REQUEST FOR GUIDANCE: REFORM OF THE COMMITTEE ON WORLD FOOD

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 04 UN ROME 000049

SENSITIVE
SIPDIS

STATE FOR IO/FO, NSC FOR C.PRATT, TREASURY FOR L.MORRIS

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: ECON PREL EAGR EAID UN FAO
SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR GUIDANCE: REFORM OF THE COMMITTEE ON WORLD FOOD
SECURITY

REF: A. USUN 41 (NOTAL)

B. USUN 25 (NOTAL)

C. USUN 17 (NOTAL)

D. STATE 14025 (NOTAL)

E. USUN 9 (NOTAL)

F. 08 USUN 86 (NOTAL)


1. (U) This message is sensitive but unclassified. Please
handle accordingly.




2. This is an action request; please see paragraphs four, six,
and eight.



Summary

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


3. (SBU) Amidst an intensified focus on food and agricultural
issues due to rising global hunger and malnutrition rates, the
Committee on World Food Security (CFS) is undergoing a
member-led overhaul intended to enhance its stature and
effectiveness in confronting food insecurity. The Committee,
begun in 1974 (see Reftels for background),will hold its annual
meeting at the FAO in October with reform the key item on its
agenda. Over the past months, FAO member countries, UN staff,
civil society representatives and others have engaged in
laborious negotiations aimed at reaching consensus on the role
for CFS, centered on a draft working document to be presented in
October, and currently near completion. A meeting of this
"Contact Group" is scheduled to meet on September 4 in Rome to
try to finalize its working paper to present at the October CFS
session.




4. (SBU) From the start, USUN Rome has actively engaged in
these talks, including chairing a working group to address a
proposal to launch a "high level panel of experts" attached to
the CFS - a French idea now championed by FAO DG Diouf.
Nevertheless, the process has been dominated by GRULAC and FAO
interests, overambitious near-term deliverables, and a possible
negative impact on efforts of both the UN High Level Task Force
(HLTF) and the USG's own emerging food security strategy.
(ACTION REQUEST) Mission requests guidance via cable on several
key issues at the heart of the reform debate to ensure
consistency and compatibility with U.S. interests. In addition,
the Mission recommends engagement with key capitals (e.g.,
London, Paris, Brasilia, Beijing, Cairo, Moscow, New Delhi,
Pretoria) to further define the relationship of the CFSW with
the Global Partnership on Agriculture and Food Security (GPAFS).
A consistent concern we hear in Rome from G-77 diplomats and
others is that G-8 and U.S. efforts are inconsistent with a
multilateral approach to food security - despite repeated
assurances to the contrary. In the absence of any clear
definition of what GPAFS means in practice to individual
countries and regions, our efforts to build trust fall largely
on deaf ears, while others continue to shape the landscape on
global food security strategies. End summary.



CFS Reform - Starved For Attention

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


UN ROME 00000049 002 OF 004





5. (SBU) At its last session in October 2008, recognizing
recommendations of FAO's Independent External Evaluation,
Members were unanimous in their agreement that CFS required
significant reform to ensure relevancy and effectiveness in
light of worsening global hunger and malnutrition rates.
Spurred on by commodity price shocks of 2007-8, and consistent
with efforts elsewhere in the international diplomatic arena to
address agricultural production, trade flows, market
speculation, climate change, and other issues affecting food
consumption and distribution patterns, members agreed to put
reform front and center during the 2009 CFS session (see refs
X/Y/Z). Despite efforts by USUN Rome and like-minded
representatives within the "Contact Group," several problematic
proposals continue to dominate discussion of CFS reform,
including ones that may distract focus and resources away from
the country-led strategy at the heart of current USG food
security approach. For example, both the G-77 and FAO
Secretariat are proposing that the GPAFS be subsumed within the
CFS, along with the UN High Level Task Force (HLTF) Secretariat
- ideas we continue to strongly resist.



Areas of Controversy in CFS Reform Talks

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




6. (SBU) In the context of making CFS more effective and policy
relevant at the global level, several controversial items have
been proposed to give CFS a potentially prescriptive role across
a wide array of topics. Explicit guidance is requested on the
following:



- "Global Strategic Policy Framework" and GPAFS: Brazil has
proposed that CFS have as its main function the creation and
implementation of a single global policy similar to that
contained within the HLTF's "Comprehensive Framework for Action"
(CFA) - drafted by HLTF (David Nabarro) to better coordinate
efforts of its 23 UN members. Brazil and many G-77 states
consider the HLTF too "New York-centric," too friendly toward
Bretton Woods Institutions (e.g., World Bank),and outside the
governance of UN members (where G-77 uses its voting bloc).
Guidance is sought on the role of CFS in terms of the CFA or an
alternative "global" policy toward food security, and the
relationship between CFS and the HLTF (and Secretariat).
Nabarro informed us that FAO DG Diouf, Brazil, and possibly
others are working behind the scenes to dissolve the Task Force,
centralize its functions within the CFS, and describe USG food
security policy as inimical to G-77 interests. Similarly, there
remains little understanding among members of the GPAFS, its
aims, and the reasons the CFS could not serve as the
coordinating body for GPAFS.



