This record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available.

UNCLAS  ROME 002418 
 
SIPDIS 
 
 
STATE FOR E, EB, OES/ETC - NEUMANN, EB/TPP/BTT - MALAC, 
L/OES AND IO/EDA - KOTOK 
USDA FOR FAS - ETERPSTRA, BRICHEY, LREICH AND RHUGHES 
AND ARS - BRETTING AND BLALOCK 
USAID FOR EGAT - SIMMONS, MOORE, BERTRAM AND LEWIS 
 
FROM U.S. MISSION TO THE UN AGENCIES IN ROME 
 
E.O. 12958:  N/A 
TAGS: EAGR ETRD EAID SENV KIPR AORC FAO IPGRI
SUBJECT:  GLOBAL CROP DIVERSITY TRUST: U.S. PRIVATE- 
SECTOR AND PUBLIC SUPPORT WILL BE CRUCIAL TO LEVERAGE 
BROADER INTERNATIONAL PARTICIPATION 
 
REF:  (A) ROME 1057;  (B) ROME 1417 
 
¶1.  Summary: The Global Crop Diversity Trust is an 
independent international endowment that aims to provide 
permanent funding for the world's major crop diversity 
collections, which provide the foundation for future 
improvements in agricultural productivity.  The Trust has 
garnered firm pledges of $45 million from public and 
private sources, out of a target of $260 million.  Five 
countries, all from the Near East or Africa, have signed 
the Trust's Establishment Agreement thus far.  Signatures 
of three more countries representing three additional 
geographic regions are needed for the Trust to become 
legally established.  The Interim Secretariat remains 
hopeful that the required signatures may be forthcoming 
by the end of June 2004, which would allow the Trust to 
begin at the same time as the International Treaty for 
Plant Genetic Resources (which provides the framework for 
the Trust -- see reftels) enters into force.  In a 
briefing for U.S. Mission Rome, the Interim Secretariat 
expressed appreciation for the USAID commitment of 
$5 million for the Trust.  They stressed, however, that 
an additional U.S. pledge or statement of intention to 
contribute (possibly in partnership with private U.S. 
foundations) and USG signature of the Establishment 
Agreement would send important signals to other potential 
donors, thereby improving prospects for the medium-term 
realization of the Trust's aims.  In light of the 
imminent legal establishment of the Trust and the entry 
into force of the Treaty, a reassessment of the pros and 
cons of full U.S. participation in these bodies takes on 
increased urgency.  End summary. 
 
¶2.  On June 14, Global Crop Diversity Trust Interim 
Executive Secretary Geoffrey Hawtin, accompanied by 
Development Director Julian Laird, briefed Ambassador 
Hall and U.S. Mission senior staff on progress in 
fundraising and formal establishment of the Trust. 
Hawtin reviewed the Secretariat's efforts in three areas: 
(1) establishing the Trust as a legal international 
entity, (2) raising funds, and (3) planning initial 
disbursements from the Trust. 
 
Establishment of the Trust 
-------------------------- 
 
¶3.  An 11-member Interim Panel of Eminent Experts 
approved the Establishment Agreement and Constitution of 
the Trust in October 2003.  In February 2004, the 
Director General of the FAO (which houses the Interim 
Secretariat) circulated these instruments to governments 
 
SIPDIS 
worldwide and invited them to sign the Establishment 
Agreement.  (The text of DG's letter -- which provides a 
more formal and complete statement of the Trust's 
objectives -- is being transmitted septel.) 
 
¶4.  According to Hawtin, the governments of Cape Verde, 
Egypt, Jordan, Morocco and Togo have signed the 
Establishment Agreement thus far.  Armenia, Cambodia, 
Ecuador, Ethiopia, Ghana, Indonesia, Iran, Kenya, Peru, 
Rwanda and Syria have expressed interest in signing 
within the next month or two.  Other countries that are 
discussing signing are Australia, Canada, Germnay, 
Norway, Sweden and Switzerland. 
 
¶5.  The Establishment Agreement goes into effect when 
seven countries from five of FAO's geographic regions 
have signed.  (An additional criterion -- that at least 
four of the signatories must be developing countries -- 
has already been met.)  The Secretariat believes that the 
minimum required signatures could be achieved by the end 
of June, allowing the Trust to be launched as a legal 
international entity concurrently with entry into force 
of the Treaty, on July 1. 
 
¶6.  At a board meeting in Geneva the previous week, it 
was decided that the headquarters for the Trust would be 
situated in Rome, at least for the first five years. 
There will be a call for bids from governments interested 
in hosting the Secretariat thereafter.  Egypt and 
Ethiopia have already expressed tentative interest. 
 
Fundraising 
----------- 
 
¶7.  Hawkin said a endowment of $260 million would be 
needed to geerate the annual income of $12 million 
necessaryto support the international gene banks of the 
Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research 
(CGIAR) and selected major national collections.  (This 
assumes a return on the endowment of 5% annually, plus 
inflation, and allows about $1 million annually for 
operating expenses.)  About $45 million in funds or firm 
written commitments have already been received.  An 
additional $50-60 million is currently under discussion. 
 
