DONORS ENGAGE ON L'AQUILA FOOD SECURITY COMMITMENTS

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 03 BRUSSELS 001406 SIPDIS NSC FOR CPRATT; USAID FOR JHILL AND SBRADLEY; USUN ROME FOR HSPANOS. E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: EAID EAGR ETRD SOCI SUBJECT: DONORS ENGAGE ON L'AQUILA FOOD SECURITY COMMITMENTS BRUSSELS 00001406 001.2 OF 003 ¶1. (SBU) SUMMARY: On October 7, 2009, the European Commission's (EC) Directorate General for Development (DEV) and USAID hosted a meeting in Brussels to further operationalize donor commitments from the July 8-10 L'Aquila meeting on Food Security. The meeting sought to build on prior discussions to utilize country led approaches to advance on-going and future plans related to L'Aquila commitments and coordinate efforts to increase efficiency and impact at the field level. Representatives from France, Germany, United Kingdom (UK),Sweden, Italy, Netherlands, Spain, Canada, the World Bank, and from United Nations agencies (the World Food Program, Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO),International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD),and High Level Task Force (HLTF)) participated in addition to DG Development and USAID. END SUMMARY ¶2. (SBU) Donors and participants expressed their support for the L'Aquila principles and joint statement, which contains a number of commitments. They also noted agreement on the outcome statement from the September New York food security event. Co-chairs from the September 14-15 Washington Road from L'Aquila food security meetings will produce a summary of the commitments in the joint statement. This effort will support dialogue about processes best suited to discuss and coordinate the various commitments. ¶3. (SBU) Following a brief synopsis of meetings in Washington on September 14-15, DEV and USAID led the meeting with an effort to gain clarity on L'Aquila commitments. The discussion delved into L'Aquila pledges to better understand each donor's operating assumptions and frameworks for delivering assistance on the ground. Initially donors reiterated pledges and described the composition and direction of their assistance. In most cases, the financing pledges made at L'Aquila reflect an increase in funding. However, there were specific concerns, such as the UK and EC double counting some part of their funding. Also, the exercise highlighted differing approaches taken regarding the timeline for counting assistance, in part because of the different fiscal years used. ¶4. (SBU) Throughout the discussion DEV and USAID chairs highlighted the need to support country led approaches and 
investment strategies. They also noted the importance of clarification and transparency on operations. The discussion revealed a number of areas for future attention. The UK counted its commitments from 2010-2012 and included funding allocated to EC budget lines. The UK and France expressed displeasure at efforts to re-visit or clarify prior pledges. France also expressed concern over the fact that there was only coordinating on these pledges, because some assistance may fall outside L' Aquila's scope and they wanted flexibility to include other types of assistance. Additionally, the type of assistance varied by donor, with some including only agriculture development funding, while others included infrastructure and safety nets. The ratio of loans to grants also varied among the donors. ¶5. (SBU) A number of donors provided some level of detail on the direction for their planned assistance. France noted its regional focus on West African countries. The UK and EC will have a primary focus on Sub-Saharan Africa. The UK also expressed support for utilizing safety net programs. Germany plans to devote all of its funding to sustainable and rural agriculture development. Sweden will have a rural development focus with half of its funds going to multilaterals, mostly for support to Southern Africa. NGOs, multilaterals, the private sector, and bilateral partners will each receive roughly one quarter of the Netherlands' funds. Also, the Netherlands and Italy noted difficulty in maintaining funding levels given their budgetary climates. Italy will target primarily Turkey and the Middle East, with added focus on Iraq and Lebanon. The EC produced a matrix showing the financing by type of funding and corresponding year. Donors agreed to produce a summary for planned assistance related to L'Aquila pledges within two weeks. The reports will contain funding by year, account, loans vs. grant, and will footnote any special issues. The reports should help to clarify questions raised during the meeting regarding whether to count allocated or disbursed funds; whether to include cross-cutting sectors such as climate change and nutrition; the balance of funding