- Monitoring and Accountability: Many parties in these reform
talks have encouraged CFS to assume some sort of "monitoring"
function and a variety of specific suggestions have emerged.
The Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food has suggested close
monitoring of country commitments, though focused more on
pledges by donors than obligations of recipients. Oxfam
International is proposing that CFS monitor implementation of a

UN ROME 00000049 003 OF 004


vetted "International Public Registry of Commitments" whereby
states commit to national plans for food security. Oxfam's
local representative sought USG support for the idea in a
meeting with USUN Rome on August 13, and noted a similar request
was made in Washington recently at the National Security Council.



- Role for Civil Society, Private Sector: From the start, we
have strongly supported an inclusive process to both CFS reform
and the committee's work, particularly participation of the
private sector, NGOs, and foundations such as Gates and
Rockefeller. The G-77, however, is split on the issue, with
GRULAC leading the charge to support participation by activist
groups like Via Campesino and others critical of U.S. policies,
and the Near East group largely opposed to NGO participation.
Despite our efforts, there is little support thus far for
inclusion in the reform process by the private sector and
foundations and relatively little awareness on the part of these
groups regarding potential CFS reform.



High Level Panel of Experts

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




7. (SBU) The French President during the 2008 G-8 Summit hosted
by Japan proposed creation of a "High Level Panel of Experts"
(HLPE) which was included in the Summit declaration on food
security ("As part of this partnership, a global network of
high-level experts on food and agriculture would provide
science-based analysis, and highlight needs and future risks.").
The French later proposed (without coordination with G-8
colleagues) during the November 2008 FAO Conference to launch
the network under FAO auspices. FAO DG Diouf subsequently wrote
leaders in January proposing a specific format for such a panel,
noting that it was within his constitutional rights as DG to
establish an expert panel on his own. Nonetheless, France and
others requested that CFS host such a panel, and that its terms
of reference be included within the general CFS reform debate.
Washington guidance on the CFS and HLPE (ref D) encouraged
"support for the forward movement" of HLPE planning, a single
global panel of experts, and refinement of the terms of
reference through member consultations.




8. (SBU) Recognizing that the FAO proposal was rapidly becoming
the de facto blueprint for the inclusion of an expert panel in
the CFS itself, USUN Rome volunteered to serve as the Chair of a
Working Group (WG-4) to craft the regular and structured
inclusion of expertise in the CFS, as called for by the majority
of members. Our proposal to have the CGIAR representative
(Bioversity International) co-Chair WG-4 with us was rejected by
France and several G-77 members, but nonetheless its Director
General and Deputy DG worked closely with us to ensure the CGIAR
network would play a key role in any expert panel, thereby
helping to minimize duplication of efforts and maximize the
neutrality of panel input. After months of careful efforts to
build trust and confidence among members (particularly France,
G-77, WFP and IFAD),WG-4 drafted terms of reference providing
for a relatively low cost and an inclusive process focusing on a
system of ad hoc rosters or "project teams" of renowned experts
to provide advice to CFS members. After reviewing similar
expert processes elsewhere, we sought to ensure high value added

UN ROME 00000049 004 OF 004


and policy "neutrality" in the panel's products (The FAO Member
website contains details on the work of WG-4, including written
inputs by member states). We would hope to see influential
American experts participate in this process to ensure our
interests are promoted. ACTION REQUEST: In this context, we
request guidance on USG red-lines regarding the HLPE and its
terms of reference agreed to by WG-4.



Comment

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




9. (SBU) While we continue to define the GPAFS in the context
of the overall U.S. food security strategy, we should be mindful
of the efforts within the CFS and particularly among developing
states to keep global policies within an arena where all can
participate. A consistent concern we hear in Rome from G-77
diplomats and others is that G-8 and U.S. efforts are
inconsistent with a multilateral approach to food security -
despite repeated assurances to the contrary. In the absence of
any clear definition of what GPAFS means in practice to
individual countries and regions, our efforts to build trust
fall largely on deaf ears here, while others continue to shape
the landscape on global food security strategies. With the
commitment by the G-8 to spend 20 billion dollars on food
security over the coming three years, we will have tremendous
impact on shaping the agenda. We need to clearly signal the
role we envisage for the CFS in the context of our global food
strategy.
GLOVERMP