GLOBAL CROP DIVERSITY TRUST: U.S. PRIVATE-

UNCLAS ROME 002418

SIPDIS


STATE FOR E, EB, OES/ETC - NEUMANN, EB/TPP/BTT - MALAC,
L/OES AND IO/EDA - KOTOK
USDA FOR FAS - ETERPSTRA, BRICHEY, LREICH AND RHUGHES
AND ARS - BRETTING AND BLALOCK
USAID FOR EGAT - SIMMONS, MOORE, BERTRAM AND LEWIS

FROM U.S. MISSION TO THE UN AGENCIES IN ROME

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: EAGR ETRD EAID SENV KIPR AORC FAO IPGRI
SUBJECT: GLOBAL CROP DIVERSITY TRUST: U.S. PRIVATE-
SECTOR AND PUBLIC SUPPORT WILL BE CRUCIAL TO LEVERAGE
BROADER INTERNATIONAL PARTICIPATION

REF: (A) ROME 1057; (B) ROME 1417


1. Summary: The Global Crop Diversity Trust is an
independent international endowment that aims to provide
permanent funding for the world's major crop diversity
collections, which provide the foundation for future
improvements in agricultural productivity. The Trust has
garnered firm pledges of $45 million from public and
private sources, out of a target of $260 million. Five
countries, all from the Near East or Africa, have signed
the Trust's Establishment Agreement thus far. Signatures
of three more countries representing three additional
geographic regions are needed for the Trust to become
legally established. The Interim Secretariat remains
hopeful that the required signatures may be forthcoming
by the end of June 2004, which would allow the Trust to
begin at the same time as the International Treaty for
Plant Genetic Resources (which provides the framework for
the Trust -- see reftels) enters into force. In a
briefing for U.S. Mission Rome, the Interim Secretariat
expressed appreciation for the USAID commitment of
$5 million for the Trust. They stressed, however, that
an additional U.S. pledge or statement of intention to
contribute (possibly in partnership with private U.S.
foundations) and USG signature of the Establishment
Agreement would send important signals to other potential
donors, thereby improving prospects for the medium-term
realization of the Trust's aims. In light of the
imminent legal establishment of the Trust and the entry
into force of the Treaty, a reassessment of the pros and
cons of full U.S. participation in these bodies takes on
increased urgency. End summary.


2. On June 14, Global Crop Diversity Trust Interim
Executive Secretary Geoffrey Hawtin, accompanied by
Development Director Julian Laird, briefed Ambassador
Hall and U.S. Mission senior staff on progress in
fundraising and formal establishment of the Trust.
Hawtin reviewed the Secretariat's efforts in three areas:
(1) establishing the Trust as a legal international
entity, (2) raising funds, and (3) planning initial
disbursements from the Trust.

Establishment of the Trust
--------------


3. An 11-member Interim Panel of Eminent Experts
approved the Establishment Agreement and Constitution of
the Trust in October 2003. In February 2004, the
Director General of the FAO (which houses the Interim
Secretariat) circulated these instruments to governments

SIPDIS
worldwide and invited them to sign the Establishment
Agreement. (The text of DG's letter -- which provides a
more formal and complete statement of the Trust's
objectives -- is being transmitted septel.)


4. According to Hawtin, the governments of Cape Verde,
Egypt, Jordan, Morocco and Togo have signed the
Establishment Agreement thus far. Armenia, Cambodia,
Ecuador, Ethiopia, Ghana, Indonesia, Iran, Kenya, Peru,
Rwanda and Syria have expressed interest in signing
within the next month or two. Other countries that are
discussing signing are Australia, Canada, Germnay,
Norway, Sweden and Switzerland.


5. The Establishment Agreement goes into effect when
seven countries from five of FAO's geographic regions
have signed. (An additional criterion -- that at least
four of the signatories must be developing countries --
has already been met.) The Secretariat believes that the
minimum required signatures could be achieved by the end
of June, allowing the Trust to be launched as a legal
international entity concurrently with entry into force
of the Treaty, on July 1.


6. At a board meeting in Geneva the previous week, it
was decided that the headquarters for the Trust would be
situated in Rome, at least for the first five years.
There will be a call for bids from governments interested
in hosting the Secretariat thereafter. Egypt and
Ethiopia have already expressed tentative interest.

Fundraising
--------------


7. Hawkin said a endowment of $260 million would be
needed to geerate the annual income of $12 million
necessaryto support the international gene banks of the
Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research
(CGIAR) and selected major national collections. (This
assumes a return on the endowment of 5% annually, plus
inflation, and allows about $1 million annually for
operating expenses.) About $45 million in funds or firm
written commitments have already been received. An
additional $50-60 million is currently under discussion.


