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 
 
¶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