VZCZCXYZ0001
RR RUEHWEB

DE RUEHNR #0328/01 0410934
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 100933Z FEB 10
FM AMEMBASSY NAIROBI
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 0795
RUEHC/USAID WASHDC 0009
INFO RHEHAAA/NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL WASHINGTON DC
RUCPDOC/DEPT OF COMMERCE WASHINGTON DC
RUEATRS/DEPT OF TREASURY WASHINGTON DC
RUEHAN/AMEMBASSY ANTANANARIVO 0001
RUEHC/DEPT OF AGRICULTURE WASHINGTON DC
RUEHDR/AMEMBASSY DAR ES SALAAM 0044
RUEHDS/AMEMBASSY ADDIS ABABA 0031
RUEHKH/AMEMBASSY KHARTOUM
RUEHKI/AMEMBASSY KINSHASA
RUEHKM/AMEMBASSY KAMPALA
RUEHLG/AMEMBASSY LILONGWE
RUEHLGB/AMEMBASSY KIGALI 0010
RUEHLS/AMEMBASSY LUSAKA 0001
RUEHLU/AMEMBASSY LUANDA 0001
RUEHNR/AMEMBASSY NAIROBI
RUEHSA/AMEMBASSY PRETORIA 0034
RUEHTO/AMEMBASSY MAPUTO 0001
RUEHWD/AMEMBASSY WINDHOEK

UNCLAS NAIROBI 000328 
 
SIPDIS 
STATE FOR C MARISA PLOWDEN AND F ROBERTA CAVITT 
USAID FOR AFR/SD JEFF HILL, TOM HOBGOOD, MCURTIS, AND ELOKEN, DCHA/PPM SBRA 
DLEY, EGEA MYATES, AND COO JKUNEN AND GMARICLE 
STATE PASS USTR 
STATE PASS PEACE CORPS 
STATE PASS MCC 
STATE PASS USADF 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: ECON EAGR EAID ETRD KGHG SENV ENRG PREL KE
 
SUBJECT: KENYA: SUMMARY OF REGIONAL CONSULTATIVE WORKSHOP ON GHFSI 
AND GCC 
 
------------ 
 
INTRODUCTION 
 
------------ 
 
 
 
¶1.  USAID/East Africa hosted a Whole of Government workshop in 
Nairobi, Kenya February 1-5, 2010 on the implementation in eastern 
and southern Africa of the Global Hunger and Food Security 
Initiative (GHFSI), as well as on the planning of investments 
related to global climate change (GCC). Over 120 people active in 
these two areas from six U.S. Government agencies -- State, USAID, 
USDA, USTR, MCC, the Peace Corps, and the US African Development 
Foundation (USADF) -- attended the workshop.  Participants came 
from Washington and from the ten missions active in the GHFSI -- 
East Africa and Southern Africa regional, Kenya, Uganda, Rwanda, 
Ethiopia, Tanzania, Zambia, Malawi, and Mozambique -- as well as 
from the missions in Sudan, the Democratic Republic of Congo, 
Madagascar, Angola, and Namibia.  There was good representation 
from the country and regional teams, including economic, 
commercial, environmental, and agricultural officers from the 
embassies, as well as management, program, and technical officers 
from USAID. 
 
 
 
¶2.  The Mission Directors from East Africa, Ethiopia, Sudan, and 
Tanzania, and the Deputy Directors from Kenya, Mozambique, and 
Southern Africa participated, particularly on the final day.  They 
expressed support for both initiatives, and provided practical 
suggestions on how to expedite implementation.  The Regional 
Director for Africa of F, the Office of Foreign Assistance, 
participated in a number of the sessions. 
 
 
 
-------------- 
 
GHFSI Outcomes 
 
-------------- 
 
 
 
¶3.  Mutual understanding of recent developments in the USG strategy 
for the Global Hunger and Food Security Initiative, including the 
five core principles guiding the initiative: 1) comprehensive plan; 
2) country-led and owned; 3).strategic coordination; 4) 
multilateral cooperation; and 5) sustained commitment. The meeting 
was a valuable opportunity for the USG professionals responsible 
for implementation in the field to discuss issues with key 
representatives of the inter-agency team from Washington. 
 
