[House Hearing, 117 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
SHIFTING THE POWER: ADVANCING LOCALLY LED
DEVELOPMENT AND PARTNER DIVERSIFICATION
IN U.S. DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
SEPTEMBER 23, 2021
__________
Serial No. 117-76
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/, http://
docs.house.gov,
or http://www.govinfo.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
45-955 PDF WASHINGTON : 2021
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York, Chairman
BRAD SHERMAN, California MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas, Ranking
ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey Member
GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey
THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida STEVE CHABOT, Ohio
KAREN BASS, California SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania
WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts DARRELL ISSA, California
DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois
AMI BERA, California LEE ZELDIN, New York
JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas ANN WAGNER, Missouri
DINA TITUS, Nevada BRIAN MAST, Florida
TED LIEU, California BRIAN FITZPATRICK, Pennsylvania
SUSAN WILD, Pennsylvania KEN BUCK, Colorado
DEAN PHILLIPS, Minnesota TIM BURCHETT, Tennessee
ILHAN OMAR, Minnesota MARK GREEN, Tennessee
COLIN ALLRED, Texas ANDY BARR, Kentucky
ANDY LEVIN, Michigan GREG STEUBE, Florida
ABIGAIL SPANBERGER, Virginia DAN MEUSER, Pennsylvania
CHRISSY HOULAHAN, Pennsylvania AUGUST PFLUGER, Texas
TOM MALINOWSKI, New Jersey PETER MEIJER, Michigan
ANDY KIM, New Jersey NICOLE MALLIOTAKIS, New York
SARA JACOBS, California RONNY JACKSON, Texas
KATHY MANNING, North Carolina YOUNG KIM, California
JIM COSTA, California MARIA ELVIRA SALAZAR, Florida
JUAN VARGAS, California JOE WILSON, South Carolina
VICENTE GONZALEZ, Texas
BRAD SCHNEIDER, Illinois
Jason Steinbaum, Staff Director
Brendan Shields, Republican Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
WITNESSES
Armistead, Meghan, Senior Research and Policy Advisor, Catholic
Relief Services................................................ 8
Ali, Degan, Executive Director, ADESO............................ 17
Glin, C.D., Vice President of PepsiCo Foundation, Global Head of
Philanthropy for PepsiCo, Inc., and Former President and CEO of
the United States African Development Foundation............... 24
Mohamed, Ali, Program Director, GREDO............................ 28
APPENDIX
Hearing Notice................................................... 55
Hearing Minutes.................................................. 57
Hearing Attendance............................................... 58
SHIFTING THE POWER: ADVANCING LOCALLY LED DEVELOPMENT AND PARTNER
DIVERSIFICATION IN U.S. DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS
Thursday, September 23, 2021
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on International Development,
International
Organizations, and Global Corporate Social Impact,
Committee on Foreign Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:01 a.m., in
room 2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Joaquin Castro
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Mr. Castro. The Subcommittee on International Development,
International Organizations, and Global Corporate Social Impact
will come to order.
Good morning, everyone. Thank you to our witnesses for
being here today for this hearing, entitled ``Shifting the
Power: Advancing Locally Led Development and Partner
Diversification in U.S. Development Programs.''
Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare a
recess of the committee at any point, and all members will have
5 days to submit statements, extraneous material, and questions
for the record, subject to the length limitation in the rules.
Mr. Castro. To insert something into the record, please
have your staff email the document to the previously mentioned
address or contact subcommittee staff.
As a reminder to members joining remotely, please keep your
video function on at all times, even when you are not
recognized by the chair.
Members are responsible for muting and unmuting themselves,
and please remember to mute yourself after you finish speaking.
Consistent with H. Res. 8 and the accompanying regulations,
staff will only mute members and witnesses as appropriate when
they are not under recognition to eliminate background noise.
I also ask members who are present in the hearing room to
keep their masks on when they are not speaking.
I see that we have a quorum and will now recognize myself
for opening remarks.
Pursuant to notice, we are holding a hearing today on the
role locally led development plays in the United States'
international development efforts.
Experience across multiple administrations, both Democrat
and Republican, has found that locally led development has
numerous benefits, including onsustainability and
effectiveness.
Each of the last four administrations has prioritized
locally led development in one way or another--through reforms
at USAID and at multilateral institutions in the Bush
Administration, the USAID Forward policy in the Obama
Administration, and the Journey to Self-Reliance framework in
the last administration.
The Biden Administration has stated their intention to
redouble these efforts and is undergoing a review to establish
policy positions. In her confirmation hearing, USAID's
Administrator Power argued that locally led development is,
quote, ``most effective development,'' unquote. She has
returned to this theme in countless speeches since, including
when she testified before this committee. The Administrator has
also signaled to the USAID staff that this is a top priority.
But we are still waiting for the results from this review.
There are a few questions this hearing will be looking to
answer for the members of the subcommittee. The first is to
really discuss what we are trying to accomplish by pursuing
locally led development.
Evidence demonstrates that working with local partners
improves the sustainability and effectiveness of our foreign
assistance programs. Local partners have a stake in their
communities, are part of local governance mechanisms that can
create long-term change, and can be less susceptible to
disruptions. Locally led development can also be more cost-
effective and lead to more equitable outcomes.
The second is to answer the question, what do we mean when
we say, quote, ``locally led development,'' unquote? This is a
basic, fundamental question which has different answers
depending on who you ask.
One consequence of multiple administrations pursuing
locally led development in slightly different ways is the
different interpretation of what it means within our own
government. One outcome of USAID's review of its policies I
will be looking for is a unified approach across foreign
assistance, one that ideally prioritizes indigenous
organizations that are independent from international NGO's or
even U.S.-based corporations.
This hearing also merits some discussion of the impediments
to pursuing locally led development and what Congress can do to
overcome them. These efforts will require USAID to change how
it operates. Working with new local partners is worth it but
will take extra effort.
We know that USAID's contracting officers already have
large caseloads and often do not have the time to experiment or
try new things. Fortunately, the Biden Administration's budget
request and the House of Representatives' planned
appropriations would increase the size of USAID's staff. It is
essential that this legislation is signed into law as quickly
as possible.
We also know that reporting and compliance requirements can
pose challenges for local partners and smaller organizations to
work with USAID. U.S.-based and international assistance
organizations bill large administrative staffs and hire former
USAID officials to ensure they write proposals that will appeal
to the Agency as well as meet every compliance requirement, but
that is not practical for small and locally led organizations.
When we talk about building local partner capacity, we
cannot define that as making these local organizations more
like big U.S. organizations in terms of their administrative
capacity. Instead, we need creative solutions to meet new
partners on their own terms, while also ensuring, of course,
they are good stewards of taxpayer dollars. Ideas like
expanding the use and thresholds of firm-fixed-price contracts,
Development Innovation Ventures, and other innovative tools can
reduce compliance burdens, but more needs to be done.
Of course, this is a two-way street, and Congress needs to
do its part. USAID too often takes a risk-averse approach
because they fear congressional blowback in response to
critical GAO and inspector general reports. Congress needs to
be nuanced in oversight and signal to the Agency that we
understand there are different kinds of risks when dealing with
new and local organizations but we believe the benefits far
outweigh those risks.
