is a discipline, but it is presently a discipline that is marred by U.S. policy incoherence largely because it is organizationally fragmented and structurally weak in lacking its own distinct clout in policy deliberations. The U.S. needs to put itself in a better position to support the broad range of development imperatives, including post-conflict reconstruction, the alleviation of poverty and human suffering, and the promotion of good governance and equitable economic growth. Only by doing this can the U.S. government effectively promote its values and security interests.

It is quite possible that the 2010 national security strategy will help open the door for the systemic elevation and reform of U.S. global development policies and operations. If Obama chooses to seriously head in that direction, the path is already somewhat illuminated:

At a strategic level, the development policy review ordered by the president last summer is rumored to be finished and its conclusions captured in a document. A draft of the document was leaked and then published earlier this month. Let’s hope the final version retains an approach to development that includes a deliberate policy, a more effective and partnership-oriented operation, and a new architecture that truly elevates development and coalesces development resources around a more focused set of objectives. The leaked draft called for a routine U.S. Global Development Strategy. As others and I have noted in the past, such a strategy could substantively expand on the national security strategy. It could do so in much the same way as the national military strategy. Having just completed consultative government-wide reviews of national security and development, the White House should aim to deliver the first U.S. Global Development Strategy in time for Obama’s much-anticipated speech on development at September’s United Nations summit.

At the operational level, many more changes are already underway, including a broader global health initiative, a forward-looking global hunger and food security initiative, the re-establishment and revitalization of USAID’s policy planning bureau and further reforms to improve the agency’s procurement, human resources and transparency.

Since day one, this administration has needed to redefine America’s global development cooperation. While its efforts in 2009 were detrimentally sluggish, the new national security strategy could breathe new life into the effort.

Ambassador and Congressman (ret.)

Reason #1 Why Conservatives Should Support Foreign Assistance Reform

Last week I wrote that I would post a series of pieces designed to lay out the Conservative case for foreign assistance reform.  I had a lot positive feedback – and also some negative. Some Conservative writers indicated they thought that we should simply end foreign assistance once and for all. But that’s not a reason to oppose efforts at reform – opposing reform just ensures the continuation of the status quo . . . the continuation of a flawed system. As a Conservative (please check out my lifetime American Conservative Union ratings and you’ll see that I more than qualify), I believe the status quo simply doesn’t work – at least not as it should.

So here go the first couple of my reasons:

Number 1: Our current foreign aid system is organizationally incoherent.

Over the last four decades, our foreign aid programs have become fragmented across more than 20 different agencies and over 50 separate offices.  This has led to an administrative maze where programs are administered by offices with overlapping jurisdictions, conflicting rules, and differing cultures.  More importantly, it has given rise to a system where little comprehensive strategic planning is done . . . which means that our development professionals are often working without a clear sense of how program objectives and measurements.

Conservatives have an opportunity, maybe a once-in-a-generation opportunity, to help scrutinize our foreign assistance policies and programs, and make them more effective and productive.

Just as our military underwent a major organizational overhaul twenty-five years ago with the Goldwater-Nichols legislation and the Quadrennial Defense Reviews that followed, so should our development system.  We should work to make it more transparent and more accountable with a clear chain of command.  We should create a clear national strategy on global development (which the recently leaked Presidential Study Directive calls for) that firmly and clearly lays out foreign assistance objectives, and outlines the roles and responsibilities of various offices.

Sounds like a good job for Conservatives — taking sound principles of business administration and applying them to bureaucracy in need of reform.

Reason #2:  We need to reform the system to make our precious taxpayer dollars go much further.

Some observers have said that it’s a difficult time to take up foreign aid reform when we’re facing such obvious fiscal challenges. But I’d argue that this is the VERY time to take this issue on.  The rising deficit should be a wake up call to all of us – with Conservatives in the lead – that we need to scrub every program and every structure to make sure that it is as efficient and cost-effective as possible.

