VZCZCXRO5479
RR RUEHRG
DE RUEHBR #1935/01 2831105
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 101105Z OCT 07
FM AMEMBASSY BRASILIA
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 0150
INFO RUEHSO/AMCONSUL SAO PAULO 0932
RUEHRI/AMCONSUL RIO DE JANEIRO 5214
RUEHRG/AMCONSUL RECIFE 7204
RUCNDT/USMISSION USUN NEW YORK 0220
RUEHBS/USEU BRUSSELS
RUEHNR/AMEMBASSY NAIROBI 0137
RUEHBJ/AMEMBASSY BEIJING 0339
RUEHEG/AMEMBASSY CAIRO 0064
RUEHBU/AMEMBASSY BUENOS AIRES 5036
RUEHSJ/AMEMBASSY SAN JOSE 0659
RUEHFR/AMEMBASSY PARIS 0324
RUEHRL/AMEMBASSY BERLIN 0275
RUEHNE/AMEMBASSY NEW DELHI 0334
RUEHSA/AMEMBASSY PRETORIA 0607
RUEHAB/AMEMBASSY ABIDJAN 0017
RUEHLI/AMEMBASSY LISBON 0427
RUEHKO/AMEMBASSY TOKYO 0940
RUEHRO/AMEMBASSY ROME 0323
RUEHLO/AMEMBASSY LONDON 1223
RUEHMO/AMEMBASSY MOSCOW 0329
RUEHCV/AMEMBASSY CARACAS 3809
RUEHJA/AMEMBASSY JAKARTA 0183
RUEHIL/AMEMBASSY ISLAMABAD 0076

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 06 BRASILIA 001935 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SENSITIVE 
 
SIPDIS 
 
DEPT FOR G, OES/ETC, OES/ENV, L/OES, IO, IO/EDA 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: SENV KGHG UN KSCA BR
SUBJECT: MINISTERIAL MEETING ON INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL 
GOVERNANCE, RIO DE JANEIRO, SEPTEMBER 3-4, 2007 
 
¶1.  (U) THIS CABLE IS SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED AND NOT FOR 
INTERNET DISTRIBUTION. 
 
¶2.  (SBU) SUMMARY.  Brazil hosted the "Ministerial Meeting on 
Environment and Sustainable Development: Challenges for 
International Governance," in Rio de Janeiro, September 3 and 4, 
¶2007.  Participants from the United States, Europe, and key 
developed and developing countries spoke of the need to try to 
strengthen international environmental governance.  The U.S. 
delegation underscored its willingness to constructively participate 
in the discussion and emphasized that it did not see a need for a 
new international organization.  The Europeans advocated for 
converting the UN Environmental Programme (UNEP) into the UN 
Environmental Organization with normative powers; Brazil switched 
from its previous opposition to creating a new organization, and 
identified as an option the possibility of establishing an 
"umbrella" organization on sustainable development.  Most developing 
countries called for more financial resources, technology transfers 
and capacity building, and did not commit to any specific proposal 
for restructuring international environmental governance.  Several 
developing countries did, however, oppose creation of a new 
organization on the grounds that it would drain resources from 
capacity building.  Others opposed it because they believed the 
Europeans would use it to impose environmental trade barriers.  The 
Co-chairs' summary (text below) incorporated key points of the 
debate, and it will be fed into the ongoing UN discussion.  END 
SUMMARY. 
 
PARTICIPANTS AND PURPOSE 
 
¶3.  (U) The Government of Brazil's (GOB) Foreign Minister (Celso 
Amorim) and Environment Minister (Marina Silva) sponsored the 
"Ministerial Meeting on Environment and Sustainable Development: 
Challenges for International Governance," in Rio de Janeiro, 
September 3 and 4, 2007.  The GOB billed the meeting as an 
opportunity for senior officials to discuss informally issues 
related to international environmental governance in the context of 
sustainable development.  Ministers or senior representatives of the 
following countries participated in the meeting: Antigua and 
Barbuda, Argentina, China, Costa Rica, Egypt, France, Germany, 
India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Kenya, Mexico, Pakistan, Portugal, 
Russian Federation, United Kingdom, Senegal, South Africa, United 
States and Venezuela.  Other participants included representatives 
of the European Commission, the Executive-Director of the United 
Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), Achim Steiner, and a senior 
representative of the Under-Secretary-General for Economic and 
Social Affairs of the United Nations, as well as the Permanent 
Representative of Switzerland (Claude Heller) to the United Nations 
(UN), as one of the co-chairs of the informal consultative process 
on the institutional framework for the UN' environmental 
activities. 
 
