VZCZCXRO6081
PP RUEHBZ RUEHDU RUEHGI RUEHJO RUEHMA RUEHMR RUEHPA RUEHRN RUEHTRO
DE RUEHBS #1406/01 2941106
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
P 211106Z OCT 09 ZDK
FM USEU BRUSSELS
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY
INFO RUEHZO/AFRICAN UNION COLLECTIVE PRIORITY
RUEHUJA/AMEMBASSY ABUJA PRIORITY
RHEHNSC/NSC WASHDC PRIORITY
RUEHGV/USMISSION GENEVA PRIORITY
RUCNDT/USMISSION USUN NEW YORK PRIORITY
RUEHRN/USMISSION UN ROME PRIORITY

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 03 BRUSSELS 001406 
 
SIPDIS 
 
NSC FOR CPRATT; USAID FOR JHILL AND SBRADLEY; USUN ROME FOR 
HSPANOS. 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: EAID EAGR ETRD SOCI
SUBJECT: DONORS ENGAGE ON L'AQUILA FOOD SECURITY COMMITMENTS 
 
BRUSSELS 00001406  001.2 OF 003 
 
 
¶1.  (SBU) SUMMARY: On October 7, 2009, the European 
Commission's (EC) Directorate General for Development (DEV) 
and USAID hosted a meeting in Brussels to further 
operationalize donor commitments from the July 8-10 L'Aquila 
meeting on Food Security.  The meeting sought to build on 
prior discussions to utilize country led approaches to 
advance on-going and future plans related to L'Aquila 
commitments and coordinate efforts to increase efficiency and 
impact at the field level.  Representatives from France, 
Germany, United Kingdom (UK), Sweden, Italy, Netherlands, 
Spain, Canada, the World Bank, and from United Nations 
agencies (the World Food Program, Food and Agricultural 
Organization (FAO), International Fund for Agricultural 
Development (IFAD), and High Level Task Force (HLTF)) 
participated in addition to DG Development and USAID.   END 
SUMMARY 
 
¶2.  (SBU) Donors and participants expressed their support for 
the L'Aquila principles and joint statement, which contains a 
number of commitments.  They also noted agreement on the 
outcome statement from the September New York food security 
event.  Co-chairs from the September 14-15 Washington Road 
from L'Aquila food security meetings will produce a summary 
of the commitments in the joint statement.  This effort will 
support dialogue about processes best suited to discuss and 
coordinate the various commitments. 
 
¶3.  (SBU) Following a brief synopsis of meetings in 
Washington on September 14-15, DEV and USAID led the meeting 
with an effort to gain clarity on L'Aquila commitments.  The 
discussion delved into L'Aquila pledges to better understand 
each donor's operating assumptions and frameworks for 
delivering assistance on the ground.  Initially donors 
reiterated pledges and described the composition and 
direction of their assistance.  In most cases, the financing 
pledges made at L'Aquila reflect an increase in funding. 
However, there were specific concerns, such as the UK and EC 
double counting some part of their funding.  Also, the 
exercise highlighted differing approaches taken regarding the 
timeline for counting assistance, in part because of the 
different fiscal years used. 
 
¶4.  (SBU) Throughout the discussion DEV and USAID chairs 
highlighted the need to support country led approaches and 
investment strategies.  They also noted the importance of 
clarification and transparency on operations.  The discussion 
revealed a number of areas for future attention.  The UK 
counted its commitments from 2010-2012 and included funding 
allocated to EC budget lines.  The UK and France expressed 
displeasure at efforts to re-visit or clarify prior pledges. 
France also expressed concern over the fact that there was 
only coordinating on these pledges, because some assistance 
may fall outside L' Aquila's scope and they wanted 
flexibility to include other types of assistance. 
Additionally, the type of assistance varied by donor, with 
some including only agriculture development funding, while 
others included infrastructure and safety nets.  The ratio of 
loans to grants also varied among the donors. 
 
¶5. (SBU) A number of donors provided some level of detail on 
the direction for their planned assistance.  France noted its 
regional focus on West African countries.  The UK and EC will 
have a primary focus on Sub-Saharan Africa.  The UK also 
expressed support for utilizing safety net programs.  Germany 
plans to devote all of its funding to sustainable and rural 
agriculture development.  Sweden will have a rural 
development focus with half of its funds going to 
multilaterals, mostly for support to Southern Africa.  NGOs, 
multilaterals, the private sector, and bilateral partners 
will each receive roughly one quarter of the Netherlands' 
funds.  Also, the Netherlands and Italy noted difficulty in 
maintaining funding levels given their budgetary climates. 
Italy will target primarily Turkey and the Middle East, with 
added focus on Iraq and Lebanon.  The EC produced a matrix 
showing the financing by type of funding and corresponding 
year.  Donors agreed to produce a summary for planned 
assistance related to L'Aquila pledges within two weeks.  The 
reports will contain funding by year, account, loans vs. 
grant, and will footnote any special issues.  The reports 
should help to clarify questions raised during the meeting 
regarding whether to count allocated or disbursed funds; 
whether to include cross-cutting sectors such as climate 
change and nutrition; the balance of funding regarding 
partners, UN agencies or non-governmental organizations; and 
 
BRUSSELS 00001406  002.2 OF 003 
 
 
country versus regional approaches. 
 
