RIGHT TO FOOD: INTERGOVERNMENTAL WORKING GROUP

UNCLAS ROME 002810

SIPDIS


SENSITIVE

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

STATE FOR IO/EDA, L/HRR, DRL/MLA, E, EB/TPP/ATP
USAID FOR EGAT/AG - HOBGOOD
USDA/FAS/ICD FOR REICH AND HUGHES

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: AORC PHUM EAGR EAID EFIN FAO
SUBJECT: RIGHT TO FOOD: INTERGOVERNMENTAL WORKING GROUP
MAKES PROGRESS ON VOLUNTARY GUIDELINES

REF: (A) 03 ROME 1380; (B) 03 ROME 4443;

(C) 03 ROME 5747; (D) ROME 1236

This cable contains sensitive but unclassified sections
that are intended strictly for internal USG use.


1. (U) Summary: The third (and supposedly final)
session of the Intergovernmental Working Group (IGWG) for
the Elaboration of Voluntary Guidelines to Support the
Progressive Realization of the Right to Adequate Food in
the Context of National Food Security met in Rome from 5
to 10 July 2004. Delegates made substantial progress on
many points, but time ran out before they could reach
agreement on a final text. The major stumbling block was
G-77 insistence -- against strong EU opposition -- to
characterizing the section on the International Framework
as "guidelines." The U.S. delegation was successful in
introducing language consistent with USG positions on
market systems, food aid and women's rights. The U.S.
was also successful in narrowing the definition of "right
to adequate food" so that it neither implies an
entitlement nor a right to a remedy for those without
food.


2. (SBU) Cuba, supported by other Latins, held hostage
a U.S.-proposed amendment that food would not be used as
a political weapons domestically, holding out for
insertion of comparable language on unilateral measures
in the international section. Language introduced by
Syria on the duties of an occupying power and language
introduced by Cuba on unilateral measures and the use of
food as a political/economic weapon remained unresolved
when the talks ended. We were successful in containing
the international section largely to a rhetorical
reiteration of text from recent international conferences
such as UNCTAD XI, WSSD, and Monterrey.


3. (SBU) Although North-South tensions flared when an
impasse was reached in the early morning hours of
Saturday morning, delegations meeting in a final plenary
session later in the day (1) recognized that substantial
progress had been made and (2) in principle accepted the
Chairman's proposal for more intersessional work and an
additional IGWG to be held in October to finalize the
text. Consistent with the FAO's practice of organizing
representation by regional groups, the U.S. negotiated
jointly with Canada; we were mostly like-minded and
cooperated extremely well. Delegates welcomed the North
America's constructive and positive role in the
negotiations. End summary.

OVERVIEW
--------------


4. (U) The third session of the IGWG met in Rome under
the skilled chairmanship of Iranian Permrep Mohammad
Noori. A compilation of text proposals made at IGWG2 (2-
5 Feb 2004) and subsequently consolidated and cleaned up
by the Bureau at its meeting of 26-29 April 2004, served
as the basis for the negotiations. Apart from opening
and closing plenary sessions, negotiations for most of
the week took place in three separate, concurrent Working
Groups, focusing on the Introduction/Preface, the
International Framework, and the actual Voluntary
Guidelines, respectively.


5. (U) In an effort to streamline the Working Groups'
discussions, the Chair -- with the support of the Bureau
-- urged delegates to speak only on behalf of their
regional groups, and he announced that new text proposals
would be accepted only if supported by at least two
regional groups. These ground rules helped speed up the
discussions, even if they were not always strictly
observed. (The European Regional Group was particularly
divided, with Norway and Switzerland unabashedly pursuing
their own agenda distinct from that of the EU.) As at
the previous IGWG, stakeholders (NGOs) were able speak to
any agenda issue -- through their spokespersons -- on a
equal footing with governments and international
organizations, but were not allowed to propose text or
participate in decision-making.


6. (U) The U.S. delegation was headed by Richard
Behrend (Director, IO/EDA),and included Willem Brakel


(U.S. Mission),Christopher Camponovo (DRL/MLA),
Katherine Gorove (L/HRR),and Sharon Kotok (IO/EDA). The
delegation worked closely and smoothly with the two
Canadian representatives, one from the human rights and
the other from the legal office in the Department of
Foreign Affairs and International Trade.

WORKING GROUP I - INTRODUCTION/PREFACE
--------------


7. (SBU) Working Group I developed a Preface that
begins with references to the Millennium Summit and World
Food Summit goals on reducing world hunger. The text
then outlines the historical basis of the mandate for the
Voluntary Guidelines in the World Food Summit Plan of
Action and Declaration of the World Food Summit: five
years later. A key USG concern in the prefatory and
introductory text had been proposed language on the
substantive content and scope of an international "right
to adequate food." The U.S. delegation was successful in
restraining attempts to characterize such a right as an
entitlement or in defining it in a way that would be at
variance with the long-standing USG position -- that such
"rights" are to be progressively realized by a State and
are non-justiciable in nature. References to obligations
of countries were limited to States Parties to the
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural
Rights. Language that would have given undue stature to
General Comment 12 of the Committee on Economic, Cultural
and Social Rights also was successfully rebuffed.