Foreign aid reform is an opportunity for us to push for strong new tools in monitoring and evaluation.   It’s an opportunity to lock in procedures for periodic review of our assistance programs, and require program advocates to re-justify programs and structures with each review.

Where redundancies exist, they should be eliminated.  Where efficiencies can be found, they should be implemented.  And where programs no longer meet our objectives, they should be ended.

One of the reasons that there are more Conservatives running for office – from Reagan Republicans to Blue Dog Democrats – is that our citizens are angry over government waste.  Foreign aid reform gives us a chance to put that sentiment to work.

MFAN Statement: Shah Speech Touches on Important Elements of Reform

May 6, 2010 (WASHINGTON) – This statement is delivered on behalf of the Modernizing Foreign Assistance Network (MFAN) by Co-Chairs David Beckmann and George Ingram:

MFAN congratulates U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) Administrator Rajiv Shah for his visionary speech yesterday to supporters of the U.S. Global Leadership Coalition.  In the speech, Administrator Shah strongly endorsed elevating development as a cornerstone of U.S. foreign policy and empowering it as a distinct discipline that requires unique resources and authority.   Citing the fact that global hunger and extreme poverty have increased in recent years, Administrator Shah issued a call for reform of his Agency and America’s development apparatus overall, in order to drive more tangible results for recipients, implementers, and taxpayers.

He outlined a new agenda for USAID that mirrors this week’s leaked draft of the Presidential Study Directive on Global Development Policy (PSD-7):

• Commit to honoring the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs)
• Ensure country ownership and growth through trade, cost-effective and long-term investments, and diplomacy
• Use science and technology to develop and deliver transformative tools and innovations
• Insert development expertise into policy debates for conflict areas and frontline states

Administrator Shah also announced that USAID would reconstitute a policy planning bureau and as-yet-undefined budget vehicle, as well as drive procurement reforms and institute a new measurement and evaluation regime this year, which are all positive steps towards making U.S. foreign assistance more effective and accountable.

What was missing, however, was a stronger pledge to work with Congress to pass legislation supporting these much-needed reforms, particularly by rewriting the antiquated Foreign Assistance Act of 1961.  We urge Administrator Shah to work with House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Howard Berman (D-CA), who is likely to  submit a rewritten bill this year.  We  also strongly encourage Administrator Shah to establish an open and consistent line of communication with Congressional leaders including Chairman Berman, Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry (D-MA), Ranking Minority Member Senator Dick Lugar (R-IN), among others.

In implementing PSD-7, the Administration also must ensure the Administrator Shah is fully empowered to lead U.S. developments.  We look forward to working with the Obama Administration to reach this goal.

Yesterday, ForeignPolicy.com’s Josh Rogin published a draft version of the National Security Council’s Presidential Study Directive on Global Development Policy (PSD-7), which is a landmark review of the strategy and structure behind U.S. development and foreign assistance efforts.  Rogin’s article notes that the ambitious recommendations in the document set off one or possibly multiple rounds of dynamic debate in government about who should have authority over U.S. development efforts.  President Obama is said to be awaiting the final report on PSD-7 from the NSC.  See our review of Rogin’s other reporting on development here.

MFAN released the following statement on the publication of the document:

MFAN Statement: Draft National Security Council Development Vision Includes Strong Reform Elements

May 3, 2010 (WASHINGTON) – This statement is delivered on behalf of the Modernizing Foreign Assistance Network (MFAN) by Co-Chairs David Beckmann and George Ingram:

The National Security Council (NSC) vision for development that was published in the media today would help to meet President Obama’s campaign pledge to ensure “development is established and endures as a key pillar of U.S. foreign policy,” while making our foreign assistance more effective and accountable.  Enacting the changes recommended in the draft document would allow the U.S. to resume its historic leadership position of providing hope and opportunity for the world’s poorest citizens by strengthening our ability to save lives, empower people to take control of their own destinies, and stabilize communities that are vulnerable to poverty, disease, and extremism.