We will discuss all of this and more with our distinguished
panel today, but I want to emphasize that this is just the
start of our efforts. We will continue to work on this issue in
various ways, including through legislation. This will not be
easy or quick, but I believe that it is essential.
And before finishing, I want to thank Congresswoman Sara
Jacobs, the subcommittee's vice chair, for working with me on
this hearing and for prioritizing this very issue in Congress.
With that, I will turn it over to Ranking Member
Malliotakis for her opening statement.
Ms. Malliotakis. Thank you, Chairman Castro, for holding
this hearing.
And thank you to our witnesses for agreeing to testify and
share their experiences with us.
As we all know, the concept of localization in development
and U.S. foreign assistance is not new. President Bush sought
to institutionalize better connectivity with local partners,
particularly through the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS
Relief. The Obama Administration carried this through, as well,
and sought to build better country ownership of programs. And
in the Trump administration, Administrator Mark Green
established the New Partners Initiative to more effectively
design programs alongside local partners and direct funding to
new and underutilized partners.
Subsequent administrations have recognized that, until we
meaningfully support local ownership of local challenges and
build the capacity of local organizations to solve these
problems themselves, our foreign assistance will not have
lasting impact. It is the same concept here at home: Local
solutions to challenges in our diverse communities across the
country are more long-term and effective than any top-down
solutions from Washington. In the same way, we must do a better
job of consulting with and learning from our partners around
the world and meet them where they are.
This is especially important when considering some of the
most pressing foreign policy challenges that require local
solutions to local problems, like the root causes of migration
from Central America and the Caribbean. Just this week, I met
with the Ambassador of a Central American country who was very
critical of this administration's open-border policy and also
expressed how funds provided through USAID are not having the
intended result of stemming the flow.
Across Africa, where ISIS and al-Qaeda affiliates are
gaining in strength and numbers, we need to listen to local
actors who understand why terrorist recruitment is working and
how to combat it.
We also need better metrics and tracking to ensure, as we
do with all U.S. foreign assistance dollars, that the money
provided is used effectively and achieving results. And that
means robust monitoring and evaluation and a willingness to
stop funding when they are not working or ending up in the
wrong hands.
If we are to effectively rely on local community
organizations to implement U.S. tax dollars, we must also work
with these organizations to ensure financial systems and risk-
management strategies are in place to prevent waste, fraud, and
abuse.
I am also interested to understand the role of the private
sector. As the drivers of economic opportunity and jobs in the
communities they work, private companies are central to
spurring locally led economic growth and can and should play a
major role in advancing community-led development priorities.
Similarly, church networks and communities of faith in all
parts of the world are also critical to any conversation about
local ownership. Often the backbone of the community, we should
continue to support faith-based organizations and their close
ties with the communities where they work.
As many have said before, the goal of our foreign
assistance and development programs should be to put ourselves,
USAID, and the international development community out of a
job.
I look forward to the discussion today about how to better
support local ownership of development programs and build the
capacity of these organizations to advance the health, well-
being, and prosperities of the communities they serve.
Thank you, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Castro. Thank you, Ranking Member.
I will now introduce our distinguished witnesses on our
panel today. Our witnesses for today's hearing are, first, Ms.
Meghan Armistead, who is the senior research and policy advisor
at Catholic Relief Services, where she works on local
leadership, localization, civil society, and aid reform.
Ms. Degan Ali has been the executive director of Adeso, a
humanitarian organization active in Africa. Her insightful
critiques of U.S. foreign assistance have kickstarted a
necessary conversation on how we can do better in working with
local partners.
Mr. Ali Mohamed, who is the program director of GREDO, an
organization that works in Somalia. He will contribute his
experiences and discuss his experiences working with the United
States and USAID on these issues.
And Mr. C.D. Glin, who is the global head of philanthropy
at PepsiCo and was previously the president and CEO of the U.S.
African Development Foundation. The USADF is an important
government agency that has a proven record on locally led
development. I look forward to hearing from him his experiences
in that role and in the role corporations like PepsiCo can play
in this field.
And I will now recognize each of the witnesses for 5
minutes. And, without objection, your prepared written
statements will be made a part of the record.
And before I call on our first witness, Ms. Armistead, I
just want to remind the members and the witnesses, our
witnesses are testifying virtually. You will notice that there
is a 5-minute counter--if you go to the grid view, you can see
the counter--that will give the 5 minutes for your testimony.
And I would just ask everybody, please, as much as
possible, to stay on track with that. And, of course, to our
members, if you can, as much as possible, try to keep your
questioning within your 5 minutes so that we can stay on time
today. If you go too far over, then I will have to gavel you
out. So please do not think me rude, but I want to keep us on
time. All right?
So, Ms. Armistead, you are recognized now for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF MEGHAN ARMISTEAD, SENIOR RESEARCH AND POLICY
ADVISOR, CATHOLIC RELIEF SERVICES
Ms. Armistead. Thank you.
Chairman Castro, Ranking Member Malliotakis, on behalf of
Catholic Relief Services, the international relief and
development agency of the Catholic community in the United
States, thank you for calling this hearing and for the
opportunity to highlight the need for the U.S. Government to
advance locally led humanitarian and development assistance.
Supporting local leadership is core to CRS's foundation and
Catholic social teaching and, in particular, its principle of
subsidiarity, the idea that communities who are closest to
challenges are best placed to address them. Supporting locally
led development reflects this subsidiarity ideal and our
commitment to respecting the dignity and agency of each person
and community that we serve.
Working with thousands of local organizations has taught us
that partners embrace opportunities to lead. And CRS is
committed to supporting their growth because it is the right
thing to do and because it is the most effective, efficient,
and sustainable way to do development.
[Audio interruption.]
Mr. Castro. You may be on mute there. Did you get muted, or
did we lose the audio?
Ms. Armistead. Am I okay? Can you hear me now?
Mr. Castro. Oh, you are back. Yes.
Ms. Armistead. Okay. How about picking up with: Our work
with partners has shown us that a new way is possible.
One example is our $40 million USAID-funded SMILE project
in Nigeria, which successfully provided critical services to
orphans and vulnerable children while also strengthening the
capacity of 49 local service providers. In addition to hitting
all of its programmatic targets, SMILE's partner agencies saw
real improvement in their organizational performance, and 10
have now transitioned to become prime recipients of USAID
funding. SMILE proved to us that effective local organizations
exist and, with investment, can begin to take the helm for a
sustainable solution.
We also see this on the emergency side, where we have
experiences like our PEER project, which worked with local
faith-based institutions in India, Lebanon, and Indonesia. At
the end of that project, all partners had measurable capacity
improvements.
More interestingly, though, in 2020, we returned to these
partners to see how they were responding to the COVID emergency
and found that all 22 continued to apply lessons learned from
participating in PEER and found their improved systems helped
enable an effective emergency response.
These are just a few examples of many. In 20 years of
working with civil society groups around the world, I can say
that there are smart, capable leaders committed to advancing
their communities. Listening, investing, and partnering with
them and their institutions can make foreign assistance
smarter, more cost-effective, and more impactful.