8. (SBU) Also referred to the Working Group was
Guideline 15 (on Crises and Emergencies),which was
considered together with one paragraph in the
introductory section. Although there was some
preliminary agreement on the content of the paragraphs
that would pertain to food issues and armed conflict,
language introduced by Syria on the duties of an
occupying power proved contentious. The Syrian delegate,
supported by others in the G-77, attempted to introduce
extensive language from the Additional Protocols to the
Geneva Conventions, which USdel strenuously opposed. At
the eleventh hour, the Swiss delegation proposed
compromise language verbatim from the Fourth Geneva
Convention that would have been acceptable to the U.S.;
however, the clock ran out after negotiations on the
International Dimension collapsed. Consequently, all of
the language pertaining to armed conflict and occupation
still remains unresolved.

WORKING GROUP II - INTERNATIONAL DIMENSION
--------------


9. (SBU) In the section entitled International
Dimension, IGWG3 negotiators reached agreement in the
following areas, drawing on consensus language from major
recent international meetings: Objective, International
Cooperation, Role of the International Community,
Technical Cooperation, and International Trade.
Similarly, agreement was reached regarding paragraphs on
External Debt, Official Development Assistance,
Partnerships with NGOs/CSOs/Private Sector, and Promotion
and Protection of Human Rights. Agreed language on
International reporting indicated that "states may report
on a voluntary basis on relevant activities and progress
achieved in implementing the Voluntary Guidelines...."


10. (SBU) A particular concern for the USG was that the
IGWG not accept any language implying criticism of the
U.S. embargo of the Cuban regime that went beyond
standard language agreed at other international fora.
The U.S. delegation was especially vigilant to avoid a
document containing, through juxtaposition of text, the
erroneous implication that the U.S. was somehow using
food as a weapon against the Castro government. An added
USdel worry was that, if all outstanding issues were
resolved with the exception of implicitly anti-U.S. text,
there might be pressure on all other delegates to agree
to a document from which the USG would then have to
dissociate itself.


11. (SBU) At the same time, discussions in Working
Group II exposed a major fault line between North and
South. G-77 representatives became increasingly


insistent that elements of the International Dimension be
elevated to a status equivalent to that of the Voluntary
Guidelines for national, domestic action. The EU had
expressed flat opposition to any Guidelines with
international content, leaving Working Group II
stalemated on this key issue. North America took a more
nuanced approach to this question, and therefore was in a
position later to serve as an intermediary in this
discussion.

WORKING GROUP III - GUIDELINES
--------------


12. (SBU) Working Group III made its way methodically
through 18 draft Voluntary Guidelines. Good progress was
made in finding consensus language rooted in practical
measures. The titles of the Guidelines give an
indication of the scope of this exercise:

(1) Democracy, Good Governance and Human Rights
(2) Economic Development Policies
(3) Strategies
(4) Market Systems
(5) Institutions
(5bis) Stakeholders
(6) Legal Framework
(7) Access to Resources and Assets
(8) Food Safety and Consumer Protection
(9) Nutrition
(10) Education and Awareness Raising
(11) National Financial Resources
(12) Support for Vulnerable Groups
(13) Safety Nets
(14) International Food Aid
(15) Crises and Emergencies - referred to WG II
(16) Monitoring, Indicators and Benchmarks
(16bis) The Rule of Law
(17) National Human Rights Institutions


13. (SBU) Working Group III finalized language for
nearly all the Guidelines it considered, with the
specific exception of Guidelines or portions of
Guidelines with international content, which were all
referred to Working Group II at the insistence of the EU
and with the tacit support of North America. Guidelines
3.10, 4.6, 4.8, 4.9, 4.10, 8.8, 11.1 fell into the latter
category. Guideline 1.2 on food as a tool for political
and economic pressure at the national level was held up
by the G-77 pending resolution of similar language in the
international context. Due to lack of time, WG III did
not complete negotiation of Guideline 16 bis (Rule of
Law) and it did not resolve one outstanding point in
Guideline 14.2 regarding food safety standards in
international food transactions.