The most important features of the Presidential Study Directive-7 highlighted in the media report include:

• Creating and periodically reviewing a National Strategy for Global Development
• Returning policy, budget, and field authority to USAID
• Including the USAID Administrator at relevant NSC meetings
• Convening a Development Policy Committee to coordinate Executive Branch development activities
• Helping recipient countries assume ownership, responsibility, and accountability on development
• Bolstering measurement and accountability of U.S. foreign assistance investments and demanding more of both from implementers and recipients
• Forging a new partnership with Congress on development policy and practice

We believe the document could go further toward ensuring that the discipline of development is strong and distinct, specifically through elaborating in what ways and under what circumstances development and diplomacy need to be integrated and mutually reinforcing versus when development needs to stand alone, and hope the recommendations in the document will be firmly implemented across the U.S. government.  We also urge the Administration to engage with Congressional leaders now to translate this vision into an anticipated update of the antiquated Foreign Assistance Act of 1961.  President Obama’s leadership will be needed on both fronts in order to “reestablish the United States as the global leader on international development.”

Chairman John Kerry (D-MA) opened the hearing by calling food insecurity “a challenge to our broader development efforts” as well as a challenge to our national security.  He also referenced the proposed $4 billion cut in international affairs spending in the budget resolution passed out of the Senate Budget Committee, saying, “Even in a tough budget environment, short-changing programs like these, in our judgment, will deliver little budget relief at enormous negative consequence to our global efforts… And it seems to me that it is wrong, and we will fight against any efforts to reduce the president’s request for a small increase, which is essential to the transformation of our foreign policy efforts and frankly to the recalibration of the allocation of resources between defense and diplomacy and humanitarian efforts.”

In his opening remarks, Ranking Member Richard Lugar (R-IN) promoted legislation he introduced with Sen. Bob Casey (D-PA), the Global Food Security Act (S.384), and noted how the bill and the GHFSI both “focus on increasing agricultural productivity and incomes, promoting research and technology, being attentive to the special role of women farmers and emphasizing the nutritional needs of children.”  They would also develop partnerships with host-country governments, indigenous organizations, institutions of higher learning and the private sector.  Sen. Lugar plans to unveil a new bill in the coming weeks that represents a consensus among the administration, House and Senate sponsors and nongovernmental partners.

In his testimony, Lew reiterated the six points that define Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s vision for development, of which the food security initiative is a manifestation: 1) concentrating our work in specific sectors where the U.S. has a comparative advantage; 2) aligning diplomatic and development efforts; 3) adopting a whole-of-government approach; 4) leveraging partnerships, including those with multilateral institutions, foundations, NGOs, the private sector, and other donors; 5) placing women and girls at the heart of the initiative; and 6) focusing on results and on progress that can be sustained over time.  “We seek to balance, align, and leverage these three Ds as we pursue our national objectives in accordance with our fundamental values,” said Lew. “This is a core characteristic of smart power and a guiding principle of our work around the world.”

Shah followed with remarks about USAID’s role in implementing the initiative:

“First, we are advancing a strategic and robust research agenda that promotes innovation in science and technology. Second, we are supporting entrepreneurial, market-based approaches to agricultural growth; and third, we are making targeted investments to meet the unique needs of women who make up the majority of the farming labor in our countries of focus.”

He highlighted the importance of gender equality given that 70 percent of African farmers are female.  He also talked about operational and strategic challenges, and said that “the programs of USAID will only be effective if aligned with other donors and, importantly, with the broader work of the U.S. Government in each of our countries.”  He went on to call for cooperation and coordination across agencies, including a streamlined process for reporting on collective progress. Shah made a plea to Congress, asking for their “commitment to having an outcomes- and learning-driven foreign aid agenda” that includes the allocation of future funding based on progress. “Such an outcomes-oriented approach requires us to be nimble in our funding – advancing funds where progress is great and being bold in reprogramming funding where countries’ commitment to change is not there,” he said.

