VZCZCXRO7973
OO RUEHRN
DE RUEHRN #0041/01 1751444
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
O R 241444Z JUN 09
FM USMISSION UN ROME
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 1107
INFO RUEHC/USAID WASHDC
RUEHRC/USDA FAS WASHDC
RUEATRS/DEPT OF TREASURY WASHINGTON DC
RHEHAAA/NSC WASHINGTON DC
RUCNDT/USMISSION USUN NEW YORK 0332
RUEHGV/USMISSION GENEVA 0254
RUEHBS/USEU BRUSSELS 0208
RUEHUNV/USMISSION UNVIE VIENNA 0034
RUEHRO/AMEMBASSY ROME 0468
RUEHRN/USMISSION UN ROME 1181

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 03 UN ROME 000041 
 
SENSITIVE 
SIPDIS 
 
USDA FOR DOUVELIS, TREASURY FOR L.MORRIS, NSC FOR C.PRATT 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: PREL EAID EAGR FAO UN
SUBJECT: COMMITTEE ON WORLD FOOD SECURITY (CFS):  REFORM PROCESS 
UNDERWAY, MOSTLY AT IDEOLOGICAL LEVEL 
 
REF: USUN 9 
 
¶1.  (U) This cable is sensitive but unclassified.  Not for 
internet distribution or dissemination outside USG channels. 
 
Summary: 
-------- 
 
¶2.  (U) Within the UN's Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), 
efforts are well under way to reform the Committee on World Food 
Security (CFS), a committee created in the 1970s with the goal 
of having it serve as a convergence point for the UN system to 
address agriculture and food security issues.  Following last 
October's CFS session, members agreed that the committee had not 
lived up to its potential or expectations, and major reforms 
were necessary to assure its future relevance.  A five-member 
Bureau, under the leadership of the Permanent Representative of 
Argentina, has been leading debate on the issue, and convened 
four working groups to address various aspects of the intended 
reform.  Those working groups, the Bureau, CFS members, and 
others met all day on June 23 to review progress and debate 
relevant issues. 
 
The CFS "Contact Group" 
----------------------- 
 
¶3.  (U) To assist with the reform process, the CFS Bureau 
created a "Contact Group" composed of member states, UN/Bretton 
Woods Institution representatives and other international 
agencies (i.e., Bioversity International), and civil society 
organizations. Present at the June 23 meetings were David 
Nabarro, Coordinator of the UN High Level Task Force Secretariat 
(HLTF/S), WFP, IFAD, Bioversity, World Bank, numerous member 
states, and a variety of NGO representatives.  The CFS Bureau 
also created four "Working Groups" to contribute to the reform 
process, assisted by "facilitators" from FAO.  The groups are: 
WG I, "Role and Vision" of a revitalized CFS, coordinated by 
Sudan; WG II, "Membership and Decision-taking," coordinated by 
Colombia; WG III, "Mechanisms and Procedures," coordinated by 
Switzerland; and, WG IV, coordinated by the U.S.  Each group met 
separately during the day to prepare for an evening plenary 
session.  This work is expected to culminate with a final paper 
from the CFS Bureau on its reform proposals, for delivery at 
October's CFS session in Rome. 
 
Working Group I - Role and Vision 
------------------- 
 
¶4.  (U) From the start of the reform process, members have been 
unified in saying that the current CFS has failed to become 
relevant or influential.  A revitalized CFS, they insist, should 
be inclusive, open to all major stakeholders such as UN HLTF 
members, NGO/CSO reps, small farmers' associations, producer 
organizations, private sector, and philanthropies.  Some argue 
(e.g., France and G-77 leaders) that CFS should serve as a home 
for the emerging "Global Partnership on Agriculture and Food 
Security" (or, GPAFS).  Members generally supported the vision 
outlined in a zero-draft document prepared by the Secretariat 
following consultations with the CFS Contact Group - that is, 
"to eliminate hunger and achieve food security for all."  Many 
participants (led by Brazil) insisted that the "full realization 
of the Right to Food" be included as a central theme for the 
CFS.  Other proposed that CFS serve as a policy convergence 
platform which could, among other things, promote implementation 
of the Voluntary Guidelines on the Right to Food. 
 
¶5.  (SBU) Participants expressed support that the CFS be a 
"platform" or "space" for policy convergence informed by expert 
advice and lessons learned from past FAO attempts like that of 
the World Food Council.  Other principal roles suggested 
included coordination and alignment among agencies, donors, and 
governments, especially regarding more efficient use of existing 
resources.  There was general (though not unanimous) sentiment 
that CFS would not serve as a forum for financial "pledging." 
Future discussions of Working Group I will consider ways to 
prioritize an agenda for CFS, perhaps through a phased approach 
and implementation of an as-yet undefined results-based 
framework.  During the plenary, Brazil and several NGOs objected 
to a summary document provided by the group's coordinator - 
criticizing the lack of attention to points they had made in 
working group meetings (Comment:  Many of the U.S. talking 
 
UN ROME 00000041  002 OF 003 
 
 
points from the working group were well-represented in the 
summary, but may now be watered down to satisfy the G-77.  End 
comment.) 
 