MERGING THE OUTPUT OF THE WORKING GROUPS
--------------


14. (SBU) The initial aim of the Chairman and Bureau had
been for the Working Groups to complete their respective
texts in the first four days, allowing the last day of
IGWG3, Friday, for a plenary session to merge their
efforts and to deal with crosscutting issues or other
unresolved questions. Nevertheless, despite having held
up to three negotiating sessions per day -- morning,
afternoon and evening sessions running until 10:00 p.m. -
- for four full days, the working groups still had not
fully completed their respective tasks by Friday evening.
At midnight on Friday evening, the Chairman decided to
convene a joint meeting of Working Groups II and III in
Friends-of-the-Chair format to thrash out areas of
overlap between the International Dimension text and the
actual Guidelines, notwithstanding that neither Working
Group had finished its task. His stated intention was to
continue negotiations through the night until the entire
document was complete.


15. (SBU) In parallel, the Chair asked Canada to head a
small negotiating group to resolve the OECD/G-77 split on
the status of the International Dimension. In these
talks, the G-77 remained insistent, and their proposals
for how to characterize the international issues included
references to a Plan of Action that gave international
cooperation far more weight and emphasis than the EU and


other OECD were prepared to accept in a document
ostensibly geared to actions "in the context of national
food security." Upon reaching this impasse, the G-77
caucused, and at about 3:00 a.m. returned to the Friends
of the Chair, where they declared the gap to be
unbridgeable in the near term, and called for an end to
IGWG3 discussion. Chairman Noori dissolved the meeting
at about 3:15 a.m. on Saturday morning.

FINAL PLENARY - NEXT STEPS
--------------


16. (U) The IGWG reconvened in plenary session midday
on Saturday. Chairman Noori's conclusion, seconded by
all regional group spokespersons, was that negotiators
had made a lot of progress at IGWG3. It was noted that
there was a willingness on all sides to resume
negotiations at a later date, but that IGWG3 had run out
of time. Noori proposed the following course of action:

-- The Secretariat will circulate the complete negotiated
text as we left it early Saturday morning, together with
a brief Chairman's report on IGWG3.

-- The Chairman will convene meeting(s) of the Bureau (or
Rome-based alternates) to continue its work.

-- A Friends of the Chair meeting -- 3 per region --
would meet for one or two days during or on the margins
of the Committee on Food Security meeting of 20-24
September to continue negotiation of the text.

-- An additional meeting of the IGWG, probably of two
days' duration, would be convened in October (subject to
availability of donor funding) to complete and formally
approve the text.

-- The final text would be submitted to the FAO Council
of 22-27 November.


17. (U) Most delegations seemed generally satisfied
with this course of action. Speaking for North America,
U.S. delegate thanked the chairs of the three Working
Groups, made note of the progress that had been made
during the week, but also pointed to several important
issues that remained unresolved and cautioned against
unrealistic expectations. USdel welcomed the Chair's
proposal and noted U.S. willingness to continue working
with the aim of reaching a consensus text in October.

FAO SECRETARIAT INFORMATION PAPERS
--------------


18. (U) At IGWG3 the Secretariat circulated a series of
draft information papers addressing aspects related to
the mandate of the IGWG:

IGWG RTFG/INF5 - Right to Food Principles vis--vis
Rules Governing International Trade;

IGWG RTFG/INF6 - Food Aid and the Right to Food;

IGWG RTFG/INF7 - Justiciability of the Right to
Food; and

IGWG RTFG/INF8 - Monitoring the Implementation of
the Right to Adequate Food.

Member states were invited to provide their comments by
the end of August. Although the contents of these papers
are unlikely to influence the conclusion of the
negotiation, they will become relevant as states begin to
implement the Voluntary Guidelines. It therefore will be
important for USG agencies to study these reports and
provide a response to the Secretariat.


19. (U) Also, the Secretariat prepared and circulated
colored maps indicating the "Level of Protection of the
Right to Adequate Food based on Provisions from the Text
of National Constitutions." Revealingly, the map showed
a striking disconnect between countries' food security
and their constitutional protection of the right to food.
Countries indicated to be with "no protection" included
the U.S., Australia, New Zealand, Denmark and UK, whereas


countries credited with having an explicit reference to
the right to food in their constitutions included
Afghanistan, Angola, Bangladesh, Ethiopia and North
Korea.

COMMENT
--------------


20. (SBU) Although IGWG3 did not complete negotiation
of the Voluntary Guidelines, it made unexpectedly
significant progress, thanks in part to the effectiveness
and persuasiveness of Chairman Noori. Despite the
letdown of failure to finalize a document, most
delegations seemed relatively optimistic that the
negotiations could be concluded with the two additional
meetings proposed by the Chair for September and October

2004. Delegates welcomed the USG's constructive and
positive role in the negotiations. Without having had to
compromise on fundamental principles, we nevertheless
were able to accommodate the wish of many delegations to
consider voluntary measures towards implementation of a
human rights-based approach to hunger at the national
level.

HALL


NNNN
2004ROME02810 - Classification: UNCLASSIFIED