Efforts to advance local leadership must be guided by a few
core tenets. First, CRS believes that localization must go
beyond program implementation to also include local ownership
of development goal-setting, prioritization, decisions, and
strategies.
Second, we know that holistic capacity-strengthening
underpins effective localization. Too often, local capacity is
defined as the ability of organizations to comply with donor
regulations. Real and enduring change happens when
organizations own their capacity assessment and goals and when
investments are made in organizational systems and procedures.
Next, the business of aid may have to change too. Local
capacity is important, but transformation also requires change
in business processes on the funding side, including things
like size and timelines of awards, mechanisms of procurement,
flexibility in funding, and fair risk management.
Finally, we stress the importance of supporting both a
broad, inclusive civil society, including faith-based
organizations, as well as local government in order to meet
development goals.
With these principles in mind and rooted in our values and
experiences, we offer the following recommendations.
One, local means local. Define the goal clearly. Donors and
programs have developed a range of definitions of local civil
society and other entities. There are significant differences
across these definitions, causing confusion and raising a
number of concerns. For both the integrity of the efforts to
support locally led development and for effective transparency
and funding, it is critical to clearly define the goal and what
``local'' means in a way that reflects the intent to support
autonomous local institutions who are accountable to their
nations and the communities they serve.
Two, if you do not measure it, it will not get done.
Improve data collection and transparency. While some data is
available on how much congressional funding goes to local and
national entities, holistic data from the Department of State,
USAID, and other U.S. Government donors is not available. We
encourage Congress and the committee to urge the Administration
to provide better data on where resources go and include local
entities as an ``implementing partner'' subcategory on
ForeignAssistance.gov.
Three, mechanisms matter. Fix funding vehicles to support
localization success. Congress must ensure reasonable size and
timelines of awards, align the choice of funding instrument
with local actors' capacity, and embrace flexibility in funding
and fair risk-management practices.
And, last, four, no shortcuts. Invest in holistic, not
transactional, capacity-strengthening. We ask that donor
agencies fully fund comprehensive, holistic capacity-
strengthening approaches that ensure locally led goal-setting
and go beyond simple, transactional one-off activities.
To close, we thank you, Chairman Castro and the committee,
for your leadership and attention to this important matter. The
time is now to reflect and make much-needed positive change to
our foreign assistance. We look forward to working with you to
make our foreign assistance dollars go further, do more, and,
ultimately, support the dignity of every human person.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Armistead follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Castro. Thank you very much for your testimony.
And I will now call on Ms. Ali for her testimony.
Ms. Ali, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF DEGAN ALI, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ADESO
Ms. Ali. Thank you, Chairman.
Chairman Castro, Ranking Member Malliotakis, and members of
the committee, good morning, and thank you for the opportunity
to testify today.
Adeso is an organization based in Kenya that has long
advocated for more locally led development and the need for the
system to shift power to local organizations. Adeso has
provided critical humanitarian and development assistance to
millions of people in Somalia, Kenya, and South Sudan with the
support of many donors, including USAID.
There are three major reasons that I will elaborate on. And
this is not comprehensive; there are many other good reasons
why we need to do locally led development.
And one is inefficiencies. Chairman Castro already spoke
about that. There are layers and layers of intermediaries
between USAID funding and local organizations, in the form of
U.N. agencies, who then subcontract to an INGO, who then
contracts a member of their INGO family. For instance, one
member of the family--the U.S. member of the family of these
federations will give the funding to the international member
of the federation or European member of the federation, who
then contracts to a local organization.
These inefficiencies in the system are costly and mean that
there is huge wastage of resources, as organizations take a
portion of the grant for their operational costs in each layer,
ensuring that what reaches the communities has been reduced
significantly. And this does not apply only to INGO's or
American NGO's but also contractors.
Impact. If the projects and programs are being designed
with no or limited engagement of local organizations and the
communities that we are aiming to serve, who understand the
context and what they need best, it means that USAID's funding
is having less impact than desired. There have been countless
projects funded by USAID and other donors that have wasted
funds on infrastructure not being utilized by the communities
or activities that have no lasting benefit.
Third, fairness and the issue of power. Imagine during
Hurricane Katrina that organizations from France all of a
sudden swooped in to respond to the crisis. They excluded
American NGO'sfrom local coordination meetings and even wanted
all the meetings to be held in French and not English. They
took over all decisionmaking forums, marginalizing the American
Red Cross, other very small State-level, county-level
charities, State authorities, and even FEMA. Well, this is the
reality of what local organizations and national governments
experience every day during a crisis in our countries. What
would never be accepted in the U.S. is commonplace treatment in
Africa and Asia.
So here are some recommendations for moving USAID's efforts
on locally led development.
No. 1, the large awards in RFPs and RFAs only incentivize
the Agency to work with contractors and INGO's, as most local
organizations do not have the capacity to submit a competitive
bid nor manage an award of $75 million, $100 million, $45
million, and so on. Some of the reasons for the desire for
large awards is because of capacity constraints at missions and
in D.C. to manage many smaller awards rather than one big
award.
No. 2, require that all American and European partners of
USAID have a 3-year exit strategy out of a country, where they
are start off as a prime to a local partner but transition to
being subcontractors after 3 years and the INGO provides only
technical support to the local partner. Meghan from CRS has
already described some amazing examples from their projects.
After 3 years, both humanitarian and development assistance
should be led by the local organization or the local university
or the government or the private sector, while the American or
the European NGO or contractor has transitioned to becoming a
subcontractor to a local partner.
No. 3, USAID needs to develop strong tracking tools of how
much of its humanitarian development funding goes directly to
partners. It should also provide incentives for the missions
that increase their percentage of funding every year while
simultaneously investing in institutional capacity-
strengthening of their partners. The missions that perform the
best on various metrics should be rewarded and given public
accolades and other ways of rewarding them.
No. 4, USAID missions lack enough specialized personnel to
support the capacity development of partners to manage many
smaller local grants. The missions are often understaffed and
overwhelmed. This is one of the reasons they do not want to
manage multiple partners with small awards. Congress can
support USAID and other development agencies engaging in more
local partnership by supporting the staffing of those agencies.
And, last, to say that, you know, there is already a great
precedence with PEPFAR that has given, I think, over 40, 50
percent of its funding to local organizations, USADF, and other
U.S. Government institutions that are doing excellent on these
metrics of supporting more locally led development. So the
question needs to be asked, why is it that some parts of the
U.S. Government agencies are doing well while others aren't?
And I think this is a question of both not just capacity
but also risk willingness on the part of USAID. And we need to
provide as much support as we can to change the behavior and
the attitudes of those who have--there are many in the
institutions who are champions of locally led development, but
there are many others who find it very risky and really find it
a very scary concept. So we need to support those members of
USAID who really need serious, strong capacity development on
their part to understand the impact and the other benefits to
locally led development.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and committee members.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Ali follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Castro. Thank you, Ms. Ali.
I will now call on Mr. Mohamed for his testimony.
STATEMENT OF ALI MOHAMED, PROGRAM DIRECTOR, GREDO
Mr. Mohamed. Thank you, Chairman Castro, and also the rest
of the committee.
