VZCZCXRO7854
PP RUEHRN
DE RUEHNR #4710/01 3441433
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
P 101433Z DEC 07
FM AMEMBASSY NAIROBI
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 3809
RUEHJB/AMEMBASSY BUJUMBURA 0301
INFO RUEHBS/AMEMBASSY BRUSSELS 1907
RUEHRN/USMISSION UN ROME 0229
RUEHGV/USMISSION GENEVA 4282

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