¶6.  (SBU) Participants recognized that the focus should be on 
moving the collective agenda forward at the country level. The HLhere are couwould 
````l@dible country process.  Participants 
listed a number of criteria foQ advancing country led 
processes: strategy (riorities and targets); investment plan 
and pograms; coordination mechanism; policy roadmap; 
monitoring and evaluation and mutual accountability 
framework; and a capacity building plan.  Donors cited joint 
efforts supporting Qmbrella programs with flexible 
architectures for funding that support the common agenda and 
plan (from bilateral, multilateral, and host country 
funding).  The HLTF offered to provide examples to illustrate 
how and where this approach has worked. 
 
¶8.  (SBU) As possible examples for future coordination 
efforts, the EC presented findings from implementation of 
their Food Facility. They believe a number of lessons learned 
are relevant, including coordination with partners upstream 
at the onset of prioritizing resources to facilitate speed of 
implementation.  The World Bank engaged a number of times to 
highlight its multi-donor trust fund, which participants 
agreed is one of the mechanisms donors will utilize.  The FAO 
highlighted Ethiopia's multi-donor trust fund terms of 
reference that set out a positive structure for coordination. 
 Under that framework participants meet regularly with 
government officials. The meeting ran out of time without 
holding a discussion on support in Latin America and Asia and 
within sub-regional. 
 
¶9.  (SBU) David Nabarro from the HLTF highlighted the 
importance of allocating funding to countries that work to 
build country strategies and investments plans in a 
transparent way, such as Rwanda.  Nabarro noted Rwanda 
independently produced a plan, which no donors funded or 
aided, but nonetheless produced gains in agricultural 
development for Rwanda.  He also pointed to the need for 
quick actions instead of quick wins, which are difficult to 
produce.  Nabarro believes the CAADP guidelines are an 
important model for donors moving forward. He also noted the 
need for a mechanism to support communication on issues and 
actions items. 
 
¶10.  (SBU) The donor group agreed it should continue to meet 
on a regular basis to jointly shape an implementation plan 
for the L'Aquila financial commitments on agriculture and 
food security.  A follow up meeting was proposed for 
November, possibly around the Rome Summit on Food Security. 
Additionally, the group recognized the importance of 
collectively attending the CAADP Partnership Platform in 
Abuja.  Further, participants should be prepared to clarify 
their support for country processes unfolding in Africa under 
CAADP.  In particular, support for the next steps of the 
investment plan and program development to implement the 
CAADP strategies.  As a backdrop, participants agreed recent 
meetings in Addis Ababa were productive.  The UK noted the 
importance of political involvement in the Addis meetings, 
which helps field and HQ prioritization. 
 
¶11.  (SBU) CONCLUSION:  The meeting highlighted a number of 
challenges for participants.  Primary among them is the need 
to clarify pledges and agree on accepted timelines and 
 
BRUSSELS 00001406  003.2 OF 003 
 
 
program areas. While there is acceptance of the CAADP 
process, more needs to be done to rationalize this approach 
with some members.  Ultimately, donors are eager to increase 
collaboration and coordination of assistance on the ground, 
but are sensitive to establish details covering their pledges. 
 
¶12.  (SBU) In sum, a number of next steps emerged from the 
meeting: 
--Identify a date and schedule for follow up meetings, with 
the Rome Food Summit presenting a nice opportunity to come 
together again. 
--Clarify upcoming events (London and Abuja meetings, Rome 
Food Summit with associated Civil Society and Private Sector 
meetings, and the World Bank instrument for a consultative 
process noted). 
--HLTF to identify meetings outside Africa. 
--HLTF and FAO to update country level assessments; map 
programs in regions; assess country coordination; suggest 
regional processes outside of Africa; and confidentially 
disseminate to attendees. 
--EC to compile reports and send to attendees. 
--Donors to prepare a summary list of commitments following a 
review of the L'Aquila joint statement. 
--Donors to submit report to the EC based on their example 
detailing L'Aquila pledge. 
--Donors to respond to the HLTF and the multilateral 
institutions to clarify the support that the donors would 
like in helping to advance the country and regional led 
processes. 
 
¶13.  (U) USAID Senior Agricultural Advisor Jeff Hill and 
State Department Special Assistant Marisa Plowden cleared on 
this cable. 
 
 
MURRAY 
.