 
 
¶4.  The three days of meetings on the Global Hunger and Food 
Security Initiative produced the following outcomes: 
 
 
 
-- Sharing of experiences among agencies and missions on how the 
Whole of Government approach can best contribute to African 
 
 
country-led and regional strategies and investment plans oriented 
around the Comprehensive Africa Agricultural Development Program 
(CAADP), supported by national governments and multiple donors. 
There were presentations on how multilateral organizations and 
funding mechanisms complement USG-supported programs. 
 
 
 
-- Sharing of experiences from country teams on their progress 
putting Whole of Government principles into operation at the field 
level. 
 
 
 
-- Clarification of the steps to be taken by the missions in 2010 
to put in place a new architecture for the implementation of 
effective programming of significantly expanded activities to meet 
the major objectives of the GHFSI.  These are: 1) Improved economic 
performance of the agricultural sector, 2) Improved nutritional 
status, and 3) Improved capacity of vulnerable households to meet 
their food needs. 
 
 
 
-- Presentations and discussions on the planning and implementation 
of programming in key component areas.  These were: 1) 
Vulnerability, reaching the ultra-poor and linking development with 
humanitarian assistance; 2) Nutrition; 3) Gender mainstreaming; 4) 
Transport corridors and regionally integrated markets; 5) Building 
capacity in public and private institutions; and 6) NRM, climate 
change, and food security. 
 
 
 
-- Discussion in small groups of opportunities for joint planning 
and potentially coordinated procurement in program areas common 
across country teams. Points of Contact for each group will follow 
up with plans for further consultations and designs.  The areas 
were:  1) Capacity building; 2) Reaching the very poor; 3) 
Nutrition, 4) Seed and fertilizer supply chains, 5) Livestock and 
pro-pastoralism programs; and 6) natural resource management and 
climate change. 
 
 
 
-- Second drafts of the Implementation Plans (IPs) for all of the 
participating Missions for FY 2010, as well as the Diplomatic 
Strategies of each mission were discussed in side meetings.  The 
final IPs, due March 1, will include summaries of the Diplomatic 
Strategies. 
 
 
 
-- Of the eight focus countries represented at the meeting, two - 
Rwanda and Ethiopia - have already signed a CAADP country compact, 
and Rwanda has had its Investment Plan endorsed by a technical 
review team organized by the AU/NEPAD.  A report on the high-level 
meeting held in Rwanda in December, 2009 provided a concrete 
example of the factors and processes involved.  USAID and other 
members of the country teams have taken responsibility to work with 
the agricultural donor groups in the six additional countries, as 
well as on regional compacts in the COMESA and SADC regions, to 
move the process forward. The key steps are: 1) the development of 
a sector-wide strategy based on stock-taking and evidence drawn 
 
 
from analysis; 2) the signing of a CAADP compact by relevant 
ministries and development partners, establishing their commitments 
to the strategy; 3) the development of an investment plan and 
policy action plan based on that strategy; and 4) a technical 
review of those plans, leading immediately to implementation.  The 
AU and NEPAD will be distributing guidelines for post-compact 
investment planning and review to help guide that process. By the 
end of FY 2010, it is expected that six additional in east and 
southern Africa countries and one of the Regional Economic 
Communities will have reached at least stage two, the signing of a 
compact. 
 
 
 
-- A draft Results Framework for the Initiative was presented and 
draft indicators against which expanding activities will be 
monitored were shared.  Participants were encouraged to provide 
comments and feedback by March 15. 
 
 
 
-- Proposed methods for impact assessment were discussed, as well 
as the Mutual Accountability Framework being developed for all of 
the partners linked to CAADP. 
 
 
 
-- Identification and discussion of key management issues of 
staffing, procurement, technical support, etc. that will need to be 
resolved in each mission in 2010 as the GHFSI and programs in 
climate change are scaled up.  USAID Mission Directors, program 
officers, and Acquisition and Assistance officers from Washington 
and from the region participated actively in these discussions, to 
find solutions. 
 