8. The principal governmental donors thus far are
Australia, Canada, Switzerland, and the U.S. In
addition, Brazil, Colombia and Egypt have made more
modest, but politically significant pledges. Ethiopia is
considering a donation of $50,000. Among the foundations
and private sector contributors are Gatsby Charitable
Trust, the Rockefeller Foundation, the United Nations
Foundation, the Syngenta Foundation and DuPont. The
Grains Research and Development Corporation (an
Australian farmers' organization) also has contributed,
and FAO and the International Plant Genetic Resources
Institute (IPGRI) have provided in-kind support.

Initial Activities
--------------


9. Hawtin said that the Interim Secretariat is designing
a series of studies to set conservation priorities. The
Trust would likely make 4 or 5 grants before the end of
2004, and 6 to 8 additional grants in 2005. These would
target gene banks at high risk, where relatively small
infusions of resources would help stabilize the
situation, and provide tangible evidence of the Trust's
impact.

USG Role
--------------


10. Hawtin expressed gratitude for USAID's encouragement
and support of the Trust, and for the U.S. contribution
thus far of $5 million. He expressed concern, however,
that other pressing issues might have driven the Trust
from the USG's radar screen lately. He said he hoped to
meet Administrator Natsios in the coming weeks or months.
Hawtin recognized that currently the U.S. budget
situation is difficult, but he stressed that the USG
stance toward the Trust has great impact worldwide. Many
other donors key their contributions to that of the U.S.
He noted that, even if the U.S. is not ready or able to
commit additional resources at this time, some sort of
language from Congress or the Administration regarding
likely future USG funding of the Trust would be extremely
helpful in mobilizing resources elsewhere.


11. Ambassador Hall and Mission officers reaffirmed USG
interest in the Trust, and highlighted USAID's efforts to
involve private-sector donors. We noted in particular
USAID's effort to involve the Gordon and Betty Moore
Foundation (Intel) in preparations for the Trust and as a
potentially significant donor. We said that the current
budgetary climate and political season in Washington made
additional USG funding commitments unlikely at this time,
but that congressional report language could serve as a
nonbinding signal of intent regarding possible future
contributions. The Trust would need to have legislators
willing to champion its cause in key committees. We
noted there might also be an opportunity for USAID to
highlight the Trust's potential role in increasing
agricultural productivity and its need for additional
donor support at the informal Tidewater meeting of OECD
development cooperation ministers on June 23.


12. We added that there may be reluctance on the part of
some USG agencies to commit further to the Trust or to
recommend ratification of the Treaty until key aspects of
the Treaty (particularly the Material Transfer Agreement
[MTA]) are worked out. Hawtin pointed out that, by
ratifying the Treaty, the USG effectively gains veto
power, since all policy decisions of Treaty's Governing
Body are made by consensus. We commented that this
argument was familiar in Washington, and that USG
agencies were aware of the risks of the U.S. becoming a

marginalized observer to a major international treaty (as
has been the case, for example, in the Convention on
Biological Diversity). Nevertheless, there appeared to
be no consensus for U.S. ratification of the Treaty at
this time.

Comment
--------------


13. The linkages between the Global Crop Diversity Trust
and the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources
bear further consideration. A substantial partnership
with the U.S. private sector in support of the Trust
could be key to leveraging greater support in both the
executive and legislative branches. A major alliance
that encompasses USAID, State and USDA with U.S. private
sector partners (e.g., the Moore Foundation) could
similarly be helpful in leading to a refinement or
reassessment of the stance USG takes on the Treaty.


14. As of June 11, FAO had not received sufficient
voluntary donor contributions for holding the MTA
negotiation, but the Secretariat still has tentative
plans to hold the meeting in the autumn of this year.
Meanwhile, the Treaty (although incomplete without the
MTA) enters into force on July 1, 2004, and the Governing
Body must hold its first meeting within two years of that
date (or possibly sooner, if one-third of the countries
that have ratified the Treaty so request).


15. With these pending developments, the question of USG
ratification takes on increased urgency. It may be time
to reflect further on what, if any, would be the "down
sides" to seeking U.S. ratification. Even if the process
were started and not yet completed, it could help
strengthen the hand of the US delegation in the sessions
where the MTA will be negotiated.

Hall


NNNN
2004ROME02418 - Classification: UNCLASSIFIED