VZCZCXRO2732
PP RUEHRN
DE RUEHRN #0049/01 2261456
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
P R 141456Z AUG 09
FM USMISSION UN ROME
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 1127
INFO RHEHAAA/NSC WASHINGTON DC
RUEHRC/USDA FAS WASHDC
RUEHC/USAID WASHDC
RUEATRS/DEPT OF TREASURY WASHINGTON DC
RUCNDT/USMISSION USUN NEW YORK 0350
RUEHGV/USMISSION GENEVA 0272
RUEHUNV/USMISSION UNVIE VIENNA 0041
RUEHBS/USEU BRUSSELS 0224
RUEHBR/AMEMBASSY BRASILIA 0011
RUEHBJ/AMEMBASSY BEIJING 0039
RUEHEG/AMEMBASSY CAIRO 0056
RUEHSA/AMEMBASSY PRETORIA 0012
RUEHFR/AMEMBASSY PARIS 0087
RUEHLO/AMEMBASSY LONDON 0051
RUEHNE/AMEMBASSY NEW DELHI 0023
RUEHKO/AMEMBASSY TOKYO 0126
RUEHBY/AMEMBASSY CANBERRA 0092
RUEHMO/AMEMBASSY MOSCOW 0050
RUEHOT/AMEMBASSY OTTAWA 0104
RUEHRO/AMEMBASSY ROME 0475
RUEHRN/USMISSION UN ROME 1201

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 04 UN ROME 000049 
 
SENSITIVE 
SIPDIS 
 
STATE FOR IO/FO, NSC FOR C.PRATT, TREASURY FOR L.MORRIS 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: ECON PREL EAGR EAID UN FAO
SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR GUIDANCE:  REFORM OF THE COMMITTEE ON WORLD FOOD 
SECURITY 
 
REF: A. USUN 41 (NOTAL) 
     ¶B. USUN 25 (NOTAL) 
     ¶C. USUN 17 (NOTAL) 
     ¶D. STATE 14025 (NOTAL) 
     ¶E. USUN 9 (NOTAL) 
     ¶F. 08 USUN 86 (NOTAL) 
 
¶1.  (U) This message is sensitive but unclassified.  Please 
handle accordingly. 
 
 
 
¶2.  This is an action request; please see paragraphs four, six, 
and eight. 
 
 
 
Summary 
 
------- 
 
¶3.  (SBU) Amidst an intensified focus on food and agricultural 
issues due to rising global hunger and malnutrition rates, the 
Committee on World Food Security (CFS) is undergoing a 
member-led overhaul intended to enhance its stature and 
effectiveness in confronting food insecurity.  The Committee, 
begun in 1974 (see Reftels for background), will hold its annual 
meeting at the FAO in October with reform the key item on its 
agenda.  Over the past months, FAO member countries, UN staff, 
civil society representatives and others have engaged in 
laborious negotiations aimed at reaching consensus on the role 
for CFS, centered on a draft working document to be presented in 
October, and currently near completion.  A meeting of this 
"Contact Group" is scheduled to meet on September 4 in Rome to 
try to finalize its working paper to present at the October CFS 
session. 
 
 
 
¶4.  (SBU) From the start, USUN Rome has actively engaged in 
these talks, including chairing a working group to address a 
proposal to launch a "high level panel of experts" attached to 
the CFS - a French idea now championed by FAO DG Diouf. 
Nevertheless, the process  has been dominated by GRULAC and FAO 
interests, overambitious near-term deliverables, and a possible 
negative impact on efforts of both the UN High Level Task Force 
(HLTF) and the USG's own emerging food security strategy. 
(ACTION REQUEST) Mission requests guidance via cable on several 
key issues at the heart of the reform debate to ensure 
consistency and compatibility with U.S. interests.  In addition, 
the Mission recommends engagement with key capitals (e.g., 
London, Paris, Brasilia, Beijing, Cairo, Moscow, New Delhi, 
Pretoria) to further define the relationship of the CFSW with 
the Global Partnership on Agriculture and Food Security (GPAFS). 
 A consistent concern we hear in Rome from G-77 diplomats and 
others is that G-8 and U.S. efforts are inconsistent with a 
multilateral approach to food security - despite repeated 
assurances to the contrary.  In  the absence of any clear 
definition of what GPAFS means in practice to individual 
countries and regions, our efforts to build trust fall largely 
on deaf ears, while others continue to shape the landscape on 
global food security strategies.  End summary. 
 