 
 
------------ 
 
GCC Outcomes 
 
------------ 
 
 
 
¶5.  The two-days of meetings on Global Climate Change produced the 
following outcomes: 
 
 
 
-- Mutual understanding of how the U.S. Government is moving 
forward in the context of the Copenhagen Accord with programs in 
support of low-carbon economic growth and adaptation to the 
probable effects of climate change. 
 
 
 
-- Preliminary agreement on how programs in the field should be 
planned and implemented. 
 
 
 
-- Agreement on a recommendation to build strong regional programs 
capable of implementing key regional priorities, and of providing 
 
 
technical support to bilateral missions in close consultation with 
Washington. 
 
 
 
-- Agreement that Whole of Government country teams in Africa will 
be fully involved in shaping the development of the climate change 
program. 
 
 
 
-- Discussion of the need to balance the integration of climate 
change programs into the GHFSI and other portfolios of the missions 
in Africa on the one hand, and the needs of Washington-based 
offices to track progress of narrowly targeted policy priorities on 
the other. 
 
 
 
-------------------------- 
 
Workshop sessions on GHFSI 
 
-------------------------- 
 
 
 
¶6.  Representatives of offices in Washington provided an overview 
of recent developments. The GHFSI is a global, multi-agency USG 
effort, led by an inter-agency team chaired by the Counselor and 
Chief of Staff to the Secretary of State. USAID is taking a lead 
role in implementation, working closely with the OMB, the Treasury, 
USDA, the Millennium Challenge Corporation, (MCC) the office of the 
Trade Representative (USTR), and others in a coordinated, Whole of 
Government approach. Africa is in the spotlight because the 
chronically poor and hungry constitute a larger proportion of the 
population than in any other region of the world, and because in 
spite of national economic growth, the proportion of the population 
classified as poor has been increasing in many countries in recent 
years. The Global Hunger and Food Security Initiative, which may be 
branded "Feed the Future," incorporates the objectives and 
principles laid out at the G8 summit at L'Aquila, Italy and the 
Food Security Summit in 2009. An updated version of the strategy 
document was distributed. A draft results framework was presented 
and draft indicators were distributed for discussion and feed-back. 
 
 
 
 
¶7.  Presentations on the UN High Level Task Force on Food Security 
and on multi-donor trust funds managed by the World Bank provided 
the context within which the USG initiative is working as part of 
broader multi-lateral efforts. The CGIAR system of international 
agricultural research centers has mobilized multilateral support 
for many years. The centers have long-term presence in many 
countries, and have built the capacity of national systems to 
generate applied research, policy options, and technology 
dissemination through partnerships. A lunchtime talk by a woman 
African scientist supported by the AWARD program provided concrete 
examples of the benefits. 
 
 
 
¶8.  African governments, in partnership with the private sector, 
 
 
civil society, and the international donor community, have taken a 
leadership role through the Comprehensive Africa Agricultural 
Development Program (CAADP). Africa-wide, thirteen countries have 
completed CAADP Country Compacts, which are endorsements by 
governments and development partners of evidence-based sector-wide 
strategies. After these are signed, the next step is to work 
towards comprehensive plans for investment and policy reform that 
will be externally reviewed by a team of experts mobilized by the 
AU and NEPAD.  An additional seven to eight countries and at least 
two regional economic communities (RECs) are expected to sign 
Compacts by the end of this fiscal year. CAADP is a country-led, 
not an exclusively government-led process. The process must include 
effective consultations with private sector and civil society 
organizations, as well as with the agricultural donor groups. A 
policy reform agenda is a key element in every strategy. USAID and 
other members of the country teams have taken responsibility to 
work with the agricultural donor groups to advance the CAADP 
process as the keystone partnership for the GHFSI in Africa. A 
presentation of the process in Rwanda, which is furthest along, 
provided a framework for discussion on how to adapt the process to 
circumstances in each country.  In discussion, it was pointed out 
that national policies that affect the predictability of commodity 
prices and the stability of market conditions have a critical 
impact on farmers' incentives to invest to increase production for 
markets. Good governance more generally is an important component 
of effective programs with public institutions. The countries and 
sub-regions where hunger and food security are the most serious 
often have problems of policy and governance as well. The country 
strategies must deal with these issues. 
 
