ROME FOLLOW-UP MEETING TO L'AQUILA FOOD SECURITY INITIATIVE

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 05 UN ROME 000078 SENSITIVE SIPDIS STATE FOR C, IO/HS, EB/IFD/ODA USAID FOR DCHA/JBRAUSE AND SBRADLEY, EGAT/JLEWIS AND DHEGWOOD, EGAT AND AFR/FMOORE AND JHILL NSC FOR GSMITH AND CPRATT USDA FAS FOR BPHILBROOK, ATUTWILER, PSHEIKH, RMIRELES, GDOUVELISAND CTURNER TREASURY FOR LMORRIS AND PGANDHI E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: PREL EAGR EAID FAO WFP IT SUBJECT: ROME FOLLOW-UP MEETING TO L'AQUILA FOOD SECURITY INITIATIVE REF: UN ROME 0065 UN ROME 00000078 001.3 OF 005 ¶1. (U) This message is sensitive but unclassified. Please handle accordingly. ¶2. (SBU) SUMMARY: On December 3 and 4, the Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the U.S. Mission to the UN Agencies in Rome co-hosted the third follow-up to the G8 `plus' meeting on global food security held in July at L'Aquila, Italy. A key goal of the meeting was to develop consensus among donors on how best to track the $22 billion pledged at L'Aquila for agricultural development and food security and to identify next steps in coordination among the broader community of L'Aquila participants. Participants agreed to a timeline for development of both a tracking mechanism for the $22 billion, and an initial proposal for mapping public, private and donor food security investments at the country level. Progress on the Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Program (CAADP) was reviewed and several promising opportunities for increased donor coordination and support in regions outside Africa were identified, with follow-up mechanisms established via the EC, FAO and Brazil. The meeting also marked the beginning of a "handover" of the L'Aquila Food Security Initiative group (or AFSI Group) to Canada as it assumes the G8 Presidency in 2010. Likewise, G-77 participants welcomed the idea that this ad hoc group could provide support to the Committee on World Food Security (CFS) reform process and play a valuable role in the Global Partnership for Agriculture and Food Security while reforms are implemented. END SUMMARY ¶2. (SBU) On December 3 and 4, the Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the U.S. Mission to the UN Agencies in Rome co-hosted the third follow-up to the G8 `plus' meeting on global food security held in July at L'Aquila, Italy. The meeting was co-chaired by USUN Ambassador Ertharin Cousin and Minister Renzo Rosso, Multilateral Coordinator, Directorate General for Development Cooperation in the Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and was attended by perm-reps to the UN Agencies in Rome and by delegations from several donor capitals representing G20 governments plus Angola, Denmark, Ethiopia, Ireland, the Netherlands, Nigeria, Spain, Sweden, and in its role of chair of the CFS, the Philippines. Also attending were representatives from the UN High Level Task Force (HLTF) for Global Food Security (including FAO and WFP),International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD),the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD),the Global Donor Platform for Rural Development (GDPRD),and the Consultative Group for International Agricultural Research (CGIAR). ¶3. (SBU) Much of the meeting revolved around two agenda items: tracking the commitments made at L'Aquila and mapping food security interventions at the country level. Once there was common agreement that the two processes would be separate, and that the tracking exercise affected only those L'Aquila partners who had pledged toward the $22 billion commitment, donors agreed to review an existing OECD tracking proposal and provide feedback by December 11. The OECD, working with the HLTF, the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI),the World Bank, and the GDPRD in consultation with incoming G8 President, Canada, and the CFS Secretariat, would finalize the proposal by the end of 2009. Issues raised on this mechanism largely focused on the need to clearly define the investment categories, and to determine whether reporting would be ex- or post- ante (with Germany expressing strong preference for reporting ex-post against the original matrix established for the $22 billion and clarified during the second post-L'Aquila meeting held in Brussels in October). These two issues are likely to come up again during the comment period, and another round of negotiation via conference call may be necessary to come to consensus. It is expected that the information collected through this tool would be consistent with the information collected by the G8 Accountability Working Group. (NOTE: During the discussion of the $22 billion, Sweden clarified its L'Aquila comittment: 375 million or approximately $560 million over UN ROME 00000078 002.3 OF 005 three years-- one half through bilateral aid and one half through existing multilateral systems such as WFP and FAO. END NOTE) ¶4. (SBU) The second agenda item -- developing a tool to map food security interventions at country and regional level -- had originally been proposed as a way of reviewing a matrix developed by the European Commission in response to discussions held at the second post-L'Aquila meeting in Brussels, where donors identified the need to capture a broader spectrum of investments and partners supporting food security efforts at the field level. This proposal sparked quite a bit of discussion about the role of the L'Aquila group in relation to the CFS, and the role of both the L'Aquila group and the CFS in relation to a broader Global Partnership for Agriculture and Food Security. France and Brazil strongly questioned whether the L'Aquila group was not overstepping the bounds of an `ad hoc support group' in beginning to develop this tool, when mapping, monitoring, and