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

071530Z Jul 05

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 03 PARIS 004748 
 
SIPDIS 
 
STATE FOR OES/ETC CHRISTINE DAWSON AND OES/PCI JONATHAN 
MARGOLIS; 
WHITE HOUSE FOR OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY ADVISER; 
INTERIOR FOR FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 
 
E.O. 12958:  N/A 
TAGS: SENV TSPL KSCA ETRD PGOV FR
SUBJECT: FRANCE SETS NEW BIODIVERSITY MECHANISM INITIATIVE 
IN MOTION 
 
REF: STATE 119273 
 
¶1. Summary.  On June 28, France confirmed its desire to 
facilitate the launch of an international multi-stakeholder 
consultative process to assess the need for an 
"international mechanism of scientific expertise on 
biodiversity" (IMOSEB).  An informal meeting hosted by the 
GOF gave 40 participants an opportunity to express their 
(divided) views about the relevance of an IMOSEB and raise a 
number of questions related to the assessment process. 
Discussions at the end of the meeting -- definition of 
governance bodies for the consultative process, timeframe, 
budget considerations -- confirmed the determination of the 
GOF to set the initiative in motion without delay.  End 
summary. 
 
¶2.  Background information: A number of participants 
commended the French organizers of the International 
Conference on Biodiversity and Governance held in Paris in 
January 2005 for bringing together a range of visions on 
biodiversity challenges, for identifying research needs, and 
for enhancing public awareness.  During that conference, 
President Chirac, recalling the work of the 
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), proposed 
the creation of a similar type of mechanism for 
biodiversity. The conference final statement -- the manner 
of vetting of which had raised many questions -- called for 
the launch of an international, multi-stakeholder 
consultative process to assess the need for such a 
mechanism.  The purpose of the Paris meeting, on June 28, 
was to initiate the "next steps" consultative process. 
 
Participants 
------------ 
¶3.  Hosted by the French Research Ministry, the Paris June 
28 workshop gathered 40-45 participants.  One-fourth of the 
audience came from the French Research, Ecology, Foreign 
Affairs, Education, and Overseas Territories Ministries. 
Several members of the Scientific Committee in charge of the 
January Conference also attended, as well as representatives 
of CBD, UNEP, IUCN, FAO.  The Canadian, Belgian, Brazilian, 
Italian, Danish, German, Mexican, Japanese, U.S., British, 
and Madagascan governments sent representatives either from 
capitals or local embassies and the European Commission sent 
two participants.  Non-government organizations and the 
university sector were also represented (e.g. DIVERSITAS, 
the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF), 
Missouri Botanical Gardens, the Zoological Society of 
London, French National Center for Scientific Research 
(CNRS), and the Universities of Chile and Mexico and 
University of Stanford). 
 
¶4.  At the start of the workshop, the group elected as its 
chairman Michel Loreau, ecology professor and head of the 
January 2005 Biodiversity Conference Scientific Committee. 
The second key person was Bob Watson, Chief Scientist at the 
World Bank, and author of the note on international 
scientific and technical assessments circulated prior to the 
workshop. 
 
A divided audience 
------------------ 
¶5.  Initial discussions revisited the question of the need 
for a new mechanism to address scientific information 
related to biodiversity.  From the outset, and repeatedly, 
the U.S. representatives, Embassy Paris Acting Science 
Counselor and Scientific Affairs Specialist, presented 
clearly the negative views regarding the proposed mechanism 
and concerns of the U.S. government, as contained in reftel. 
A Brazilian government representative read an official 
statement, stressing the role and importance of CBD as a 
main international instrument and stating that the creation 
of a new mechanism could weaken the Convention, an outcome 
"not acceptable to Brazil."  An EU Commission representative 
noted that the January Conference final statement (calling 
for a consultative process, para 2) was not a "consensus" 
statement. 
 
¶6.  The idea that a new mechanism would be redundant and 
even detrimental to the existing Convention on Biological 
Diversity's Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and 
Technological Advice (SBSTTA) found some resonance among the 
audience.  A number of participants acknowledged the 
insufficient CBD coordination of scientific expertise and 
the need for improvement, but also argued that interested 
members of the world community should work on improving the 
Convention, instead of developing new overlapping mechanisms 
which might dilute investment and expertise. 
 
¶7.  Other participants opined that biodiversity issues are 
not prominent enough and that the establishment of a new 
mechanism would put biodiversity at the forefront.  They 
also highlighted the need for "external independent 
scientific expertise" (i.e. outside the CBD), stating that 
the real issue is not "whether SBSTTA can or cannot do the 
job" but whether one should separate evaluation from 
management.  According to these participants, a new 
mechanism would "strengthen, not weaken," and "complement, 
not challenge" the CBD. 
 
