Identifier
Created
Classification
Origin
09UNROME55
2009-09-09 10:13:00
UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
UN Rome
Cable title:  

COMMITTEE ON WORLD FOOD SECURITY REFORM PROCESS GENERALLY

Tags:  EAGR PHUM EAID PREL FAO UN 
pdf how-to read a cable
VZCZCXRO1330
PP RUEHRN
DE RUEHRN #0055/01 2521013
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
P R 091013Z SEP 09
FM USMISSION UN ROME
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 1143
INFO RUEHC/USAID WASHDC
RUEHRC/USDA FAS WASHDC
RHEHAAA/NSC WASHINGTON DC
RUEATRS/DEPT OF TREASURY WASHINGTON DC
RUCNDT/USMISSION USUN NEW YORK 0358
RUEHGV/USMISSION GENEVA 0285
RUEHBS/USEU BRUSSELS 0233
RUEHRN/USMISSION UN ROME 1217
UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 05 UN ROME 000055 

SENSITIVE
SIPDIS

USDA FOR DOUVELIS/RIEMENSCHNEIDER; NSC FOR PRATT; AID FOR BRADLEY

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: EAGR PHUM EAID PREL FAO UN
SUBJECT: COMMITTEE ON WORLD FOOD SECURITY REFORM PROCESS GENERALLY
MOVING IN RIGHT DIRECTION

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 05 UN ROME 000055

SENSITIVE
SIPDIS

USDA FOR DOUVELIS/RIEMENSCHNEIDER; NSC FOR PRATT; AID FOR BRADLEY

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: EAGR PHUM EAID PREL FAO UN
SUBJECT: COMMITTEE ON WORLD FOOD SECURITY REFORM PROCESS GENERALLY
MOVING IN RIGHT DIRECTION


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



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

Summary

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




2. (SBU) The Committee on World Food Security (CFS) Bureau
convened on September 4 the final negotiating session of its
"Contact Group" - a group comprising FAO Member States,
international organizations, and NGOs drafting a plan to reform
both the structure and output of the CFS during this 35th
anniversary year. The group made significant progress on
several contentious issues in the 53-paragraph third draft. The
U.S., helped by Australia, New Zealand, and Canada, sought to
postpone planning for a second phase of the reform process
(including launch of a "Global Strategic Framework" pushed by
Brazil and others) until demonstrated success of the first
phase. The UN Secretary General's (SYG) representative, David
Nabarro, read a letter (text at paragraph ten) from the SYG
noting four concerns with CFS reform and urging members to "take
time to get these issues right." While the letter is consistent
with our desire to keep CFS governance and bureaucracy "light,"
to include the private sector as full members, and to ensure CFS
will assist the High Level Task Force (HLTF) in better
coordinating the UN system, it may also have underscored the New
York/Rome division over food security policy leadership. The
CFS Bureau will synthesize comments and produce a final draft to
be presented to Members at the October CFS session where
"reform" will be the main agenda item. Post is drafting a
letter to the CFS Bureau Chair detailing our remaining concerns,
and will email it shortly to Washington action offices for
comment/clearance. End summary.



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

FAO Asst DG on CFS Reform

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




3. (SBU) The Charge, A/DCM, and USDA MinCouns met with FAO
Assistant Director General Hafez Ghanem at the latter's request,
immediately prior to the final CFS Contact Group session.
Ghanem, who is responsible for CFS at FAO, reported on his
meeting with Nabarro a day earlier and said he agreed with the

four concerns raised by the SYG's letter. Ghanem assured us
that FAO management believed successful reform of CFS would be
achieved via a small Secretariat - "no larger than the current
one" - and a reformed/effective Bureau. Ghanem agreed success
was possible only if North-South polarization over food security
debates was minimized in a reformed CFS. He, too, wanted to see
the private sector included on an equal footing and encouraged
the U.S. to maintain its strong vocal stance on this point. He
also believed CFS should not perform a "monitoring" role on food
security - a job to be "outsourced to the HLTF, Alliance Against
Hunger, and/or others"). Responding to Charge's point that the
CFS should strongly endorse the L'Aquila principles during the
upcoming October session, Ghanem welcomed the idea and suggested
China, India, or South Africa propose the idea for it to gain
traction among non-OECD representatives and civil society
organizations.