During the questioning, Sen. Casey asked about interagency coordination, to which Lew responded that since developing countries are often limited in capacity at the governmental levels, “we owe it to them to be able to do the coordination and to have the capacity ourselves to go to them with a coherent program where the different pieces fit together.”  Lew went on to say, “…you have our firmest commitment from the executive branch that we don’t consider whole of government to be just a rhetorical phrase; it’s a philosophy of how to get the job done.”

Sen. Lugar followed with a question about who would be leading the coordination process for the GHFSI within a whole-of-government framework. Lew replied that on a day-to-day basis, the initiative will be led by the two recently installed deputy coordinators—Ambassador Patricia Haslach, deputy coordinator for diplomacy, and Ambassador William Garvelink, deputy coordinator for development.

In response to a question from Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ) regarding building capacity at USAID, Shah listed four major operational reforms he is prioritizing this year: 1) rebuilding the agency’s policy and budget capabilities “so that we can exercise thought leadership and organize our own thinking and speak with one voice and do that in a coordinated way;” 2) procurement reform; 3) expanding certain technical expertise; and 4) increasing monitoring, evaluation and transparency.

Sen. Menendez also inquired about the status of the Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review (QDDR), and Lew answered that the QDDR is part of an overall effort that includes the White House Presidential Study Directive on U.S. Global Development Policy and the National Security Strategy.  He also said they expect to brief Congress in detail on the review’s findings within weeks.  “What we’ve done up ‘til now is identifying target areas of opportunity, the kinds of issues we should drill more deeply into, different kinds of considerations that we should make in terms of choosing — we can’t take on every challenge that’s ahead of us,” added Lew.  “But the core issue that we’re dealing with is how do we have the capabilities at the State Department and USAID to address the challenges that we face over the next number of years.  I think we’ve made a lot of progress defining what the tradeoffs are.  We’ll have to make more progress between now and when we have final review, and having your input during that process will be very helpful.”

On the second panel of experts were the co-chairs of the Agriculture Task Force at the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, former Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman and former Executive Director of the World Food Programme Catherine Bertini.  Both forcefully called for USAID to lead the GHFSI and be given an independent relationship with the White House Office of Management and Budget, with with Bertini stating, “…we are unanimous and very strong in the view that USAID should be strengthened and supported as the lead institution in order to advance U.S. global food security initiative, and therefore, it needs to be not only given the resources but the flexibility in an effort to be able to achieve that.”  Glickman added, “…in this case, in my judgment, to be successful there’s got to be somebody, someplace clearly in charge.”

Bertini closed with a strong testimonial for USAID and Administrator Shah:

“…when I was with the World Food Programme and spent much of 10 years traveling in the developing world, I was able to see USAID up close in many, many countries. And I could see the depth of their knowledge and their leadership in the aid community beyond representing the U.S. but also leadership among the other bilateral aid agencies.  And they were very, very important as advisers to us in the international organizations.  But today, when we sit here, we constantly hear both publicly and privately, even from the strongest defenders and supporters of AID, hear about their weaknesses.  And we can see what’s happened over time.  They’ve been micromanaged by Congress and by various administrations.  They have lots of earmarks about what they have to do that cuts back on their flexibility.  They no longer have a relationship with — a direct budget relationship — with OMB.  And they have outsourced so much of their work that it’s hard to manage all these other entities that are even part of the U.S. government.  So there are a lot of things at USAID that needs to be fixed or else we’re going to sit here two years from now still talking about how AID needs to be strengthened.  It has, as you have pointed out now, a terrific new administrator.  Dr. Shah and I worked together closely at the Gates Foundation.  In fact, he brought me in there.  And I know how brilliant he is and what a good strategist he is and how goal-oriented he is.  And that alone can be tremendously useful for the U.S. government in his role at AID, but he needs support.  He needs senior political people nominated and confirmed.  He needs some budget authority.  He needs to have — as my colleague, Dan, was saying, he needs to be in charge and to be respected as being in charge in terms of how the rest of the operation — Congress should let up from a lot of the telling you what to do things that they do with AID.  So he needs space and flexibility. He has the talent, but he needs all of us to be supporting AID in ways that haven’t been done before or, at least, not in the recent past.”

