VZCZCXYZ0021
OO RUEHWEB

DE RUCNDT #0649 0901559
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
O 311559Z MAR 06
FM USMISSION USUN NEW YORK
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 8532
INFO RUEHBO/AMEMBASSY BOGOTA IMMEDIATE 0123
RUEHQT/AMEMBASSY QUITO IMMEDIATE 0091
RUEHGV/USMISSION GENEVA IMMEDIATE 2033
RUEHRO/USMISSION UN ROME IMMEDIATE

UNCLAS USUN NEW YORK 000649 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SENSITIVE 
SIPDIS 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: AORC CO EC FAO SENV SNAR WHO UN PINR
SUBJECT: DEMARCHING THE UN SECRETARIAT ON POSSIBLE 
FUMIGATION STUDY 
 
REF: STATE 50839 
 
¶1. (SBU) PolMinCouns, accompanied by Poloff, delivered reftel 
points to Assistant Secretary-General for Political Affairs 
(A/SYG) Angela Kane on March 30.  PolMinCouns asked whether 
the UN had yet received the findings of the UN team that 
recently visited Ecuador to explore the possibility of a 
study on the health effects of counter-narcotics fumigation 
(which relies on the chemical glyphosate) on the 
Colombian-Ecuadoran border.  He emphasized the USG's concerns 
that such a study would duplicate the substantial work 
already done by the Organization of American States (OAS) and 
urged Kane to consider the complicated bilateral relationship 
between Ecuador and Colombia -- including the possibility 
that Ecuador requested the study for political and not 
scientific reasons -- before deciding whether to undertake 
the proposed research.  Poloff asked whether DPA had 
considered how to fund the proposed study if it decided to 
move forward. 
 
¶2. (SBU) Describing the background behind the UN's 
involvement in the glyphosate issue, Kane recalled that 
Ecuador had rejected the results of the OAS report when they 
were released because the OAS Secretary-General at the time 
was Colombian.  She said that after persistent appeals from 
Ecuador over a four-year period, the UN finally agreed to 
consider the feasibility of such a study only if Ecuador and 
Colombia reached agreement on the issue bilaterally -- which 
she said occurred on 7 December 2005 when the two sides 
agreed to the study pending mutually acceptable terms of 
reference.  DPA then dispatched a team of technical experts 
to Ecuador in February to explore the feasibility of such an 
investigation.  Kane said the team had reviewed the work done 
by the OAS on fumigation, but could not confirm that the UN 
researchers had actually met their OAS counterparts.  She 
said the team had yet to report its findings to DPA, but 
would do so soon. 
 
¶3. (SBU) The A/SYG decried leaks by Ecuadoran officials to 
the media about the work of the technical team -- which she 
characterized as inaccurate -- but said she had kept in close 
touch with the Colombian PermRep to the UN to ensure both 
sides were informed of the steps the UN was taking.  In that 
context, Kane acknowledged the point that highly inflammatory 
"facts" about the fumigation had taken root in the local 
population and that popular pressure was in part driving the 
Ecuadoran government's actions. 
 
¶4. (SBU) Kane emphasized that the process was still at a very 
preliminary stage and that the UN had yet to conclude whether 
a study would even be worthwhile.  If the technical team 
recommended a study, she said the next step would be for 
Ecuador and Colombia to agree on terms of reference.  The UN 
would not proceed unless the two countries had themselves 
agreed on the way ahead.  Kane said DPA had yet to consider 
the issue of a funding mechanism for a possible study, but 
DPA official Carlos Vergara (who also attended the meeting) 
reported there had been some discussion of a donors meeting 
to fund the study if the two countries agreed on the way 
ahead.  Vergara also said the UN was aware that the OAS would 
soon begin a second phase of its research into glyphosate, 
which he said would be taken into consideration regarding 
next steps. 
 
¶5. (SBU) COMMENT:  DPA seems to recognize the political 
sensitivity of a study on fumigation, but insists that it 
must respond to member state requests -- particularly when 
both sides to the issue have agreed that the study should go 
forward.  If we wish to block this study should it go 
forward, we should ensure that Colombia raises objections at 
the appropriate time. 
WOLFF