On behalf of GREDO, I believe locally led development aid
would work if the donors and the international agencies can
fundamentally change the way they think and also adopting ideas
of giving the space to locally led initiatives.
This means local communities set their own priorities and
approach; hence, the INGO's can provide technical backup on the
know-how and the technical expertise. It would also be locally
owned, where INGO's start as an outsider but then hand over the
implementation to local NGO groups to create a sense of
ownership.
But, unfortunately, what we normally see is that aid is
locally delivered, where INGO's get the funds and subcontracts
a national NGO to do a part of the project, which are called
partnership agreements, while actually it is a delivery
contract approach, which shouldn't be the case.
Locally led initiatives could be effective and cost-
efficient. For instance, in Somalia, we piloted a COVID-19
response project with Save the Children which, within 3 months,
benefited almost 103,000 beneficiaries. This has been piloted,
and it was locally designed. And it came through the idea of
GREDO developing a
[inaudible] Project in response to the COVID-19 response
mitigation. And what this gave us is the
[inaudible] To absolutely be known by the project, which is
also designed by the organization itself in a means that fits
the community and the local context.
Second pilot--what the added value of a
[inaudible] Pilot project is, it is like it has created
pride within the organization in delivering solely the whole
project. It strengthened aid localization in the context of
means to boost localization within Somali. Contextualized
approach in delivering project among the community. Created
sense of owner within the community, especially in the
engagement of various community groups.
To be effective, locally led aid should be part of the
bigger picture. And to achieve this, you need context, specific
knowledge, and local people on the ground willing to take the
leadership and risk.
In this scenario, what we really need is to rethink what
partnership really means in the current context of aid
structure. It shouldn't be only or limited to outsourcing and
subcontracting national NGO'sfor delivery of projects in their
respective countries and in this case Somali. It should be
basis of local knowledge, initiatives, new ideas, and
commitments to do better for the future. Donors and INGO's
should get smarter on how they help local NGO groups to scale
up.
True partnership should be based on respect, trust, and
humility, while locally led aid and a true partnership with
INGO's will increase the appropriateness, establishing more
connection to the local communities at risk and eventually
increase aid effectiveness.
True locally led development can happen, and it needs the
willingness to trust and experiment locally driven approaches
and ideas. It is important that we reform the aid sector,
putting local actors--in this case, national NGO's, civil
society, government institutions, and the local community--at
the center and giving the space to fully respond locally.
Recommendations to USAID on locally led development:
One, to diversify USAID partnership approach with the
engagement of national NGO's, government institutions, the
private sector, and the local community.
Two, establish a suitable funding bracket for NGO's to
apply directly at a country level, or maybe establishing a pool
of funding to increase the quantity and quality of funds
channeled to local actors.
Invest more in national NGO's' capacity-strengthening and
systems. And this should go beyond the basic in-house trainings
and invest more in the organization system.
Facilitate open and honest dialog between all actors with
regard to funding.
Promote greater NNGO sustainability through multi-annual
funding or fundraising support and equitable overheads.
Localization on working with first responders. Increase and
support multiyear investment in the institutional capacity of
local and national responders, including preparedness,
response, and coordination.
Back to you, Senator.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Mohamed follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Castro. Thank you very much for that testimony.
I now want to call on Mr. Glin for his testimony.
Mr. Glin, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF C.D. GLIN, VICE PRESIDENT OF PEPSICO FOUNDATION,
GLOBAL HEAD OF PHILANTHROPY FOR PEPSICO, INC., AND FORMER
PRESIDENT AND CEO OF THE UNITED STATES AFRICAN DEVELOPMENT
FOUNDATION
Mr. Glin. Chairman Castro, Ranking Member Malliotakis, and
members of the subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to
appear before you today and to share my perspective on this
important and timely global issue.
With the rise of the global pandemic, organizations in
almost every sector have had to rethink, reshape, and retool
their ways of working. This is especially true in the
international development sector. Fortunately, for decades,
PepsiCo has built strategic local partnerships to ensure the
provision of locally driven solutions, enabling us to continue
to execute and monitor our programs even in the face of
pandemic-induced challenges.
PepsiCo has experience realizing the benefits of locally
led development, both for the business and for our communities.
As the largest food and beverage company in the country and one
of the largest in the world, our foods and beverages are
consumed nearly 1 billion times each day.
While our reach is global, we remain committed to a multi-
local approach, believing that it is our duty as a company to
contribute to the prosperity of the communities where we
operate by contributing to the GDP, creating jobs for the local
population, contracting and sourcing from local suppliers,
while connecting and engaging with local community and
stakeholders.
At the PepsiCo Foundation, our local approach and local
strategic partnerships are key to the success and the
sustainability of our work. We have hired and empowered local
staff to co-create programs with local partners. The result of
our inclusive, locally led approach has been the development of
innovative solutions that buildupon local insights.
For example, in Peru, we have been working with small-scale
women producers since 2019. The program with CARE Peru was
disrupted by the pandemic. Instead of hosting in-person
training for small-scale women farmers, we worked together with
them to pivot to a virtual approach and, in doing so, created
an e-commerce vehicle for these small-scale women producers,
who now are able to advertise and sell their produce via
WhatsApp.
In Palakkad, India, frustrated community members have been
independently trying to establish reliable infrastructure to
access water. In consultation with WaterAid India and the
People's Service Society of Palakkad, we established dialog
with community members and co-created a program combining local
insights and ideas with the technical expertise needed to build
a functional water system. Through this participatory approach,
a new pipeline was installed, and local leaders now operate and
maintain a system that provides water to nearly every home in
the community.
That said, PepsiCo's decades-long global-to-local footprint
has also exposed us to the barriers, risks, and limitations of
going local, including limited implementation capacity of local
partners; inadequate accountability, transparency, and
oversight systems; nascent monitoring, evaluation, and
reporting expertise.
Our experience with these barriers hasn't stopped our
international efforts; rather, they have informed our approach.
For example, we engage third parties and grant intermediaries,
who play a fundamental role in helping prospective local
nonprofits to meet our requirements. They vet new projects,
assess organizational capacity, provide training, and monitor
performance to ensure that locally led projects remain on
track, on time, and on target, adapting where necessary.
To truly scale localization efforts, USAID will play the
central role. PepsiCo and USAID have a strong relationship.
While we celebrate our successes together, there are
opportunities for improvement.
We offer five critical lessons and suggestions that could
accelerate the progress on the quest to shifting power and
prioritizing locally led development: One, hire locally. Two,
prioritize local co-ownership. Three, incentivize co-creation
with the private sector. Four, modify monitoring and evaluation
criteria to ensure mutual accountability. And, five, share
local networks.
In conclusion, this work is difficult. The barriers to
locally led development are real and must be addressed
thoughtfully. But we must prioritize progress over perfection.
PepsiCo is committed to localization in our business and our
philanthropic investment. And we are encouraged by the
bipartisan commitment, from Bush to Biden, administration to
administration, to locally led development.
While we celebrate the progress the global development
community is making, including that of international NGO's who
are creating local entities with all local staff and local
governance structures, at PepsiCo we are listening to and
learning from our local partners, to empower them to lead long-
term solutions. While far from perfect, we are making progress,
and PepsiCo is proud to play our part in advancing the thinking
and the doing, as we all seek to shift the power.
