The Industry Cooperative Programme (ICP)
The Cooperative Programme of Agro-Allied Industries and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, more commonly known as the FAO Industry Cooperative Programme (ICP), was operated under the FFHC umbrella, but it was entirely independent of FFHC/FAO operations. ICP was a product of FFHC and of the vision of B.R. Sen and represents the kind of innovation the Campaign was designed to generate. Moreover, ICP was akin to NGOs and to Youth because Sen saw industry as a distinct component of a global campaign against hunger. The Industry Cooperative Programme was an effort at cooperation among private industry, the UN, and governments in efforts to work for agricultural development.
Youth and industry intersect in important ways in the Freedom From Hunger Campaign an important point for this intersection was in Canada. This was largely because of the efforts of Massey-Fergusson Limited (MF) of Canada which had been a partner in the Campaign since 1961 and which was actively looking for ways to partner with youth in development efforts. Massey-Fergusson was a founding member of ICP and the only Canadian company that retained long term membership. In partnership with FAO, Massey-Fergusson financed a series of regional youth conferences on development, culminating in a world meeting in Toronto in 1967, Massey-Fergusson made youth and agricultural development the theme of their pavilion at Canada’s Expo ’67, and Massey-Fergusson organized a meeting of ICP member industries in 1974 in preparation for the UN World Food Conference.
Through the Freedom From Hunger Campaign, B.R. Sen reached out to industry in the same way he had to NGOs and youth. Industries and private businesses of all kinds participated in the Campaign in many ways and in cooperation with FAO, Governments, and national FFH committees. The most prominent FAO-industry cooperative effort came through the FAO Industry Cooperative Programme. ICP was a product of the work of Commission IV of the First World Food Congress and of the vision and courage of B.R. Sen. Where the history of FFHC in concerned, ICP is “a bit of a red herring” because it was not properly a part of FFHC operations, but it was a product of FFHC and is of particular significance in the Canadian experience with the Campaign. The purpose of ICP is best described in the words of B.R.
"FAO/ICP, as it was originally called, was one of several major initiatives under the FFHC. We had no illusions with regard to Transnational Corporations (TCs). We recognized that they were exploitative in character, impelled by profit motive. We from FAO or from the UN System could not stop them from functioning in the developing counties. What we could do was to try to harness the managerial ability, technical know how, scientific experience, and capital resources of the leading industries of Europe and North America to support our efforts to free the world from hunger. We wanted to guide the industries from and into the channels we thought most needed for our campaign, and at the same time alert governments of the developing countries about the shoals and sandbanks they must steer clear of in dealing with these industries.ICP was organized under the framework of FFHC and received contributions through FFHC Sub Trust Fund No. 177."
FAO/ICP, as it was originally called, was one of several major initiatives under the FFHC. We had no illusions with regard to Transnational Corporations (TCs). We recognized that they were exploitative in character, impelled by profit motive. We from FAO or from the UN System could not stop them from functioning in the developing counties. What we could do was to try to harness the managerial ability, technical know how, scientific experience, and capital resources of the leading industries of Europe and North America to support our efforts to free the world from hunger. We wanted to guide the industries from and into the channels we thought most needed for our campaign, and at the same time alert governments of the developing countries about the shoals and sandbanks they must steer clear of in dealing with these industries.ICP was organized under the framework of FFHC and received contributions through FFHC Sub Trust Fund No. 177. Beyond the inspiration for the Programme and the connection to the FFHC budget, ICP had no relation to FFHC operations. Sen noted that ICP attracted the interest of other UN Agencies, and that in 1967 this interest found expression in the change from FAO/ICP to ICP which “conceptually loosened [ICP’s] moorings from FAO.” However, ICP is a good example of the kind of innovation Sen was implementing through FFHC and at FAO. FFHC gathered various development partners (such as NGOs, governments, and individuals) under
the same umbrella, and ICP would add industry to that list.
