MYAP GUIDANCE MEETING AND KEY CHALLENGES IN

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 NAIROBI 004710

SIPDIS



SIPDIS

USAID/DCHA FOR MHESS, GGOTTLIEB
DCHA/OFDA FOR KLUU, ACONVERY, KCHANNELL
DCHA/FFP FOR JDWORKEN, SANTHONY, CMUTAMBA, TMCRAE
USMISSION UN ROME FOR RNEWBERG
GENEVA FOR NKYLOH
USAID/ECARO FOR JMYER, ADWYER
BUJUMBURA FOR PMOLLER, JANDERSON

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: BY
SUBJECT: MYAP GUIDANCE MEETING AND KEY CHALLENGES IN
BURUNDI



1. On October 23, 2007, USAID/East Africa/Food for
Peace (FFP) held an information meeting with potential
Title II Multi Year Assistance Program (MYAP) partners
in Burundi. This is the first year that Burundi is on
the FFP Priority List of 18 countries designated to
program Title II non-emergency resources. Burundi is
recovering from 13 years of civil war that has
impoverished the population, making them susceptible to
the recurrent shocks of internal displacement, drought,
and floods. As Burundi transitions slowly from
emergency programs, USAID/FFP seeks to contribute to the
relief-to-development process currently underway in
Burundi through the programming of MYAPs.


2. This was the third in a series of meetings held with
potential partners to introduce the concept of MYAPs and
provide guidance for their submissions. As
participating partners finalize food security
assessments and program designs, and FFP updated the
Bellmon Analysis for Burundi as well as the final MYAP
FY 08 Guidelines made recently available for the January
21, 2008 submission deadline, this was an opportune time
to hold a final consultative meeting. The participants
were very appreciative of the guidance and support and
the notes and handouts of the meeting were sent to all
who communicated with FFP in the last year, as well as
posted to the USAID/East Africa website for in order to
maintain transparency and fairness for all applicants.


3. The meeting was attended by seven PVOs and the
complement team of USAID/Burundi, USAID/East
Africa/Limited Presence Countries Office and Regional
Food for Peace Officers Denise Gordon, who serves as the
regional back stop officer for Burundi, and David Rinck,
who has extensive experience in the development of MYAPs
and Bellmon Analysis.


4. The meeting centered on the following issues:
-- Proposals should be in support of FFP?s overall
Strategic Objective of reducing food insecurity in
vulnerable populations, underscoring the program areas
FFP will consider in program designs;
-- Required monitoring and evaluating indicators: F
process, mission, FFP, and trigger indicators;
-- Encouragement of integration with USAID/Burundi?s
relevant Functional Objectives, as described in the
Burundi Operational Plan (OP). Specifically, the Title
II program is expected to support Burundi?s Economic
Growth (EG) and Investing in People (IIP) Objectives in
the Program Areas of Agriculture and Health;
-- Leveraging of funding requests from FFP with other
USAID/Burundi programs including the Burundi
Agribusiness Program and the Burundi Maternal and Child
Health Program, as well as other USAID funding sources
and other donors;
-- integrating as much as possible with regional and
country initiatives such as the Comprehensive African
Agricultural Development Programme (CAADP) with its
objective of diminishing the root causes of food
security. In the case of Burundi this initiative is
still being developed;
-- Providing an update on the FY08 Bellmon Analysis that
identified the commodities most appropriate for
distribution to include peas, maize and maize meal.
Monetized commodities should be limited to 12,000 MTs
of Hard Red Wheat (HRW);
-- Encouraging potential partners to examine existing
food pipelines (such as WFP) before deciding to
establish a supplementary one.
--Relaying the importance of establishing one lead
monetization agent following the award to discourage
partners from competing against each other.
Additionally relaying that monetization should not lead
the process but rather fill the gap that exists after
identifying the program interventions. After the
appropriate 202(e) and Internal Transport, Storage and
Handling (ITSH) and other funding have been applied, the
remaining gap should justify/support the need for
monetization.

NAIROBI 00004710 002 OF 002




5. The consultative meeting for potential MYAP partners
also highlighted the strong and positive partnership of
the various offices of USAID that are promoting
Burundi?s development. The meeting established an
important foundation for the integration of FFP
activities with USAID/Burundi?s priorities. However, as
this groundwork is laid, it raises other questions that
are highlighted below.


CHALLENGES: IMPORTANT LESSONS LEARNED AND QUESTIONS
RAISED


6. The F process has challenged Title II non-emergency
food aid programs. On the one hand FFP requests that
partners submit unsolicited proposals that respond to a
wide range of activities aimed at reducing food
insecurity. Partners are only ?encouraged? to align
their program designs with USAID Missions. However, if
USAID/Burundi must monitor and report on all development
programming, and those program areas and elements are
determined by USAID/Burundi, then are the potential MYAP
partners obligated to follow the programming priorities
of USAID/Burundi? This is not explicitly stated, but
current reporting processes suggest it will happen this
way.


7. As Burundi?s preliminary FY08 Congressional Budget
Justification (CBJ) allocated the total FFP development
funding level ($5 million) in the Program Area of
Economic Growth for FY08, the FFP team questioned
whether it could tell potential partners that they could
submit program designs that focused on health and
nutrition or other elements under the Program Area of
Investing in People. Following many phone calls to
Washington, we were informed that there was flexibility
to make those desired changes as long as there was
support from the field Missions.


8. Finally, an important observation made during the
development of the Burundi MYAPs was that the Foreign
Assistance and Operational Plan reporting system as it
is currently configured may not accurately and fully
capture the unique qualities of food aid as a non-
emergency (or development) resource. For example, in
Burundi the Title II program is envisioned to support
the Program Areas of Agriculture and Health. However,
within these program areas, USAID/Burundi will employ
both cash and food aid. Each of these resources has
specific advantages and limitations which a quantitative
reporting system will not fully reflect.


FSN Food Aid Monitor


9. In an effort to support USAID/Burundi with this new
food aid programming as well as provide continued
monitoring of WFP?s Protracted Relief and Recovery
Operations (PRRO),FFP plans to fund a Foreign Service
National Food Aid Monitor.

RANNEBERGER