Thank you, Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Glin follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Castro. Well, thank you, Mr. Glin, for your testimony.
And thank you to all of our witnesses for your testimony.
And I will now recognize members for 5 minutes each for
questioning. And pursuant to House rules, all time yielded is
for the purposes of questioning our witnesses.
Because of the hybrid format of this hearing, I will now
recognize members by committee seniority, alternating between
majority and minority. If you miss your turn, please let our
staff know, and we will circle back to you.
If you seek recognition, you must unmute your microphone
and address the chair verbally.
And I will start by recognizing myself for 5 minutes of
questions.
As I mentioned in my opening statement, before we can
embrace locally led development, we first need to come to an
agreed-upon definition of the term. And different parts of the
U.S. Government define the term differently. USAID is currently
reviewing how it will define the term.
And I believe it was Ms. Armistead--you spoke to this
during your testimony. Can you elaborate on the different
approaches the U.S. Government takes and what a single
definition would be?
Ms. Armistead. Thank you so much. Sure.
I think what we have seen in recent years is a
proliferation of a range of definitions, and it is that
differentiation that sometimes causes some confusion and
concern. We see ``local entities'' established in a number of
ways in different places, whether that is in PEPFAR or within
NPI. And then we have also seen the interaction of this
``locally established'' category, which is, I think, aimed at
recognizing this entity that is affiliated with perhaps
international organizations but has a local presence.
And I think what we really are urging the committee to do
is to clarify what the goal is. And I think we have heard
across the witnesses and across the statements that the goal is
really to shift the power and have local actors owning the
development process and leading. And if we are talking about
that as the goal, I think we have to talk about ``local
entities'' and define ``local entities'' in a way that reflects
that local nature.
So clarifying that we are talking about organizations that
are a part of the social fabric of the countries in which we
are operating or talking about here with foreign assistance and
who are accountable to those communities. So I think that those
lines, the autonomousness, the autonomy of the organizations
and the lines of accountability would be important lines to
consider as we seek a common definition.
I would also like to add that coming to that common
definition is important for the goal, but it is also important
for just doing aid effectiveness well and increasing our
transparency. A number of witnesses have talked about needing
to have a better picture of where funding goes. And without a
clear definition and a common definition, it is very hard to
see that.
So, if we can come to a clearer definition of what ``local
entities'' is, that can help inform our effort to really have a
better picture and a more transparent system that shows how
much of our foreign assistance is going to local institutions.
I hope that is helpful.
Mr. Castro. Thank you very much for that.
And, Mr. Glin, you formerly led the U.S. African
Development Foundation, which is a pioneer when it comes to
locally led development. What lessons do you believe USAID can
apply from USADF's model as the Agency tries to do more locally
led development?
Mr. Glin. Thank you, Chairman. I truly appreciate the
question. And, as you mentioned, I was president and CEO of
U.S. African Development Foundation for approximately 5 years.
And that model of development, along with that of the Inter-
American Foundation, we feel like is exemplary to locally
driven, locally led development.
Some of the tenets of that is being demand-driven and being
demand-responsive to the local needs and challenges. So not
developing solutions to problems from afar, whether Washington,
DC, or writ large, but locally within the communities. So being
demand-responsive, demand-driven, looking at bottom-up-driven
solutions.
But also supporting those entities directly, with direct
support, grant support, but also having oversight by local
organizations as well. ADF has a very cost-effective model,
because not only do they grant directly to grassroots
enterprises and organizations but they also leave it to local
organizations to do some of the monitoring, evaluation, and
support.
And I want to appreciate the role that Congress led in
creating and codifying USADF and the Inter-American Foundation
by law. And, in that codification, it mandated that we had to
support local organizations and provide them that support
directly and build their capacity with local entities.
If that mandate was not there, we might see a model that is
not as transformational as currently exists, where local
organizations are enabled to build their own capacity, are
enabled and supported not through implementers or implementing
programs for them, who really have to support and provide
support with and through them, so that the entities are
sustainable organizations, that they are long-serving, and that
there actually is a pathway to prosperity. We talk about
developing them, growing them, and scaling them so that they
can take on some of the development challenges in their
communities on their own.
I think USAID could, at scale, take some of the tenets of
USADF, with the local implementing partners, with direct
support to organizations, and modify some of the current
structures.
But I will say that one solution is to scale up what is
working. USAID and USADF consistently, on an annual basis, are
somewhat under threat. And so by doubling down on those
institutions to be complementary to USAID is also another way
for the U.S. foreign assistance toolbox to really use some of
the tools that are there--USADF and the Inter-American
Foundation.
Mr. Castro. Yes. Thank you. Thank you.
I am over time, so I am going to turn it over to our
ranking member, Ms. Malliotakis.
Ms. Malliotakis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I have a question for Mr. Glin.
You know, we are in a time where there are many who attempt
to vilify corporate America. And I think that there are a lot
of things that we can point to in terms of how corporate
America has helped fill in the gap, where, you know, obviously,
we cannot--it is not an endless stream of taxpayer money. We do
rely on private-sector partners to implement some types of
programs.
And you, as the global head of philanthropy at PepsiCo, I
would love for you to share some of the examples from your
company's foundation, as well as perhaps others that you can
give us from other private-sector entities.
Mr. Glin. Thank you for the question.
Yes, at PepsiCo, the PepsiCo Foundation, we see ourselves
truly as a collaborator with others in development, whether
those are communities where we live and work or whether it is
other actors who are trying to meet some of the those community
needs. So collaboration is key to all that we try to do at
PepsiCo, collaborating with the communities. We are a true
contributor, as I mentioned, whether that is directly
increasing GDP, creating jobs, sourcing locally, and impacting
the community.
At USADF, we work with others to solve some global
challenges in the local context. And so our priorities revolve
around access to food security, creating more equitable access
to nutritious foods, safe water access, as well as economic
opportunity. And we work with other private-sector entities in
collaboration and we also work with community organizations to
bring about those solutions.
We see ourselves also as a catalyst to, really, as you
mentioned, using our corporate power and the power of business
as a positive role in society to catalyze solutions and
sometimes to go in earlier than maybe government and other
entities want to, but to catalyze solutions to show what works
and then have those scaled up by USAID and others.
So I think that there are ways and with USAID and other
corporations can also ``follow,'' quote/unquote, some of the
corporation's lead in areas like food security, in areas like
water or economic opportunity. There are ways to align to
corporations investing in communities. And then also USAID and
government entities that are involved in development, creating
a local operating environment, an ecosystem where it is easier
not only to do business but to do good.
So we look at our impact as really creating local community
impact, as well as engaging our employees in these countries--
we have hundreds of thousands of employees globally--and also
where we as a company can be a better corporate citizen. And so
there are----
Ms. Malliotakis. Mr. Glin, could you give us, like, one or
two specific examples that you are most proud of of what your
foundation has been able to accomplish?
Mr. Glin. In the area of water is where we have had
transformational impact, where we have a goal of impacting
100,000 people to provide safe water access by 2030. In
countless areas around the world with groups like WaterAid, we
have been able to work on access, conservation, and
distribution of safe water. We recently announced taking this
globally--that was in South America and in South India--to sub-
Saharan Africa.
