Identifier
Created
Classification
Origin
05ROME2083
2005-06-17 08:31:00
UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Embassy Rome
Cable title:  

INDEPENDENT EXTERNAL EVALUATION OF FAO:

Tags:  AORC EAGR EAID KUNR FAO 
pdf how-to read a cable
This record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available.

170831Z Jun 05
UNCLAS ROME 002083 

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: INDEPENDENT EXTERNAL EVALUATION OF FAO:
JUNE 2005 UPDATE

REF: (A) ROME 0239, (B) ROME 0327

(C) ROME 1123, (D) ROME 2082

Sensitive but unclassified - please handle accordingly.

UNCLAS ROME 002083

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: INDEPENDENT EXTERNAL EVALUATION OF FAO:
JUNE 2005 UPDATE

REF: (A) ROME 0239, (B) ROME 0327

(C) ROME 1123, (D) ROME 2082

Sensitive but unclassified - please handle accordingly.


1. (U) Summary: The Intersessional Working Group
(ISWG) on the Independent External Evaluation (IEE) of
FAO has reached broad consensus on the scope and
objectives of the proposed evaluation. Substantive work
by two hired consultants on an approach paper outlining
the IEE is underway. The ISWG will not complete its
mandate in time for the 128th FAO Council (20-25 June) as
the USG and other major donors had hoped initially; it
will only present a progress report then. The ISWG
remains on track, however, to meet the deadline for
presentation of its final recommendations to the 129th
Council (16-18 November). The inclusive, transparent and
generally harmonious ISWG process has thus far yielded
good results from the USG perspective, but crucial
details of the terms of reference (TOR) of the IEE and
the governance and management of the evaluation remain to
be worked out. Barring unforeseen hitches, ISWG
approval of the approach paper outlining the TOR is
expected before the end of September. End summary.


2. (U) This is the second of two reports on the IEE.
Part I (ref D) covers broad policy issues, including UN
reform, and funding needs. The present report provides a
more detailed overview of the work of the ISWG thus far
and the plan of work through September 2005.

PROGRESS TO DATE


3. (U) The IEE is potentially the centerpiece of an
initiative by the U.S. and numerous partners to promote
reform of FAO (ref D). As described in refs A and C, the
ISWG met several times in January-March 2005 to develop a
procedure for devising draft terms of reference (TOR) for
the IEE. It was agreed during this period that the ISWG
would hire several independent experts/consultants who
would meet with ISWG members in a 2-day seminar on the
IEE, and who would then draw on the ISWG's instructions
to prepare an approach paper laying out the major
features of the proposed evaluation. The ISWG would
discuss and if needed modify the approach paper, which

the consultants would then use as the basis for preparing
the draft TOR.


4. (U) During April-May, the ISWG set the above-
described process in motion. Selection criteria for the
experts were agreed upon. Two experts were hired in mid
May: Horst Breier (Germany) and Dunstan Spencer (Sierra
Leone). A checklist of IEE issues and questions for the
seminar was devised. The seminar took place on 17-18
May, with 68 countries and the EC participating. It
featured presentations by various stakeholders (the FAO
Secretariat, the UN Secretariat, civil society, private

SIPDIS
sector) and presentations by those involved in prior
evaluations of FAO, the World Food Program (WFP),and the
International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD).
Permreps speaking for each of the seven regional groups
outlined their expectations of the aims and scope of the
IEE. There was a remarkable convergence of views: the
IEE should be comprehensive; it should cover impact,
governance and management; its conclusions should inform
Council planned midterm discussions of the FAO Strategic
Framework. The two consultants came away from the
discussion with fairly clear and consistent instructions
from the ISWG on how to proceed with the drafting of the
approach paper. They are now at work.

PLANS FOR THE 128th COUNCIL


5. (U) The ISWG met on 7 June to finalize its
preparations for the 128th Council. Members adopted a
progress report to the Council that reviews the work
completed by the ISWG thus far and its continuing
activities (as outlined in para 2-4 above). In the
report, the ISWG recommends two actions by the 128th
Council to ensure rapid start-up of the IEE once it has
been approved at the 129th Council: (1) authorizing the
ISWG to make initial arrangements to facilitate the
selection of the evaluators and other advisors or experts
deemed necessary, and (2) instructing the FAO Secretariat
to establish a multilateral trust fund for the IEE (as a
successor to the current trust fund, which is designated


only for the preparatory work).


