Subject: Re: WFP Decision Concerning Monsanto
From: "Samuel Berger" <[email-masked]>
To: "Rick Leach" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>, "Bonnie Raquet" <[email-masked]>, "Randy Russell" <[email-masked]>, "Shannon Hiskey" <[email-masked]>, "Marianne Berner" <[email-masked]>, "Allan Jury" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2015 20:25:52 +0000

Rick et al:  This is an indefensible decision that cannot stand,    It borders on immoral to turn down from a reputable source at a time when WFP is not able to meet the burgeoning need. We need to do everything we can to get this reversed.  Sandy

I agr

Sent from my iPhone

On Jun 1, 2015, at 7:19 PM, Rick Leach <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:

Dear Members of the Executive Committee:

I was informed by WFP last week that their Due Diligence Review Committee decided that the reputational risk of receiving funds from Monsanto was too high and that WFP would not accept donations from Monsanto.  This decision was reached with knowledge of the following:

·         Monsanto committed $150,000 to help WFP address the crisis in Nepal (which is severely underfunded).

·         WFP USA has been involved in serious negotiations with Monsanto for more than 9 months to secure a contribution to WFP of approximately $50 million over 5 years ($10 million per year).  WFP USA Board Members and WFP Private Sector division leadership were involved in these negotiations and Monsanto had agreed, in principle, that the donation would be restricted to school feeding operations (to avoid linkage to agriculture/their core business).  There is great unmet need in the school feeding operations.

·         The brief that WFP USA submitted to assist in the due diligence review is attached (in the format requested by the Committee).
Apparently, the Due Diligence Committee determined that Monsanto’s involvement in GMOs could damage WFP’s reputation among donor nations.  The Committee is comprised of four individuals (WFP leadership, but not including Ertharin Cousin).

·         WFP corporate policy on GMOs is neutral: it will accept food from a country that it will allow for its own population and it will distribute food within a country that it will accept.  There are a few countries that refuse to accept GMO commodities.

·         The Due Diligence Committee indicated that they would reconsider Monsanto in one year.

·         The Committee previously voted to accept donations from other “high risk” corporations such as Nestle, JP Morgan Chase and Boeing.  Restrictions are often placed on the types of activities that could be funded by “high risk” corporations and, as noted above, Monsanto agreed to accept restrictions on the use of its donation.
I addition to decreasing funds available to help WFP address global hunger needs, WFP’s refusal to accept donations from Monsanto would likely impact our efforts in Washington:

·         Monsanto currently provides approximately $200,000 annually to help cover WFP USA operational costs, including being the inaugural member of our Corporate Council.  WFP’s decision could impact Monsanto direct support to WFP USA.

·         It could create ill will towards WFP (and WFP USA) within the agricultural community.  We currently have a very strong relationship with the agriculture community and they provide substantial support to our advocacy efforts.

·         WFP’s position on Monsanto, and the possible disruption of relations with the agriculture community, could negatively impact our working relationship with the Agricultural Appropriations Subcommittees.  WFP receives over $1 billion annually in appropriations from these subcommittees.

·         Monsanto is represented in Washington by respected individuals who have influence within both the administration and Congress, including our friend Michael Dykes and Katherine Emerson (JoAnn Emerson’s daughter).  WFP’s position could disrupt relations with these individuals and decrease Board Member support for WFP.
We cannot accept the decision of the Due Diligence Committee.  While the Committee considered the possible reputational risk within European nations, it appears that they did not adequately consider the likely reputational risk and related damage within the US.  If you agree, I suggest the following initial actions:

1.       I will communicate this position to Barbara Noseworthy, Assistant Executive Director (in charge of Resource Mobilization).  Barbara is our strongest advocate within WFP and has been very helpful in achieving some of our recent successes with WFP private sector fundraising.  While not a voting member of the Due Diligence Committee, I believe that Barbara advocated for accepting funds from Monsanto.  It is unlikely that my call with Barbara will result in a reversal of the decision but it is important to inform her of our decision.

2.       I suggest that Sandy call Ertharin and ask her to overrule the Due Diligence Committee.  At our last meeting with Ertharin, she talked passionately about engaging the corporate community and “not leaving money on the table” especially in these times of great unmet need.

3.       If Ertharin does not agree during the call to reverse the decision, I suggest that we send a letter to her before the end of the week that describes the consequences of this action and officially request that she reverse the decision.
I would like to schedule a call this week to more fully discuss this issue.  Shannon will reach out to your offices to determine your availability.  Thank you very much.

All the Best,
Rick

Richard Leach
President & CEO

World Food Program USA
1725 Eye Street NW, Suite 510
Washington, DC 20006
T 202.627.3737
F 202.530.1698
[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>

<Monsanto Due Diligence Briefing Notes 5-21-15.docx