Now that we've started cooking, political will is the missing ingredient — FAO chief

José Graziano da Silva is a man in a cautiously optimistic mood. Getting a fresh mandate in June as director-general of the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, he is at the helm of the specialized agency in what is widely regarded as a key period for global development, one in which the rules of engagement for the industry could be rewritten. But how can the global development community ensure that this year of summits and agreements translates into tangible results, rather than being consigned to history as the year of good intentions? Mobilizing resources is key, but not the “biggest problem,” according to Graziano. “When you have good projects you always find the resources available, you can mobilize finance.” Instead, he said, the real challenge is that the model of development itself is changing — and with it the way in which international organizations work. “Growth is fundamental to provide employment, to provide resources, especially for the poorest countries, but we need to do it in a way that will preserve the future ... We all now became grandfathers, grandfathers of the earth. We are trying to preserve it for future generations. It is a big change in concept,” he said. That shift is affecting the work of the FAO in practice. Moving from the Millennium Development Goals to the Sustainable Development Goals adopted this weekend, for instance, the agency will have more indicators to monitor — dealing with agriculture in the context of preservation of nature and the environment not only in Africa, Latin America or Asia, but across the globe. The third International Conference on Financing for Development in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia was the first of three flagship events for global development in 2015, but did not represent “a good start” for Graziano. The Sustainable Development Summit in New York City was a “great opportunity to get together and agree many things,” he said. For Graziano, however, the main goal is December’s COP21 climate negotiations in Paris: “If we don’t achieve an agreement in Paris, everything will be lost — or at least postponed.” In an exclusive interview at the FAO’s headquarters in Rome, Graziano shared with Devex his expectations beyond 2015, explaining how the agency is addressing the new challenges of “sustainable development” and giving Devex the inside track on its resource mobilization strategy. Here some highlights from that conversation: Why hasn't the Addis Ababa conference been a good start to this critical period for global development in your view? First, because of the timing. It was the end of Ramadan, it was also between many other events that were happening at the same time. Many important players did not come or they were not exactly prepared for the commitment made in Addis. Of course the main achievement was to provide the resources and the means [for development]. We have been involved in so many important discussions, but partial discussions, like tax, like the equal or unequal contribution in responsibility between developing and developed countries really dominated most of the forums ... My feeling is that Addis was like entering the process with a fear that the most important players will not be on board … [and] reluctant in assuming their responsibilities. Which players? Countries that could be there and make more commitments, or international organizations that were there that could be more active players ... The political agenda was not as strong as it should have been. Of course the World Bank was there, the regional development banks were there, but the message that they conveyed was always: “We have limited resources.” This has always been the way, but if we really have the political commitment to do it, we will find the resources. This is a question of political priorities ... FAO presented, for example, the costs of eradicating hunger: big numbers, but when you take it per capita, it comes in at under $60. It's a little investment. ... Looking ahead to the COP21 climate negotiations in Paris, what are your expectations? And then what happens next in terms of implementing strategies to integrate climate finance and development? We are preparing to assist the countries that will be in Paris to present their national commitments. If the countries don't come to Paris with their commitments, knowing what they will be facing and what they are capable of doing, it will be very difficult to agree on global priorities, or if we agree it will only be “blah blah blah” and very weak. This is one concern. The fact that the SDGs are broad goals opens the door for more “blah blah blah.” We need to have a concrete targets and follow them. My question is not how we found the linkages between climate change and development. They are real now and if you take agriculture, [those linkages] are real: the lack of water; fish stocks being affected by salinity; the impact of two degrees centigrade more in the oceans devastating coastal areas; salinity invading most of the rice plantations in Asia. This is new. The impact is new. But we also know what to do: We know that we need to prepare for it, we know that for instance in the case of rice, we need salinity-resistant varieties. The question is, who will pay for that? From Addis to Paris, it’s about who will pay for these additional constraints that climate change brings in. Unfortunately, at the moment there are not enough commitments. There is the Global Green Fund, the [Global Environment Facility] funds and we are very