Working Group II- Rights for Non-voting Members? 
------------------------------ 
 
¶6.  (U) Working Group II reached consensus on membership, but 
needed more clarification on the decision-making process.  The 
zero draft proposed three alternatives for membership 
composition.  The first option maintains the status quo of full 
membership for states and observer status for all other 
stakeholders.  The second option allows for full participation 
of a broad array of stakeholders, including NGOs, farmers' 
organizations, private foundations, research institutions, 
people's organizations representing vulnerable groups (youth, 
rural women, urban poor, indigenous), and the private sector, 
while maintaining the exclusive right to vote for governments. 
The third option in which some non-state stakeholders would have 
equal membership, including voting rights, received some support 
from Northern European delegates as well as the NGOs 
International Planning Committee for Food Sovereignty (IPC) and 
Via Campesina.  The consensus at the conclusion of Working Group 
II settled on option two, although some representatives 
challenged this during the evening plenary session.  Nabarro 
encouraged the Chair to invite participation from the private 
sector as well as relevant trade bodies like the WTO and UNCTAD, 
a point that had been stressed earlier by the U.S.  The working 
group will meet again on July 23 to review an updated draft on 
membership elements. 
 
Working Group III - More Details Needed on Rules and Procedures 
--------------------------------- 
 
¶7.  (U) According to the zero draft prepared by the Secretariat, 
Working Group III was charged with defining the new procedural, 
administrative, financial, and legal elements of a reformed CFS. 
Group III found its work hindered by insufficient communication 
of the conclusions reached by Working Groups I and II, a problem 
faced by all groups because discussions took place 
simultaneously.  Members agreed that CFS is a process as opposed 
to an event, and that it must be "living and inclusive," 
responding to food security issues as they arise, not annually 
in formal sessions.  From the HLTF perspective, Nabarro opined 
that the reform process appeared to be too rushed and ambitious 
to make an artificial October 2009 deadline.  He proposed a 
phased-in approach whereby WGs would focus on putting into place 
activities that would assist certain stakeholders in the 
short-term, followed by a remodelling two-three years later.  In 
addition to the Rome-based food agencies, Nabarro, Australia and 
the U.S. advocated for a strong, joint secretariat that includes 
stakeholders such as the UN Secretariat, IFIs and 
trade/health/human rights organizations.   So as to avoid the 
perception that CFS is FAO-centric, the U.S. went even further 
by suggesting that CFS report to a larger body (e.g., UNGA) 
rather than to FAO Conference as proposed in the zero draft. 
The working group will meet again on July 8 to discuss the 
elements in more detail following coordination with the other 
working groups. 
 
 
Working Group IV - Expert Panel Looking Likely 
------------------------------- 
 
¶8.  (U) A list of substantive questions had been supplied to 
members on the expected role, structure, governance, selection 
process, and funding for the proposed High Level Panel of 
Experts (HLPE), WG IV members spoke mostly in generalities. To 
the questions of some who questioned why this panel was 
necessary, the Secretariat clarified that expert panels existed 
at FAO, but none in the multi-disciplinary area of food 
security.  Members agreed that a HLPE could add value to the 
work of CFS and others as a "public good."  Similarly, members 
stressed that any HLPE should be informed by experiences at the 
ground level, and therefore be flexible and responsive to the 
needs of the poor and hungry.  Some members suggested that the 
role of the HLPE would be to serve as the scientific basis by 
which CFS could debate and make policy recommendations.  Several 
members indicated their preference for the use of the word 
"network" rather than panel. 
 
UN ROME 00000041  003 OF 003 
 
 
 
¶9.  (U) In order for an expert panel attached to CFS to have 
credibility, some members suggested the HLPE start small and 
subsequently enlarge over time.  No conclusion was reached on 
the question of sequencing, with some members supporting the 
formation of the panel apace with the overall CFS reform, while 
others preferring to wait until the roles and mechanisms of a 
revitalized CFS are concretely decided in October.  Members 
called for avoidance of duplication by any new panel, and 
repeated that any new panel should not do its own research but 
utilize existing, peer-reviewed source materials.  Members 
agreed that further discussion on cost, structure (including 
selection modalities), governance, terms of reference, and other 
issues was necessary.  Members will attempt to decide on more 
concrete proposals during informal meetings in the coming weeks. 
 
Comment 
-------- 
 
¶10.  (SBU) The discussion on CFS reform continues at a very 
conceptual, ideological basis, largely lacking in operational, 
country-led focus.  The G-77 (led by Brazil) is pushing hard to 
create a venue in which to press its parochial interests - many 
of which could be problematic to the USG.  These include trade 
system reform, a human rights-based approach to food security 
including more aggressive implementation of the "Right to Food," 
land tenure/reform, and monitoring mechanisms for how well 
countries are ensuring food security.  Despite US Mission 
interventions, there continues to be too little attention in 
this debate toward assuring good governance at the national 
level, creation of enabling environments for market-driven 
results, flexible country-led approaches, and improved 
"coordination" and delivery by the various actors within the UN 
system. 
BRUDVIGLA