FAO FINANCE COMMITTEE REVIEWS SIGNIFICANT BUDGET INCREASE

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 03 UN ROME 000052 SENSITIVE SIPDIS NSC FOR CHRIS PRATT, USDA FOR RIEMENSCHNEIDER/DOUVELIS E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: EFIN EAGR EAID PREL UN FAO SUBJECT: FAO FINANCE COMMITTEE REVIEWS SIGNIFICANT BUDGET INCREASE REQUEST; REPORT OF 128TH FINANCE COMMITTEE SESSION REF: A. STATE 84087 (NOTAL) - DEMARCHE ON PWB ¶B. UNUN 51 (NOTAL) - FAO FIN CHIEF ON REVISED PWB ¶1. (U) This message is sensitive but unclassified. Please handle accordingly. Summary -------------- ¶2. (SBU) The FAO Finance Committee (FinCom) held its 128th session from July 27-31 in Rome, giving particular attention to a controversial biennial budget proposal tabled by FAO management, representing not only an entirely new system for results-based budgeting but also a proposed budget increase totaling near ten percent over the previous biennium. Of particular concern to members was a FAO proposal to fund the bulk of its reform program through voluntary contributions, vice the core assessed budget. Responding to member concerns, management agreed to provide additional information on the new budget framework to allow comparisons with the previous budget. Likewise, the Finance Committee agreed to hold a "special session" in mid-September to review the proposed Program of Work and Budget. On other issues, members discussed financing for a planned November food summit hosted by FAO, including a Saudi offer to pay logistical costs of up to USD 2.5 million. Members also heard details of FAO plans to address "Enterprise Risk Management" via internal means, plans by FAO to re-advertise for its Inspector General position, deferred agreement on draft terms of reference on a "Ethics Committee, and confirmed that an Ethics Officer should be hired by September. (Note: Septel to provide latest news on FAO plans to revise its draft PWB, including funding modalities for its reform package. End note). End summary. Draft PWB - Significant Increase Requested; More Info Needed -------------- ¶3. (SBU) Earlier in July, FAO released a controversial draft "Program of Work and Budget" (PWB) for the 2010-2011 biennium. Despite repeated assurances over the past year from Director General Diouf and his senior staff that this "maintenance" PWB would not include real growth, and would include the costs of FAO's reform program (the "Immediate Plan of Action, or IPA"), the draft PWB represents a seven-plus percent increase (not including exchange rate calculations). Most troubling, however, was FAO's inclusion of 80 percent, or roughly USD 48 million, of the cost of IPA implementation under a "Core Voluntary Contribution" column of the PWB. Diouf explained his decision by pointing to the November 2008 Conference resolution which states that IPA implementation will be "treated under the PWB" - an approach that nearly all members flatly rejected during Finance and a concurrent Program Committee session. During a prepared speech to a joint session of the Finance and Program Committees on July 29, Diouf told members FAO would review the cost estimates associated with the IPA but did not commit to adding IPA costs under the net appropriation. ¶4. (SBU) Responding to the draft PWB, particularly its significant proposed budget increase, the U.S. delegate (Vice Chair of the FinCom) complained that the proposal ran counter to earlier assurances by Diouf and his senior managers regarding its size and IPA funding. While the new results-based structure and format - as called for in the IPA - was a welcome reform, the claim by FAO that the draft PWB represented a "maintenance UN ROME 00000052 002 OF 003 budget" was incorrect, since the document contained significant programmatic and budgetary shifts. In the absence of two documents - one in the former budget format and another in the new format - clear comparison and analysis was extremely difficult. Following U.S. insistence on this point, echoed by many other delegations, management agreed to provide additional information to enable a programmatic comparison of the old and new budgets, "to help in their further understanding and deliberation of the proposals." The same outcome resulted from the joint session of Finance and Program Committees, whose report likewise questioned the proposed IPA funding modalities and the need for additional information. Responding to the need for additional clarification and debate, the Finance Committee agreed to a one-day "Special Session" in mid-September. Finances for November Food Summit; Saudi "Generosity" -------------- ¶5. (SBU) During discussions on planned financing for the November Food Security Summit in Rome, members were informed that the Saudi Arabian King had written the DG on 24 July offering to pay the full logistical costs for the Summit, estimated by FAO at USD 2.5 million. Through questioning by the U.S. Vice Chair, it was clear that no other contributions for the Summit had been confirmed, apart from commitments by the cities of Rome and Milan for side events during the Summit. With little to no help from