NORWAY: FOOD SECURITY MOVED UP AGENDA DUE TO U.S.

C O N F I D E N T I A L OSLO 000646

SIPDIS

FOR EEB/TPP/MTAA/ABT (ANN RYAN),OFFICE OF THE COUNSELOR
(MARISA PLOWDEN),IO (ROBERT HAGEN AND JOHN TUMINARO)

E.O. 12958: DECL: 10/21/2019
TAGS: EAGR EAID ETRD PREL NO
SUBJECT: NORWAY: FOOD SECURITY MOVED UP AGENDA DUE TO U.S.
INITIATIVE

REF: STATE 107298

Classified By: Acting Deputy Chief of Mission Cherrie Daniels for reaso
ns 1.4(b) and (d)


1. (C) Summary: The Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs
(MFA) responded positively to our initiative on food
security, while being wary about potentially developing new
institutions or trust funds to address the issue, and
expressing curiosity about how we would address challenges of
"country-led" planning. Directly in response to our
initiative, the MFA Development Section is conducting an
internal review to clarify Norway's policy on food security.
The Norwegians are very likely to support reftel's proposal
at the November 16 World Food Security Summit, but they would
like to make sure that any action plans on food security put
appropriate emphasis on the importance of fisheries. End
summary.

OUR INITIATIVE RAISES THE PROFILE
OF FOOD SECURITY IN THE MFA
--------------


2. (C) Poloff met with Mette Masst, Senior Advisor in the
Development Section of the MFA. Masst stated that she has
been designated as contact person in the MFA on food
security, largely in response to the raised profile of the
issue due to the U.S. initiative. Moreover, the Minister of
Environment and International Development, Erik Solheim, has
requested an internal review of Norwegian food security
policy, which Masst is currently drafting. In Norway,
development policy is controlled through the MFA. There is
no separate "development ministry," as such, in Norway,
although there is a minister (Solheim) who has that as one of
his portfolios. Therefore, Foreign Minister Stoere and
Environment and Development Minister Solheim both work
through the MFA on international development issues.
(Minister Solheim also has a separate Environment Ministry).


3. (C) Masst said that one of the reasons the internal paper
was commissioned is that Minister Solheim's emphasis has been
somewhat different than prior MFA policy. Solheim, Masst
said, has "adamantly" emphasized achieving gains in
agricultural productivity (i.e. yields per acre) as opposed
to more general food infrastructure issues such as land
rights which the MFA has prioritized for some time. Masst
emphasized that there was no "contradiction" between these
priorities. She also said that, as a small country, Norway
attempts to engage in bilateral development aid only where it
has expertise to contribute, and agricultural development and
food security is not currently perceived to be one of those
areas. Therefore, she expected Norway's contributions in
this area to be to multilateral institutions.


4. (C) In response to our letter and proposal (which were
also delivered directly to the office of Foreign Minister
Stoere),the Consultation Document, and reftel talking
points, Masst had generally positive comments. She stated
that Norway commends not just the substance of our
initiative, but the way it has been structured, the way it
has been rolled out consultatively (including the
letter/demarche itself),and specifically its emphasis on
country-led plans. She pronounced our approach consistent
with Norwegian values. She said she fully expects to the
proposal to be supported by Norway as a document that informs
the World Food Security summit declaration at the Food and
Agriculture Organization (FAO) meeting in Rome November 16-18.

AREAS OF CONCERN
--------------


5. (C) Skeptical of new institutions: While Masst applauded
our willingness to work through multilateral institutions,
she said Norway would be "skeptical" of new trust funds, or
institutions, used to finance or implement food security
initiatives. New institutions, she said, take many years to
set up (she mentioned the Global Fund to fight AIDS,
Tuberculosis and Malaria as an example) and there is an
inevitable process of bureaucratization. Norway would prefer
to work through existing multilateral institutions like the
FAO, she advised.


6. (C) Worries about "country-led" programs: Stating it was
a "delicate issue" and further stating that she "felt a
little odd" saying it to the USG, Masst said that while
Norway certainly approved of country-led programs as a matter
of development philosophy, she questioned their track record

of efficacy. Specifically, she said that African governments
have failed in developing their agriculture sectors, and most
"capacity building" has confined itself to the ministries,
bureaucrats, and motorpools in the capitals, with little
impact on actual farmers, and without building the enormous
infrastructures needed to increase agricultural productivity.
She said she knew we were aware of these obstacles -- and
spoke positively of the results orientation of the Millennium
Challenge Corporation -- but stated she was simply wondering
how our initiative would address this challenge inherent in
extolling country-led processes. These processes, she
commented, have historically meant inefficient state control
of research and extension programs. She said establishing
proper incentives for the private sector must be a crucial
part of effective agricultural development.


7. (C) Fisheries: Masst noted that in the September 26
meeting in New York, one participant raised the issue of
whether fishery management was going to be included as a key
aspect of food security. Masst commented that while the U.S.
mentioned it in our talking points in the context of other
environmental concerns, the issue did not have a prominent
place in our consultation document. Given the number of
people who make their livelihoods from or derive their
protein from the sea, and given also the alarming decline in
fish stocks, fisheries should be an important part of any
global food security conversation.


8. (C) Investment Plan Countries: Masst said that while the
needs of "Pre-Investment Plan" countries are self-evident,
one of the questions which occurred to her in reading the
Consultation Document is what sort of large scale investments
"Investment Plan countries" would receive: private-sector
investments, or something like traditional development aid.
She understood that our Consultation Document was
preliminary, but said that this would be one of the big
questions that would need to be addressed.


9. (C) Attendance on November 16: Although currently not
finalized, the Norwegian plan is to send Environment and
Development Minister Solheim to Rome for the conference, but
Masst worried that "several neighboring countries" would only
send their ministers of agriculture -- something Masst found
inappropriate, due to their presumed domestic rather than
international or development focus.
HEG