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

UNCLAS  ROME 001452 
 
SIPDIS 
 
 
FROM THE U.S. MISSION TO THE UN AGENCIES IN ROME 
 
USDA FAS FOR U/S BOST, JBUTLER, MCHAMBLISS, LREICH 
STATE FOR IO DAS MILLER, IO/EDA, OES/E, E, EB; 
AID FOR EGAT, DCHA/OFDA, DCHA/FFP 
PASS USTR AND PEACE CORPS 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: EAGR AORC ETRD EAID SENV FAO
SUBJECT: 19TH SESSION OF THE FAO COMMITTEE ON 
AGRICULTURE, 13-16 APRIL 2005 
 
¶1.  Summary.  The Nineteenth Session of the UN Food and 
Agriculture Organization (FAO) Committee on Agriculture 
(COAG) met in Rome April 13-16, 2005.  The Committee 
reviewed and provided recommendations on FAO's program of 
work in the food and agriculture sector.  Members 
supported the main programmatic thrusts of the 2006-11 
Medium Term Plan (MTP), but called for alternative budget 
scenarios and improved prioritization (even as they 
differed on what those priorities should be).  The 
Committee discussed selected development issues: 
Sustainable Agricultural and Rural Development (SARD), 
FAO's strategy for a safe and nutritious food supply, the 
globalizing livestock sector, and bioenergy.  Some 
delegations (including the U.S.) sought clarification on 
FAO's interpretation of "good agricultural practices" 
(GAP) and references to the "expected nutritional value" 
of food.  COAG endorsed a Brazilian proposal to host in 
2006 an International Conference on Agrarian Reform and 
Rural Development (the USG was skeptical, but when the 
concept became unstoppable we secured modifications to 
the proposal that made it less problematic).  The new, 
shorter COAG session back-to-back with the Committee on 
Commodity Problems (CCP) proved to be an effective 
format.  The side events included a presentation on the 
USDA-supported international Internet-based portal on 
food safety.  We objected, however, to the event's title 
-- "Information, Biosecurity and Ethics," and the 
implicit link to a vague "ethical framework," and were 
assured that henceforth the trade-facilitation aspect of 
this project would be emphasized by FAO, with extraneous 
references deleted.  End summary. 
 
¶2.  The USDA delegation was headed by Adela Backiel, 
Director of Sustainable Development, Office of the Chief 
Economist, and included Richard Hughes, FAO Liaison 
Officer, Foreign Agricultural Service.  The U.S. Mission 
was represented by David Hegwood (Agriculture) and Willem 
Brakel (State).  Canada represented the North American 
Region on the drafting committee.  The official report of 
COAG will be posted on the FAO web site shortly; this 
cable outlines issues of greatest interest to USG 
audiences. 
 
Program Implementation Report (PIR) 2002-03 
------------------------------------------- 
 
¶3.  The Committee reviewed the PIR (the prime 
accountability document submitted to FAO governing 
bodies) -- or at least the sections pertaining to food 
and agriculture.  Members welcomed the new format and its 
evolution to a more results-based document. 
 
Medium Term Plan 2006-11 and the Preliminary Program of 
Work Proposals for 2006-11 
--------------------------------------------- ---------- 
 
¶4.  COAG members expressed support for the main program 
thrusts of the MTP.  Informed of the Secretariat's effort 
to apply the criteria for priority setting approved in 
1999, they nevertheless stressed the need for further 
improvements in the prioritization of programs. 
Notwithstanding the foregoing, members in their 
interventions tended to highlight very different programs 
as being the most important, thereby demonstrating the 
difficulty of agreeing on priorities.  Among the 
activities highlighted by delegates were: the 
International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC) and 
Codex Alimentarius; water management and land- and water- 
quality improvements; control of pests and animal 
diseases; funding for the International Treaty on Plant 
Genetic Resources; capacity building for WTO trade 
negotiations and for national agricultural statistical 
systems; the Food Insecurity and Vulnerability 
Information and Mapping System (FIVIMS); the Global 
Information and Early Warning System (GIEWS); work on 
SARD, land tenure, HIV/AIDS, gender, agricultural 
research, and biotechnology; and the Special Program for 
Food Security.  Many expressed support for further FAO 
work to implement the "Voluntary Guidelines on the Right 
to Adequate Food in the Context of National Food 
Security." 
 
¶5.  A number of delegates reminded the Secretariat of 
 
 
members' prior requests for inclusion of several budget 
scenarios, including Zero Nominal Growth, in the MTP. 
Members were assured that these scenarios would be 
presented in the Summary Program of Work and Budget for 
2006-07, and would be discussed in other FAO bodies later 
this year.  There were also requests for additional 
information in the MTP on extra-budgetary resources, but 
the Secretariat responded that such contributions are 
hard to predict with certainty. 
 
Sustainable Agriculture and Rural Development (SARD) and 
Good Agricultural Practices (GAP) 
--------------------------------------------- ------------ 
 
¶6.  On this primary agenda item for COAG, there were over 
40 interventions, with all countries commending FAO's 
interdisciplinary work on SARD, supporting the three 
program thrusts that were identified to guide future 
direction, and encouraging continued work with the SARD 
Initiative, a civil-society led, FAO facilitated, action- 
oriented partnership. 
 
¶7.  Two issues in the SARD paper proved to be the most 
contentious of the entire COAG meeting: Good Agricultural 
Practices (GAP) and the proposal for Brazil to host an 
international conference on agrarian reform in 2006. 
Ironically, both issues should have been stand-alone 
agenda items, rather than having been included in the 
paper on SARD, making substantive discussion on SARD 
difficult. 
 
