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

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 03 PARIS 002130 
 
SIPDIS 
 
FROM USMISSION UNESCO PARIS 
STATE FOR IO/UNESCO CRISTINA NOVO 
STATE FOR OES SHIRA YOFFE, EUR MATTHEW BRYZA AND 
EUR/SNEC AMB MANN 
STATE FOR DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR DAS HOFFMAN 
STATE FOR DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR NPS STEPHEN MORRIS 
 
E.O. 12958:    N/A 
TAGS: AORC SCUL KSCA SENV RS XG UNESCO
SUBJECT:  UNESCO: PREPARATIONS FOR JULY 2006 VILNIUS 
WORLD HERITAGE MEETING INCLUDE EXPERTS' DISCUSSION ON 
CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACT ON SITES 
 
¶1.  Summary:  In preparation for the July 8-16 2006 
meeting of the World Heritage Committee in Vilnius, 
invited experts met at UNESCO headquarters to discuss 
the impact of climate change on World Heritage sites; 
(Their recommendations para 5).  The meeting was held 
at the request of the July 2005 session of the World 
Heritage Committee.  There was interest on the part of 
a couple of members of the media in a U.S. position 
paper -- submitted in advance to the World Heritage 
Center, but not delivered at the meeting -- by U.S. 
expert Interior Department DAS Paul Hoffman  expressing 
U.S. concerns regarding UNESCO's appropriate role in 
areas involving climate issues and  World Heritage 
sites.  Also in preparation for the upcoming Vilnius 
meeting, the chair of the World Heritage Committee 
convened an informal meeting to discuss the agenda at 
Vilnius; the chair (Lithuania) also used the meeting to 
express her concern about Russia's plans to build a 
pipeline near the Lake Baikal World Heritage site.  End 
Summary. 
 
Experts Meet on Climate Change and World Heritage 
--------------------------------------------- ---- 
 
¶2.  In preparation for the July 2006 World Heritage 
Committee meeting in Vilnius, Lithuania, the World 
Heritage Center organized an experts' only meeting 
March 16-17 2006 to examine the impact of climate 
change on World Heritage Sites.  The U.S. was 
represented at the meeting by experts Paul Hoffman, 
Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Interior, and Daniel 
Fagre, U.S. Geological Survey.  Ambassador Oliver and 
USUNESCO Science Officer also attended the meeting. 
 
¶3.  This meeting was held at the request of the 29th 
session (July 2005) of the World Heritage Committee, in 
order to explore the appropriate role of World Heritage 
with regard to climate change.  Decision 29 COM 7B.a 
set out specific goals to guide the experts' meeting 
and its report back to the Committee, although there 
remained some confusion about the Meeting's purpose 
with respect to the Petition to include four World 
Heritage Sites on the List of World Heritage in Danger 
(Note: A subsequent petition was submitted in February 
2006, suggesting that Waterton-Glacier International 
Peace Park be included on the List of World Heritage in 
Danger as well. End Note.) 
 
¶4.  The meeting included a number of presentations 
about the impact of climate change on both natural and 
cultural sites.  A presentation by Martin Parry, of the 
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, suggested 
that certain climatic trends, such as average global 
temperature rise, potential sea level rise, potential 
increased severities of droughts complicated by 
increased rainfall and storm intensities, were very 
likely to occur over the next 100 years even if GHG 
emissions were reduced at twice the rate articulated in 
the Kyoto Protocol. 
 