 
 
¶9.  In Washington, the Whole of Government approach has brought 
together State, Treasury, Agriculture (USDA), Trade (USTR), the 
Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC), and other agencies with 
USAID to develop the GHFSI. The draft Implementation Plans 
developed by each of the USAID missions in the target countries 
have been reviewed by the interagency teams. In addition, the 
country teams led by State have submitted Diplomatic Strategies 
tied to the Initiative. These lay the foundation for the Whole of 
Government process in the field, identify key areas for policy 
reform, and name country and regional forums for disseminating 
information. Presentations by representatives the MCC, USTR, and 
USDA, as well as one sent from Treasury, explained how their 
programs can contribute, and provided information on how country 
teams can best link with their programs and resources. 
Representatives from each country team summarized their progress, 
and the DCM for Kenya expressed strong support for the integrated 
approach. The Peace Corps and the USADF also participated in the 
meeting. The final IPs, due March 1, will incorporate the technical 
programs, updated Whole of Government linkages, and the diplomatic 
strategies. 
 
 
 
¶10.  A key objective of the GHFSI in 2010 is to lay evidence-based 
foundations for further scaling up in 2011 and beyond. The core 
objectives of the initiative are 1) Improved economic performance 
of the agricultural sector, 2) Improved nutritional status, and 3) 
Improved capacity of vulnerable households to meet their food 
needs. Linked to these are a number of other key topic areas. 
Presentations and working groups discussed how country teams can 
best address these issues, and how they can work together to 
assemble relevant analysis, plan and perhaps also to jointly 
 
 
implement certain activities. Among the issues discussed were the 
following: 
 
 
 
-- Reaching the poor and vulnerable: linking humanitarian 
assistance with agriculture-based growth; 
 
 
 
-- Regional integration and transport corridors, to increase 
regional trade and the availability of staple foods through 
improved access to markets for producers and reduced transactions 
costs; 
 
 
 
-- Building integrated, cross-sectoral programs in nutrition, to 
set standards of accountability for measurable decreases in the 
prevalence of underweight children and to support country-led 
processes to reduce under-nutrition; 
 
 
 
-- Incorporating women and youth into development processes; 
 
 
 
-- Integrating natural resource management and adaptation to the 
effects of climate change into programs linked to the GHFSI; 
 
 
 
-- Building programs in support of livestock productivity and 
trade, with as focus on mobile pastoral production systems in the 
extensive semi-arid regions too dry for other kinds of agriculture, 
increasing the resilience of very poor people and reducing 
conflict; and 
 
 
 
-- Coordinated capacity-building, to provide short-term training to 
African partners in public and private institutions to strengthen 
their capabilities to contribute to programs and objectives of 
CAADP. 
 
 
 
----------------- 
 
Management Issues 
 
----------------- 
 
 
 
¶11.  Within USAID in particular, key management issues of staffing, 
procurement, technical support, etc. will need to be resolved in 
each mission in 2010 as the GHFSI and programs in climate change 
are scaled up. All of the missions urgently need more people, 
including qualified and experienced professional staff. In 
addition, "surge teams" of experts available from Washington and 
the regional missions must be expanded to assist in program 
designs, reviews, evaluations, etc. Ways must be found to deal 
 
 
effectively with very real constraints including National Security 
Decision Directive 38 (NSDD-38) ceilings on staff, office space, 
housing, support budgets, ICASS charges, and lengthy administrative 
approval processes. Concern was expressed about onerous reporting 
requirements. It was recommended that the GHFSI indicators and 
reporting requirements, as well as the definitions of funding 
categories, should be integrated with existing mechanisms as much 
as possible.  Participants called for more certain budget levels in 
out years, to facilitate multi-year programming. The Mission 
Directors and other senior staff participated actively in these 
discussions, and expressed agreement on the need to work together 
to find solutions. 
 