¶4.  (U) State Department's Assistant Secretary for Oceans, 
International Environmental, and Scientific (OES) Affairs Claudia 
McMurray headed the U.S. delegation.  The rest of the U.S. 
delegation consisted of International Organizations Bureau Deputy 
Assistant Secretary Gerry Anderson, OES/ENV Division Chief John 
Matuszak, L/OES Attorney Mark Simonoff, and Embassy Brasilia's EST 
Counselor Richard Driscoll. 
 
HIGHLIGHTS OF DISCUSSION 
 
¶5.  (SBU) The GOB Co-Chairs commenced the meeting with an effort to 
 
BRASILIA 00001935  002 OF 006 
 
 
steer the ensuring discourse toward their view of a need to create 
an "umbrella" organization to oversee international environmental 
governance.  They declared that the international system from 
multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs), to the UN 
Environmental Programme (UNEP), to the Commission on Sustainable 
Development (CSD) needed to be strengthened and that more funds, 
with steady and predictable flows, were called for.  Foreign 
Minister Amorim emphasized the need to consider all three pillars of 
sustainable development - environmental, social and economic - in 
contrast with the French proposal for an international organization 
or agency solely focused on the environment.  Environment Minister 
Silva lamented that the UN system was designed before the concept of 
sustainable development had come to the fore.  She stressed that the 
world needed to find again the spirit of Rio 1992.  Later, Foreign 
Ministry Under Secretary Everton Vargas summarized the concept paper 
the GOB had distributed prior to the meeting.  He urged greater 
coordination between UNEP, CSD, the MEAs secretariats, and the 
Global Environmental Fund (GEF).  Further, he called for greater 
South-South and North-South-South collaboration.  When asked why the 
UN Development Program (UNDP) was not asked to the meeting, GOB's 
Figueiredo Machado told us in a private conversation that UNDP was 
not a problem that needed to be fixed or included in this effort. 
 
¶6.  (SBU) Claude Heller offered his perspective on the problems and 
their possible solutions with current international environmental 
governance (IEG).  He reviewed the findings in the paper he and his 
Mexican co-chair had prepared, including the lack of reliable 
funding, the need to strengthen scientific assessment, and the 
importance of "mainstreaming" environment.  He called for the UN 
General Assembly (UNGA) to adopt a resolution this year setting the 
terms of reference for transforming IEG. 
 
¶7.  (SBU) UNEP Director Steiner described the current system as 
"increasingly dysfunctional" with inadequate resources and mandate 
to respond to environmental needs.  He referred to GEF as an 
"insignificant" funding mechanism and lamented how little UNEP 
received compared to other UN agencies such as the Food and 
Agriculture Organization (FAO).  In short, he concluded that the 
situation was going "badly wrong."  He saw a need for dramatic steps 
for the UN system to improve IEG. 
 
¶8.  (SBU) Portugal, which had the European Union (EU) presidency, 
and France spoke in favor of the French proposal to transform UNEP 
into the "UN Environmental Organization" (or UNEO).  Portugal said 
that the MEAs couldn't lose their autonomy in this reform process. 
Interestingly, South Africa objected saying that Europe was seeking 
to create UNEO for an ulterior purpose, namely to undermine the 
World Trade Organization (WTO).  Germany wanted to give UNEP agency 
status now; it also saw a need to create scientific assessment and 
early warning capacity within UNEP.  The Europeans wanted a 
normative body.  Italy thought the current discussion was polarized 
and so called for a step-by-step process to strengthen IEG, 
beginning with strengthening UNEP as suggested by Steiner. 
 
¶9.  (SBU) Various developing countries emphasized the need for more 
resources, more technology transfers, and more capacity building, 
including China, India, Pakistan, South Africa, Indonesia and 
Brazil. 
 
