This record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available.

UNCLAS E F T O SECTION 01 OF 02 OTTAWA 000454 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SENSITIVE 
 
STATE FOR EB/IFD/0DF, EAP AND WHA/CAN 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: EAID EFIN CA
SUBJECT: OTTAWA:  TSUNAMI DONORS CONFERENCE AND FORMATION 
OF INFORMAL COORDINATION GROUP 
 
REF: A. STATE 18955 
     ¶B. OTTAWA 03474 
 
¶1.  (SBU)  Summary: In response to reftel demarche, the GoC 
has indicated its interest in participating in a donor 
coordination group, and offered a number of suggestions on 
structure and participation. Full text of Canadian response 
follows below. End summary. 
 
¶2.  (SBU) In discussions with Finatt last week, CIDA Director 
General for Strategic Planning Bob Johnston, who is running 
the tsunami task force, suggested that the first question to 
be answered is how we (donors) engage the major affected 
countries (Indonesia and Sri Lanka), a concern reflected in 
their suggestion that major affected coutnries play a 
leadership role.  The GOC wants as much reconstruction 
assistance as possible to be demand-driven, and is awaiting 
the IFI assessments.  (Note:  given that NGOs must present 
project proposals to receive matching funds from CIDA, 
officials will have a delicate balancing act to ensure that 
recipient demand matches NGO reconstruction supply.  End 
note.)  Although the GOC intends to play a leading role in 
reconstruction, there have been two obstacles to hammering 
out the details: 
--CIDA officials involved in tsunami relief and 
reconstruction were "hit over the head" by the scale of 
Canadians' private donations, which the GOC agreed to match, 
and are "just starting to get it under control." 
--More generally, the GOC is finalizing a long-awaited and 
unexpectedly contentious interagency International Policy 
Statement.  Although there is consensus that the Canadian 
International Development Agency (CIDA) has the lead on 
tsunami reconstruction and CIDA and Foreign Affairs have been 
 
SIPDIS 
in frequent consultation regarding our demarche, the IPS 
process appears to have complicated assignment of 
responsibility for tsunami reconstruction (and delayed the 
GoC response to our demarche). 
 
 
¶3.  (SBU) Following is the text of the GoC response to our 
demarche, received February 14: 
 
Begin text: 
 
--The Government of Canada agrees that close and effective 
donor coordination, and donor-affected government 
coordination, is essential for the successful reconstruction 
of the countries affected by the Tsunami which struck the 
Indian Ocean on December 26, 2005. 
 
--The Government of Canada believes that a reconstruction 
coordination group may very well make a positive contribution 
to these efforts.  We would welcome further information from 
the Government of United States on the process which is 
envisaged in this regard, including participants and 
substantive arrangements.  Given the number of countries that 
have or who plan to contribute to the reconstruction phase, 
this will be a delicate challenge.  Consideration might be 
given to in-country donor coordination groups (such as the 
one which exists in Sri Lanka), and those issues that are 
cross-cutting and require more senior level engagement can be 
addressed by the informal coordination group at headquarters 
through the proposed bi-weekly phone calls. 
 
--Such coordination must take into account the country led 
nature of the respective reconstruction strategies of the 
tsunami affected countries.  The Government of Canada would 
 
SIPDIS 
hope that the proposed coordination group can find the 
appropriate means to engage the leadership role of our 
developing country partners in the design and implementation 
of their respective reconstruction strategies in tandem with 
the UN, IFI,s and bilateral donors. 
 
--As noted in the US note, the World Bank, Asian Development 
bank and the UN Development Group should be leading 
participants.  In addition, we would propose that 
consideration be given to having the UN Secretary-General,s 
Special Envoy, Mr. William J. Clinton, chair the discussions. 
 We would expect Jan Egeland to participate as well. 
 
--We agree that it is essential to maintain the momentum 
initiated by the recent spate of international meetings, 
including the January 11th donor pledging conference in 
Geneva.  A future donor meeting/conference will need to focus 
on more well-developed needs assessments and the 
reconstruction strategies developed in partnership with 
affected countries over the next few months.  Should such a 
meeting take place, it would be ideal if donors were in a 
position to indicate the sectors they plan to focus on, so 
that any obvious gaps can be identified and addressed.  This 
will mean that sufficient time will be needed for donor 
governments to appropriately prepare, including pursuing 
consultations with relevant agencies and partners. 
 
--The Government of Canada looks forward to collaborating 
with the US on these ideas in the coming weeks, and to 
discussing the American proposal in greater detail. 
 
End text. 
 
 
Visit Canada's Classified Web Site at 
http://www.state.sgov.gov/p/wha/ottawa 
 
CELLUCCI