VZCZCXRO1125
PP RUEHIK
DE RUEHC #6421/01 0541650
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
P 231647Z FEB 10
FM SECSTATE WASHDC
TO EU MEMBER STATES COLLECTIVE PRIORITY
RUEHSW/AMEMBASSY BERN PRIORITY 7493
RUEHBY/AMEMBASSY CANBERRA PRIORITY 6542
RUEHNY/AMEMBASSY OSLO PRIORITY 0207
RUEHOT/AMEMBASSY OTTAWA PRIORITY 1508
RUEHKO/AMEMBASSY TOKYO PRIORITY 2415
RUEHBS/USEU BRUSSELS PRIORITY

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