US embassy cable - 04ROME3570

UNCLAS  ROME 003570 
 
SIPDIS 
 
 
SENSITIVE 
 
FROM THE U.S. MISSION TO THE UN AGENCIES IN ROME 
 
USDA FAS FOR MCHAMBLISS, LREICH, RHUGHES; 
STATE FOR IO DAS MILLER, IO/EDA, OES/O, OES/E, E, EB; 
AID FOR EGAT, DCHA/OFDA, DCHA/FFP 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: AORC, EAGR, EAID, PREL, KUNR, FAO 
SUBJECT:  MAJOR DONORS DISCUSS FAO EVALUATION, KEY 
PROGRAM/BUDGET ISSUES AND LOCUST EMERGENCY RESPONSE 
 
 
Portions are sensitive but unclassified -- please handle 
accordingly. 
 
1.  (U)  Summary:  At a "Geneva Group" meeting for Rome- 
based representatives of major donor governments convened 
by the U.S. Mission on 14 September, participants 
strongly supported a U.S.-led proposal for an independent 
external review of FAO, although they expressed some 
differences on tactics.  Looking ahead to the late- 
September meetings of the FAO Program and Budget 
committees, they identified the Independent Evaluation of 
FAO's Decentralization, the review of the Technical 
Cooperation Program (TCP), the Mid-Term Plan, and FAO's 
financial position as key issues.  Participants also 
discussed FAO's response to the West African locust 
emergency, noting that the organization had issued timely 
advance warnings, but had lagged in coordination, 
information sharing and getting experts on the ground, 
with donors' tardy contributions also a factor.  End 
summary. 
 
2.  (U)  Ambassador Hall chaired a meeting of the "Geneva 
Group" of principal UN donor governments on 14 September 
at the U.S. Mission.  Attending were officials from the 
permanent representations of Australia, Canada, Germany, 
France, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, New Zealand, Sweden, 
Switzerland and the UK. 
 
INDEPENDENT EXTERNAL EVALUATION 
 
3.  (SBU)  Ambassador Hall stressed the need for an 
independent external evaluation of FAO as a tool to help 
member governments identify the organization's strengths 
and weaknesses.  He said that such a review could help 
strengthen FAO and help it gain support from donors 
during an anticipated period of budgetary retrenchment by 
major donors.  The Ambassador reported on his two 
meetings with FAO Director General Jacques Diouf in 
August 2004, and the latter's ambivalent response thus 
far, with questions centering on (1) perceived linkages 
to the upcoming DG election, (2) the need to involve 
FAO's governing bodies, and (3) the importance of G-77 
buy-in. 
 
4.  (SBU)  DCM explained that the U.S. and like-minded 
countries had sought to address Diouf's concerns 
regarding the proposed evaluation by (1) deferring the 
date of the evaluation's final report(s) until after the 
DG elections in November 2005, (2) using FAO's regionally 
balanced Program and Finance Committees as the bodies to 
discuss and endorse the concept, and (3) conducting 
outreach to the developing countries.  On the latter 
point, he reported on his 13 September informational 
meeting with G-77 representatives, where he had sought to 
build support for an independent external evaluation.  He 
noted that he had explained the utility of such an 
evaluation in providing baselines for Program and Finance 
Committee deliberations and by improving FAO's 
credibility in donor capitals -- a prerequisite for 
future funding.  At the meeting with the G-77, he also 
was able to dispel misinformation about the cost of this 
exercise, which would be no more than $2 to 2.5 million. 
Reaction to the presentation from the Asian, Near Eastern 
and Latin American representatives had been largely 
positive, with only the African members exhibiting a 
degree of distrust and reluctance.  Only Sudan (whose 
representative has little credibility in Rome's 
multilateral community) expressed outright opposition. 
 
5.  (SBU)  To the assembled Geneva Group representatives, 
DCM outlined the three key aspects of the proposed 
 
 
evaluation: (1) an assessment of FAO's role in the 21st 
century environment, (2) an evaluation of the 
organization's current impact, and (3) a review of its 
management processes and best practices.  He stressed 
that the FAO Secretariat could greatly facilitate the 
evaluation -- while maintaining the assessment's 
perceived independence -- by assisting with tendering of 
contracts and management of voluntary contributions in 
support of the evaluation. 
 
6.  (SBU)  Geneva Group members' responses to the USG 
presentation were overwhelmingly positive, though some 
differed on tactics and timing. 
 
-- The UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Germany 
were the most vocally supportive. 
 
-- The Swiss were "interested, in principle" but were 
worried about the composition of the steering committee. 
 
-- The Italians described it as "a worthwhile effort," 
but thought it would take more time to carry out. 
 