¶8.  Chairman Loreau concluded the first part of the 
discussion by noting a "consensus" on the part of the 
audience that the system (of scientific evaluation) is not 
working sufficiently well.  He acknowledged the divided 
views of the audience concerning the necessity for a new 
mechanism and the type of structure needed, and underscored 
that the purpose of the consultation process initiated by 
France is "to explore the options and assess the need for a 
new mechanism." 
 
Scope of the assessment process 
------------------------------- 
¶9.  The second part of the "brainstorming" discussion 
focused on the assessment process and proposed modalities 
for stakeholder consultations.  At this point, many 
questions concerned the scope of the assessment, i.e. 
whether it should emphasize biodiversity or encompass both 
biodiversity and ecosystem goods and services; and whether 
it should provide the scientific and technical basis for 
CBD only or for all ecosystem-related conventions (CCD, 
Ramsar, CITES, and CMS).  Participants expressed concern 
about the time needed to carry out "genuine" consultations 
prior to finalizing the recommendations.  They also 
discussed relationships between the proposed assessment 
and existing initiatives (notably the Millennium 
Assessment). 
 
¶10.  The general conclusion to the second part of the one 
day session was that the scope of the assessment process 
should be "broad" and that the consultation process should 
be given sufficient time and focus on identifying the key 
functions which need to be strengthened. 
 
Launching of the process: logistics 
----------------------------------- 
¶11.  Governance bodies: The participants and the 
organizers eventually agreed on the following: 
 
-- Composition of the International Steering Committee 
(ISC): the group should be expanded to include up to 80 
participants gathering scientific and institutional 
expertise, taking into account geographical representation 
and a "balanced participation" of the types of actors on 
biodiversity.  The following three groups were established 
from within the ranks of the International Steering 
Committee: 
 
-- a small executive bureau: seven interim members, 
including Chilean Mary de Arroyo, and French Chairman 
Michel Loreau, were appointed, to be reconfirmed by the 
Chairman of the ISC, once elected.  This executive bureau 
will make proposals to the ISC about new members. 
 
-- a working group (5-6 participants) within the ISC to 
draft a "concept paper" to reformulate the terms of 
reference for the study and "stimulate the debate." 
 
-- an Executive Secretariat (two staff) to monitor the 
consultative process.  The ES will be located in the 
premises of French NGO, Diversitas Paris.  Pending final 
approval for a two-year funding commitment from the GOF 
and in the absence of other proposals, the Executive 
Secretariat is likely to be headed by Diversitas Executive 
 
SIPDIS 
Director Anne Larigauderie. 
 
¶12.  Study timeframe and location of meetings: The ISC is 
planning to develop a preliminary report for presentation 
during the next Conference of the Parties of the CBD in 
March 2006, and a final report by May 2006.  Four meetings 
have been scheduled for consultations, development of the 
options, and finalization of the study.  The first meeting 
(June 28) and third meeting (December 2005) are hosted and 
funded by the GOF.  The location and funding for the other 
two meetings (October 2005, March 2006) remain to be 
determined. 
 
¶13.  Budget/Fund raising.  Estimated costs for the study 
approximate 420,000 Euros.  France has announced it will 
host two ISC meetings (out of four) and will also 
"contribute" to the expenses of the Executive Secretariat. 
Chairman Loreau made an appeal for other contributions, 
but received no immediate offers. 
 
¶14.  Next steps and pending issues: 
-- Drafting of a concept paper (para 11) and new terms of 
reference.  This document should be ready within 2-3 weeks 
for review by the ISC. 
-- Finalizing the composition of the ISC (up to 80 
members?) 
-- Designation of ISC chairman (to be elected by the ISC) 
-- Budget and fundraising 
-- Location of second and fourth meeting (one in Asia?). 
 
¶15.  Comment: The Paris workshop confirmed the 
determination (steamrolling) of the GOF to create a new 
international biodiversity mechanism for scientific 
assessments despite calls, like that presented by the 
U.S., that such a mechanism is not needed and would serve 
to disrupt existing arrangements in existing biodiversity 
agreements and treaties.  Whether the Elysee-driven 
initiative will gain momentum and obtain international 
recognition and participation remains to be seen.  Answers 
to French appeals for financial and logistical commitments 
will soon clarify the resonance and ownership of the 
French initiative.  Other pending issues include the size 
and composition of the ISC, which may evolve in the near 
future.  This will determine whether it will remain both 
manageable and legitimate as a representative body. 
Embassy representatives requested to remain associated 
with the Steering Committee in order to be in a position 
to monitor developments. 
 
Stapleton