EMAIL DETAILS

I bet you the Gates Foundation would weigh in.

Sent from my iPhone

> On Jun 7, 2015, at 8:59 PM, Samuel Berger <sberger@albrightstonebridge.com> wrote:
>
> Not sure how much thought lies behind this. I think my conversation/email will smoke things out.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Glickman, Dan [mailto:Dan.Glickman@aspeninstitute.org]
> Sent: Sunday, June 07, 2015 4:00 PM
> To: Samuel Berger
> Cc: Rick Leach; hbiden@rosemontseneca.com; Bonnie Raquet; rrusell@russellgroupdc.com
> Subject: Re: UPDATED - memo to Ertharin Cousin
>
> Curious as to whether WFP is considering the same position on other companies like Dupont, Syngenta, Bayer, etal are also in businesses which have interests in biotechnology or genetic engineering, or is Monsanto being singled out?
>
> I agree this is very troubling.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Jun 7, 2015, at 12:37 PM, Samuel Berger <sberger@albrightstonebridge.com<mailto:sberger@albrightstonebridge.com>> wrote:
>
> ExComm-- I had a friendly and respectful conversation with Ertharin yesterday about Monsanto - actually I mostly talked and she mostly listened.
>
> She took what I said seriously, but did not respond on the c all. She asked me to send her the points I had made in a written form, which I have done.
>
> My email to her is below.
>
> Don't hesitate to call if you have any questions. I don't expect to hear from her until sometime next week.
>
> Sandy
>
>
> Dear Ertharin,
>
> Thank you very much for discussing the Monsanto issue, and agreeing to review the decision of the Due Diligence Review Committee not to accept donations from Monsanto. You asked me to provide you with a memo setting forth the points I made to you on the phone, as follows:
>
>
> 1. This decision cannot be justified in terms of the overall well-being of WFP, its mission, or its objectivity. Monsanto has committed $150,000 to help WFP address the crisis in Nepal (which is seriously underfunded). WFP USA and WFP Private Sector Division leadership have been engaged in nine months of negotiations with Monsanto that will lead to $50 million contributed over five years, and it has agreed to restrict this to assisting school lunch programs in order to avoid any linkage to agriculture. Monsanto currently provides approximately $200,000 annually to help cover WFP USA operational costs. This is funding that WFP can hardly forgo at a time when daily needs it faces around the world are outstripping available resources, as you laid out for us so eloquently when you were in Washington.
>
>
>
> 2. Fallout from this decision could impact future funding for WFP from the Congress. Monsanto is a highly respected leader of the agriculture community in Washington. Its representatives have strong relationships in the Administration and on Capitol Hill, and they have been strong supporters of WFP advocacy. Refusing money from the U.S. agriculture industry at the same time we are arguing that the food needs are greater than ever could erode our position with their allies in Congress. The agriculture community is key to our efforts with the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee, which is responsible for $1 billion annually of WFP funding.
>
>
> 3. The criteria employed by the Due Diligence Committee are unclear. Some European countries don't support GMOs; the U.S. does. But Monsanto is not contributing commodities, it is contributing dollars. Is it now the policy of WFP that it will examine the products made by donor companies to determine whether any of them are objectionable? The UN Guidelines for dealing with the private sector stipulate that UN agencies cannot deal with companies engaged in human rights abuses; compulsory labor practices; are involved in the manufacturing or sale of landmines/cluster bombs; or are violating UN sanctions. It also notes that UN entities may establish additional eligibility and exclusionary criteria. However, the process of the Due Diligence Committee is not transparent, and its objective criteria, if any, are not available or clear. This decision appears to be completely arbitrary. WFP policy is neutral on GMOs: it will accept and distribute such food to countries that allow it. It is completely inexplicable to me how accepting donations for non-food programs from a company that produces these products can be consistent with that policy.
>
>
> 4. Monsanto is itself a model company in terms of the work it does with farmers and communities around the world to lift small stakeholders out of poverty, and provides extensive educational opportunities.
>
>
> 5. This represents a contradiction to the strong guidance we heard from the Executive Director-to step up our campaign for private sector giving in the US-"to leave no dollars on the table." WFP USA has ramped up its efforts at private sector giving. But WFP cannot accelerate these critical efforts, and at the same time put its foot on the brakes. We can't say pursue corporate funds, and then make a subjective and non-transparent assessment, with no available criteria, that some money is good, but other money is bad.
>
>
>
> 6. Morality. Finally, this action is opposed deeply by our Board members-one or more of whom may resign in response. For myself, I have difficulty accepting this decision on moral grounds. The prospect of turning down $50 million for school lunch programs or $150,000 for aid to the victims of the Nepal earthquake because some bureaucrats in Paris or Brussels do not like GMOs --at the very same time we're emphasizing the obligation of the international community to step up to the unprecedented challenges we face, does not seem morally justifiable to me.
>
> Of course, I am available to discuss this at any time.
>
> Respectfully,
>
> Sandy
>