In areas of food security, partnering even with USAID in
West Bengal, India, working with smallholder farmers to help
them develop new solutions to agri-nomical issues.
In Egypt, we work directly with empowering women farmers in
a program called She Feeds the World, where we really are
helping engage women, as the breadwinners of society, to build
their capacity.
So, in countless areas, the foundation comes together with
local communities and with potentially other actors such as
USAID to bring our corporate expertise, our convening power,
and our resources to really amplify efforts of community-driven
impact.
Ms. Malliotakis. Thank you.
Mr. Castro. Thank you, Ranking Member.
I will next call on the Congresswoman from San Diego, Sara
Jacobs.
Ms. Jacobs. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you for
convening this really important hearing about an issue that I
know does not always seem sexy, kind of wonky and niche, but
actually critical to getting our foreign aid right.
In Fiscal Year 2020, only 5.6 percent of USAID funding went
to local partners. And, you know, the question is, why does
this matter? Why is it important to fund local partners
directly? And the answer is: Power.
Because we talk a lot about improving development outcomes
in countries, but we do so from an ivory tower, and we often
task largely White organizations to carry out this work in
other countries, and when they leave, the development outcomes,
if they worked to begin with, are no longer able to be
sustained.
We need to understand that people know what they need. They
do not need us to tell them. They just need us to ensure
access.
And as a report from Peace Direct found, there remains a
culture in the development field that oftentimes fails to
recognize the strengths of local people and properly include
those in the design of projects who understand the context
best.
I am encouraged by Administrator Power's commitment to this
issue, and I think this hearing is an important step in making
sure the Administration realizes their goal.
So I wanted to ask our witnesses a question. The New
Partners Initiative, established in 2019, streamlines USAID's
partnering process to work with new and local partners. And the
Administration is seeking to update programs and strengthen
partners.
So, Ms. Armistead, I was wondering, in your view, how can
USAID effectively buildupon and improve this program to ensure
that local communities, not just international organizations
who hire local staff, are supported more effectively?
And then, Ms. Ali and Mr. Mohamed, could each of you
describe the top three specific barriers your organizations
have encountered when trying to work with USAID?
Ms. Armistead. Thank you so much for all of those important
points.
And I think the New Partnerships Initiative is a great
example of the increased interest in locally led development.
And we are very enthused by that and encouraged as the U.S.
Government is taking more of an interest and a recognition that
locally led development is the right way to do foreign
assistance.
I think one question we have is, where does NPI fit within
the larger ecosystem of U.S. foreign assistance, and how can we
integrate it into all the work that we do to support effective,
efficient, and sustainable development, not just in a silo, but
ensure that we are making efforts across the whole system and,
within those efforts, always putting, as you say, local voices
at the center?
So, looking holistically. Also, ensuring participation, so
opening up new avenues for getting input from a range of
voices, as these new initiatives are designed and implemented
is critical. I think looking at the definitions issue again is
important.
Thinking about making sure that we are aligning initiatives
such as NPI with the goal of effective locally led development
is important. So I think getting into the nitty-gritty about,
you know, how we are actually designing this is an important
thing to do as we look forward.
And looking at, kind of, the business-of-aid side of
things. So ensuring that, as we are looking at new ways and
opening up new mechanisms for increasing access of local actors
to lead development assistance programs, are we making sure
that the business processes match those goals? So things like
the size of those awards, the timelines of those awards, the
risk-management strategies of those awards.
And I know a number of witnesses have talked about this
too, but those things matter in terms of how successful it will
be as an initiative to support locally led development.
Ms. Jacobs. I am just going to cut in so we can make sure
that Ms. Ali and Mr. Mohamed have time to answer before my time
runs out.
Ms. Ali. Should I go ahead?
Ms. Jacobs. Yes, please.
Ms. Ali. Okay. So just three barriers. Well, I think the
first one is that there is the rules and regulations are
extremely vast, and they are complex, not meaning that local
organizations cannot meet those challenges, but they are
extremely complex. And the advantage that American NGO's have
is 60 years ahead of us and they have developed these massive
compliance departments.
So, unless we have a more shared approach to compliance, a
more shared approach to risk, and we think about how we can
reduce some of these compliance burdens and think about what is
the most important issues that we really need to address in
these compliance burdens, rather than, you know, just the array
of issues that are constantly there.
Many of the rules and regs, in my opinion, could be done
away with, and they are just too cumbersome. Some of them are
very important and really necessary. So I think there needs to
be a real reexamination of the usefulness that a lot of these
rules and regs are serving and what that burden does to local
organizations who are 60 years behind American NGO's and
billions of dollars of investment behind. You know, they have
had all of that time and resources to invest in their capacity.
The second thing I would say is that there isn't a very
systematic onboarding process that happens for local
organizations. It is individual-specific. It is mission-
specific. Sometimes you are lucky enough to get someone that
really understands what you need and support you in the
process. Oftentimes you are kind of left on your own to figure
this machinery and this maze out on your own. So there has to
be a consistent process on that.
And the last thing I would say is the attitude and the
behavior. I think there has to be more recognition and more
capacity development of the USAID staff themselves to be more
risk-sharing with the partners, rather than this very, I would
say, racist attitude that, if you are a local NGO, you are
fraudulent, you are corrupt, and if you are an American NGO, we
can trust you--which, the data does not prove that.
I am sorry to say, the data does not prove that. There is
just as much experiences and issues and problems with
corruption or fraud or mismanagement of resources that happens
with U.N. agencies, American NGO's, as it happens with local
organizations. So I----
Ms. Jacobs. I am sorry----
Ms. Ali [continuing]. Think we really need to change the
perspective of the staff on that end.
Ms. Jacobs. And I totally agree with you.
I am over time, so I will yield back. Thank you.
Mr. Castro. Thank you, Vice Chair.
All right. We are going to go now to Representative
Houlahan.
Ms. Houlahan. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
And thank you to everybody for joining us today for this
hearing, a very important one, where we are focusing on
shifting the power to local organizations and local actors in
this space of foreign assistance and foreign aid.
I have a couple of questions related to the pandemic. What
have we learned or gained from this very difficult time in the
world's history that we can apply to help accelerate the
timelines of being able to direct local owners and actors to be
able to be helpful in foreign, I guess, assistance?
I know that, Mr. Glin, you mentioned something about
technology being something that was deployed because of the
pandemic. Are there other things that the speakers can give
examples to or breathe life into that would be helpful in
understanding how to accelerate timelines?
And I will start with Mr. Glin since you were the one who
brought up the first example.
Mr. Glin. Great. Thank you, Representative. I appreciate
it. Good seeing you again.
You know, the pandemic has exacerbated some challenges but
also, as you said, brought about some positive solutions. So I
think that one is just a sense of trust. We couldn't--quote/
unquote, ``we,'' the international community, couldn't travel
the way we were used to, so we had to rely on local capacity in
ways that we had never been forced to do. And I think it has
been proven successful, with individuals showing real
resilience, local actors having the ability to survive, adapt,
and then thrive, even in the face of the global pandemic.