¶8.  While most countries supported the idea of GAP, some 
countries, including the U.S., Australia, New Zealand, 
Canada, and Zimbabwe, still raised concerns similar to 
those raised in the 2003 COAG on this issue.  Although 
FAO had reiterated, in paragraph 27 of the SARD paper, 
that GAP would not create any new regulatory-type 
frameworks, would be consistent with existing ones (e.g., 
IPPC and Codex), would not create barriers to trade, and 
would be voluntary and non-prescriptive, there was enough 
ambiguity in the remaining paragraphs that made countries 
question these assertions and exactly what was meant by 
such phrases as "global GAP principles" and "required GAP 
protocols." 
 
¶9.  In the drafting committee, the COAG Report proved 
difficult to negotiate on these points.  The final text 
showed an inconsistency between paragraphs 22 and 23, in 
which it was acknowledged that some countries called for 
further clarification of GAP, then declared that the 
Committee recommended further development of GAP. 
Responding to efforts led by Australia and supported by 
the U.S., the Secretariat agreed that this was an 
inconsistency and that "further clarification would be 
provided in a timely manner."  It was understood that 
further work on GAP would not be done unless there was 
agreement on GAP from the information provided. 
 
¶10.  Many countries intervened only to endorse Brazil's 
proposal for an international conference on agrarian 
reform.  While all agreed on the importance of issues to 
be taken up by such a conference, much concern was voiced 
about the potential expense, in both budgetary and staff 
support, to FAO.  This concern was noted with the request 
for FAO to keep member countries apprised of conference 
budget estimates.  After the report was accepted by the 
Committee, Brazil took the floor to say that they would 
cover conference expenses.  The USG was skeptical of 
Brazil's initial call for a "world" conference and the 
associated costs and possible calls for new international 
instruments.  When, however, it became clear that the 
proposal was unstoppable, we worked behind the scenes 
with the Brazilian delegation to downgrade the "world" 
conference to an "international" conference, and to 
specify that the conference would provide "a forum for 
discussion and exchange of information on national 
policies" and international cooperation. 
 
¶11.  The Report also took on the U.S. suggestion that the 
COAG meeting in 2009 (which will be the next time that 
the Committee will review SARD) be used as a foundation 
for that year's discussion on agriculture, land and rural 
development at the 17th session of the UN Commission on 
 
 
Sustainable Development. 
 
FAO's Strategy for a Safe and Nutritious Food Supply 
--------------------------------------------- ------- 
 
¶12.  At the seventeenth session of COAG in April 2003, 
members had agreed that the agenda item "FAO's Strategy 
Towards a Food Chain Approach for Food Safety and 
Quality" needed to be revised.  The revision presented 
this year was generally supported as an improved proposed 
FAO strategy.  The Committee endorsed the development of 
a strategic food chain approach and requested support for 
the implementation and allocation of funds from the 
regular budget.  During interventions, the EU mentioned 
the need for more funding to the Codex Trust Fund.  The 
U.S. statement reflected a concern on FAO's introduction 
of the concept of "expected nutritional value," 
particularly if Codex were to take up tis concept in its 
standard setting.  We added that, until we understand 
more fully what is encompassed within the concept, FAO 
should move very cautiously into this area. 
 
The Globalizing Livestock Sector: Impact of Changing 
Markets 
--------------------------------------------- ------- 
 
¶13.  Many members agreed that the livestock sector has an 
important role to play in economic development and food 
security.  They endorsed the need for an enhanced FAO 
capacity building program to assist developing countries 
plan and implement their national strategies in order to 
take advantage of trade opportunities.  Several members 
also expressed concern over transboundary animal 
diseases.  The U.S. commented that FAO had a role to play 
in improving small-scale livestock producers, traders and 
processors. 
 
Bioenergy 
--------- 
 
¶14.  Although not discussed at great length, the issue of 
bioenergy to help diversify agricultural and forestry 
activities and to improve food security while 
contributing to sustainable development was seen as 
important FAO work.  It was agreed that a Priority Area 
for Inter-disciplinary Action (PAIA) would be formed on 
this topic. 
 
Side Events 
----------- 
 
¶15.  Six side events were held in conjunction with the 
Session: SARD and Civil Society; Water for Food and 
Ecosystems; Information, Biosecurity and Ethics; 
Bioenergy and Agriculture; the Impact of HIV/AIDS and 
other Diseases on Nutrition, Food Security and Rural 
Livelihoods; and the New Partnership for African 
Development (NEPAD).  Ten U.S. civil-society 
organizations (CSOs) came to Rome to participate in the 
SARD side event and other related CSO activities.  The 
United States objected to FAO's introducing the USDA- 
funded Internet-based portal on food security as part of 
a vague ethical framework tied to the Millennium 
Development Goals.  After a private meeting with the 
Assistant Director-General of the Economic and Social 
Department, we were assured that, in the future, FAO 
would present this web site strictly as an information 
portal to facilitate trade, ensure food safety, provide 
the latest information on standards and international 
regulations and protect animal and plant health. 
 
Other Matters 
------------- 
 
¶16.  The EU proposal to combine COAG and the Committee on 
Commodity Problems raised a lively discussion among 
members, who then requested that the Secretariat prepare 
an assessment on such a proposal for presentation to the 
joint Program and Finance Committee in September and the 
Council in November. 
 
¶17.  The Twentieth Session is scheduled to take place in 
Rome during April 2007. 
 
 
HALL 
 
 
NNNN 
	2005ROME01452 - Classification: UNCLASSIFIED