 
 
CFS Reform - Starved For Attention 
 
--------------------------- 
 
 
UN ROME 00000049  002 OF 004 
 
 
 
 
¶5.  (SBU)  At its last session in October 2008, recognizing 
recommendations of FAO's Independent External Evaluation, 
Members were unanimous in their agreement that CFS required 
significant reform to ensure relevancy and effectiveness in 
light of worsening global hunger and malnutrition rates. 
Spurred on by commodity price shocks of 2007-8, and consistent 
with efforts elsewhere in the international diplomatic arena to 
address agricultural production, trade flows, market 
speculation, climate change, and other issues affecting food 
consumption and distribution patterns, members agreed to put 
reform front and center during the 2009 CFS session (see refs 
X/Y/Z).  Despite efforts by USUN Rome and like-minded 
representatives within the "Contact Group," several problematic 
proposals continue to dominate discussion of CFS reform, 
including ones that may distract focus and resources away from 
the country-led strategy at the heart of current USG food 
security approach.  For example, both the G-77 and FAO 
Secretariat are proposing that the GPAFS be subsumed within the 
CFS, along with the UN High Level Task Force (HLTF) Secretariat 
- ideas we continue to strongly resist. 
 
 
 
Areas of Controversy in CFS Reform Talks 
 
------------------------------ 
 
 
 
¶6.  (SBU) In the context of making CFS more effective and policy 
relevant at the global level, several controversial items have 
been proposed to give CFS a potentially prescriptive role across 
a wide array of topics.  Explicit guidance is requested on the 
following: 
 
 
 
- "Global Strategic Policy Framework" and GPAFS:  Brazil has 
proposed that CFS have as its main function the creation and 
implementation of a single global policy similar to that 
contained within the HLTF's "Comprehensive Framework for Action" 
(CFA) - drafted by HLTF (David Nabarro) to better coordinate 
efforts of its 23 UN members.  Brazil and many G-77 states 
consider the HLTF too "New York-centric," too friendly toward 
Bretton Woods Institutions (e.g., World Bank), and outside the 
governance of UN members  (where G-77 uses its voting bloc). 
Guidance is sought on the role of CFS in terms of the CFA or an 
alternative "global" policy toward food security, and the 
relationship between CFS and the HLTF (and Secretariat). 
Nabarro informed us that FAO DG Diouf, Brazil, and possibly 
others are working behind the scenes to dissolve the Task Force, 
centralize its functions within the CFS, and describe USG food 
security policy as inimical to G-77 interests.  Similarly, there 
remains little understanding among members of the GPAFS, its 
aims, and the reasons the CFS could not serve as the 
coordinating body for GPAFS. 
 
 
 
- Monitoring and Accountability:  Many parties in these reform 
talks have encouraged CFS to assume some sort of "monitoring" 
function and a variety of specific suggestions have emerged. 
The Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food has suggested close 
monitoring of country commitments, though focused more on 
pledges by donors than obligations of recipients.  Oxfam 
International is proposing that CFS monitor implementation of a 
 
UN ROME 00000049  003 OF 004 
 
 
vetted "International Public Registry of Commitments" whereby 
states commit to national plans for food security.  Oxfam's 
local representative sought USG support for the idea in a 
meeting with USUN Rome on August 13, and noted a similar request 
was made in Washington recently at the National Security Council. 
 