¶10.  (SBU) China, India, Egypt, Indonesia, Argentina and Kenya did 
not endorse the French UNEO proposal or the Brazilian "umbrella" 
organization concept.  However, they spoke in terms of strengthening 
the system and making structural changes where needed.  China wanted 
 
BRASILIA 00001935  003 OF 006 
 
 
to also bring in to the picture ECOSOC and UNDP because it 
considered environment at heart to be an "economic development 
issue".  Pakistan (which is the chair of the G-77) underscored the 
principle of common, but differentiated responsibilities, and it was 
open to redefining UNEP.  India emphasized that it did not want to 
see the creation of a new normative organization.  It too stressed 
that environment should be viewed in light of economic and social 
considerations.  They all expressed their openness to discussing 
concrete proposals on IEG.  Russia and Venezuela expressly disagreed 
with the idea of creating a UNEO.  Costa Rica highlighted its 
determination to act now, regardless of common but differentiated 
responsibilities; it said it hoped to be carbon neutral by 2021. 
Argentina noted that we have other options than UNEO.  Japan 
acknowledged its willingness to consider a new structure or new 
organization, however, it called for a "bottom up" approach in 
setting the terms of reference for the negotiations. 
 
¶12.  (SBU) South Africa stated that there was not enough political 
support for the European proposal of a UNEO.  What is needed now is 
a process to strengthen UNEP and to deal with the "mistrust" that 
surrounds this debate.  South Africa proposed creating a small 
working group to advance the international dialogue on IEG.  The 
United Kingdom and France concurred that a small group - under GOB 
leadership - should develop a paper to feed into the ongoing UN 
process.  Antigua and Barbuda (as the next UNGA president) adamantly 
opposed South Africa's proposal for a small working group.  It did 
not want to suspend or delay work on Heller's proposal in the UN and 
strongly opposed any process that had limited participation. 
Pakistan (as leader of the G-77) echoed Antigua and Barbuda's 
opposition to a limited participation process. 
 
¶13.  (SBU) The United States highlighted where there was common 
ground:  (1) strengthening UNEP and (2) greater inclusion of 
sustainable development within the international agenda. 
Nonetheless, the USG opposed creating a new organization or agency. 
A/S McMurray noted that there were many points in the co-chairs' 
paper presented by Heller that we can agree on, and that the United 
States is prepared to discuss points of common ground on the 
building blocks contained in section 3 of the co-chairs' paper in 
connection with the UN process in New York. However, it is premature 
to launch into a negotiation of terms of reference for discussion of 
any proposals for a new organization, as suggested in section 4 of 
the co-chairs' paper.    She also stated that the USG does support 
the Bali Strategy for Technical Cooperation and commends the UN's 
"Delivering as One" project.  Further, the MEAs must not lose their 
autonomy, which corresponds to what Portugal had stated.  A/S 
McMurray said that the "mistrust" mentioned by others could be 
dispelled by looking at specific implications of ideas rather than 
talking about general concepts.  She explained that more information 
on resource needs is called for before any decisions can be made. 
 
GOB CO-CHAIRS' SUMMARY 
 
¶14.  (U) The GOB Co-Chairs prepared their summary of the debate, 
which they plan to insert into the ongoing debate at the UN.  The 
summary was released on September 24, and it was not opened for 
review or revision by the participants.  In brief, the summary 
concludes that there is a need for improving IEG and for more 
resources.  It includes the Brazilian concept of a new "umbrella" 
organization along side the French proposal for a UNEO and also the 
idea of strengthening UNEP.  The summary does not speak of consensus 
or that the participants agreed to the text.  The summary did not 
endorse or reject the idea of further work in small groups or in an 
 
BRASILIA 00001935  004 OF 006 
 
 
informal process, but stressed that any such work would complement - 
and not substitute for - ongoing work in the UN.  The full text of 
the summary is provided below. 
 
------------------------ 
BEGIN TEXT 
------------------------ 
 
Ministerial Meeting on Environment and Sustainable Development: 
Challenges for International Governance Palacio Itamaraty - Rio de 
Janeiro, 3 & 4 of September, 2007 
 
¶1.  The Co-chairs identified three groups or areas of reflection. 
The first summarizes the points of general convergence; the second 
group is composed by themes that were deemed important, but that 
require further reflection, because they have not reached the 
necessary level of convergence.  Finally, the third group could be 
defined as possible paths for future action. 
 
¶2.  International environmental governance must be viewed in and 
implemented taking into account the balance between the three 
pillars of sustainable development.  Environment is an essential 
part of the development process. 
 
¶3.  The paradigm of sustainable development lacks effective 
implementation.  The considerable expansion of multilateral 
environmental agreements has rendered the implementation deficit 
deeper. 
 
¶4.  The current situation regarding international environmental 
governance must be improved.  The status quo is not an option. 
 
¶5.  The United Nations must be the locus for dealing with the issue 
of international governance.  In this context, the improvement of 
governance must progress gradually (step by step). 
 
