Food Security and Nutrition Network
Select Language

Question 2: FFP's Unique Role in Reducing Hunger and Poverty

Question 2: FFP's Unique Role in Reducing Hunger and Poverty

Posted by Patrick Coonan on 20 Aug 2014

During a plenary session at the TOPS/FSN Network Knowledge Sharing Meeting in July 2014, Susan Bradley of Food for Peace (FFP) asked the food security implementers in the room for their thoughts on key questions regarding the updating of the FFP Strategic Plan. This is the second question in that series. 

We welcome your thoughts and will be sharing your ideas directly with FFP. You can view the small group report out from the plenary session for this question by skipping to minute 37:50 for this recording.


Many of the organizations attending this event have helped to increase the amount of 202(e) available to “enhance” as well as establish programs. At the same time, some have voiced concern that additional cash-based programming will blur the lines between FFP programs and other development humanitarian programming.

What do you believe is FFP’s unique role in reducing hunger and poverty?

Reducing Hunger and Poverty

Posted by Gabrielle.Ben on 5 Sep 2014

We believe that FFPs unique role in reducing hunger and poverty is the use of an integrated approach. The use of access, utilization, availability, stability, provides a diverse and comprehensive approach. However, FFP needs to move beyond 202e, and less restriction. FFP should align their programs more with other programs, and create different funding streams that compliment USAID programs.

Question 2

Posted by lwilkinson on 5 Sep 2014

FFP's unique role in reducing hunger and poverty is its flexibility in mechanisms to be able to address it.  The problems I believe are in the analysis on why some of these issues exist and how to address them.  In my opinion we barely scratch the surface in analysis and we should hold our partners to a higher standard of analysis and higher more flexibility standard of learning/changing programs to address the need and target the right people.

capitalize on USAID Food for Peace's strengths

Posted by Emmet Murphy on 9 Dec 2014

USAID FFP brings to the table a unique capacity to do integrated programming to improve food security. The Title II program has evolved over several decades and new food security-oriented initaitives such as Feed the Future should note the plethora of lessons learned and best practices that Title II programs bring to the table when it comes to assisting the most vulnerable households.

The Title II contracting mechanism also gives implementers a greater degree of flexibility that many DA-funded interventions do not have. For example, I believe the value chain crop focus for Feed the Future is very limiting compared to the various agro-ecological zones one has in vulnerable areas. If there is a shift to urban areas, Title II programs are well placed to focus on improving urban-oriented livelihoods, MCHN (universally needed), education, etc.

The other unique aspect often downplayed is the impact that monetization can have on markets and the unique skillsets developed by Title II implementers related to markets. Implementers become intimately familiar with commodity sales, warehousing, logistics, international and domestic freight forwarding in a manner that other DA-funded programs would not confront.Having personally monetized commodities in Uganda and Haiti and written Bellmons for several countries, there are numerous positive aspects that can be brought to bear related to bolstering local producers such as wheat mills, oilseeds/CDSO, feed mills  that translate to improved food security on a macro level and create jobs in urban areas.

In addition to the above, FFP is also in a unique position to make a difference in local/regional purchase (LRP) because these programs actually work with smallholders who can contribute to such a system. During my tenure as DCOP in Uganda, our Title II farmer groups sold maize to WFP for their local purchase program.

Log in or register to post comments