Identifier
Created
Classification
Origin
09UNROME41
2009-06-24 14:44:00
UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
UN Rome
Cable title:  

COMMITTEE ON WORLD FOOD SECURITY (CFS): REFORM PROCESS

Tags:  PREL EAID EAGR FAO UN 
pdf how-to read a cable
VZCZCXRO7973
OO RUEHRN
DE RUEHRN #0041/01 1751444
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
O R 241444Z JUN 09
FM USMISSION UN ROME
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 1107
INFO RUEHC/USAID WASHDC
RUEHRC/USDA FAS WASHDC
RUEATRS/DEPT OF TREASURY WASHINGTON DC
RHEHAAA/NSC WASHINGTON DC
RUCNDT/USMISSION USUN NEW YORK 0332
RUEHGV/USMISSION GENEVA 0254
RUEHBS/USEU BRUSSELS 0208
RUEHUNV/USMISSION UNVIE VIENNA 0034
RUEHRO/AMEMBASSY ROME 0468
RUEHRN/USMISSION UN ROME 1181
UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 03 UN ROME 000041 

SENSITIVE
SIPDIS

USDA FOR DOUVELIS, TREASURY FOR L.MORRIS, NSC FOR C.PRATT

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: PREL EAID EAGR FAO UN
SUBJECT: COMMITTEE ON WORLD FOOD SECURITY (CFS): REFORM PROCESS
UNDERWAY, MOSTLY AT IDEOLOGICAL LEVEL

REF: USUN 9

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 03 UN ROME 000041

SENSITIVE
SIPDIS

USDA FOR DOUVELIS, TREASURY FOR L.MORRIS, NSC FOR C.PRATT

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: PREL EAID EAGR FAO UN
SUBJECT: COMMITTEE ON WORLD FOOD SECURITY (CFS): REFORM PROCESS
UNDERWAY, MOSTLY AT IDEOLOGICAL LEVEL

REF: USUN 9


1. (U) This cable is sensitive but unclassified. Not for
internet distribution or dissemination outside USG channels.

Summary:
--------------


2. (U) Within the UN's Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO),
efforts are well under way to reform the Committee on World Food
Security (CFS),a committee created in the 1970s with the goal
of having it serve as a convergence point for the UN system to
address agriculture and food security issues. Following last
October's CFS session, members agreed that the committee had not
lived up to its potential or expectations, and major reforms
were necessary to assure its future relevance. A five-member
Bureau, under the leadership of the Permanent Representative of
Argentina, has been leading debate on the issue, and convened
four working groups to address various aspects of the intended
reform. Those working groups, the Bureau, CFS members, and
others met all day on June 23 to review progress and debate
relevant issues.

The CFS "Contact Group"
--------------


3. (U) To assist with the reform process, the CFS Bureau
created a "Contact Group" composed of member states, UN/Bretton
Woods Institution representatives and other international
agencies (i.e., Bioversity International),and civil society
organizations. Present at the June 23 meetings were David
Nabarro, Coordinator of the UN High Level Task Force Secretariat
(HLTF/S),WFP, IFAD, Bioversity, World Bank, numerous member
states, and a variety of NGO representatives. The CFS Bureau
also created four "Working Groups" to contribute to the reform
process, assisted by "facilitators" from FAO. The groups are:
WG I, "Role and Vision" of a revitalized CFS, coordinated by
Sudan; WG II, "Membership and Decision-taking," coordinated by
Colombia; WG III, "Mechanisms and Procedures," coordinated by
Switzerland; and, WG IV, coordinated by the U.S. Each group met
separately during the day to prepare for an evening plenary
session. This work is expected to culminate with a final paper
from the CFS Bureau on its reform proposals, for delivery at
October's CFS session in Rome.

Working Group I - Role and Vision

--------------


4. (U) From the start of the reform process, members have been
unified in saying that the current CFS has failed to become
relevant or influential. A revitalized CFS, they insist, should
be inclusive, open to all major stakeholders such as UN HLTF
members, NGO/CSO reps, small farmers' associations, producer
organizations, private sector, and philanthropies. Some argue
(e.g., France and G-77 leaders) that CFS should serve as a home
for the emerging "Global Partnership on Agriculture and Food
Security" (or, GPAFS). Members generally supported the vision
outlined in a zero-draft document prepared by the Secretariat
following consultations with the CFS Contact Group - that is,
"to eliminate hunger and achieve food security for all." Many
participants (led by Brazil) insisted that the "full realization
of the Right to Food" be included as a central theme for the
CFS. Other proposed that CFS serve as a policy convergence
platform which could, among other things, promote implementation
of the Voluntary Guidelines on the Right to Food.