-- The French argued for a slower approach that would 
first seek FAO members' endorsement of the concept of a 
review, before broaching the details. 
 
-- The Netherlands Ambassador observed that FAO has a 
credibility problem and asked rhetorically why FAO should 
be an exception to the growing tendency to independent 
external reviews within the UN system.  He expressed 
general support for the idea of a review, but noted that 
the level of The Hague's support in cash or in kind would 
depend on how it is conducted.  He also wondered whether 
full G-77 buy-in was absolutely necessary, and whether 
donor countries couldn't carry out the evaluation on 
their own, if necessary. 
 
-- The Japanese permrep said she would urge Tokyo to 
support this initiative, but pointed to possible 
reluctance on the part of her government to undertake a 
potentially divisive study that might pit Japan against 
its Asian neighbors. 
 
7.  (SBU)  Throughout the Geneva Group meeting, questions 
and criticisms -- where they arose -- tended to center on 
tactical details such as the need to involve the 
governing bodies, the composition of the steering 
committee, the selection of consultants, and the 
determination of terms of reference. 
 
8.  (SBU)  Ambassador Hall urged Geneva Group permreps to 
raise the issue directly with the DG and to discuss it 
with their G-77 counterparts.  He alluded to the USG 
commitment to help fund the evaluation and suggested that 
permreps that had not already done so to raise the 
concept and its funding requirements with their capitals. 
 
UPCOMING PROGRAM AND FINANCE COMMITTEE MEETINGS 
 
9.  (U)  The Dutch Ambassador, who chairs the FAO Program 
Committee, highlighted key issues for the Committee's 
upcoming meeting, which starts 29 September.  He praised 
the recently completed Independent Evaluation of FAO's 
Decentralization, but noted that there has been no 
response from FAO Management.  He urged Geneva Group 
members to look closely at the Secretariat's document on 
the Policy and Operational Framework of the Technical 
Cooperation Program.  He flagged the document on the 2006- 
2011 Medium Term Plan, calling particular attention to 
the Secretariat's assumptions about real budget growth. 
 
 
Several Geneva Group members echoed his call for a range 
of budget scenarios in the Medium Term Plan. 
 
10.  (U)  The DCM, who sits on the FAO Finance Committee, 
outlined key issues before that Committee, which will 
meet starting 27 September.  In addition to the budget 
scenario question raised above, he signaled the documents 
on FAO's relatively precarious financial position, linked 
to late payment of assessed contributions by some of the 
largest contributors (including the U.S.) and a systemic 
change in the pattern of arrearages. 
 
WEST AFRICAN LOCUST CRISIS 
 
11.  (U)  U.S. Alternate Permrep briefed the Geneva Group 
on the status of FAO's response to the locust emergency. 
(Septel reports on a separate meeting of donors, affected 
countries, and FAO emergency response personnel hosted by 
U.S. Mission on 10 September.)  In U.S. Mission's view, 
FAO deserves credit for giving timely warning of the 
impending crisis 11 months ago and hosted 3 regional 
meetings to focus attention on the problem.  Moreover, we 
recognize that donor contributions have lagged.  That 
said, FAO's response has fallen short in several 
respects:  (1) only half of donor contributions received 
thus far have been obligated, and it took six months for 
FAO to utilize an early U.S. contribution of $800,000; 
(2) FAO has not shown leadership in coordinating 
emergency responses at the national level; (3) FAO lagged 
in the reactivation of the Emergency Center for Locust 
Operations (ECLO); and (4) Until recently, there were 
only two FAO locust control experts on the ground in West 
Africa (now there are five). 
 
12.  (U)  While accepting aspects of the U.S. critique, 
other Geneva Group members warned against finger 
pointing.  The Italian Ambassador said it was difficult 
to say who was to blame, and cautioned against making FAO 
a scapegoat.  The new UK Ambassador saw the current 
situation as a typical dilemma of maintaining standing 
capacity for an intermittent problem.  The Netherlands 
Permrep expressed discomfort with getting into a debate 
over who is at fault, when the issue at hand was dealing 
with a difficult crisis.  He added that various donors -- 
including his own government -- had been slow to respond. 
 
COMMENT 
 
13.  (U)  U.S. Mission is encouraged by the generally 
positive response by key donors to the proposal for an 
independent external review of FAO.  The 21-23 September 
Committee on Food Security (CFS) meetings will provide 
further opportunities for corridor discussions of this 
proposal with the Secretariat and member governments, 
particularly the G-77 countries that may still need 
convincing or reassurance.  Meanwhile, the Geneva Group 
remains a useful forum for reviewing key FAO issues from 
the perspective of the major donors. 
 
HALL 
 
 
NNNN 
 2004ROME03570 - Classification: UNCLASSIFIED