 
 
¶12.  Led by members of USAID's Office of Acquisition and Assistance 
from Washington and the region, the group discussed flexible ways 
of setting up grants and contracts to scale up activities. The 
field is receiving mixed signals. On the one hand, the OMB recently 
issued a paper calling for reductions in costs and risks to the 
government, reducing reliance on IQCs, and encouraging smaller 
implementing agreements with increased participation by small 
businesses and African partners. On the other, the missions and 
country teams are being encouraged to find mechanisms to reduce the 
number and complexity of procurement mechanisms and management 
units. New requirements for Congressional notification for proposed 
procurements above specified thresholds are in the FY2010 
Appropriations Bill. There is a strong need for a general waiver 
for the GHFSI in 2010. A&A offices both in Washington and in the 
field are over-stretched already. A&A specialists should be brought 
into the early stages of planning, so that programs can be scaled 
up quickly and effectively, using appropriate mechanisms within the 
framework of agency and administration policies. 
 
 
 
¶13.  The U.S. Government interagency team met with representatives 
from nongovernmental organizations, trade associations, and 
development agencies.  This included local and international 
organizations resident and working in Kenya and East Africa.  The 
consultation provided an opportunity to update the group on the 
consultation process, to document and review the principles 
underlying the initiative and describe the planning for 
implementation that is taking place.  The meeting participants were 
appreciative of the consultations the U.S. Government has 
supported.  They raised questions regarding the place of youth in 
the framework, as well as the need to fully recognize producer and 
community organizations as strategic partners.  They encouraged the 
U.S. Government to support integrated programs that do not 
stovepipe programming for each initiative or program area. 
 
 
 
----------------------------------- 
 
Workshop sessions on Climate Change 
 
----------------------------------- 
 
 
 
¶14.  USAID/East Africa hosted U.S. Government staff from missions 
across Southern and Eastern Africa and offices in Washington to 
plan for scaling up USAID's climate change investments.  The two 
 
 
days included discussions on how USAID is organizing to address 
climate change, an update on outcomes from the UN negotiations in 
Copenhagen in December that will impact USG policy and programs, 
and emerging analysis on opportunities for USAID climate change 
investments in Africa.  Several USAID missions shared their 
experience in addressing climate change issues through existing 
investments in biodiversity, clean energy, and disaster response 
and readiness. 
 
 
 
¶15.  In Copenhagen, the U.S. committed to spending $1 billion on 
REDD+ (UN Collaborative Programme on Reducing Emissions from 
Deforestation and Forest Degradation in Developing Countries) - 
related activities over the next three years. In addition, the U.S. 
will contribute its share of an international commitment to 
spending $10 billion per year on climate change over the next three 
years, rising to $100 billion per year by 2020.  Lastly, pending 
legislation in Congress is likely to shape the direction of the 
USG's climate change investments.  USAID is still determining 
Copenhagen's impact on priorities, programs, and reporting on 
investments. 
 
 
 
¶16.  In meetings with AFR/SD and EGAT, each mission provided 
updates on national policy development on climate change and 
discussed potential USAID investment areas and technical assistance 
needs.  Missions also provided input to emerging priorities. 
Although there were some areas where the data did not reflect the 
current situation, many missions felt that the analysis did provide 
a sound basis on which to lay out budget priorities. 
 
 
 
¶17.  Missions identified the need for strong regional climate 
change programs to provide technical support to bilateral missions 
and which are themselves supported by Washington.  Missions also 
expressed that they want the field to be more involved in shaping 
the development of the climate change program.  Participants felt 
that there was a disconnect between Washington's expectation that 
climate change funds meet narrowly targeted policy priorities and 
field missions' emphasis on integrated programming that meets key 
development priorities, including climate change.  Further 
clarification was requested on whether the USG can support GCC 
programs in countries that have not yet signed the Copenhagen 
Accord.  Lastly, missions identified the need to clarify how to 
address the impacts of climate change on global food security as 
well as the broader climate change agenda that includes both low 
carbon development and adaptation to climate change across a range 
of sectors. 
 
 
 
¶18.  Questions and issues from all participants were collected 
throughout both sessions of the workshop. Many of these were 
discussed in the meetings, and other will be addressed through the 
interactive website: Food Security, Sustainable Trade, and 
Environmental Resilience (FOSTER) 
(http://communities.usaidallnet.gov/foster). 
RANNEBERGER