5. (SBU) Participants expressed support that the CFS be a
"platform" or "space" for policy convergence informed by expert
advice and lessons learned from past FAO attempts like that of
the World Food Council. Other principal roles suggested
included coordination and alignment among agencies, donors, and
governments, especially regarding more efficient use of existing
resources. There was general (though not unanimous) sentiment
that CFS would not serve as a forum for financial "pledging."
Future discussions of Working Group I will consider ways to
prioritize an agenda for CFS, perhaps through a phased approach
and implementation of an as-yet undefined results-based
framework. During the plenary, Brazil and several NGOs objected
to a summary document provided by the group's coordinator -
criticizing the lack of attention to points they had made in
working group meetings (Comment: Many of the U.S. talking

UN ROME 00000041 002 OF 003


points from the working group were well-represented in the
summary, but may now be watered down to satisfy the G-77. End
comment.)

Working Group II- Rights for Non-voting Members?
--------------


6. (U) Working Group II reached consensus on membership, but
needed more clarification on the decision-making process. The
zero draft proposed three alternatives for membership
composition. The first option maintains the status quo of full
membership for states and observer status for all other
stakeholders. The second option allows for full participation
of a broad array of stakeholders, including NGOs, farmers'
organizations, private foundations, research institutions,
people's organizations representing vulnerable groups (youth,
rural women, urban poor, indigenous),and the private sector,
while maintaining the exclusive right to vote for governments.
The third option in which some non-state stakeholders would have
equal membership, including voting rights, received some support
from Northern European delegates as well as the NGOs
International Planning Committee for Food Sovereignty (IPC) and
Via Campesina. The consensus at the conclusion of Working Group
II settled on option two, although some representatives
challenged this during the evening plenary session. Nabarro
encouraged the Chair to invite participation from the private
sector as well as relevant trade bodies like the WTO and UNCTAD,
a point that had been stressed earlier by the U.S. The working
group will meet again on July 23 to review an updated draft on
membership elements.

Working Group III - More Details Needed on Rules and Procedures
--------------


7. (U) According to the zero draft prepared by the Secretariat,
Working Group III was charged with defining the new procedural,
administrative, financial, and legal elements of a reformed CFS.
Group III found its work hindered by insufficient communication
of the conclusions reached by Working Groups I and II, a problem
faced by all groups because discussions took place
simultaneously. Members agreed that CFS is a process as opposed
to an event, and that it must be "living and inclusive,"
responding to food security issues as they arise, not annually
in formal sessions. From the HLTF perspective, Nabarro opined
that the reform process appeared to be too rushed and ambitious
to make an artificial October 2009 deadline. He proposed a
phased-in approach whereby WGs would focus on putting into place
activities that would assist certain stakeholders in the
short-term, followed by a remodelling two-three years later. In
addition to the Rome-based food agencies, Nabarro, Australia and
the U.S. advocated for a strong, joint secretariat that includes
stakeholders such as the UN Secretariat, IFIs and
trade/health/human rights organizations. So as to avoid the
perception that CFS is FAO-centric, the U.S. went even further
by suggesting that CFS report to a larger body (e.g., UNGA)
rather than to FAO Conference as proposed in the zero draft.
The working group will meet again on July 8 to discuss the
elements in more detail following coordination with the other
working groups.


Working Group IV - Expert Panel Looking Likely
--------------


8. (U) A list of substantive questions had been supplied to
members on the expected role, structure, governance, selection
process, and funding for the proposed High Level Panel of
Experts (HLPE),WG IV members spoke mostly in generalities. To
the questions of some who questioned why this panel was
necessary, the Secretariat clarified that expert panels existed
at FAO, but none in the multi-disciplinary area of food
security. Members agreed that a HLPE could add value to the
work of CFS and others as a "public good." Similarly, members
stressed that any HLPE should be informed by experiences at the
ground level, and therefore be flexible and responsive to the
needs of the poor and hungry. Some members suggested that the
role of the HLPE would be to serve as the scientific basis by
which CFS could debate and make policy recommendations. Several
members indicated their preference for the use of the word
"network" rather than panel.

UN ROME 00000041 003 OF 003




9. (U) In order for an expert panel attached to CFS to have
credibility, some members suggested the HLPE start small and
subsequently enlarge over time. No conclusion was reached on
the question of sequencing, with some members supporting the
formation of the panel apace with the overall CFS reform, while
others preferring to wait until the roles and mechanisms of a
revitalized CFS are concretely decided in October. Members
called for avoidance of duplication by any new panel, and
repeated that any new panel should not do its own research but
utilize existing, peer-reviewed source materials. Members
agreed that further discussion on cost, structure (including
selection modalities),governance, terms of reference, and other
issues was necessary. Members will attempt to decide on more
concrete proposals during informal meetings in the coming weeks.

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


10. (SBU) The discussion on CFS reform continues at a very
conceptual, ideological basis, largely lacking in operational,
country-led focus. The G-77 (led by Brazil) is pushing hard to
create a venue in which to press its parochial interests - many
of which could be problematic to the USG. These include trade
system reform, a human rights-based approach to food security
including more aggressive implementation of the "Right to Food,"
land tenure/reform, and monitoring mechanisms for how well
countries are ensuring food security. Despite US Mission
interventions, there continues to be too little attention in
this debate toward assuring good governance at the national
level, creation of enabling environments for market-driven
results, flexible country-led approaches, and improved
"coordination" and delivery by the various actors within the UN
system.
BRUDVIGLA