UN REFORM AND THE FAO INDEPENDENT EXTERNAL

UNCLAS ROME 002082

SIPDIS


SENSITIVE

STATE FOR IO DAS MILLER, IO/EDA, IO/S
USDA FOR FAS/ICD

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

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: AORC EAGR EAID KUNR FAO
SUBJECT: UN REFORM AND THE FAO INDEPENDENT EXTERNAL
EVALUATION

REF: (A) 04 ROME 4624, (B) 04 ROME 4297,
(C) ROME 0239, (D) ROME 0327
(E) STATE 025999 (F) ROME 1123

Sensitive but unclassified - please handle accordingly.

--------------
Summary
--------------


1. (SBU) If properly executed, the new initiative for
an Independent External Evaluation (IEE) of FAO will
produce a mechanism through which we can once and for all
begin restructuring an organization that over time has
become increasingly unwieldy and out of sync with the
aspirations of major contributor and beneficiary members,
alike. It is a major reform initiative -- one, we are
told, that has never been carried out with such a broad
scope within the UN system. The United States plays a
leading role in the IEE process at FAO, and both G77 and
OECD permreps are supportive of our leadership. There is
extensive buy-in, with an assortment of countries ranging
from Pakistan and Iraq, to Zimbabwe, Tanzania, and Brazil
joining the Canadians and Europeans to all play a
productive part in the dialogue. Members of the
Secretariat are already exerting a measured but

SIPDIS
supportive role in the process.


2. (SBU) We expect to have IEE terms of reference (TOR)
ready for member state consideration by mid-summer, with
an eye towards finalizing them and initiating the process
to select evaluators by the end of the year. We expect
the November 2005 Council to adopt a report and to
formally launch the evaluative process.


3. (U) This is part I of two cables on the IEE. The
second will provide a more detailed update on the
progress of the ISWG and address outstanding issues as we
now see them.

End Summary.

--------------
Reform Centerpiece
--------------


4. (SBU) The Independent External Evaluation, if
implemented as envisioned, could be the centerpiece of
U.S. efforts to reform, strengthen and improve FAO. The
status quo is less than acceptable from our point of
view: the continuation of a rather mediocre Director
General for a third term, the sprawling, unfocused nature
of the institution, the lack of fundamental reforms, and
the polarized impasse among member states on priorities
all argue for a new approach leading to streamlining and
prioritization at FAO. In seizing this opportunity, we
played the leadership role in the adoption of the IEE
concept at the 127th Council. We have also taken an up-
front position in promoting the progress made thus far in
the Intersessional Working Group (ISWG) that has been
working on TOR over the spring. It came as a surprise to
find that many other permanent delegations from among
both G77 and OECD groupings share most or all the
concerns outlined above. They are now working closely
with us, often acknowledging the important leadership
role the U.S. is playing in moving the process forward.


5. (U) Many of these partners have contributed to or
are now contributing to funding, as seen from the
following list of contributions to the ISWG (in UQ:

Switzerland 43,000
USA 25,000
New Zealand 20,000
UK 27,000
Finland 20,000
Canada 24,000
Sweden 34,000
Norway 20,000

*Italy has available $100,000 now for both the ISWG and
IEE processes. The Netherlands has just announced a
meaningful contribution. Canada and the UK have set
aside funds of equivalent size to the $225,000 that the
U.S. still has earmarked for the IEE.



6. (SBU) The United States is not the largest donor on
the list, although other members realize we have
additional funds available for contributing to the IEE
once we are satisfied with the TOR concepts.
Nevertheless, the level of US participation will
condition eventual levels of contributions. No one yet
appears to be holding us to covering 22% of the overall
contribution (our share of the assessed budget),but it
is clear that the size of additional contributions will
be determined with reference to that of the U.S. Some
G77 countries are beginning to commit resources, such as
Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, and we may wish to attempt once
again to get G77 contributions via a formal demarche made
in capitals.


7. (U) In the past six months the ISWG has reached
broad consensus on the scope and objectives of the
proposed evaluation, with substantive work by two hired
consultants underway on an approach paper outlining the
IEE. The inclusive, transparent and generally harmonious
ISWG process has thus far yielded good results from the
USG perspective, but progress has been slower than we had
hoped. Crucial details of the TOR of the IEE and the
governance and management of the evaluation remain to be
worked out, but there is a process, with deadlines, in
place that aims to deliver a decision on TOR during
September.

--------------
Next Steps
--------------


8. (SBU) The ISWG will seek from the June 2005 Council
some extra authorities to further expedite selection of
evaluators, once the TOR are agreed. The real bottleneck
preventing an expeditious launch of the actual
evaluation, however, could be the lack of sufficient
funding on time to allow contracts (which must be backed
with funds in the bank) to be signed. Given that
countries operate on different fiscal years, the attempt
to gather the necessary funds promptly will be complex.
For example, a commitment to a large contribution on the
UK's part, might not produce available funding until
April 1, 2006. We would like to contract with the
evaluation team in January 2006 in order not to lose
further time. Therefore, in a Geneva Group meeting held
June 13, we emphasized the need for member states to work
with capitals to have funding available in Rome by the
end of CY 2005. They took this on board, but we expect
the process to require continued follow-through.


9. (SBU) The price of as extensive an evaluation as we
would like may be greater than we expected. There seems
to be general agreement among regional groups that an
evaluation should look at impact, governance, and
management practices within the organization. First
estimates suggest that this may cost as much as $4 to
5 million. A concept paper to be ready by the end of
June should greatly clarify the cost. If this appears a
valid estimate, the U.S. will need to at least double its
now anticipated $250,000 contribution. A total
commitment of $500,000 - $750,000 would still remain less
than our normal share (22%) of overall FAO assessed
contributions. It can be seen that the initial response
from countries, even smaller ones, has been generous so
far, in relative terms.

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


10. (SBU) The IEE is the best and virtually only thing
we have going that offers hope of fundamental
improvements in the FAO. The irony for those working
closely with the organization is that FAO is full of good
people who work hard and who harbor strong expertise and
have good ideas. But with another at least six years of
its current micromanaging Director General, next year's
loss of some very capable Assistant Directors General,
and the prospect that the new appointees may be more
under the DG's thumb than ever before, the likelihood
that the organization will implement needed reforms on
its own initiative is low. The IEE will force a reform
process especially if it continues to enjoy broad based
member buy-in.



11. (SBU) The U.S. will need to continue to exert
leadership to ensure a successful IEE. This leadership
will entail:

(1) carefully articulated diplomatic efforts to prevent
our fundamentally different view on the overall FAO
budget from polarizing the IEE process, itself;

(2) keeping the IEE discussion within the rhetorical
framework of "program" instead of "budget" -- i.e., our
statements should not allow the IEE process to produce
any budget expectations one way or the other, but rather
the hope of eventually a more effective and well-
resourced core program;

(3) a continued effort to maintain a process dialogue
with influential G77 and OECD group permreps; and

(4) a US contribution of funds commensurate with the
USG's more general role in the organization.

Hall


NNNN
2005ROME02082 - Classification: UNCLASSIFIED