INDEPENDENT EXTERNAL EVALUATION OF FAO: STEADY

UNCLAS ROME 001123

SIPDIS


SENSITIVE

STATE FOR IO DAS MILLER, IO/EDA, OES, E, EB;

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

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: AORC EAGR EAID KUNR FAO
SUBJECT: INDEPENDENT EXTERNAL EVALUATION OF FAO: STEADY
BUT MEASURED PROGRESS

REF: (A) 04 ROME 4624, (B) 04 ROME 4297,
(C) ROME 0239, (D) ROME 0327
(E) STATE 025999

Sensitive but unclassified - please handle accordingly.


1. (U) Summary: In its February and March meetings,
the Intersessional Working Group (ISWG) on the
Independent External Evaluation (IEE) of FAO took
significant steps to move the IEE process forward:
(1) designation of a regionally balanced Bureau with a
U.S. vice chair, (2) agreement on criteria and procedures
for selection and hiring of experts to assist the ISWG,
(3) concurrence on the purpose, scope and coverage of a 2-
day ISWG seminar designed to give the experts clear
guidance so that they can begin work on an IEE approach
paper and a first draft of the IEE terms of reference
(TOR),and (4) agreement on a notional timetable of
meetings through mid May. Progress has been slower than
U.S. and other major donors had hoped, and the likelihood
that the ISWG will accomplish its mandate in time for the
June 2005 FAO Council is diminishing; but key USG
objectives for the IEE process are being met, and the
more measured pace has helped keep G-77 members on board.
Contributions and pledges to the ISWG Trust Fund thus far
amount to almost $88,500 from three donors, with several
other countries poised to contribute. Planned ISWG
expenditures through May are estimated at $137,700. End
summary.

BACKGROUND


2. (U) In November 2004, the FAO Council agreed to
begin work on an IEE of FAO -- the first truly
independent evaluation with such scope and with such
broad member buy-in of any major UN organization. The
Council created an ISWG to draft TOR for the IEE and to
present proposals for the management of the IEE process,
preferably by the next Council meeting (June 2005),but
no later than the November 2005 Council. Ref C reports
on the first ISWG meeting, held on 14 January, and ref D
recaps discussion of the IEE by the Geneva Group (top
donors) on 28 January. The ISWG met again on 21 February
and 23 March, and made significant progress in organizing
its own work, in setting criteria for experts, in
establishing a mechanism (viz., an expert-facilitated
ISWG seminar) to translate the expressed wishes and
desires of FAO members into draft TOR, and in setting a
timetable.

ISWG BUREAU AND ISWG WORKING PROCEDURES


3. (U) On 21 February, ISWG members agreed that the
ISWG's work would be facilitated by a Bureau, which would
consist of the ISWG Chair (Ambassador Flavio Perri,
Permanent Representative of Brazil),and one
representative from each of the seven regional groups.
Designated Bureau members are Afghanistan, Australia,
Dominican Republic, Egypt, Netherlands, Pakistan, and the
U.S. Other members are free to attend Bureau meetings as
observers, and several have done so. U.S. Alternate
Permrep Willem Brakel was designated ISWG Vice Chair, ad
personam. It was agreed tacitly that the working
language of the Bureau would be English.


4. (SBU) The Bureau met several times between the
February and March ISWG meetings, and proved to be an
effective mechanism to move the IEE forward. Chairman
Perri kept a firm controlling hand on the Bureau's
deliberations. This slowed down some steps; but also had
a positive effect: after Perri had been convinced on any
given point by the more proactive OECD Bureau members, he
was able to bring the more cautious and skeptical G-77
members along. The U.S. vice-chairmanship has given the
Bureau leadership a desirable North-South balance, and
has complemented Perri's blustery, broad-brush tendencies
with a more practical and detail-oriented approach. The
OECD members of the Bureau have worked together smoothly,
thanks in part to timely "Geneva Group" meetings hosted
by the U.S. Mission.


5. (SBU) Perri has readily turned to John Markie, Chief
of the FAO Evaluation Service (PBEE),as an advisor on
technical and logistical issues, as the first drafter of
Bureau and ISWG minutes, and as the repository of ISWG
documents. This close cooperation with the Secretariat
rightly raised some eyebrows, but the members who are


most concerned about the independence of the IEE
(including the U.S.) have ensured that PBEE's role is
strictly a technical and supporting function, and that it
is the member governments who call the shots on all
matters of policy and substance. (It should be
recognized, too, that the FAO Secretariat is an important
stakeholder in the IEE, and should consider itself so, in
order to increase the organizations buy-in top IEE
results and recommendations.)