regarding partners, UN agencies or non-governmental organizations; and BRUSSELS 00001406 002.2 OF 003 country versus regional approaches. ¶6. (SBU) Participants recognized that the focus should be on moving the collective agenda forward at the country level. The HLhere are couwould ````l@dible country process. Participants listed a number of criteria foQ advancing country led processes: strategy (riorities and targets); investment plan and pograms; coordination mechanism; policy roadmap; monitoring and evaluation and mutual accountability framework; and a capacity building plan. Donors cited joint efforts supporting Qmbrella programs with flexible architectures for funding that support the common agenda and plan (from bilateral, multilateral, and host country funding). The HLTF offered to provide examples to illustrate how and where this approach has worked. ¶8. (SBU) As possible examples for future coordination efforts, the EC presented findings from implementation of their Food Facility. They believe a number of lessons learned are relevant, including coordination with partners upstream at the onset of prioritizing resources to facilitate speed of implementation. The World Bank engaged a number of times to highlight its multi-donor trust fund, which participants agreed is one of the mechanisms donors will utilize. The FAO highlighted Ethiopia's multi-donor trust fund terms of reference that set out a positive structure for coordination. Under that framework participants meet regularly with government officials. The meeting ran out of time without holding a discussion on support in Latin America and Asia and within sub-regional. ¶9. (SBU) David Nabarro from the HLTF highlighted the importance of allocating funding to countries that work to build country strategies and investments plans in a transparent way, such as Rwanda. Nabarro noted Rwanda independently produced a plan, which no donors funded or aided, but nonetheless produced gains in agricultural development for Rwanda. He also pointed to the need for quick actions instead of quick wins, which are difficult to produce. Nabarro believes the CAADP guidelines are an important model for donors moving forward. He also noted the need for a mechanism to support communication on issues and actions items. ¶10. (SBU) The donor group agreed it should continue to meet on a regular basis to jointly shape an implementation plan for the L'Aquila financial commitments on agriculture and food security. A follow up meeting was proposed for November, possibly around the Rome Summit on Food Security. Additionally, the group recognized the importance of collectively attending the CAADP Partnership Platform in Abuja. Further, participants should be prepared to clarify their support for country processes unfolding in Africa under CAADP. In particular, support for the next steps of the investment plan and program development to implement the CAADP strategies. As a backdrop, participants agreed recent meetings in Addis Ababa were productive. The UK noted the importance of political involvement in the Addis meetings, which helps field and HQ prioritization. ¶11. (SBU) CONCLUSION: The meeting highlighted a number of challenges for participants. Primary among them is the need to clarify pledges and agree on accepted timelines and BRUSSELS 00001406 003.2 OF 003 program areas. While there is acceptance of the CAADP process, more needs to be done to rationalize this approach with some members. Ultimately, donors are eager to increase collaboration and coordination of assistance on the ground, but are sensitive to establish details covering their pledges. ¶12. (SBU) In sum, a number of next steps emerged from the meeting: --Identify a date and schedule for follow up meetings, with the Rome Food Summit presenting a nice opportunity to come together again. --Clarify upcoming events (London and Abuja meetings, Rome Food Summit with associated Civil Society and Private Sector meetings, and the World Bank instrument for a consultative process noted). --HLTF to identify meetings outside Africa. --HLTF and FAO to update country level assessments; map programs in regions; assess country coordination; suggest regional processes outside of Africa; and confidentially disseminate to attendees. --EC to compile reports and send to attendees. --Donors to prepare a summary list of commitments following a review of the L'Aquila joint statement. --Donors to submit report to the EC based on their example detailing L'Aquila pledge. --Donors to respond to the HLTF and the multilateral institutions to clarify the support that the donors would like in helping to advance the country and regional led processes. ¶13. (U) USAID Senior Agricultural Advisor Jeff Hill and State Department Special Assistant Marisa Plowden cleared on this cable. MURRAY .