¶6.  UNEP is the United Nations' central pillar for the environment. 
The importance of its headquarters in Africa was stressed. 
 
¶7.  There is an urgent need for coordination and system-wide 
coherence.  However, the resources of the multilateral system appear 
to be insufficient for this coordination and for effectively 
implementing UNEP's mandate and multilateral environmental 
agreements. 
 
¶8.  The institutional structure of international environmental 
governance will only be effective once a clear mandate, appropriate, 
foreseeable and stable financial resources, and political authority 
are achieved.  The system is overburdened (excessive agreements and 
commitments) - dispersion, fragmentation, competition for resources 
and overlapping mandates. 
 
¶9.  The autonomy of the multilateral environmental agreements that 
have already been negotiated must be maintained. 
 
¶10.  Transparency in the decision-making process is a necessary 
condition for the improvement of the process.  Civil society's 
contribution was underscored. 
 
¶11.  To strengthen environmental governance there must be a 
strengthening of national and regional acting capacities. 
Furthermore, there is a need for strengthening the instruments and 
mechanisms of capacity-building and technology transfer, such as the 
 
BRASILIA 00001935  005 OF 006 
 
 
Bali Strategic Plan. 
 
¶12.  The principle of common but differentiated responsibilities 
must be a constant reference in the process of international 
environmental governance.  Poverty alleviation must also continue to 
be a central element of this debate. 
 
¶13.  There is an interest in developing a new paradigm for 
cooperation (North-South-South) that can help making international 
environmental action more effective and penetrating.  However, 
innovative mechanisms of cooperation -South-South and 
North-South-South (triangular)- must be complementary and not 
substitutes to North-South cooperation. 
 
¶14.  The GEF is an insufficient financing source; access to its 
financing is slow and complex, and its decision-making structure is 
deemed as excessively complex.  The GEF must remain, however, a 
central element of any future solution for international 
environmental governance. 
 
¶15.  There will not be any progress in this discussion without a 
constant exercise of mutual confidence building. 
 
¶B.  Areas where there is no convergence and where, therefore, 
further discussion is required: 
 
¶16.  The meeting identified the following options for the 
institutional structure: 
 
16.1.  UNEP's transformation into a new institution (organization or 
agency), with the attributions of coordinating all actors of the 
environmental fields, with an emphasis on resource mobilization, on 
the strengthening of institutional capacities, on technology 
transfer and on the dissemination of scientific knowledge. 
 
16.2.  Creation of an umbrella institution (organization or agency), 
which would articulate environment and sustainable development, in 
the normative, cooperation and financing dimensions, in 
implementation aspects, such as technology transfer and the 
dissemination of scientific knowledge, as well as in 
capacity-building for complying with multilaterally agreed 
objectives.  The institution would integrate the existing 
international structure (UNEP, GEF and the Secretariats of the 
Conventions).  In this context, the role of the CSD must be 
reflected upon. 
 
16.3.  Maintaining UNEP in its present format, while strengthening 
the Program.  There is a need for decentralizing its structure as 
well as for increasing decision-making and implementing power of its 
regional offices. 
 
16.4.  The possibility of improving the system through 
strengthening/improving ECOSOC, through an enhanced coordination 
between the Council and its thematic commissions and other agencies 
was also mentioned. 
 
¶17.  Many statements were made in relation to the need for 
innovative sources of financing, but the importance of counting with 
new and additional resources, and with the leadership of the 
developed countries was equally emphasized.  The importance of 
complying with the commitments of official development assistance 
was also highlighted. 
 
 
BRASILIA 00001935  006 OF 006 
 
 
¶C.  Next steps we can take collectively: 
 
¶18.  The universal treatment of this issue must be strengthened 
within the United Nations.  Informal processes are not meant to 
substitute a wide and universal discussion, but rather to complement 
it. 
 
¶19.  Means and modalities must be identified for the progress of 
this dialogue, aiming at maturing ideas and at searching for 
convergence. 
 
¶20.  Identifying core functions or priorities of the governance 
system and its potential resources may be a difficult task, but it 
would indicate a possible convergence on essential elements. 
 
¶21.  The discussion on environmental governance in the context of 
sustainable development would benefit from setting a long term 
objective, or several short and medium term objectives, which may be 
associated to the area of institutional structure or to a strategy 
for strengthening and improving the system. 
 
¶22.  Once the objectives are established, there would be the need 
for considering a timeframe with short, medium and long term 
deadlines. 
 
------------------------ 
END TEXT 
------------------------ 
 
SOBEL