MAJOR DONORS DISCUSS FAO EVALUATION, KEY

UNCLAS ROME 003570

SIPDIS


SENSITIVE

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

USDA FAS FOR MCHAMBLISS, LREICH, RHUGHES;
STATE FOR IO DAS MILLER, IO/EDA, OES/O, OES/E, E, EB;
AID FOR EGAT, DCHA/OFDA, DCHA/FFP

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: AORC EAGR EAID PREL KUNR FAO
SUBJECT: MAJOR DONORS DISCUSS FAO EVALUATION, KEY
PROGRAM/BUDGET ISSUES AND LOCUST EMERGENCY RESPONSE


Portions are sensitive but unclassified -- please handle
accordingly.


1. (U) Summary: At a "Geneva Group" meeting for Rome-
based representatives of major donor governments convened
by the U.S. Mission on 14 September, participants
strongly supported a U.S.-led proposal for an independent
external review of FAO, although they expressed some
differences on tactics. Looking ahead to the late-
September meetings of the FAO Program and Budget
committees, they identified the Independent Evaluation of
FAO's Decentralization, the review of the Technical
Cooperation Program (TCP),the Mid-Term Plan, and FAO's
financial position as key issues. Participants also
discussed FAO's response to the West African locust
emergency, noting that the organization had issued timely
advance warnings, but had lagged in coordination,
information sharing and getting experts on the ground,
with donors' tardy contributions also a factor. End
summary.


2. (U) Ambassador Hall chaired a meeting of the "Geneva
Group" of principal UN donor governments on 14 September
at the U.S. Mission. Attending were officials from the
permanent representations of Australia, Canada, Germany,
France, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, New Zealand, Sweden,
Switzerland and the UK.

INDEPENDENT EXTERNAL EVALUATION


3. (SBU) Ambassador Hall stressed the need for an
independent external evaluation of FAO as a tool to help
member governments identify the organization's strengths
and weaknesses. He said that such a review could help
strengthen FAO and help it gain support from donors
during an anticipated period of budgetary retrenchment by
major donors. The Ambassador reported on his two
meetings with FAO Director General Jacques Diouf in
August 2004, and the latter's ambivalent response thus
far, with questions centering on (1) perceived linkages
to the upcoming DG election, (2) the need to involve
FAO's governing bodies, and (3) the importance of G-77
buy-in.


4. (SBU) DCM explained that the U.S. and like-minded
countries had sought to address Diouf's concerns
regarding the proposed evaluation by (1) deferring the
date of the evaluation's final report(s) until after the
DG elections in November 2005, (2) using FAO's regionally
balanced Program and Finance Committees as the bodies to
discuss and endorse the concept, and (3) conducting
outreach to the developing countries. On the latter
point, he reported on his 13 September informational
meeting with G-77 representatives, where he had sought to
build support for an independent external evaluation. He
noted that he had explained the utility of such an
evaluation in providing baselines for Program and Finance
Committee deliberations and by improving FAO's
credibility in donor capitals -- a prerequisite for
future funding. At the meeting with the G-77, he also
was able to dispel misinformation about the cost of this
exercise, which would be no more than $2 to 2.5 million.
Reaction to the presentation from the Asian, Near Eastern
and Latin American representatives had been largely
positive, with only the African members exhibiting a
degree of distrust and reluctance. Only Sudan (whose
representative has little credibility in Rome's
multilateral community) expressed outright opposition.


5. (SBU) To the assembled Geneva Group representatives,
DCM outlined the three key aspects of the proposed


evaluation: (1) an assessment of FAO's role in the 21st
century environment, (2) an evaluation of the
organization's current impact, and (3) a review of its
management processes and best practices. He stressed
that the FAO Secretariat could greatly facilitate the
evaluation -- while maintaining the assessment's
perceived independence -- by assisting with tendering of
contracts and management of voluntary contributions in
support of the evaluation.


6. (SBU) Geneva Group members' responses to the USG
presentation were overwhelmingly positive, though some
differed on tactics and timing.

-- The UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and GERMANY
were the most vocally supportive.

-- The Swiss were "interested, in principle" but were
worried about the composition of the steering committee.

-- The Italians described it as "a worthwhile effort,"
but thought it would take more time to carry out.

