VZCZCXRO8227
RR RUEHAG RUEHAST RUEHDA RUEHDF RUEHFL RUEHIK RUEHKW RUEHLA RUEHLN
RUEHLZ RUEHPOD RUEHROV RUEHSR RUEHVK RUEHYG
DE RUEHFR #1436/01 2101612
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 281612Z JUL 08
FM AMEMBASSY PARIS
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 3935
INFO RUEHZL/EUROPEAN POLITICAL COLLECTIVE
RUEHOT/AMEMBASSY OTTAWA 2275
RUEHKO/AMEMBASSY TOKYO 2798
RUEHRC/USDA FAS WASHDC

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 04 PARIS 001436 
 
SIPDIS 
SENSITIVE 
 
E.O. 19528: N/A 
TAGS: EAID EAGR ECON FR
SUBJECT: GOF HOSTS INFORMAL MEETING ON GLOBAL FOOD 
PARTNERSHIP 
 
REF: DWYER 6/20 (AND PREVIOUS) E-MAILS 
 
PARIS 00001436  001.2 OF 004 
 
 
¶1. (SBU) Summary:  On 7/23 FranceQs Ministry of 
Agriculture hosted an informal meeting with 
international partners to further thinking on a 
Qglobal partnership for food and agriculture.Q  The 
proposal fleshes out an initiative initially raised by 
President Sarkozy at the June 3 High-level Food 
Security Conference in Rome, and subsequently 
discussed at an informal 6/19 meeting in Paris (ref). 
The French see their three-pronged initiative as 
responding to -- and validated by -- the G8 LeaderQs 
Statement call for a global food partnership, as well 
as for a Qglobal network of high-level experts on food 
and agriculture.Q  Aspects of the current French 
proposal are still problematic, but there appears to 
be sufficient common ground for us to work with the 
GOF to shape the Global Partnership on Food and 
Agriculture (termed by the French as the International 
Group for Food Security).    End summary. 
 
¶2. (SBU) The 7/23 informal meeting was chaired by 
Ministry of Agriculture DAS-equivalent for 
International Affairs Philippe Vincon, and organized 
by the MFA Directorate General for Cooperation (the 
development ministry).  USAID/Rome Richard Newberg, 
USAID/DCHA/PPM Susan Bradley, Ag Minister Counselor 
and Econ Counselor attended for the U.S.  Bilat 
participants (largely from Paris and/or Rome missions) 
included Australia, Belgium, the UK, Mexico, Sweden, 
Luxembourg, Canada, New Zealand, Germany, Poland, 
Portugal, Switzerland, Denmark, Ireland and 
Luxembourg.  Representatives from the European 
Commission, WFP, FAO, IFAD and the African Development 
Bank also participated.  The World Bank was not 
represented. 
 
¶3. (SBU) The GOF characterized its initiative as an 
effort to make Qexisting instruments more efficient, 
not to create new structures.  The initiative would be 
based on three pillars:  1) a global partnership that 
would serve as a Qpolicy spaceQ for broad-based 
stakeholder (governmental and NGO) discussions on food 
security policy; 2) an international group of experts 
that would bring a multidisciplinary perspective to 
the table and inform the global partnership; 3) a 
modest new financing facility, to be housed at IFAD, 
that would help catalyze private sector and IFI 
reengagement in agricultural investment and lending. 
(Note: Post has e-mailed latest GOF working documents 
describing three pillars to EUR/WE, EEB and F. End 
note.) 
 
Global Partnership on Food and Agriculture 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
 
¶4. (SBU) In its presentation of pillar one the GOF 
emphasized the need for a place to discuss the impact 
of broad-based public policy choices on food security, 
and to better coordinate policy responses.  From trade 
to environmental issues a wide range of factors impact 
global food security, yet there was no vehicle for 
discussing general Qpolicy coherenceQ on such issues. 
The French would open a partnership (which would come 
together in annual high-level meetings) of UN 
agencies, Bretton Woods institutions, donors, 
beneficiaries, private sector and professional 
organizations, supported by a secretariat.  The global 
partnership, or QInternational Group for Food 
Security,Q would elaborate a comprehensive global 
strategy on food security with recommendations on 
agricultural production, regulation, policies, public 
resource allocation, and the formulation of the 
research agenda for an international panel of experts. 
For the annual meetings an appointed panel of experts 
would produce a report on global food insecurity and 
the financing that was allocated to the effort.  The 
global partnership, presumably through the 
Secretariat, would also develop and implement a 
communications strategy to push out policy 
recommendations.  The GOF suggested the UNSYGQs Task 
Force on Global Food Security Crisis might provide a 
secretariat for such a group, but had not yet raised 
the idea there. 
 