other FinCom members, the U.S. Vice Chair insisted on language in the final report regarding the paramount importance of FAO's IPA implementation, the absence of calculations of staff costs for the Summit, and insistence on a further review of Summit finances during the next FinCom meeting in September. A request by the Vice Chair for additional information and transparency on the two trust funds being created for Summit financing was resisted by both Management and the Egyptian FinCom Chair (Note: Shortly after the "generous" Saudi pledge was announced, news leaked that a new head for the FAO's Regional Office in Cairo had been selected, with no other candidates interviewed - a Saudi prince. End note). Enterprise Risk Management; Inspector General Replacement -------------- ¶6. (SBU) FinCom members endorsed Management plans to implement an organization-wide Enterprise Risk Management (ERM) strategy that would be internally-led, vice a more expensive external consultant-led process as called for in the IPA (and by USUN Rome). The effort would be conducted by the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) and would be assisted by consultants from Deloitte. Furthermore, the ERM concepts would be mainstreamed within the organization and included as an aspect of the new performance evaluation system (PEMS) being implemented in FAO. Some delegates requested terms of reference, a roadmap, and cost details on the new ERM strategy. (Note: In private, the FAO DDG, an Amcit, told USUN Rome that FAO was currently suffering "consultancy fatigue" after conclusion of the Root and Branch Review by Ernst and Young, and the decision to handle ERM internally was influenced heavily by that factor. Both privately to the DDG and in FinCom meetings, the U.S. representative pointed to the value of continued external evaluations of FAO management and structures, as a means to avoid "stove-piping" and "risky" management practices. This included an admonition to FAO regarding the importance of "proper financial prudence throughout the Organization" - a UN ROME 00000052 003 OF 003 point included at USUN insistence in the final report. End Note.) Finally, the FinCom was informed that the selection process for a new OIG (the current OIG, an Amcit, will retire by the end of 2009) remained ongoing, and the position would be re-advertised shortly, as the initial process did not result in a selection by the DG. In any case, FinCom members were told that the process should be completed by end-2009. Ethics Committee, Ethics Officer -------------- ¶7. (SBU) During discussions on draft terms of reference for a proposed Ethics Committee at FAO (a recommendation included in the IPA),the U.S. Vice Chair called for deferral of the issue, pending the outcome of a UN system-wide approach on ethics being pursued by the UN Secretariat and the UN Chief Executives Board. Members agreed to the U.S. suggestion, which also paralleled a recommendation found in the 2008 External Auditor's report to first hire an Ethics Officer who could support formation of an Ethics Committee. On the hiring issue, members were informed by Management that the hiring process for a new Ethics Officer was near completion, and the officer should be on board by September. This new officer would be responsible for implementation of a new system-wide ethics program, a new whistle-blower policy, and a financial disclosure policy for senior FAO employees and those with financial responsibilities. Comment -------------- ¶8. (SBU) The issue of the draft PWB and its new results-based budgeting format dominated discussions of both the FinCom and Program Committees, especially the issue of IPA funding. This issue will continue to be at the center of FAO discussions leading up to the November Conference (to be chaired by the United States, and following immediately upon the Food Summit). While it may not be surprising that FAO is seeking a funding increase given the renewed international focus on food security, the manner in which it has presented its draft PWB has left many delegations disappointed. In particular, no states openly supported FAO's inclusion of the IPA costs under "voluntary contributions." Regarding the proposed PWB, which appears to contain a nearly ten percent increase in member assessments (if IPA costs are included),many states are opposed to the plan, and are likely to join us in demanding a lower budget. Canada, Australia, Mexico, Japan, Germany, Switzerland, and other key partners are likely to demand "zero nominal growth" as a starting point for negotiations, and will likely insist that IPA costs be included in the net assessment. As we begin consultations with key partners on the budget, we may want to stress the large number of members already in arrears, the difficult global financial situation, and the need for FAO reform to precede any major budget increase for the organization - particularly after the 17 percent increase for the '08-09 assessment. We also need to be specific with FAO on what information we need to help us make the necessary comparisons and analysis on programmatic budget requests. GLOVERMP