Together, USAID and the U.S. FTF partner agencies allocated $7 billion  for global food security programs in fiscal years 2010 through 2013. USAID Has Made Progress in Coordinating with U.S. FTF Partner Agencies through Its Whole-of-Government Approach

USAID has made progress in applying FTF’s whole-of-government  approach by coordinating and integrating U.S. FTF partner agencies’  knowledge and expertise at three levels: at headquarters in Washington,  D.C.; in each of the 19 FTF focus countries; and between the countries  and headquarters. For example, our survey of  U.S. FTF representatives in 19 FTF focus countries shows that 93  percent of the U.S. FTF partner agency representatives reported  coordinating with USAID and approximately 80 percent of all U.S. FTF  representatives reported coordinating with their headquarters office. In reports issued in 2008 and 2010, we found that  vulnerabilities in U.S. food security efforts included the lack of  government-wide efforts such as an integrated strategy for food security,  data management systems, and leveraging knowledge and expertise  through coordination efforts such as food security working groups. USAID and the FTF  partner agencies agreed on this centralized system and common  indicators for tracking food security programs and progress across  agencies. USAID Has Taken Steps to Facilitate a Country-Led Approach

We found that USAID has taken steps to facilitate a country-led approach. In our survey of U.S. FTF agency representatives in the 19 FTF focus  countries, USAID and partner agency representatives reported that  multiple stakeholders were included in the planning and implementation  of FTF: host governments, nonprofit organizations, donors, and for-profit  entities. In our March 2010  report, we found that the country-led approach was vulnerable to a  number of risks, including the weak capacity of host governments to meet  funding commitments for agriculture and difficulties aligning host  government and donor strategies due to differences in policy priorities. USAID Did Not Systematically Assess Risks Related to the Country-Led Approach in Its Multiyear Country Strategies

Although USAID has made some progress at the headquarters level to  monitor and address risks to the country-led approach, we found that  USAID’s FTF multiyear country strategies did not systematically assess  these risks. We found that fewer than half of the risks identified had corresponding  discussions of mitigation strategies. Without requirements for FTF  country staff to identify and mitigate risks associated with the country-led  approach, the U.S. government’s ability to achieve its goals for improving  global food security could be limited. Progress achieved in U.S. interagency coordination and  engagement with country stakeholders can enhance U.S. efforts in FTF  countries to improve agriculture productivity and reduce malnutrition  among children. Although USAID guidance  documents indicate that country teams must assess risks associated with  USAID’s development objectives, the agency does not require FTF  country teams to systematically assess and mitigate risks to the FTF’s  country-led approach. Recommendations for Executive Action

To ensure that risks related to the country-led approach are  systematically assessed, we recommend that the USAID Administrator  take the following two actions:  require FTF country staff to conduct periodic risk assessments  associated with pursuing a country-led approach and require FTF country staff to develop plans to mitigate any risks  identified as part of its periodic risk assessments. This report  specifically examines (1) the extent to which the U.S. Agency for  International Development (USAID) has applied a whole-of-government  approach and (2) how USAID has facilitated a country-led approach for  the Feed the Future (FTF) initiative. To determine the extent to which USAID and FTF partner agency  representatives believe that they were implementing a whole-of- government approach and country-led approach in planning and  implementing FTF, we conducted interviews with officials in Washington,  D.C., from USAID, Department of State (State), Millennium Challenge  Corporation (MCC), Department of the Treasury (Treasury), Department  of Agriculture (USDA), the Peace Corps, U.S. African Development  Foundation (USADF), Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC),  and the Office of Management and Budget.
Why GAO Did This Study

In fiscal years 2010 through 2013, the U.S. government allocated $7 billion to implement global food security programs implemented under the FTF initiative by USAID and its U.S. FTF partner agencies, which include the Departments of Agriculture, State, and the Treasury, and the Millennium Challenge Corporation. To enhance FTF efforts to increase agricultural productivity and reduce malnutrition in 19 chronically food insecure countries, USAID has outlined two approaches: an FTF whole-of-government approach, which aims to improve coordination and integrate expertise and resources of all FTF partner agencies, and a country-led approach to build country capacity to sustain U.S. efforts by including the host government and other stakeholders in planning and implementation.
GAO was asked to study the FTF initiative. GAO examined (1) the extent to which USAID has implemented a whole-of-government approach and (2) how USAID has facilitated a country-led approach. GAO analyzed FTF-related agency documents, conducted a survey of all USAID and U.S. FTF partner agency representatives implementing FTF in 19 focus countries, and interviewed FTF agency officials in Washington, D.C.

What GAO Found

The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) has made progress in coordinating with U.S. partner agencies through the whole-of-government approach for the Feed the Future (FTF) initiative that began in 2010. According to USAID documents, this approach involves coordination and integration of expertise and resources across U.S. partner agencies with global food security programs. In reports issued in 2008 and 2010, GAO found that U.S. agency food security efforts were fragmented and uncoordinated. Under FTF, GAO found that USAID leads the whole-of-government approach by better coordinating and integrating partner agencies' knowledge and expertise at three levels: at headquarters in Washington, D.C.; in each of the 19 FTF focus countries; and between the countries and headquarters. In headquarters, USAID and FTF partner agencies established joint strategies and new data management systems to track funding and results across the U.S. government. At the country level, in GAO's survey of U.S. FTF partner agency representatives in 19 FTF focus countries, 93 percent reported coordinating with USAID.
USAID has facilitated a country-led approach but has not systematically assessed risks associated with this approach. USAID has facilitated the approach by providing assistance to the host governments in developing country plans and coordinating on FTF with country stakeholders, including nonprofit and for-profit organizations. U.S. FTF partner agency representatives answering GAO's survey reported working with multiple country stakeholders on FTF. In its March 2010 report, GAO found that the country-led approach was vulnerable to a number of risks, including insufficient capacity of host governments to meet funding commitments for agriculture. USAID has since made some progress in monitoring these risks, including tracking the number of focus countries that increase public expenditure for agriculture. However, GAO's current study found that USAID's FTF multiyear country strategies did not systematically assess risks to the country-led approach. For example, 12 of the 19 strategies did not contain sections discussing assessments of risks such as the host government's insufficient capacity and policies that inhibit private sector investment. GAO also found that fewer than half of the risks identified had corresponding discussions of mitigation strategies. Although USAID country guidance documents indicate that country teams must assess risks associated with USAID's development objectives, the agency does not require country teams to systematically assess and mitigate risks to the country-led approach. Without requirements for FTF country staff to identify and mitigate risks associated with the country-led approach, the U.S. government's ability to achieve its goals for improving global food security could be limited.

What GAO Recommends

The USAID Administrator should require FTF country staff to conduct periodic risk assessments associated with pursuing a country-led approach and to develop plans to mitigate the risks identified. USAID concurred with the recommendations.