¶5. (SBU) The presentation generated considerable 
discussion on the challenge, and desirability, of 
generating QglobalQ policy responses when key drivers 
 
PARIS 00001436  002 OF 004 
 
 
of food security varied considerably from region to 
region.  Most welcomed a multidisciplinary approach, 
saying it made little sense to discuss food security 
without taking into account poverty reduction goals, 
the impact of climate change, trade policy and other 
critical factors.  Most, including the U.S., also 
agreed that country-led responses would be a critical 
part of the equation.  The U.S. del cautioned against 
a large bureaucratic structure and mandate associated 
with the Global Partnership and Secretariat, and 
suggested as a model the International Partnership on 
Avian and Pandemic Influenza (IPAPI).  The UK rep said 
HMG thinking on a global partnership was Qfairly 
advanced,Q that it favored a Qlight structureQ as 
suggested by the U.S., and that the French proposal 
Qcould be it.Q  He emphasized the importance of 
bringing private sector actors into the equation. 
There was a general consensus that annual meetings 
would be insufficient. 
 
¶6. (SBU) The French chair informally summarized the 
partnership discussion by saying that 1) views were 
advanced, but the input of this group would be taken 
into account in a final proposal; 2) the fact that 800 
million people are suffering from hunger indicates 
there is a policy problem that needs to be addressed, 
and a need to help policymakers understand the impact 
of broad-based policy choices on food security; 3) 
nobody wants to create a new body, the idea is to 
better coordinate existing agencies. 
 
International Panel on Food Security 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
 
¶7. (SBU) The French described an QInternational Panel 
on Food SecurityQ as a possible response to the G8 
call for a Qglobal network of high-level experts. 
The GOF envisions a multidisciplinary group of experts 
to provide Qscientific, objective and incontestable 
analysisQ to the Global Partnership (on an annual 
basis) to better anticipate and manage food crises. 
The IPCC and its analysis of climate change could 
serve as a model.  A secretariat could be housed at 
the FAO.  The group would have four functions: 1) 
assess the food security situation; 2) analyze the 
determinant factors of food insecurity; 3) analyze the 
feasibility of different policy tools and measures; 4) 
identify risks of food crises.  The GOF emphasized the 
importance of casting the net beyond agronomists, to 
bring in economists, political scientists, 
sociologists and others who could speak to the impact 
of broader policy issues on food security. 
 
¶8. (SBU) In follow-up discussion some participants 
questioned the value-added of such a group, whether 
and how the information would be used, and whether 
existing structures might be tweaked to perform the 
same functions.  U.S. del recommended a lighter, more 
inclusive and possibly voluntary, agile Qglobal 
networkQ (again along the IPAPI model and as agreed to 
by the G-8), rather than a panel of experts appointed 
by a global partnership.  The U.S. del also voiced 
concern over housing a secretariat for the panel of 
experts at FAO while that organization should be more 
focused now on institutional reform.  FAO must produce 
an Immediate Action Plan to implement the 
recommendations of the Independent External Evaluation 
that is acceptable to the U.S. and other member 
states.  U.S. del further opined that much of the 
proposed analysis is already out there and we should 
move to action with a sense of urgency. 
 
¶9. (SBU) In referring to the IPCC analogy the French 
chair summarized by acknowledging that the science of 
climate change was QsimpleQ relative to the science of 
food security.  The French recognized the need to 
clarify the relationship between the experts group 
(pillar 2) and the global partnership (panel 1).  In 
the French view the QpartnershipQ would be the place 
for strategic discussion of political and economic 
policy, the experts group a means of involving the 
scientific community in informing that discussion. 
For example, what is the impact of climate change on 
agricultural production in five or ten years?  The 
scientific community could give advice to policymakers 
in terms of consequences.  On FAO, the French agreed 
on the criticality of reform going forward.  But for 
QcoherenceQ an experts group on food and agriculture 
 
PARIS 00001436  003.2 OF 004 
 
 
would have to have some sort of relationship with FAO. 
 