WORKING METHODS OF THE BUREAU AND THE ISWG


6. (SBU) The Bureau was conceived as a clearing house
to facilitate the work of the ISWG, but with all policy
decisions to be referred to the full ISWG membership.
Yet, given the relative efficiency of the Bureau
mechanism and the good and improving chemistry among its
members, there has been some tendency for the Bureau to
begin to lead, rather than follow, the ISWG. This
process has served the OECD countries (whose Bureau
representatives coordinate smoothly and closely with
their regional group constituents) very well. It has
been more problematical for the African, Asian and Latin
American Bureau members, who have more difficulty
communicating and coordinating with their constituents,
and who therefore risk getting ahead of them.


7. (SBU) ISWG meetings themselves, attended by 30-40
members, have proved to be cumbersome and time-consuming.
Even a largely pre-cooked discussion based on texts
previously agreed in the Bureau can take many hours to
approve. This is a particular concern since the ISWG
requires simultaneous translation in four languages,
costing nearly $15,000 per day. At times, Chairman Perri
seems in little hurry to move discussions forward to
conclusion, but he makes skillful use of side-discussions
during coffee and lunch breaks to cobble together
solutions to potentially contentious issues. At the end
of the day, consensus is achieved, and political
legitimacy established.

EXPERT SUPPORT


8. (U) From the inception of the ISWG, it was
recognized that member governments would need independent
expert advice to carry the IEE forward. This idea was
fleshed out in separate but complementary papers
circulated in January by the European and North American
regional groups. The Bureau shaped the concept into a
paper on "Expert Support to the ISWG" that was presented
for approval at the 23 March meeting. Key features
include:

-- Some experts (Category A) will be invited to provide
specialized inputs at the ISWG preparatory seminar (see
para. 10-12),including the Director General and his
representatives; staff members of other agencies to share
experience of evaluations of multilateral institutions;
external experts on evaluation methodology and good
practice; and external experts and stakeholders to give
outside perspectives on the work of FAO and their
expectations of the evaluation.

-- A Panel of Experts (Category B experts) will be
established to assist the ISWG in preparing the TOR for
the IEE. The panel will identify critical issues;
provide inputs to the ISWG seminar; participate in and
assist the deliberations of the ISWG; draft and present
an approach paper on the scope, coverage and focus of the
evaluation; and present draft TOR.

-- In the Panel of Experts as a whole, the following
competencies and skills will be sought: experience of
complex evaluations, knowledge of evaluation methodology,
knowledge of the UN and international system, knowledge
of FAO's field of work, experience of working in/with
developing countries, communication skills and linguistic
ability, and internationally recognized achievements.

-- Experts will be employed under applicable FAO rules,
and remuneration for Category B experts will be $600 per
day (the going rate for consultants of the desired
caliber) for an estimated 22 days.

-- The selection process will include the following
steps: (1) nominations sent to the ISWG Bureau by the
regional group coordinators, (2) the Bureau assesses,


rates and shortlists the candidates, (3) the ISWG selects
the Expert Panel, and (4) the experts are appointed by
the Chief of PBEE in his capacity as budget holder of the
IEE trust fund.


9. (SBU) The ISWG in March eventually agreed to all the
main points above, but lengthy discussions revealed a
fundamental misunderstanding on the part of some G-77
members about the nature of the Category B experts
sought. These members had come to see the experts as
somehow representing or speaking for the interests of
their respective regions, and they therefore wanted as
many experts as possible (ideally for them, one per
region). Concerned that some regions might not be able
to find suitable experts, these G-77 members also pressed
the Chairman repeatedly to postpone the nomination
deadline. USdel made a forceful argument that, if the
experts are qualified, their region of origin is
immaterial, and that hiring more than 2-3 experts would
be impractical and prohibitively expensive. Moreover, we
noted, if the nomination process lagged the ISWG would be
unable to complete its work by the June 2005 FAO Council.
The discussion seemed to achieve an important
clarification for the G-77 reps present. Nevertheless,
Chairman Perri ended up moving back the deadline,
settling on 20 April. When it was ascertained that this
last deadline was firm, OECD reps reluctantly acquiesced,
recognizing that some delays might be necessary to give
the G-77 a sense of comfort with the process.

