MEETING OF THE FOOD AID COMMITTEE, FEBRUARY

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 03 STATE 016421 SIPDIS E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: EAID EC ETRD SUBJECT: MEETING OF THE FOOD AID COMMITTEE, FEBRUARY 15-16, 2010 REF: STATE 130895 STATE 00016421 001.2 OF 003 ¶1. (U) SUMMARY. The Food Aid Committee held an "extraordinary meeting" in London February 15-16 to continue discussions on the future of the 1999 Food Aid Convention. Members discussed their vision of a convention as well as its key objectives, the convention's place in the global food security architecture, the role and nature of commitments under a convention, and the role of the Food Aid Committee. The committee agreed to establish a working group as a basis for continuing dialogue in order to make the convention a more effective instrument. (However, it remains unsettled whether this would be accomplished through negotiation or amending the current convention. No decision has been reach to renegotiate the current convention.) The working group will begin its work by March 15 and will finalize its written report covering the major components of a convention by May ¶14. Members will again meet in London April 15-16 to facilitate the process to improve the convention. The working group will report back to the Food Aid Committee in June. The European Commission continues to exert significant pressure on the process arguing that the EC may vote against extending the 1999 Convention at the June meetings unless clear progress is being made, i.e., members can signal a willingness to formally renegotiate the Convention. While demonstrating a clear willingness to continue this exploratory process, other members including the United States continue to insist that they will not agree to negotiations unless and until there is a shared vision for a new and decidedly better convention. END SUMMARY. ¶2. (U) At an extraordinary meeting of the Food Aid Committee, members discussed in detail their respective "vision statements" for a food aid convention. They began by discussing their vision of a convention as well as its key objectives. Members broadly agreed that activities under a convention should broadly contribute to the macro objectives of reducing hunger, poverty and food insecurity. Moreover, members agreed that the specific focus under the convention should relate primarily to improving food access and food consumption by vulnerable groups. In that regard, members agreed that the focus on improving access to food would complement other necessary efforts to improve overall food availability in food insecure countries, especially those based on the food security statement issued at the L'Aquila Summit in July 2009. Members further agreed that the Convention should help them ensure that appropriate, effective, and nutritious food is available in response to the food needs of vulnerable populations that arise in natural disasters and in other food crisis situations. Members also shared the view that FAC could play an important role in helping members receive adequate credit for the resources that they provide to meet food needs. ¶3. (U) Several members, led by the EC, argued in favor of broadening the tool kit available under the convention from food aid to food assistance (including not only food commodities but also non-food mechanisms such as cash and vouchers, and livelihood supports). However, Japan and Switzerland argued in favor of a narrower focus on food aid. In addition, Members agreed that all food aid/assistance provided should be linked to needs and that the provision of food aid/assistance under a convention should be informed by a set of guiding principles such as "do no harm." Finally, members agreed that there was a shared view that members should engage more actively on coordination, cooperation and information sharing in the future, especially when food crises occur or are imminent. That said, no clear "shared vision" of the rationale for a new convention emerged from the lengthy discussions other than the need to ensure that commitments reflect what members should do and are doing in response to situations in which vulnerable groups require food. ¶4. (U) In terms of where the convention (and its committee) fits into the global food security architecture, members value the committee as a donor's forum, independent of implementing agencies such as the World Food Program, that has important technical expertise. Members agreed that it would be important to establish a link between the discussions in the FAC and other food security and humanitarian fora to avoid duplicating efforts. Rather, they STATE 00016421 002.2 OF 003 would wish to exploit the potential expertise of the FAC donor forum with a special focus on food access in humanitarian, transitional and fragile contexts. The U.S. reiterated that the Convention is the only legally binding treaty governing the provision of food aid to the world's needy and that it ensures a predictable minimum level of food aid is available annually to help respond to natural and man-made emergencies and other needs-based food requirements. Members further agreed that other bodies are not sufficiently aware of the work undertaken by the FAC and that the FAC must do a better job integrating itself into the global food security architecture while remaining