Financial Reengagement 
- - - - - - - - - - - - 
 
¶10. (SBU) The third pillar (Qfinancial reengagementQ) 
responds to what the GOF sees as a need for Qmassive 
reengagementQ of the financial community to ensure 
food security.  There were five targets: eliminate 
bottlenecks (ranging from land and water use to 
financial services); improve public policies; create 
jobs; improve safety nets; and compensate for macro 
shocks.  These could be tackled through four main 
channels: strengthening existing specialized 
institutions; reengaging multilateral institutions 
(including new instruments and expertise); engaging 
new actors (better tapping global savings, including 
sovereign wealth funds); and by creating a new 
facility (a QGlobal Facility for Food SecurityQ) to be 
housed at IFAD. 
 
¶11. (SBU) For the latter the GOF envisions a 
catalytic, flexible facility to finance Qniche 
projects and Qtake risksQ that larger institutions 
might shun.  The facility would have two windows, one 
to support capacity-building and enhance prevention 
and management of food crises, a second to support 
projects to boost productivity (with particular focus 
on smallholders).  Added-value would come from the 
focus on innovative financing and smallholders.  The 
facility would also help to access (and thus improve 
the efficiency of) larger investment funds to scale up 
projects.  The French reported that private sector 
institutions such as Credit Agricole had expressed 
interest in becoming more active in the sector, 
provided they could be accompanied by a facility such 
as that which the GOF was proposing. 
 
¶12. (SBU) In follow-up discussion the IFAD rep 
confirmed that his organization would be willing to 
host such a facility.  In responding to the U.S. del 
question as to why these same objectives could not be 
pursued as part of the next replenishment cycle (2010- 
2012), in which IFAD is requesting a doubling of 
resources to scale up programs in response to rising 
food and fuel prices,  the IFAD rep said that a 
facility as proposed by the French (a multi-donor 
trust fund) would not be limited by IFAD strictures 
and could be designed for maximum flexibility, 
including for possible financing of private sector 
initiatives, and attract additional funding.  The U.S. 
del also raised concerns about a proposed parallel 
governance structure for the facility that would 
appear to substitute for the role of the Executive 
Board, especially if the proposed facility was to be 
substantial.  The French presenter said the proposed 
fund would not be that large, but if it grew to $1 
billion that would be QgreatQ. 
 
¶13. (SBU) In his informal conclusion the French chair 
noted general agreement on the need for more, and more 
innovative, investment (including private sector 
investment) in agriculture.  The size of, and rules 
for access to, a facility are open questions, as are 
questions related to governance.  While the GOF was 
suggesting a fairly modest-sounding facility, it was 
Qtoo earlyQ to discuss numbers.  The African Water 
Facility, housed within the African Development Bank, 
might serve as a reference in terms of scale. 
 
Next Steps 
- - - - - - 
 
¶14. (SBU) Looking ahead the French said they plan to 
meet with the UN Task Force in August, and consult 
further with EU partners.  They hope to distribute 
draft working papers (in English) incorporating the 
7/23 discussion by late August.  In early fall the GOF 
would look to meet with developing country partners. 
France was considering putting something on the table 
for broader consideration at UNGA in late September 
(Note: Consistent with the G8 Leaders Statement call 
to Qwork with other interested parties for the next 
UN General Assembly to realize the global 
partnership.Q  End note.)  The World Bank/IMF Annual 
Meetings in October might also be a suitable venue for 
further discussion of the global partnership. 
 
 
PARIS 00001436  004.2 OF 004 
 
 
¶15. (SBU) Comment:  The GOF sees itself in the lead, 
even beyond its EU presidency, for creating a global 
partnership for food and agriculture, and plans to 
present a proposal for the UNGA in September.  From 
our vantage thereQs sufficient common ground to engage 
with the French and shape the partnership, which, in 
its broad outlines, the GOF sees as having been 
validated by (and responding to) the G8 Leadership 
Statement.  The GOF will be under the gun from 
President Sarkozy to push this effort forward.  In its 
view the train has left the station and we will need 
to work constructively with the French well in advance 
of UNGA to avoid unpleasant surprises.  An offer to 
co-host with the French (possibly in conjunction with 
appropriate G8 partners such as Italy, the U.K., or 
Japan) an event related to the partnership proposal on 
the margins of UNGA (or the WB/IMF Annual Meetings) 
could be a way of ensuring that weQre on the same 
page. 
 
STAPLETON