ISWG SEMINAR


10. (U) For the 23 March ISWG, the Bureau also prepared
a paper outlining the purpose, scope, and coverage of the
proposed ISWG seminar. In the Bureau's proposal, the
seminar:

-- "should be designed to result in clear and agreed
guidance for the consultant experts from the ISWG, giving
them sufficient information to prepare an approach paper
for ISWG decision on the basis of which IEE TOR will be
drafted,"

-- would "identify and clarify issues and questions on
(a) the purpose, focus and coverage of the evaluation,
and (b) the methodology of the evaluation," and

-- would include four sections: (a) information from
stakeholders on vision for FAO and perceived issues to be
examined through an evaluation, (b) briefings by invitees
on evaluation experiences, (c) briefings by regional
groups on their expectations from and issues for an
evaluation, and (d) discussion between the ISWG and Panel
of Experts on issues and lessons for evaluation approach
and methodology.


11. (SBU) The nature of the seminar was the subject of
much discussion at ISWG and Bureau meetings in February-
March. The final Bureau paper captured the idea, first
proposed in the U.S.-drafted North America group paper,
that the seminar should be tightly focused and aimed at
producing a concrete outcome. Gaining broad acceptance
of this concept required long, patient explanation by the
U.S. and other like-minded countries. African delegates,
in particular, argued for more time and for more seminars
that would educate ISWG members in depth on the role and
work of FAO.


12. (SBU) To streamline the process of getting from the
ISWG to a first draft of the TOR, the U.S., Canada and
Australia initially proposed that the Panel of Experts
attending and facilitating discussions at the ISWG
seminar would take on board the comments of all members,
and turn these directly into draft TOR. European
delegates argued for interposing another step:
immediately after the ISWG seminar, the hired experts
would draft an approach paper that would outline in broad
terms the purpose, coverage and scope of the IEE. The
approach paper would then be taken back to the ISWG for
its approval at a subsequent meeting, and thereafter the
drafting of the TOR would become a relatively
straightforward technical exercise. The Europeans argued
persuasively that a scenario that includes an approach
paper, while introducing an extra step, would in the long
run save time and help maintain consensus. The ISWG
agreed, and adopted this idea on 23 March.


TIMETABLE


13. (U) The ISWG also agreed on the following notional
timetable for the near term:

20 Apr deadline for nominations of experts

04 May ISWG meeting to confirm selection of the
Panel of Experts and seminar speakers

17-18 May Seminar


14. (U) This schedule allows for about one month after
the seminar until the next FAO Council meeting (20-25
June). That an approach paper can be written/approved
and IEE TOR drafted in that time is increasingly
unlikely. The U.S. and other like-minded countries have
repeatedly and strongly urged that the ISWG continue to
strive to meet the June 2005 target, if possible.

FUNDING THE IEE


15. (U) Thus far, voluntary contributions and formal
pledges to the IEE process (from Switzerland, U.S. and
New Zealand) have totaled $88,489. As of the end of
March, about $57,000 has been spent. Estimated future
expenditures in the near term, including the 4 May
meeting of the ISWG, the hiring of 3 experts, and the
seminar, come to about $138,000. Taking into account
existing donor contributions and commitments, another
$106,000 is urgently needed to continue the ISWG's work.


16. (SBU) The USG demarche to potential donor capitals
(ref E) has helped mobilize support for the IEE. A
letter to all FAO members from Aziz Mekouar, Independent
Chair of the FAO Council, which went out in late March,
also helped generate interest. U.S. Mission has learned
that the following countries are poised to make pledges
or contributions to the IEE startup in the near term:
Canada, Finland, UK, and possibly Sweden. Many of these
contributions would be on the order of the U.S. $25,000
startup pledge. Other potential donors say they are
likely to contribute, but may not make a final decision
for several months (Italy),or plan to wait and see that
the TOR are satisfactory before making a commitment
(Germany, Belgium). Still others are still considering
whether or when to contribute (Netherlands, Spain).

COMMENT


17. (SBU) Progress on the IEE has been significant, and
it has been particularly noteworthy that consensus has
been maintained among the entire ISWG membership.
Maintaining broad buy-in and support has required steady,
patient, persuasive diplomacy. We have sought to push
the process as much as we can, but recognize that too
much pressure could be counterproductive. Although the
tone and spirit in the Bureau and the ISWG have remained
cooperative and positive, it is clear that some members,
particularly among African and some other Q
delegations, continue to feel somewhat threatened by the
complexity of the IEE. Therefore, although the pace of
progress has been somewhat slower than we had hoped, the
added time has allowed us to retain and build support for
the IEE. Such buy-in is essential if the IEE is to be
completed and its recommendations accepted and adopted.

CLEVERLEY


NNNN
2005ROME01123 - Classification: UNCLASSIFIED