The concept of formal FAO-industry relations was proposed by Sen in a letter to Government Ministers in 1965. Sen was encouraged by cooperation between FAO and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD), which by the end of 1965 was yielding tangible results, by a similar effort involving the Inter-American Development Bank, and by the formulation of the Indicative World Plan for Agricultural Development. Sen believed that the next logical step in the global effort to combat hunger and malnutrition was a massive expansion of the involvement of industries related to agricultural production and food distribution in official processes of international development. The 13th Session of the Conference of FAO in 1965 endorsed the idea of closer FAO-industry relations and “recognized the potential value of extending FFHC activities into [this] area”, and FAO Council adopted the idea of an ICP with FAO Conference Resolution 5/65 on 9 December, 1965. At the request of the FAO/Industry Relations Steering Committee the FAO/Industry Cooperative Program unit was set up within the framework of the FAO Department of Public Relations and Legal Affairs.
The Industry Cooperative Programme pioneered the concept of public-private partnerships (PPPs) and formed the basis for modern PPPs in the UN System and elsewhere. Peter L. Woicke, Executive Vice President, IFC, and Managing Director of the World Bank, noted that the contributions of the PPPs developed under ICP are now part of the everyday language of development assistance and cooperation and that this concept is now enshrined in the UN Millennium Declaration of 2000. ICP began with a membership of 16 representatives of industries and at its peak maintained a membership of more than 100 companies from Australia, Canada, Europe, Japan, and the United States. ICP produced results quickly. By 1967 membership had risen to 46 companies, and the Programme was reaffirmed by the 14th Session of FAO Conference in 1967 which recognized the “important catalytic role [of ICP] in bringing together the managerial, technical and financial elements for new investments as well as the Program’s cooperation with governments in eliminating obstacles to investment.” By this time industries were supplying the essential requisites for development agriculture such as seeds, chemicals, fertilizers, agricultural equipment and machinery, and food packaging materials.
ICP began with limited, largely undefined objectives, but these were quickly identified and reassessed as the Programme developed. In 1971 the Director-General and the Executive Committee of ICP clarified Programme
objectives; ICP should: “1. Provide support for government and industry-initiated projects; service non-members as well as members; 2. Establish and maintain working groups where there is a real need for them; 3. Implement high level ICP missions.” In a very basic sense, through ICP, FAO was able to support governmental and industry-initiated projects through a sharing of FAO resources and information and by including members of industry in discussions with FAO and governments on official development processes. ICP also identified and summarized investment opportunities for investment and cooperation in developing countries, it enabled FAO and other UN Agencies to collaborate with governments and industries in the formation of national development plans, and ICP helped industries work together in development strategies and projects. ICP provided a mechanism whereby government and UN officials were exposed to the perspective of private industry and vice versa; this was accomplished by including representatives from UN Agencies, governments, and industry on ICP staff at FAO – which was seen as a way to remove intermediaries between these actors. Despite his wary attitude toward transnational corporations, Sen understood that industry provided a vast and important component of world economic and social development; ICP embraced this vision and therefore undertook to cooperate with industries and nations regardless of their affiliation to FAO, though all member countries enjoyed membership in the larger UN system. The primary objective of ICP was to stimulate agro-industrial expansion; as a result, ICP restricted industry membership to those companies which were operating in the developing world.
Among the most important and controversial aspects of ICP were the High Level Missions. The concept of the High Level Missions required an understanding by industry that their role must be a neutral one and that industry must make a maximum use of technical and industrial expertise in relation to the development needs of individual countries. It also required that organizations such as FAO, UNDP, and IBRD view ICP Missions as an adjunct and aid to the total planning processes in “LDCs” and as an innovation for increasing the effectiveness of private sector resources. The size and structure of each Mission varied according to local situations, but each would include a mission leader who was a senior executive with considerable experience in overall planning and who had the diplomatic talents necessary for dealing with a variety of government officials. Other mission members represented specific industry sectors or bring experience of other relevant technical or economic considerations.