-- The French argued for a slower approach that would
first seek FAO members' endorsement of the concept of a
review, before broaching the details.

-- The Netherlands Ambassador observed that FAO has a
credibility problem and asked rhetorically why FAO should
be an exception to the growing tendency to independent
external reviews within the UN system. He expressed
general support for the idea of a review, but noted that
the level of The Hague's support in cash or in kind would
depend on how it is conducted. He also wondered whether
full G-77 buy-in was absolutely necessary, and whether
donor countries couldn't carry out the evaluation on
their own, if necessary.

-- The Japanese permrep said she would urge Tokyo to
support this initiative, but pointed to possible
reluctance on the part of her government to undertake a
potentially divisive study that might pit Japan against
its Asian neighbors.


7. (SBU) Throughout the Geneva Group meeting, questions
and criticisms -- where they arose -- tended to center on
tactical details such as the need to involve the
governing bodies, the composition of the steering
committee, the selection of consultants, and the
determination of terms of reference.


8. (SBU) Ambassador Hall urged Geneva Group permreps to
raise the issue directly with the DG and to discuss it
with their G-77 counterparts. He alluded to the USG
commitment to help fund the evaluation and suggested that
permreps that had not already done so to raise the
concept and its funding requirements with their capitals.

UPCOMING PROGRAM AND FINANCE COMMITTEE MEETINGS


9. (U) The Dutch Ambassador, who chairs the FAO Program
Committee, highlighted key issues for the Committee's
upcoming meeting, which starts 29 September. He praised
the recently completed Independent Evaluation of FAO's
Decentralization, but noted that there has been no
response from FAO Management. He urged Geneva Group
members to look closely at the Secretariat's document on
the Policy and Operational Framework of the Technical
Cooperation Program. He flagged the document on the 2006-
2011 Medium Term Plan, calling particular attention to
the Secretariat's assumptions about real budget growth.


Several Geneva Group members echoed his call for a range
of budget scenarios in the Medium Term Plan.


10. (U) The DCM, who sits on the FAO Finance Committee,
outlined key issues before that Committee, which will
meet starting 27 September. In addition to the budget
scenario question raised above, he signaled the documents
on FAO's relatively precarious financial position, linked
to late payment of assessed contributions by some of the
largest contributors (including the U.S.) and a systemic
change in the pattern of arrearages.

WEST AFRICAN LOCUST CRISIS


11. (U) U.S. Alternate Permrep briefed the Geneva Group
on the status of FAO's response to the locust emergency.
(Septel reports on a separate meeting of donors, affected
countries, and FAO emergency response personnel hosted by
U.S. Mission on 10 September.) In U.S. Mission's view,
FAO deserves credit for giving timely warning of the
impending crisis 11 months ago and hosted 3 regional
meetings to focus attention on the problem. Moreover, we
recognize that donor contributions have lagged. That
said, FAO's response has fallen short in several
respects: (1) only half of donor contributions received
thus far have been obligated, and it took six months for
FAO to utilize an early U.S. contribution of $800,000;
(2) FAO has not shown leadership in coordinating
emergency responses at the national level; (3) FAO lagged
in the reactivation of the Emergency Center for Locust
Operations (ECLO); and (4) Until recently, there were
only two FAO locust control experts on the ground in West
Africa (now there are five).


12. (U) While accepting aspects of the U.S. critique,
other Geneva Group members warned against finger
pointing. The Italian Ambassador said it was difficult
to say who was to blame, and cautioned against making FAO
a scapegoat. The new UK Ambassador saw the current
situation as a typical dilemma of maintaining standing
capacity for an intermittent problem. The Netherlands
Permrep expressed discomfort with getting into a debate
over who is at fault, when the issue at hand was dealing
with a difficult crisis. He added that various donors --
including his own government -- had been slow to respond.

COMMENT


13. (U) U.S. Mission is encouraged by the generally
positive response by key donors to the proposal for an
independent external review of FAO. The 21-23 September
Committee on Food Security (CFS) meetings will provide
further opportunities for corridor discussions of this
proposal with the Secretariat and member governments,
particularly the G-77 countries that may still need
convincing or reassurance. Meanwhile, the Geneva Group
remains a useful forum for reviewing key FAO issues from
the perspective of the major donors.

HALL


NNNN
2004ROME03570 - Classification: UNCLASSIFIED