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

Phase 2 - "Global Strategy" Issue

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




4. (SBU) Despite repeated U.S. rejection of the CFS negotiating

UN ROME 00000055 002 OF 005


a "global strategic policy framework" (as advanced strongly by
Brazil and others),the idea was pushed off to an expected
"Phase Two" of CFS reform whereby a proposal for implementation
will be considered at the 2010 Session. After Australia's
opening point that talk of a "global strategy" was premature,
the U.S. questioned the idea, noting it was unnecessary and
overly ambitious for a CFS that had not yet proven itself.
(Comment: We believe that 2010 is far too soon to launch
implementation of this idea. The EU supports consideration of
this item after 2011). The U.S. and Australia offered
alternative chapeau text that lengthens the period before any
Phase Two would be considered, and conditions such a step upon
success with Phase One. Predictably, the suggestion was
rejected by Brazil, France, Guatemala, and several NGO's who
argued for CFS adoption and negotiation of a global strategy
similar to the Comprehensive Framework for Action.



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

CFS a Committee - not a New UN Entity

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




5. (SBU) A discussion on CFS governance followed, with several
members (unopposed) arguing for a small Secretariat and
establishment of an "expanded Bureau" vice an "Executive
Committee" as proposed in the draft. The debate was assisted by
the SYG's letter and by ADG Ghanem, who argued for a small
administrative structure for CFS, including a Secretariat no
larger than the current one. With the Bureau Chair's assertion
that the CFS did not aim to become a separate UN entity,
agreement was reached for a light governance structure and small
Secretariat. Russia argued for a 14-member "expanded" Bureau
(two reps from each regional group),while others preferred an
eight-member Bureau (one from each of the seven regional groups
and an independent Chair). No agreement was reached on the
specific number of Bureau members.



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

SYG Ban's Letter

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




6. (SBU) After following the course of the day-long plenary, UN
SYG Ban's representative, David Nabarro, read a letter (text
below) from the SYG noting his concerns with four key issues in
CFS reform: the overall "nature" of the revitalized committee
(i.e., a new UN structure or still a FAO committee),the need
for private sector involvement, participation by all relevant
UN system agencies, and coordination with the main UN councils
(ECOSOC, UNGA, and the UNSC). The SYG's letter closed by urging
CFS members to "take the time to get these issues right~"
(COMMENT: By the time Nabarro read the letter, several of these
items had been largely resolved in a positive way. Nonetheless,
how the CFS will interact with the UN's main councils -
particularly the UN Security Council (first time raised in this
setting) has not yet been resolved. After the meeting, another
FAO ADG confided to USUN staff their view that the letter was
divisive, and fed suspicions within FAO and the G-77 that the
U.S. was conspiring with Nabarro and the SYG to undermine
FAO/Diouf and the CFS process in lieu of a New York and
Washington-driven global food security plan. The Chinese
Ambassador shared the same broad view with the Charge during a
September 8 meeting. END COMMENT).



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

Panel of Experts

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



UN ROME 00000055 003 OF 005




7. (SBU) Members reviewed draft text and Terms of reference for
the High Level Panel of Experts (HLPE) proposal, focusing on
bracketed text on several relatively minor procedural items.
Australia and Canada spoke in favor of a less-structured design,
noting their preference for an ad hoc structure relying - as
needed - upon resources available mostly through the Rome-based
UN agencies. The EU, backed strongly by France, urged
acceptance of the draft and pressed for action to set up the
panel immediately following the 2009 CFS Session. France
confirmed its financial backing for the project to pay start-up
costs and staffing for the HLPE. Members did not debate in any
detail what subjects the panel might address, focusing only on
the draft architecture for the body.



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

October Session Agenda

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




8. (U) The CFS Session will take place from October 14-17,
interrupted by one day of "Earth Day" events on October 16. The
main focus of the session will be CFS reform, including
agreement on the document described in this message. However,
there is also time set aside to discuss the impact on
agriculture of the global financial crisis and follow up to the
International Conference on Agrarian Reform and Rural
Development (ICARRD). As the agenda includes no discussion of
the global food security situation, apart from the financial
crisis item, any discussion of the L'Aquila food security
principles or the U.S. global food security strategy will have
to be addressed during our own interventions and/or in side
meetings. It would be helpful if other countries that
participated in the L'Aquila Declaration on Food Security,
particularly developing states, drew links in their statements
between CFS reform and the principles and actions identified at
L'Aquila.