The Achievements of ICP
After its official approval by FAO Council in 1967, ICP continued to redefine its purpose and scope, and these principles were reaffirmed by FAO repeatedly until it was discontinued in 1979. By the time of its official approval in 1967, ICP was responsible for the elimination of obstacles to development by increasing cooperation among FAO, governments, and industry, and was recognized as instrumental in setting up a food processing plant in Turkey. In 1969 the Programme was reaffirmed and FAO Council recommended an expansion of ICP to include smaller-scale industries. In 1970 the concept of industry-initiated projects was further developed and expanded as members proposed new projects; these fell primarily into three pre-investment categories (resource surveys, application of new technology, and infrastructural needs for high risk or new market development projects). ICP was successful in facilitating the sharing of expertise between FAO, governments, and industry, and in 1970 ICP allowed individual members to represent the Programme at international conferences. ICP took steps to improve cooperation and dialogue with UN and other organizations such as UNDP, UNICEF, ILO, WHO, UNESCO, UNCTAD, GATT on agro-allied industrial subjects in an effort to identify areas of common interest or activity, and ICP established working relations with the PICA and IDB. An early an important ICP liaison was with the FAO Investment Centre which helped evaluate many ICP projects and which collaborated with ICP on a number of ICP missions. ICP established important Working Groups such as the Pesticides Working Group which worked in cooperation with FAO, and the Working Group on Farm Mechanization Training, which was organized and led by Massey-Fergusson.
In the 1970s High Level Missions were operating in a number of countries and ICP was introducing new ideas such as Working Parties and set up a variety of Working Groups. ICP formed sub-commissions on Environment and Cooperation in Development, a Joint FAO/Industry Task Force was set up to help guide the Program’s efforts to improve protein food development, and ICP set up subcommittees on the cooperation of multinational industry in development, membership development, communications, the environment, input industries and employment and agricultural commodities. Individual members of ICP pursued projects in cooperation with various divisions of FAO on subjects such as development of the dairy and meat industries, fruit and vegetable processing, world rice production, fishery management, molasses feed for cattle, the use of animal by-products in the pet food industry, forest industries development, livestock development, and agricultural mechanization and processing. In some cases companies that were not members of ICP cooperated on individual projects, and ICP cooperated directly with governments and FAO in the organization of conferences, meetings, and a variety of administrative activities.
In 1974 and 1975, ICP was expanded in dimension and scope – especially in the dialogue between FAO, ICP, and the industry partners, and by this time the close relationship between industry and governments of developing countries was believed to have helped increase “mutual understanding of development planning and execution.” In anticipation of the 1974 World Food Conference, at the request of the UN Secretary-General and with the support of Massey-Fergusson, ICP organized a meeting of agro-industries in Toronto in September 1974 which produced a document on the interests of industrial leaders in development and constructive cooperation with governments. The activities of ICP were broadened in 1975 and 1976, and the 18th Session of the FAO Conference in 1975 reaffirmed the Programme and noted that “The Industry Cooperative Programme was in a position to harness substantial resources from transnational corporations for the development of agro-industries in line with the plans and wishes of developing countries.” The Conference further noted that:
"Developing countries were called upon to encourage enterprises of developed countries to participate in their development. In this context, it was pointed out that the Industry Cooperative Programme had been working on these lines and that there was a need for an intensification of the efforts of ICP in agro-allied industries."
In 1976, ICP was looking for ways to increase cooperation with other UN Agencies and other international bodies, and ICP members were demonstrating a high level of cohesion and determination in their efforts to increase cooperation between governments and industry through the UN system. Finally, ICP cooperated fully with the Group of Eminent Persons and with the UN Centre on Transnational Corporations whenever possible. The level of enthusiasm for ICP by FAO, governments, and industry was high and the outlook for the late 1970s and the 1980s was positive, but by 1978 ICP was shut down.
The End of ICP
The proposed expansion of ICP was accompanied by an increased effort by ICP officials to develop a better understanding of projects and operations. In 1975 ICP Executive Secretary A.H. Friedrich identified a “gap” between expectations by governments and the UN system on the one hand and the “known performance” of
international industry on the other. Friedrich recognized the increasing pressure on ICP as the Programme grew and a larger number of participants required both greater amounts of information and quantified results of ICP activities. Moreover, ICP was beginning to develop a “global approach” to agro-industrial development based on the goals embodied in the New International Economic Order and set out at the World Food Conference in 1974. Enthusiasm for the Programme ran high. A.S. Yohalem, Senior Vice President, CPC International Inc., described the mood of some ICP members in a letter to A.H. Friedrich; he noted that “Our task has been a labor of love – and I must affirm that the future of ICP and its imprint upon the agribusiness world is as important today, and even more so, than yesterday.” Despite the positive forward outlook and the apparent success of the program, several factors lead to the cessation of ICP in 1978. The most important of these was the continued opposition to ICP by several Nordic countries, led by Sweden, which believed that private sector interests should be kept separate from UN activities. The argument for a “separation of church and state” (industry and the UN system) in international development was compounded by further arguments that industry was more interested in gaining access to FAO data such as soil maps and irrigation charts than they were in improving the condition of humanity.