6. (SBU) At their last meeting, ISWG participants said
they did not anticipate major difficulties at the 128th
Council, given that there is substantial overlap between
the membership of the ISWG and the membership of the
Council. That said, all were mindful that the agenda
item on the IEE (Item 14) would have to be managed
carefully. Some delegates from capitals might not be
fully in sync with their Rome-based permreps, and a
plenary discussion could quickly spin out of control if a
single delegate were to make an incautious remark,
triggering a potentially messy and unpredictable debate
on the floor. ISWG Chairman Flavio Perri (Brazil) will
discuss options for handling this agenda item with the
Council's Independent Chairman, Aziz Mekouar (Morocco).
Among the alternatives would be (1) seeking approval of
the ISWG report and its recommendations by acclamation
prior to opening debate, or (2) inviting only one
representative from each regional group to speak before
approval of the report.


7. (U) U.S. Mission believes that hearing from a cross
section of Council members on Agenda Item 14 would be
valuable, provided that such a discussion is managed so
that adoption of the ISWG report is not jeopardized. The
Council discussion also provides an opportunity to
encourage donor support for the IEE (see below); ISWG
Chairman Perri said he would make such an appeal during
his oral presentation of the report.

NEXT STEPS AFTER 128TH COUNCIL


8. (U) The ISWG schedule slipped somewhat in early June
due to the temporary illness of one of the consultants.
A preliminary draft of the approach paper now is
scheduled to be circulated o/a 7-8 July. Shortly
thereafter, the ISWG Bureau will meet to discuss it.
ISWG members will be able to submit written comments
until the middle of July. The consultants will then work
through the summer to prepare a revised approach paper
and a first draft of the TOR, for consideration by the
ISWG Bureau on 12 September and the full ISWG on 16
September. The ISWG also will need to start
deliberations on the governance and oversight mechanisms
for the IEE during the summer months.

COMMENT


9. (SBU) The IEE project has brought together a diverse
collection of FAO members in a new sense of shared
purpose. This has been a significant achievement in an
organization where the atmosphere of governing body
meetings is not infrequently marred by sharp political
differences, particularly between North and South. The
ISWG process has proceeded smoothly and relatively
harmoniously thus far, but it has required intense
diplomatic activity by the USG and other supporters of
the IEE concept (from both developed and developing
countries) to keep the work on track. For instance:

-- The selection of the consultants (which we saw as
largely a technical exercise to be driven by objective
selection criteria) took on an intensely political
dimension, with some delegations intent on ensuring that
their own region would be represented. We had to expend
much effort explaining that the provenance of the
consultants was irrelevant if professional criteria
prevailed.

-- Some members expressed concern that an IEE funded by
voluntary contributions risked being influenced unduly by
the principal donors. These critics called for a blind
trust fund (which would in fact violate FAO rules on
financial transparency),and expressed horror that donors
might want to wait until the TOR were finalized before
committing additional funds to the IEE. It took
considerable effort to reinforce the point that who pays
for the IEE is not an issue if the TOR are negotiated
openly, agreed collectively, and implemented
professionally.

-- The ISWG Chairman, upon discovering recently that the
hired consultants had scheduled meetings with various
permreps and members of the Secretariat of their own
choosing and without first notifying the ISWG Bureau,


attempted briefly to assert control over who the
consultants could meet, thereby almost triggering their
resignation. We and other like-minded delegations had to
counsel restraint. We explained that the established
process for review of the approach paper and the TOR
would ensure that the ISWG exercised appropriate control
over the direction and content of the IEE, while
preserving the independence and professional integrity of
the consultants.


10. (SBU) In each of the above-cited examples, the USG
and our allies prevailed; but these and other issues of
this type cropped up regularly, and it took time to solve
each of them. Progress on the approach paper and TOR has
therefore been slower than we initially envisioned. We
are convinced, however, that taking the time to keep
everyone on board during the design phase of the IEE will
help smooth our path later when we get to the conduct of
the evaluation and the implementation of its
recommendations.

HALL


NNNN
2005ROME02083 - Classification: UNCLASSIFIED