CORRECTION: An earlier version of this post identified Patrick Cronin as a member of MFAN, which is incorrect.

Last week, the White House’s National Security Council convened its Deputies Committee, a gathering of high-level representatives from all the major agencies in government, to pave the way for the Presidential Study Directive on Global Development Policy (PSD) and the interim findings of the State Department’s Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review (QDDR) to be finalized.  As Foreign Policy’s Josh Rogin reported, key issues have stalled action on the reviews.  MFAN Member Paul O’Brien of Oxfam America was quoted on the importance of development:

“The Tuesday Deputies Committee meeting was supposed to resolve differences between State’s overall policy review, the Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review (QDDR), led by Deputy Secretary Jack Lew and USAID Administrator Rajiv Shah, with heavy input from Policy Planning chief Anne-Marie Slaughter, and the NSC’s Presidential Study Directive on Global Development Policy (PSD-7), led by top NSC aides Gayle Smith, Michael Froman, and Jeremy Weinstein. Following the meeting, there is still no firm schedule for releasing the QDDR interim report, which had been expected.

While it’s not clear what all the differences are right now between the QDDR and the PSD-7 –and the two reviews serve different functions — one issue in dispute is whether or not there should be an independent body to oversee and evaluate all development programs and policies established outside the State Department. Sources said President Obama has shown personal interest in the reviews and has had meetings to talk about foreign assistance reform, but it’s not clear at what level of detail.

Sources tell The Cable that State is adamant about retaining oversight of development policy and that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton may become personally involved in advocating for that position — motivated in part by a desire to amass as many budget resources under Foggy Bottom’s umbrella as possible. Ultimately, President Obama will have to decide whether to side with State or the NSC, according to these sources, who are not directly involved in the process.

Meanwhile, the question of how the State Department wants to implement its stated goal to “integrate” the diplomacy and development missions is crucial, as many observers worry that development could become subsumed by the State Department’s overall foreign-policy agenda.”

Ahead of the meeting, MFAN delivered a letter to the National Security Council laying out key principals for the Deputies debate and urging President Obama to show public leadership on development.  Key excerpts are below:

“We and our Network members call for President Obama to unveil a fresh, bold vision for U.S. development policy—one built on a clear and authoritative plan that will guide the development efforts of the entire U.S. government…We are troubled that, nearly 15 months since Inauguration Day, the Administration has not articulated a strategic vision for the U.S. role in development.

Lacking this, the new Presidential initiatives that have been announced – including the Global Health Initiative and the Global Hunger and Food Security Initiative – as well as the operational reforms currently being led by the State Department and USAID, are moving forward without clarity on what we are seeking to accomplish, why, and how.  We fear they will fall short of their potential as a result.

Our concern is that, without an overall strategic vision articulated by the President himself, the initiatives and trends we have seen over the last 15 months will worsen this fragmentation and render U.S. global development leadership and efforts less effective than they should be at a time when we face complex global challenges.

Tomorrow’s interagency meeting is an opportunity for the White House to take historic steps toward fulfilling the President’s pledges to make development a pillar of our foreign policy alongside diplomacy and defense.  However, to be a true pillar, the government needs institutional capacity that is focused primarily on development, and development must have a distinct voice in relevant interagency deliberations at all levels, from the field to the White House.  An overarching strategy should serve to stem the proliferation of programs and agencies that yield an uncoordinated and less effective approach to development, and it should also elevate and empower USAID as a 21^st-Century development agency.”

Let us know your thoughts in the comments section below.