Opposition to ICP had always existed, and as the campaign of Nordic countries against ICP demonstrated, private sector involvement in international development posed significant challenges and required the utmost surveillance of the motives and activities of participants. There was an increasing apprehension of transnational corporations in the 1970s, and this kind of challenge to ICP led to the development of the UN Centre on Transnational Corporations and the acknowledgement of the necessary role of private industry in international agricultural development. The atmosphere of the Cold War also posed a challenge to ICP; through ICP in the late 1960s many firms had developed relationships with governments and industries on the eastern side of the Iron Curtain. As noted above, these factors were compounded by an increased demand for quantifiable, concrete results from ICP. Finally, the end of ICP was heralded by the election of Saouma as FAO Director-General in January 1976.
The official end of ICP began with decisions taken at the Nineteenth Session of the FAO Conference between 12 November and 1 December, 1977. In response to proposals forwarded by Director-General Saouma, in regard to the Industry Cooperative Programme,
The Conference noted the views of the Director-General, shared by the Programme Committee, that the Industry Cooperative Programme should not be a part of the structure of FAO. The need for continued cooperation with industry, particularly at the sectoral level, was recognized. This could assist in the transfer of resource, particularly in management and technology, according to the priority needs of developing countries.
The Conference supported the intention of the Director-General to examine the Industry Cooperative Programme, further to the Report of the Programme Committee, and to propose to the spring session of the Programme Committee and subsequently to the Council ways of securing appropriate cooperation with industry, in particular for the future.
After his election in 1976, Saouma had expressed to ICP officials his intention to continue a partnership between FAO and ICP, but in the months leading to the FAO Conference those officials became aware that Saouma’s attitude toward ICP was not as positive as they had believed. Saouma commissioned reviews of ICP’s work, but despite a positive response from these assessments, the Director-General remained “antagonistic” to the Programme. Saouma also undertook in 1976 to disband the Working Groups and suspend other ICP activities. Support for ICP among some FAO and government officials, and especially by industry members, led to attempts to relocate ICP within the UN system, but these attempts failed and by 1979 all FAO/ICP activities had ceased.
Like FFHC, ICP was a product of the vision of B.R. Sen and represented a major innovation in the work of international development. Unlike FFHC, ICP was designed as a long term programme and its termination was premature. Ironically, opposition came from leftist governments whose influence on international organizations was strong in the 1970s. In the 1980s, as dreams of a new economic order collapsed, criticism of collaboration between UN organizations and industry came from the right. For the purposes of this study, ICP represents a marked success for FAO and for FFHC in the 1960s and 1970s. The umbrella provided by FFHC allowed for such an unorthodox approach to be initiated and sustained and FFHC leadership the development of new partnerships in international development was instrumental in creating an environment in which an idea such as ICP could exist. Though ICP was not a part of FFHC, it is a product of it, and it is the kind of programme that FFHC was designed to generate.