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

Mission Recommendations

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




9. (SBU) Many contentious issues appear to have been resolved
in the September 4 session, but a few key problem areas persist.
In the time remaining before adoption of the reform plan, we
should continue to emphasize that any "Phase Two" be conditioned
upon success in Phase One over several years, and that it avoid
over-ambitious "global strategies" or intrusive, non-voluntary
monitoring mechanisms. With the EU advocating only a two-year
delay before proceeding to Phase 2, however, we have only a few
allies and will need to continue fighting hard on this issue.
Membership is also supportive of permitting the HLPE to proceed
along the toned-down structure described in the draft,
especially since France will foot the bill for its start-up
costs. We can continue to argue for a light structure and
supportive role for the country led food security plans, and may
also wish to propose topics for its focus in 2010 to help guide
its initial work. We should also be prepared to encourage
participation by U.S. experts who can help advance our efforts
and interests.



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

Text of SYG Letter

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




10. (U) Text of letter from SYG to CFS Bureau Chair:

UN ROME 00000055 004 OF 005





Madam Chair:

I am pleased that through the High Level Task Force (HLTF) on
the Global Food Security Crisis we have had a chance to engage
the whole of the UN system in food issues, under the technical
guidance of the Food and Agriculture Organization and its
Director General who is Vice Chair of our Task Force. I look
forward to working on food security issues within the General
Assembly and G20 meetings later this month with FAO Director
General Jacques Diouf , IFAD President Kanayo Nwanze, WFP
Executive Director of WFP, Josette Sheeran, and other members of
the UN System contributing to food security.



I look forward to working with them on the follow-up to the
ground-breaking political and financial commitments on food
security made by 26 nations at L'Aquila, Italy, in July this
year. I am pleased to be invited to co-host the forthcoming
summit on food security in Rome during November this year with
Director-General Diouf, President Nwanze and Executive Director
Sheeran. I see this as an important time for our High Level Task
Force to strengthen its joint efforts in the light of the many
new developments now underway.



I have read of the proposals for the reform of the Committee on
World Food Security. I congratulate you, the members of your
bureau and the Contact Group for the progress that has been
made. I appreciate that there has been a series of consultations
and intense negotiations with a number of stakeholders. I
understand, however, there are a number of unresolved questions
in the latest draft of the reform proposals. These have
implications for the functioning of the United Nations system as
a whole.



First: There is lack of clarity on the nature of the revitalized
committee: is it a new and substantive UN system entity or a
coordinating structure that works closely with, and in support
of, the existing entities throughout the system?



Second: There seems to be no agreement on the extent to which
representatives of the private sector (with a legitimate
interest and role to play in food security issues) are to be
involved in the new committee. My High Level Task Force has
taken the view that work on food security has to engage with the
private sector.



Third: Sufficient attention must be paid to ensuring that all
relevant UN system agencies (and their members) are fully
involved in the committee's work. As well as FAO, WFP and IFAD,
I am particularly keen that humanitarian agencies (especially
those concerned with nutrition),trade bodies (including the WTO
and UNCTAD) and the full range of development agencies -
including those concerned with refugees and people unable to
enjoy the right to food - be fully

engaged, and that their membership and staff be part of the new
CFS (and be considered when staff are identified for the CFS'
small secretariat).



Fourth: I would encourage you to ensure that the main UN
councils - ECOSOC, the General Assembly and the Security Council
- be made fully aware of, and invited to comment on, your plans
for the reform of the CFS before they are finalized. I would
encourage you to engage with the membership of the GA on these
issues at country level and through their representatives in
Geneva and New York as well as Rome given the range of interests
that have to be taken into

account when attempts are made to improve food security and

UN ROME 00000055 005 OF 005


realize the elusive first Millennium Development Goal.



I would urge you to take the time to get these issues right as I
believe that such work will - in the long term - make for a
system that better serves the interests of those who are
affected by or at risk of food and nutritional insecurity.



BAN Ki-Moon, Secretary-General, United Nations

Chair, High-Level Task Force on the Global Food Security Crisis

4th September 2009



End text of SYG letter.
GLOVERMP