So I think it has really changed one of the things around
credibility and familiarity, which are some of the barriers to
why going local and using local organizations is sometimes
challenging. So trust has been, I guess, strengthened.
I would also say innovation, in that we had to come up with
new solutions and doing things differently. And those solutions
were typically driven locally, asking local actors, local
providers, organizations: How might we--what can we do to
improve? And so the power shifted, where they were on the
ground, and we needed to engage them in the solutions because
we weren't there, and we had to rely on their ability, again,
to adapt to the solutions. So I think that innovation came.
And, as I have mentioned, the use of digitization
transformed a lot of how we deliver services, how we engage
with those organizations. And it also really transformed the
way in which we were able to see some locally driven innovation
in new ways.
I could go on, but let me stop there for the sake of time.
But I think trust and innovation are two things that we have
learned that also can lead to improvements in how we not only
work with local organizations but also how we manage programs
and projects.
Ms. Houlahan. And perhaps, Ms. Armistead, would you have
anything to contribute to that?
Ms. Armistead. Absolutely. I would say that we have seen
our local partners around the world responding to the crisis in
their communities in flexible, smart, sustainable, and
effective ways.
I think that our recent experience going back to partners
that had previously received some capacity-strengthening
investment was a great example for us, too, of how local
institutions exist, with great ability to respond best to the
needs of their communities. And with investment, you can see
real lasting change in their ability to do that effectively.
And, especially, I think, one other thing that we are
curious about, though, is, I think a lot of us felt that this
was going to be the moment for localization. And I think what
we are seeing is, our partners are there, our partners are
ready, and we are ready to support them, but perhaps the
funding itself has not flowed in the way that we expected.
So I think it is also a moment of reflection for us to
think about, you know, we have local institutions out there,
they are ready to lead, they may need some investment to do so
most effectively, but we know that it works. And we know that
COVID was a moment when they were best placed, in many cases,
to respond. But we are not seeing that the funding necessarily
followed that.
So I think it is a moment for examination, a moment for
reflection, and a time to dig into seeing, OK, what are those
enduring barriers and how can we help move beyond them.
Thank you.
Ms. Houlahan. Thanks.
And with what is left of my time, I would like to kind of
dive into--I know the purpose of this hearing was about foreign
assistance and foreign aid, but I am also intrigued by the fact
that we have Mr. Glin here from industry, you know, from the
for-profit sector. And I was hoping to get reflections from
each of you, for the record if we do not have time, on what the
power is of business.
Mr. Glin, you mentioned the ability for business to do
good.
What kind of partnerships can you guys see from your NGO's
and your NGO positions where you could engage in the power of
people who are focusing more and more on environmental and
social governance issues? Is there something that we can be
doing as a government and as a Congress to be able to enable
that relationship to be even stronger between the for-profit
sector and the NGO or nonprofit sectors?
Mr. Glin. That is definitely a place where we could provide
greater insights and recommendations.
But I would say, you know, one of the things that we see
government playing a strong role is being a, sort of, honest
broker and bringing together companies and nonprofit partners
and civil society leaders together in a way where we can have a
shared understanding, where one is not necessarily dominating
the conversation.
And so, where we have in industry pre-competitive
alliances, these are ways where the power of the government to
bring us together for a shared purpose, where everyone can
align their issues and the opportunities, is one area where I
think that there is greater room for improvement.
I think that there is also this opportunity of working
directly with local organizations. And we are privileged that
the same was true at USADF. Having local staff in the countries
really gives you the local insights to be able to really figure
out what needs to be done and listening and learning from them
to be demand-driven and demand-responsive.
And so using entities that have a strong ground game, such
as corporations, with employees who are finding, funding, and
supporting local organizations but also entities like USADF and
IAF, who have local staff who are trusted and true community
connecters, listening to them and allowing them to, sort of,
bring up some bottom-up-driven solutions that we can then take
forward to scale, whether through the private sector or through
government.
So I think that the power of government to bring us
together but also to incentivize greater collaboration is a key
area for greater exploration and an opportunity.
Ms. Houlahan. I know that I have run out of time, but if
any of our other speakers would be willing to provide that
information or some ideas later on, I would really appreciate
that.
And, with that, I yield back.
Mr. Castro. Thank you, Congresswoman.
And I want to give, as a followup, an opportunity for Mr.
Mohamed to provide an answer to Ms. Jacobs' question about
essentially, you know, your experience with USAID or American
NGO's and what you think needs to change or what could be
improved.
Mr. Mohamed. Thank you, Chairman.
I think one issue that we sort of would like to see change
is the idea of partnership, in the sense that there has to be a
mutually direct partnership with the local actors or entities
on ground.
A couple of times,
[inaudible] Includes the sort of perception that there is
no capacity--so the capacity of responding to likes of
pandemic, if there is a COVID outbreak or anything.
But getting direct partnership, I think that that is the
main issue that needs to be focused, and also to be, like,
[inaudible] Downstream at any point.
So, looking from the USAID, I think they can look into the
structures that are in place, facilitate the environment that
allows NGO's or local actors to have an equal opportunity in
terms of funding access, so local ideas are driving innovation
of creative
[inaudible] Could be implemented in a wider reach and also
with cost-effectiveness.
So I think that the position has to be changing on the
structure so nationals can have an equal opportunity in terms
of
[inaudible].
Mr. Castro. Thank you. Thank you for that.
And next we will go to Congresswoman Tenney.
Congresswoman Tenney? I see you on the video, but I do not
know if you can hear us.
We will come back to Congresswoman Tenney. I know that
Congresswoman Houlahan had a few more----
Ms. Tenney. I am here. Sorry. Are you there?
Mr. Castro. Okay. Yes, we will go to Congresswoman Tenney,
uh-huh.
Ms. Tenney. Sorry about that. I was trying to get my thing
here set up, but thank you. Thank you, Chairman Castro, for
convening this hearing.
And thank you to the witnesses for your testimony as we
look at these global development issues impacting our economy.
And I am going to direct my first question to Mr. Glin.
Could you tell me examples of success in assistance
provision models that have proven effective in directing
capital and capacity-building support to nongovernmental
organizations and community leaders, if you could?
Mr. Glin. Thank you, Representative.
One example that I will cite is our work in Egypt. So, in
Egypt, for example, we source 100-percent locally sourced
potatoes, providing opportunities for 4,000 farmers who work
across 40,000 acres. So this is PepsiCo, the business, but we
also work in collaboration with CARE Egypt, the local arm of
CARE International, to ensure that, as we are sourcing it, we
are increasing the yields and incomes for small growers but
also supporting for their families.
So this is an example of using the power of business to
engage local growers and the farming community but also linking
to a nonprofit that is operating locally, CARE International,
to implement a program that not only provides a sourcing
opportunity for us but improves the lives and livelihoods of
those growing the product, but also their families.
And so PepsiCo, with CARE, with our local partners, but
also with the local communities. And so those partnerships,
tripartite and the like, are really critical to our ability to
serve not only as a good corporate citizen but a real community
connecter.
Ms. Tenney. Okay. So on those--you are talking about those
types of assistance. What type of grant structures can we use,
like, to help local partners improve their capabilities and
manage the assistance? Do you think that this is the best
model? You said a tripartite model. Can you just expand on that
with how you mean and how we would see the U.S. funds spent
that way?