Participation of youth and industry in the Freedom From Hunger Campaign were necessary components of B.R. Sen’s global campaign against hunger and malnutrition. Sen recognized that like NGOs, the resource offered by youth and industry to the fight against hunger was as significant as it was essential. Both of these groups were increasingly interested in agricultural development in the 1960s and this interest drew them naturally to the work of FAO. Youth and industry represented opposing sides of the political and ideological spectrum, and their participation highlights the universality of the Campaign. Their participation also describes a triangular relationship wherein youth, industry, and an international governmental agency (FAO) cooperated to produce real results in the fight against hunger. FFHC was a very large umbrella under which two very different groups could contribute to a common cause without ever encountering each other, yet they were drawn together in close cooperation. As we saw in the example of the Young World Food and Development Project, Canada was an important site for the intersection of youth, industry, and the Freedom From Hunger Campaign. CHF was the primary expression of FFHC in Canada, but it was not the only one. That youth groups and industry independently supported FFHC indicates that the FFHC message was reaching Canadians more broadly and that Canadians were receptive to such a message. The kind of cooperation discussed here was largely conducted outside the purview of the Canadian Hunger Foundation, and was an example of the international Campaign operating at a national level. The following chapters look more closely at the operation of a national committee, that of Canada; and here we see a related, but different kind of cooperation and interest by youth, private industries and other groups and organizations.
 The 1974 meeting was known as known as the Toronto Consultation.
 Hans Dall, Email, 25 July, 2006.
 B.R. Sen, “ICP and World Trade Unions,” Memo from B.R. Sen to Edouard
Saouma (FAO, Personal Collection of Walter Simons, 3 October, 1977), 3.
 Through this fund meetings relating to ICP were financed, an ICP unit at
FAO headquarters was maintained, and the fund facilitated Country Missions and
covered miscellaneous FAO/ICP expenses.
 B.R. Sen, Towards a Newer World, 213.
 B.R. Sen, Letter to Ministers (FAO, Personal Collection of Walter Simons,
August, 1965), 1-2.
 FAO, Extract from Report of the Conference of FAO, 13th Session, 20
November to 9 December, 1965. (FAO, Personal Collection of Walter Simons).
 The Chairman of the FAO/Industry Relations Steering Committee was E.F.
Schroeder, President of Corn Products International. Schroeder officially
proposed the FAO/ICP Unit in a letter to Sen on 29 January, 1966. E.F.
Schroeder, Letter to B.R. Sen (Personal Collection of Walter Simons, 20 January,
 Sen appointed H.C. Felix as the inaugural Director of FAO/ICP and A.G.
Friedrich as Assistant Director. Sen also formed a Working Group on
FAO/Industry Relations (IRG) which whose mandate was to maintain close working
relations between all interested departments and divisions of FAO. The Chairman
of the Working Group was E. Glesinger (Assistant Director-General, Public
Relations and Legal Affairs), Mr. Felix as Vice-Chairman, and Mr. Friedrich as
Secretary. Other members included the Chairman of the Inter-Divisional Working
Group (IDWG), representatives of the Assistant Directors-General, Division
Directors from Program and Budgetary Service, the Technical department, the
Department of Fisheries, the Department of Economic and Social Affairs, the
Director of the Public Information Division, the FFHC Coordinator, and a
representative of the World Food Program. B.R. Sen, “FAO/Industry Cooperative
Programme” (FAO, Director-General’s Bulletin, Personal Collection of Walter
Simons, 18 March, 1966).
 Walter Simons, Former Deputy Executive Secretary (Director Level) of
ICP, noted that in the atmosphere of the 1970s, where transnational or
multinational companies were viewed with some suspicion, some countries did not
support the idea of programs funded by private industry being a part of the UN
system. For this reason the UN Centre on Multinational Corporations was set up.
Walter Simons, Email to Author, 7 July, 2006.
 Alexander G. Friedrich and Valence E. Gale, Public-Private Partnership
within the United Nations System: Now and Then (Bielefeld: W. Bertelsmann
Verlag, 2004), v.
 The founding members of ICP were: R.G. Aikin (Shell, Netherlands/United
Kingdom), J.F. Allen (H.J. Heinz, United States), A.C.C. Baxter (Unilever,
United Kingdom/Netherlands), E. Bignami (Nestle, Switzerland), M. Bonow
(Kooperative Forbundet, Sweden), P.F. Cornelsen (Ralston Purina, United States),
J.P. Delafield (General Foods, United States), K.F. Landegger (Parsons and
Whitmore, United States), E. Locatelli (Societa Locatelli, Italy), J. McGarry
(International Minerals and Chemicals, United States), P. May (Knorr Nährmittel,
Switzerland/Germany), H. Rausing (Tetra Pak, Sweden), H. Schaafhausen (Hoechst,
Germany), E.F. Schroeder (International Corn Products, United States), A.A.