 
 
- Role for Civil Society, Private Sector:  From the start, we 
have strongly supported an inclusive process to both CFS reform 
and the committee's work, particularly participation of the 
private sector, NGOs, and foundations such as Gates and 
Rockefeller.  The G-77, however, is split on the issue, with 
GRULAC leading the charge to support participation by activist 
groups like Via Campesino and others critical of U.S. policies, 
and the Near East group largely opposed to NGO participation. 
Despite our efforts, there is little support thus far for 
inclusion in the reform process by the private sector and 
foundations and relatively little awareness on the part of these 
groups regarding potential CFS reform. 
 
 
 
High Level Panel of Experts 
 
------------------------- 
 
 
 
¶7.  (SBU) The French President during the 2008 G-8 Summit hosted 
by Japan proposed creation of a "High Level Panel of Experts" 
(HLPE) which was included in the Summit declaration on food 
security ("As part of this partnership, a global network of 
high-level experts on food and agriculture would provide 
science-based analysis, and highlight needs and future risks."). 
 The French later proposed (without coordination with G-8 
colleagues) during the November 2008 FAO Conference to launch 
the network under FAO auspices.  FAO DG Diouf subsequently wrote 
leaders in January proposing a specific format for such a panel, 
noting that it was within his constitutional rights as DG to 
establish an expert panel on his own.  Nonetheless, France and 
others requested that CFS host such a panel, and that its terms 
of reference be included within the general CFS reform debate. 
Washington guidance on the CFS and HLPE (ref D) encouraged 
"support for the forward movement" of HLPE planning, a single 
global panel of experts, and refinement of the terms of 
reference through member consultations. 
 
 
 
¶8.  (SBU) Recognizing that the FAO proposal was rapidly becoming 
the de facto blueprint for the inclusion of an expert panel in 
the CFS itself, USUN Rome volunteered to serve as the Chair of a 
Working Group (WG-4) to craft the regular and structured 
inclusion of expertise in the CFS, as called for by the majority 
of members.  Our proposal to have the CGIAR representative 
(Bioversity International) co-Chair WG-4 with us was rejected by 
France and several G-77 members, but nonetheless its Director 
General and Deputy DG worked closely with us to ensure the CGIAR 
network would play a key role in any expert panel, thereby 
helping to minimize duplication of efforts and maximize the 
neutrality of panel input.  After months of careful efforts to 
build trust and confidence among members (particularly France, 
G-77, WFP and IFAD), WG-4 drafted terms of reference providing 
for a relatively low cost and an inclusive process focusing on a 
system of ad hoc rosters or "project teams" of renowned experts 
to provide advice to CFS members.  After reviewing similar 
expert processes elsewhere, we sought to ensure high value added 
 
UN ROME 00000049  004 OF 004 
 
 
and policy "neutrality" in the panel's products (The FAO Member 
website contains details on the work of WG-4, including written 
inputs by member states).  We would hope to see influential 
American experts participate in this process to ensure our 
interests are promoted.  ACTION REQUEST:  In this context, we 
request guidance on USG red-lines regarding the HLPE and its 
terms of reference agreed to by WG-4. 
 
 
 
Comment 
 
------- 
 
 
 
¶9.  (SBU) While we continue to define the GPAFS in the context 
of the overall U.S. food security strategy, we should be mindful 
of the efforts within the CFS and particularly among developing 
states to keep global policies within an arena where all can 
participate.  A consistent concern we hear in Rome from G-77 
diplomats and others is that G-8 and U.S. efforts are 
inconsistent with a multilateral approach to food security - 
despite repeated assurances to the contrary.  In  the absence of 
any clear definition of what GPAFS means in practice to 
individual countries and regions, our efforts to build trust 
fall largely on deaf ears here, while others continue to shape 
the landscape on global food security strategies.  With the 
commitment by the G-8 to spend 20 billion dollars on food 
security over the coming three years, we will have tremendous 
impact on shaping the agenda.  We need to clearly signal the 
role we envisage for the CFS in the context of our global food 
strategy. 
GLOVERMP