distilling and communicating best practices at the country and regional level are envisioned as part of the mandate of a reformed CFS. Although not conceptually opposed, the current chair of the CFS (Philippines) noted that he was in trust-building exercise with the new CFS membership and Bureau and would not want to be put in the position of having to sell a completed mapping tool without broad consultation. After side-bar negotiations, language stressing the full participation of the CFS in the development of the tool and emphasizing `information sharing' rather than `mapping' led to consensus that the HLTF would move forward to put together an initial proposal. Working with the CFS, with reach back to the OECD, the EC and other members of the "tracking-tool" sub-group, the HLTF expects to circulate this proposal by January 1. While not as ambitious as originally hoped, this tool will provide a foundation for expansion-including the beginnings of results reporting and identification of best practices. -------------- Other Outcomes -------------- ¶5. (SBU) CAADP Update: With AU NEPAD representation unable to attend, the USG presented an update of progress made in the Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Program (CAADP), providing a read-out of the Partnership Platform meeting held in early November in Abuja. Highlights included the adoption of a new governance structure for the CAADP multi-donor trust fund, the signing of guidelines for donor support at the country level, and the signing of the first regional CAADP compact (with the West African Economic Community--ECOWAS),which was facilitated by Spain, France, and the USG. Next steps were also identified during the meeting, including the technical review of Rwanda's investment and implementation plans, and the December 7 and 8 meeting in Kigali to highlight donor support of Rwanda's country-led process; the operationalization of CAADP's monitoring and evaluation system; developing guidelines for donor support to regional platforms; and the completion of a mutual accountability framework prior to the next Partnership Platform meeting (May, 2010). Finally, aspects of CAADP which may be of potential use in other regions were identified, including analytical tools used during stocktaking, country-level guidelines for donor support, and the post-compact review process. This last point may prove to be extremely useful in regions and countries with existing food security frameworks, as it is provides a methodology for assessing existing proposals and programs in relation to their contribution to achieving specific poverty and hunger reduction targets. ¶6. (SBU) Rwanda Meeting: Ambassador Cousin reinforced the importance of the December 7-8 meeting in Kigali, stressing the fact that the meeting provided donor headquarters a way to bring the political rhetoric of the $22 billion commitment made at L'Aquila down to the country level, and emphasized that it was UN ROME 00000078 003.3 OF 005 in the field where our commitments would be translated into action, and the Rome principles implemented. ¶7. (SBU) Opportunities for improving coordination outside of Africa over the next six months: FAO and the HLTF discussed their work to assess and support regional food security efforts apart from those being carried out in Africa (for a full text of the intervention given by the HLTF Coordinator, Dr. David Nabarro, please see Paragraph 12). FAO circulated a paper describing several significant food security programs and frameworks which are in various stages of planning and implementation. This paper will be circulated to interested Missions separately and distributed to the interagency food security working group. In addition, several meetings were identified during the discussion of additional opportunities for coordination, including an EC/US hosted meeting with ASEAN in February in Bangkok (Australia and Japan interested in co-chairing, EC to circulate concept note next week); an Asia Pacific Food Security Forum in March (Australia to circulate additional information); an ASEAN +3 rural development and poverty meeting in May (Japan to circulate more information); a Latin America and Caribbean Initiative - `No Hunger in 2025' meeting in Haiti in February (Brazil to circulate more information, with FAO as a back-up); and an FAO regional conference in Panama in April. Also for follow-up are a Bangladesh-Pakistan Food Security and Nutrition Initiative supported by DFID, and field-level food security workshops being planned by the EC. ¶8. (SBU) Canada: In its role as incoming President of the G-8, Canada volunteered to begin an inventory of events/actions providing an opportunity for improved coordination, and to circulate this to the L'Aquila group (via a listserve). Canada also offered to host the next meeting of the L'Aquila group in March. This meeting is likely to be co-chaired by Canada and the USG. ¶9. (SBU) The New World Bank Multilateral Trust Fund: The World Bank (WB) was not able to attend the Rome meetings; however, Canada and the HLTF provided information about where the Bank was in the process of finalizing the framework for the Trust Fund, including a brief description of the objectives and governance of the Fund. There is considerable interest in the new mechanism-some of it negative, but certainly not all-and a sense that since the WB was mandated by the G20 to develop the fund, that there is a degree of shared responsibility among G20 donors, whether or not they are currently supporting the fund (COMMENT: The WB should be encouraged to prepare a brief update on progress and circulate to all G20 donors. END COMMENT). ¶10. (SBU) Future of the L'Aquila Group: The only real surprise coming out of this meeting was that there were not more obstacles raised by those fearful that the