Thornbrough (Massey-Fergusson, Canada), and J. Vilgrain (Grans Moulins de Paris,
 FAO, Extract from the Report of the 14th Session of FAO Conference,
 FAO, “Discussion on Proposed High Level Industry Missions, Industry
Cooperative Programme” (FAO, IP 22/1.2, Ad Hoc Working Party on Programme
Objectives (Bignami), 8 April, 1971).
 A good example of this activity is found in Industry International
magazine in 1971; this issue listed more than 50 individual opportunities in
Africa and Asia and directed interested parties to the UNDP for further
information. “Investment Opportunities” in Industry International (June, 1971),
 FAO, “ICP Working Party Meeting, 15 July, 1971” (FAO, IP 22.1.2, Ad Hoc
Working Party on Programme Objectives (Bignami), 15 July, 1971), 7.
 FAO, “ICP High Level Advisory Missions – Organization and Preparation”
(FAO, IP 22/1/2, Ad Hoc Working Party on Programme Objectives (Bignami)), 1.
 FAO, “Achievements of ICP: Illustrated Extracts from FAO Conference and
Progress Reports, 1967-1975” (FAO, IP 22/1.2, Planning,), 1.
 Ibid., 2.
 In 1973, High Level Missions were operating in Brazil, Cameroon, Cyprus,
Dahomey, Liberia, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, and Venezuela
 These were composed of small groups of ICP members with common interest
who worked at the request of individual governments. By 1972 Working Parties
were operating in six countries and were pursuing three main subjects: plastics
(Dahomey, Egypt, Senegal, and Tunisia), meat (Botswana), and forestry (Zaire).
FAO, “Achievements of ICP,” 4.
 Before 1975, Working Groups included: the Pesticides Working Group,
which provided material for the Stockholm Conference and organized a series of
FAO/Industry seminars on the Safe and Effective use of Pesticides; the Farm
Mechanization Working Group, which cooperated with member companies and
collaborated with FAO Agricultural Services Division to support training
courses; the Working Group on the Use of Plastics in Agriculture, which guided
the activities of the Working Parties; the Working Groups on Dairy Industry
Development and Integrated Meat Development, which cooperated with FAO in the
exchange of economic and technical information, feed and food production, and
other aspects of production and disposal of agricultural product and by-product.
 Ibid., 6.
 FAO, Report of the Conference of FAO, Eighteenth Session, 27 November,
 FAO, “Achievements of ICP, 9.
 A.G. Friedrich, “Confidential, Background Note” (FAO, IP 22/1.2,
Planning, 1 September, 1975).
 A.S. Yohalem, Letter to A.H. Friedrich (FAO, IP 22/1.2, Sub Committee,
ONCIP Planning, 7 April, 1975), 2.
 Victoria Bawtree, Email, 21 August, 2006.
 Walter Simons, Email, 7 July, 2006.
 FAO, Report of the Conference of FAO, Nineteenth Session, 12 November –
1 December, 1977.
 Walter Simons, Email, 4 July, 2006.
 Sir George Bishop, Letter to Bradford Morse (Personal Collection of
Walter Simons, 10 May, 1978), 1-2.
 Friedrich and Gale suggest that the end of ICP came as the result of
“political considerations” in the Spring of 1978. Friedrich and Gale,
Public-Private Partnerships Within the United Nations System, 47.
 CHF was involved in the YWDP and some other initiatives, but in these
examples CHF’s role was largely supportive.
Founding members of ICP:
(Shell, Netherlands/United Kingdom)
(H.J. Heinz, United States)
(Unilever, United Kingdom/Netherlands)
(Kooperative Forbundet, Sweden)
(Ralston Purina, United States)
(General Foods, United States)
(Parsons and Whitmore, United States)
(Societa Locatelli, Italy)
(International Minerals and Chemicals, United States)
(Knorr Nährmittel, Switzerland/Germany)
(Tetra Pak, Sweden)
(International Corn Products, United States)
(Grans Moulins de Paris, France)