active, with the FAO changing completely to give priority to this area. Now in our investment center we have a special team dedicated to that. This is an example of how [the process] is affecting our changes and how we are preparing. My concern is where the big funds will come from and how the international finance organizations will agree on funding these kind of costs that poor countries cannot afford. What will be the impact of this process on the work of the FAO? We have our main focus now, our strategic objective: We need to be more country oriented. After all, those impacts will be reflected at country level. We are preparing to be more country oriented in our work in a number of areas: One is the impact of climate change, helping the countries to implement resilience [measures] ... This preventive action is a big change. FAO is not working anymore on emergency issues, we are looking on this resilience to prevent the impact. We had made good progress in the MDGs related to hunger and globally we are very close to meeting them. In fact, 72 out of 120 countries that we monitor have achieved the MDG to halve the proportion of hungry people. What we see in those countries, especially those that have become middle income countries, is that as we lower hunger and poverty, obesity and noncommunicable diseases rose very fast. The problem is not the food anymore ... what we need now is healthy food, moving perhaps from a fast food paradigm to a slow food paradigm. For FAO, the statistical issue is also very important. Countries are not prepared to give the information that we will need to monitor those 17 goals and 169 targets. It's not only for developing countries anymore. We are moving from 100 to 200-plus countries and we shouldn’t take for granted that all the developed countries have the statistics. They don't and this will be a big challenge for FAO. What have been the challenges in mobilizing resources for programs and projects? What are the lessons that you have learned in your first term as director general of the FAO? FAO has been very successful in mobilizing funds, despite the cuts that we have with the policy of zero nominal growth that, after 12 years, now amounts for 25-30 percent of our real budget. We have been able to mobilize more funds from partnerships, from donors, but not only more money. During the Addis conference, the Economic Commission for Africa highlighted the funds that African countries kept immobilized in the central banks there. Billions of dollars just to keep the stability from a financial point of view. But what does that cost in terms of social instability? Is it possible to use at least part of those resources to implement some of the development programs that we are talking about? Our experience in FAO is that eradicating hunger costs much less than people believe and most of the resources need to come from the country level, internally. It is not only international official development assistance that will solve all the problems. Countries need to allocate resources in their budgets for eradicating poverty and hunger … International organizations, international funds can provide the starter [funding], the pilots, the learning, the expertise, but countries need to be able to manage and implement those projects. That means the countries really have to have the political will to do it. For me, political will is the ingredient that is missing now that we’ve started cooking. … There has been a great shift from a donor perspective, a change in mindset. How did you manage to achieve your goals at FAO? What's the secret? I think that the first thing that we did here was to rebuild the trust among our members. When I came in there was a huge divide between developing countries, developed [OECD] countries and the G-77. Basically this was an internal fight that paralyzed the institution. We agreed on some programs to push for, on both sides. We also started to make many internal savings, in order to show value for money. You cannot ask a donor to put money in an organization that throws it away. We were spending almost 75 percent [of our budget] at the beginning [in staff costs]. We are still around that level, but the projection was that in 2020 we would spend 100 percent on staff costs. You are not going to put your money in an organization that is going in that direction. So we stopped the increase. It is difficult to actually decrease it because I don't have the power to shift decisions that are being taken in New York on international civil servants. But we’ve introduced some big controls. One was the International Public Sector Accounting Standards, or Ipsas. When I came here FAO had been eight years trying to implement Ipsas with little or no results, but in three years we did it and we are now among the U.N. organizations with the highest level of transparency on the funds that we have allocated. And in terms of progress on new instruments and new facilities? What are the next steps? We have set a list of 12 corporate areas that we are refining and we are working in those areas, preparing projects that can be funded … We want to ensure that the money will be used in that specific area, presenting a kind of menu ... If you go to an Italian restaurant, you should not expect to have sushi available. So, that's what we are doing: FAO wants do this, please choose one item from our menu — it’s all very practical. Check out more insights and analysis provided to hundreds of Executive Members worldwide, and subscribe to the Development Insider to receive the latest news, trends and policies that influence your organization.