independent. ¶5. (U) Members struggled to find common ground with respect to the role and the nature of commitments, a core component of any convention, although there was agreement that resource commitments should be linked to needs to the extent practicable. The U.S. noted that commitments have historically been a means of collective burden-sharing and expressed an interest in discussing commitment approaches that would be more relevant to situations in which the food needs exceeded the ability of any individual member to respond. (Note: the U.S. used the example of the looming food needs of Niger and Chad to make this point.) However, the focus of much of the discussion was more narrowly on individual member commitments. Members mostly agreed on the shortcomings of the current FAC structure, particularly its narrow "tonnage of food" focus (although the U.S. has pointed out that expressing commitments in tonnage rather than monetary value provides some predictability by insulating these commitments from price volatility). Members also agreed on the problem that the current commitments structure did not link commitments to need. However, no common view emerged about the type of commitment that a new convention might contain or the legal standing of that commitment regime. ¶6. (U) COMMENT: Members clearly need to develop a shared vision on FAC commitments concerning their type, content and status (legally binding or political) if they are to move ahead to negotiate a new convention. END COMMENT. ¶7. (U) Members expressed a willingness to explore the possibility of a flexible commitment structure in which all members would not have to make commitments in the same fashion, but could allow them the option to commit in tonnage terms, monetary terms, or in some other value. Members, however, were unsure what such a hybrid approach would mean in practice. Several donors, including the U.S. and Canada, suggested that it would be useful to have independent consultants consider the pros and cons of different types of commitment regimes. ¶8. (U) Members all agreed that the Food Aid Committee is not now living up to the pro-active role envisioned under the current convention. However, they also agreed that the role of the committee depends ultimately on the content and the structure of a new Convention, making it difficult to discuss this issue in detail at this point. Currently, members see three main roles for the committee: exchange of best practices/lessons learned-type information related to the provision of food aid/food assistance; ongoing provision of information through the FAC member website on situations requiring (or likely to require) food aid/assistance and on responses made in those situations; and possible extraordinary meetings in response to particular on-going emergencies to facilitate discussion and coordination between donors and to highlight situations of developing crises. ¶9. (U) NEXT STEPS. The Food Aid Committee agreed to establish a working group in order to continue work to make the convention a more effective instrument. The working group will begin its work by March 15 and will finalize its written report on the major components of a convention by May ¶14. The EC has promised to circulate to members on March 15 a draft of elements of key articles (such as objectives and commitments) of a new convention. Other members are expected to respond to this draft with suggestions of their own. The report will be put forward without any prejudice to a position members may adopt in any formal negotiation of the Convention. Members will meet again in London April 15-16 to facilitate the process. The report of the working group will be discussed at the informal meeting of members June 2 and 3 and then considered at the formal session of the Food Aid Committee on June 4. On the basis of this report, the Committee will decide how to proceed and, if necessary, STATE 00016421 003.2 OF 003 revise the terms of reference of the working group. ¶10. (U) The European Commission continues to exert significant pressure on the process. As in December, it again made clear that it may vote against extending the 1999 Convention at the June meetings unless clear progress is being made, i.e., members can signal a willingness to renegotiate the Convention. (Unless members all agree to extend it at the June 4 formal meeting of the Food Aid Committee, the 1999 Convention is set to expire July 1.) However, the EC signaled it is now willing to accept something short of a specific start date for a formal renegotiation. The Commission believes it can satisfy EU member states with a clear indication from FAC members that they are starting internal bureaucratic and/or legal processes towards either reconfiguring or formally renegotiating the FAC. While the U.S. demonstrated a clear willingness to continue this exploratory process, like other members it continues to insist that they will not agree to negotiations unless and until there is a shared vision for a new and decidedly better convention. Japan is particularly reluctant to agree to negotiations at this time. The U.S. delegation again made clear that it will seek guidance from its senior leadership about whether to embark on negotiations and the guiding principles for a new convention if the leadership gives the green light only after a clear vision for a new convention emerges. CLINTON