VZCZCXRO3918
PP RUEHIK
DE RUEHRN #0078/01 3451651
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
P 111651Z DEC 09
FM USMISSION UN ROME
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 1223
INFO RUEHC/USAID WASHDC
RHEHAAA/NSC WASHINGTON DC
RUCNMEM/EU MEMBER STATES
RUEHZO/AFRICAN UNION COLLECTIVE
RUCNASE/ASEAN MEMBER COLLECTIVE
RUEHBR/AMEMBASSY BRASILIA PRIORITY 0019
RUEHMO/AMEMBASSY MOSCOW PRIORITY 0072
RUEHOT/AMEMBASSY OTTAWA PRIORITY 0129
RUEHRC/DEPT OF AGRICULTURE USD FAS WASHINGTON DC
RUEHBS/USEU BRUSSELS PRIORITY 0275
RUEHGV/USMISSION GENEVA PRIORITY 0330
RUCNDT/USMISSION USUN NEW YORK PRIORITY 0431
RUEATRS/DEPT OF TREASURY WASHINGTON DC
RUEHRN/USMISSION UN ROME 1299

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