L'Aquila group represents a threat to the CFS and or CFS reform. In fact, both Brazil and France acknowledged that there was currently a role for this ad hoc group of partners-specifically to maintain political momentum and to operationalize the Rome principles while CFS reform takes hold. However, it is clear that there are differing views as to the future of the group: Germany (which offered to fund a small secretariat for the Group within the GDPRD),and Italy (which makes the point that the L'Aquila group is no longer a G8 body or process and offered to host a follow-up meeting in mid-2010, which we will discourage, and one in October on the margins of the CFS annual meeting) clearly see L'Aquila partners as a support to the CFS until CFS is able to carry out its role, and a critical foundation of the Global Partnership. France and Brazil appear to view a reformed CFS as the Global Partnership itself (despite clarification in the October CFS declaration that the CFS is a central component of the Partnership),and while they acknowledge that the CFS is not fully functional, they are hesitant to endorse actions which would place responsibilities (even those not yet negotiated for the CFS) outside that body. UN ROME 00000078 004.3 OF 005 ¶11. (SBU) COMMENT: The L'Aquila Group currently provides a bridging mechanism between the Italian and Canadian G8 Presidencies which goes beyond simply tracking committments to ensuring continuity in approach, bringing joint action to the country-level, and continuing high levels of political support. It has translated global concern for food security into the acceleration of the CAADP process in Africa, and, as an outcome of the December 3-4 meetings in Rome, is beginning to increase coordination and collaboration of a broad group of donors around regional food security programs in Asia/Pacific, Latin America and the Caribbean. Support for quarterly meetings of the L'Aquila Group, including the meetings proposed by Canada and Italy, will provide the USG a useful platform to continue high-level coordination and advocacy for agriculture and food security with L'Aquila partners through 2010. At the same time, close attention and support to the CFS reform process should help the USG determine how the L'Aquila Group can continue to add value to the Global Partnership for Agriculture and Food Security in 2010 and beyond. END COMMENT ¶12. (SBU) Text of Intervention by the Coordinator of the UN System High Level Task Force on Global Food Security, Dr. David Nabarro: BEGIN TEXT: "Many delegates at this meeting have stated that the principal means for sustaining political momentum on the L'Aquila Food Security Initiative is to ensure effective implementation of food security actions. Since April 2008, 22 different entities have been working together within the UN Secretary General's High Level Task Force on Global Food Security. They include FAO, WFP, IFAD, the World Bank, the World Trade Organization, the IMF, OECD, UNICEF, the International Labor Organization, the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and UNDP. These entities are owned by, and accountable to, the Governments of UN Member States. The entities are committed to supporting national governments as they implement actions that reflect international agreements on food security - specifically those set out in the declaration of the November 2009 Summit on World Food Security. The entities will also support and, where appropriate, work through, sub-regional and regional political bodies and global political entities - notably the revitalized Committee on Food Security (CFS). They will be, individually and collectively, at the disposal of the Secretariat, Bureau and Membership of the CFS. They are already engaged on the following specific tasks (and will continue working on them): ¶1. Helping to match country needs (as expressed by national authorities) to potential donor contributions; ¶2. Helping national authorities as they develop investment plans which are based on universal enjoyment of the right to food, reflect the fullest possible application of scientific evidence, and pursue a comprehensive approach to reducing food insecurity; ¶3. Helping establish and sustain processes for peer assessments of investment plans - whether used as a basis for applications to donors or trust funds; ¶4. Helping ensure that national authorities can access optimal technical assistance - that it is of good quality, available when needed and offered in a coordinated manner; ¶5. Helping ensure that financial and material assistance provided to national authorities by development banks, IFAD, the IMF, WFP, FAO, as well as bilateral entities and foundations, responds to need, is well coordinated and flows freely once basic conditions are met; ¶6. Helping to track the overall distribution of pledged donor UN ROME 00000078 005.3 OF 005 resources, and offering (with other interested parties) options for mapping needs, resources provided and outcomes in country and regional settings; ¶7. Supporting regional and sub-regional processes for support to AFSI implementation within all regions ¶8. Assisting those national authorities with relatively limited capacity to strengthen their ability to act in pursuit of the outcomes in the Comprehensive Framework for Action making optimum use of the Rome principles. The HLTF will encourage implementation of comprehensive strategies, and its members will work together in helping to influence both coherence and cross-sectoral engagement (as necessary) as the strategies are realized. HLTF member entities will continue working in these areas as part of a broader effort of supporting implementation of the AFSI initiative in ways that reflect the Summit on World Food Security and L'Aquila Summit declarations." END TEXT GLOVER