¶5.   The participating experts had significant 
discussions about the appropriate role of the World 
Heritage Convention with regard to the issue of climate 
change.  The experts arrived at consensus, with the 
noted exception of one of the climate change 
petitioning NGO representatives.  The consensus 
suggested that the appropriate role of World Heritage 
should be guided by the following principles: 
 
World Heritage should adopt the UN Framework Convention 
on Climate Change terminology with respect to 
"mitigations" meaning reduction in GHG emissions or 
carbon sequestration and "adaptations" meaning efforts 
to reduce, eliminate, adjust to, or adapt to the 
impacts that result from climate change; 
 
The larger issue of GHG emission mitigations remains 
the responsibility of the UN Framework Convention on 
Climate Change and the Intergovernmental Panel on 
Climate Change; 
 
World Heritage Sites should monitor climate change 
impacts and coordinate those efforts on a thematic as 
well as regional basis; 
 
Site managers should conduct monitoring and research on 
climate change impacts to World Heritage Sites; 
 
Site managers should carry out activities that will 
facilitate the adaptation of a site to climate change 
impacts; 
 
Site managers and the World Heritage Centre should 
closely coordinate all these efforts with other 
conservation conventions and organizations; 
 
Site managers and State parties should share all 
information with the World Heritage Center and UNESCO 
which would serve as the clearinghouse for climate 
change impacts and adaptations information; and 
 
UNESCO and the World Heritage Centre should share 
climate change impact information with the UN Framework 
Convention on Climate Change and the Intergovernmental 
Panel on Climate Change to inform their policy making 
process on mitigations and adaptations. 
 
¶6.  Before the meeting opened, one of our Secretariat 
contacts said that she and her colleagues were striving 
to ensure a "low profile" for these proceedings to 
ensure that they remained at a technical level.  The 
consensus at which the experts arrived will not be made 
public until six weeks before the Vilnius meeting, 
along with all the other documents for the meeting. 
Members of Permanent delegations that did not have 
experts participating were told that the Meeting was 
"closed".  However, the Ecological and Earth Sciences 
Division of the Natural Sciences Sector seized upon the 
opportunity afforded by the World Heritage meeting on 
Climate Change to organize a meeting on Bio-Carbon 
Sequestration immediately preceding the WHC meeting, 
inviting many of the same participants.  The carbon 
meeting, organized in partnership with the NGO Pro- 
Natura, was an opportunity to discuss ways to enhance 
efforts to address the potential reduction of 
biological sources of green house gas (GHG) emissions 
by reducing deforestation, increasing reforestation, 
sequestration of carbon, and establishing partnerships 
with the private sector. This meeting -- not organized 
under any specific delegation of authority, and lacking 
the authority to set official policy for any 
organization -- issued no communique. 
 
Ambassadors Meet to Prepare Vilnius Agenda 
------------------------------------------ 
 
¶7.  On March 23, Ambassador Oliver attended a meeting 
of Permanent Delegates to prepare for the Vilnius 
Meeting.  In discussing the agenda, Ambassador Oliver 
succeeded in convincing the other participants that the 
time allotted to discussion of the administration and 
financing of the World Heritage Center should be 
expanded considerably.  The U.S also argued that the 
issues of universal value and geographical distribution 
should be discussed before the Committee decides which 
new sites should be inscribed on the World Heritage 
List.  This suggestion was not accepted, as many 
permanent delegates argued that high-level 
representatives of their countries - who plan to attend 
the meeting to press for their sites' inclusion -- have 
already made travel plans based on the agenda as 
currently configured. 
 
¶8.  Much of discussion was devoted to the potentially 
negative impact of a proposed oil pipeline that would 
be built near Lake Baikal, Russia, inscribed on the 
World Heritage List in 1996.  The current Chairperson 
of the World Heritage Committee, Ina Marciulionyte (the 
Lithuanian Ambassador to UNESCO), reported to the 
meeting that she had written a letter to Russian 
President Putin protesting these plans; she said that 
she had asked UNESCO DG Matsuura to write a similar 
letter, but that he had not committed himself to doing 
so.  Amb. Marciulionyte also evoked the possibility of 
holding an extraordinary session of the World Heritage 
Committee to discuss this issue - which would probably 
take place sometime after the July 2006 World Heritage 
Committee in Vilnius - given the complexity of the 
issues involved.  She stressed, though, that opponents 
of the Russian plan did not want to block the pipeline, 
but change its routing to avoid any potential harm to 
Lake Baikal. 
Oliver