¶8.  The principal governmental donors thus far are 
Australia, Canada, Switzerland, and the U.S.  In 
addition, Brazil, Colombia and Egypt have made more 
modest, but politically significant pledges.  Ethiopia is 
considering a donation of $50,000.  Among the foundations 
and private sector contributors are Gatsby Charitable 
Trust, the Rockefeller Foundation, the United Nations 
Foundation, the Syngenta Foundation and DuPont.  The 
Grains Research and Development Corporation (an 
Australian farmers' organization) also has contributed, 
and FAO and the International Plant Genetic Resources 
Institute (IPGRI) have provided in-kind support. 
 
Initial Activities 
------------------ 
 
¶9.  Hawtin said that the Interim Secretariat is designing 
a series of studies to set conservation priorities.  The 
Trust would likely make 4 or 5 grants before the end of 
2004, and 6 to 8 additional grants in 2005.  These would 
target gene banks at high risk, where relatively small 
infusions of resources would help stabilize the 
situation, and provide tangible evidence of the Trust's 
impact. 
 
USG Role 
-------- 
 
¶10.  Hawtin expressed gratitude for USAID's encouragement 
and support of the Trust, and for the U.S. contribution 
thus far of $5 million.  He expressed concern, however, 
that other pressing issues might have driven the Trust 
from the USG's radar screen lately.  He said he hoped to 
meet Administrator Natsios in the coming weeks or months. 
Hawtin recognized that currently the U.S. budget 
situation is difficult, but he stressed that the USG 
stance toward the Trust has great impact worldwide.  Many 
other donors key their contributions to that of the U.S. 
He noted that, even if the U.S. is not ready or able to 
commit additional resources at this time, some sort of 
language from Congress or the Administration regarding 
likely future USG funding of the Trust would be extremely 
helpful in mobilizing resources elsewhere. 
 
¶11.  Ambassador Hall and Mission officers reaffirmed USG 
interest in the Trust, and highlighted USAID's efforts to 
involve private-sector donors.  We noted in particular 
USAID's effort to involve the Gordon and Betty Moore 
Foundation (Intel) in preparations for the Trust and as a 
potentially significant donor.  We said that the current 
budgetary climate and political season in Washington made 
additional USG funding commitments unlikely at this time, 
but that congressional report language could serve as a 
nonbinding signal of intent regarding possible future 
contributions.  The Trust would need to have legislators 
willing to champion its cause in key committees.  We 
noted there might also be an opportunity for USAID to 
highlight the Trust's potential role in increasing 
agricultural productivity and its need for additional 
donor support at the informal Tidewater meeting of OECD 
development cooperation ministers on June 23. 
 
¶12.  We added that there may be reluctance on the part of 
some USG agencies to commit further to the Trust or to 
recommend ratification of the Treaty until key aspects of 
the Treaty (particularly the Material Transfer Agreement 
[MTA]) are worked out.  Hawtin pointed out that, by 
ratifying the Treaty, the USG effectively gains veto 
power, since all policy decisions of Treaty's Governing 
Body are made by consensus.  We commented that this 
argument was familiar in Washington, and that USG 
agencies were aware of the risks of the U.S. becoming a 
 
marginalized observer to a major international treaty (as 
has been the case, for example, in the Convention on 
Biological Diversity).  Nevertheless, there appeared to 
be no consensus for U.S. ratification of the Treaty at 
this time. 
 
Comment 
------- 
 
¶13.  The linkages between the Global Crop Diversity Trust 
and the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources 
bear further consideration.  A substantial partnership 
with the U.S. private sector in support of the Trust 
could be key to leveraging greater support in both the 
executive and legislative branches.  A major alliance 
that encompasses USAID, State and USDA with U.S. private 
sector partners (e.g., the Moore Foundation) could 
similarly be helpful in leading to a refinement or 
reassessment of the stance USG takes on the Treaty. 
 
¶14.  As of June 11, FAO had not received sufficient 
voluntary donor contributions for holding the MTA 
negotiation, but the Secretariat still has tentative 
plans to hold the meeting in the autumn of this year. 
Meanwhile, the Treaty (although incomplete without the 
MTA) enters into force on July 1, 2004, and the Governing 
Body must hold its first meeting within two years of that 
date (or possibly sooner, if one-third of the countries 
that have ratified the Treaty so request). 
 
¶15.  With these pending developments, the question of USG 
ratification takes on increased urgency.  It may be time 
to reflect further on what, if any, would be the "down 
sides" to seeking U.S. ratification.  Even if the process 
were started and not yet completed, it could help 
strengthen the hand of the US delegation in the sessions 
where the MTA will be negotiated. 
 
Hall 
 
 
NNNN 
 2004ROME02418 - Classification: UNCLASSIFIED