INDEPENDENT EXTERNAL EVALUATION OF FAO:

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