Mr. Glin. No, great. So that is an approach where, looking
at the model of global development alliances, which are public-
private partnerships, where USAID can come in, where PepsiCo
comes in, and then we support, for example, another program
that is in agriculture in West Bengal, where we have an MOU
with USAID. PepsiCo is bringing funding, resources,
capabilities on the ground, USAID is supporting a local
implementing partner, and we are going in, quote/unquote,
``aligned'' and together.
There also are other models to really tackle the problem
that we face with the capability and the accountability of
local partners, and that is the USADF model, which really has a
tiered grant structure that really is about building the
organizational capacity of the entity that you are eventually
going to want to see run the program. So you are going in and
building their capacity, and then you are expanding their
ability to perform, and then eventually they are in a position
to run the program on their own.
So it is going in with a long-term, sort of, graduation
model in mind. We think of it that elementary school prepares
for you high school, high school prepares you for college, and
then you are out on your own. With these local organizations,
sometimes we do need to go in and develop them, work with them
to grow them, and then, hopefully, when they scale, they are
able to absorb broader forms of capital from U.S. foreign
assistance providers.
So, if we look at AID and other development assistance
programs, there is a dovetailing and a linkage and a continuum
where one U.S. foreign assistance provider can hand off
organizations and can look at ways to grow the organizations
for the long term. So collaboration----
Ms. Tenney. Just quickly, because I want to ask Ms.
Armistead a question, so when you get to that higher level,
when you develop them, we still maintain our oversight and
ability to look at where the funds are spent, correct?
Mr. Glin. A hundred percent. And it also leads to a
difference in the relationship. It goes from not using
international implementers to those international organizations
really providing oversight and monitoring, which is less
costly, which does not require the level of investment for
using international organizations to implement programs. We
then become more of a service provider, but they are the
implementers. They own the solutions, and they own the
sustainability of the interventions.
Ms. Tenney. Great. Thank you so much.
Ms. Armistead, I just wanted to ask you a quick question.
How can the U.S. Government more effectively partner with some
of the private foundations to utilize their pretty much vast
local networks, their resources, and support some of the
development solutions? Is that an option for us, you know,
similar to what Mr. Glin just outlined?
Ms. Armistead. Yes, thanks. I think that what we have seen
is that partnerships among all development stakeholders can
really be powerful in terms of bringing about a more locally
led development landscape, whether that is with U.S.
foundations, we also do public-private partnerships, support
public-private partnerships, as well as with local NGO's.
I think for us the key is investing in those partnerships,
really understanding who the stakeholders are, what assets they
can bring, and how we can invest in those partnerships to bring
about the most optimal solution.
So I think each one of these has a role to play. And I
think investing in those trust-based, mutuality, transparent,
equal partnerships can really be a powerful way to approach
doing development better.
Ms. Tenney. Thank you.
I think I am out of time. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. Thank
you.
Mr. Castro. Thank you, Congresswoman.
We will go right back to Congresswoman Houlahan for a few
more questions.
Ms. Houlahan. Thank you again.
My question this time will be for Ms. Ali.
Data shows that when women are empowered communities are
more prosperous and the world is, of course, a more stable and
peaceful place. And so working with more women-led
organizations and focusing on women's economic empowerment, I
believe, should be a priority of this body and the United
States as we aim to take a more locally led approach.
Has failing to sufficiently fund and empower NGO's led by
women and other marginalized populations negatively impacted
the effectiveness of our foreign assistance? And if so, are
there some examples that you might be able to share with us?
Ms. Ali. Thank you, Congresswoman. Actually, that is a very
good question because this is one of the things I always talk
about.
Lack of locally led development does not just mean that it
harms the ability to have impact and it is the right thing to
do, but it actually harms women-led organizations. Why do I say
that? I will give you a very good example, Somalia.
I am a Somali American, and I have been living here now for
about 20-something years. And a majority of the strong, quote/
unquote, ``strong'' organizations that most international NGO's
and U.N. agencies partner up with are male-led, almost
exclusively. There are very, very few real partnerships with
women-led organizations.
And why is that? Because the women-led organizations are
oftentimes those small CBOs in country. They do not have access
to these meetings in Nairobi. They cannot fly out to Nairobi as
easily. They do not have as much grasp of the English language.
And they are very local in nature. They are not trying to
become these big--they are not trying to mimic the
international NGO's, and they want to stay local.
So the policies and what we are doing is actually harming
our ability to have a real partnership, meaningful partnership,
with those kinds of organizations. I am always in a room of
male-dominated Somali NGO's, and that is commonplace.
And I wouldn't say that that is unusual also in Somalia; I
would probably say that is probably a global epidemic. Because
the more professionalized you want the NGO to be, the bigger
capacity they have, oftentimes the less grassroots they are,
and they tend to be more male-dominated.
Ms. Houlahan. Thank you.
Would any of our other speakers like to comment on that
question?
Mr. Glin. Thank you, Representative. I couldn't agree more
with Ms. Ali.
And I also want to highlight that PepsiCo and the PepsiCo
Foundation has for years prioritized women across its entire
portfolio of work and sometimes specifically. And so we have a
great partnership with CARE International, which is to reach 5
million women farmers and their communities.
And this focus on women, whether--and it is in our programs
for access to nutritious foods. We have a focus on women there.
Safe water access. We know women are the water bearers and bear
the burden of carrying water for distribution essentially
around the world, and so we focus on women there. And even in
economic opportunity.
So the three pillars of our work, women are integral to
every aspect of the work that we do around the world.
Ms. Houlahan. Anybody else who would like to weigh in on
that?
My next question, with my last minute and a half, is really
a general question, which is: What can Congress do to better
help here in the area of enabling USAID to work with new
organizations, smaller organizations, and local organizations,
in very specific terms?
Perhaps Ms. Ali first.
Ms. Ali. Yes, I mean, I think we need to--as I have said,
we need to examine the legislative kind of support that can be
given to USAID and to incentivize them. There are certain
barriers that they have, some compliance, some real barriers.
I think earlier there was a question around innovative ways
to move capital to more local organizations. One of the things
we have been advocating for for many years is to establish
national funds. And the importance of that is because USAID
staff are overworked and understaffed, so they want to write
big checks, and that is why they like the $45 million, $50
million, $100 million RFPs. But if they establish national
funds that are led by civil society in the country that have
maybe a humanitarian window, an education window, a human
rights window, whatever it may be, they can pool their money
into that fund with other donors.
And that allows them to have a greater reach of local
organizations. So, instead of having layers of intermediaries,
you have one intermediary which is at a national level, led by
civil society.
So I think helping USAID to establish different kinds of
mechanisms to move money would be really, really important.
Ms. Houlahan. Thank you.
And I have run out of time, and I yield back.
Mr. Castro. Thank you, Congresswoman.
And that concludes our questions for our witnesses today. I
want to say thank you to each of our witnesses, also our
members who asked questions.
To our witnesses, thank you for lending your expertise on
this issue and your experiences as we move in the direction of
more locally led development.
And, with that, this meeting is adjourned. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 11:15 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
APPENDIX
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]