VZCZCXRO7121
RR RUEHAG RUEHAO RUEHAP RUEHAT RUEHBC RUEHBI RUEHBL RUEHBZ RUEHCD
RUEHCHI RUEHCI RUEHCN RUEHDA RUEHDBU RUEHDE RUEHDF RUEHDT RUEHDU
RUEHED RUEHEL RUEHFK RUEHFL RUEHGA RUEHGD RUEHGH RUEHGI RUEHGR RUEHHA
RUEHHM RUEHHO RUEHHT RUEHIHL RUEHIK RUEHJO RUEHJS RUEHKN RUEHKR
RUEHKSO RUEHKUK RUEHKW RUEHLA RUEHLH RUEHLN RUEHLZ RUEHMA RUEHMC
RUEHMJ RUEHMR RUEHMRE RUEHNAG RUEHNG RUEHNH RUEHNL RUEHNP RUEHNZ
RUEHPA RUEHPB RUEHPD RUEHPOD RUEHPT RUEHPW RUEHQU RUEHRD RUEHRG RUEHRN
RUEHROV RUEHRS RUEHTM RUEHTRO RUEHVC RUEHVK RUEHYG
DE RUEHC #0639/01 3311912
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 271900Z NOV 07
FM SECSTATE WASHDC
TO ALL DIPLOMATIC AND CONSULAR POSTS COLLECTIVE
RUEHTRO/AMEMBASSY TRIPOLI 7132

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 04 STATE 160639 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SIPDIS FROM A/S DANIEL SULLIVAN TO AMBASSADORS, DCMS, ECON 
COUNSELORS, PAOS, AND AG COUNSELORS 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: EAGR ECON ETRD TBIO KPAO
SUBJECT: FY 2008 BIOTECHNOLOGY OUTREACH STRATEGY 
AND DEPARTMENT RESOURCES 
 
Ref: State 163528 
 
¶1. (U)  Summary.  This cable lays out our FY 2008 biotech 
outreach strategy and describes some of the resources 
available to posts as we seek to encourage the use of 
agricultural biotechnology.  Agricultural biotechnology has 
great potential to help address the challenges of rural 
economic development and food insecurity.  To realize this 
potential, and to protect the interests of U.S. farmers and 
exporters we seek to facilitate trade in agbiotech products by 
promoting understanding of the technology and encouraging the 
adoption of fair, transparent, and science-based policies and 
practices in other countries.  We also want to promote 
biotechnology as a tool for supporting economic growth and 
improving food safety and security in developing countries. 
Finally, we are committed to working both bilaterally and in 
international bodies to ensure that the products of 
agricultural biotechnology do not encounter unfair trade 
barriers or violations of intellectual property rights. 
 
¶2. (U)  This cable outlines key elements of our current 
biotech strategy as well as some of the tools and resources 
(including, as in previous years, EEB's biotech outreach 
funds) available to help posts pursue an active biotech agenda 
in supporting this strategy.  I urge you to encourage the 
various sections and agencies in your missions to work 
together as they pursue our shared goals on this issue.  I 
particularly encourage missions in "high priority" biotech 
countries (paragraph 5), to prepare thoughtful, interagency 
coordinated proposals for use of this year's EEB biotech 
outreach funds (paragraphs 12-19).  The deadline for these 
proposals is January 30, 2008; however we will begin 
allocating EEB biotech outreach funds before the deadline. 
End Summary. 
 
 
Strategy 
-------- 
 
¶3. (U)  As agbiotech enters its second decade of 
commercialization, we have a vital opportunity to capitalize 
on the increasingly widespread cultivation of biotech crops 
and the favorable WTO ruling in our biotech case against the 
European Union.  Some countries, many in the developing world, 
have hesitated to join in the biotech revolution, in part 
because of concerns over European opposition.  The WTO ruling 
should send a strong signal to those countries. 
 
¶4. (U)  Following are some of our key biotech objectives for 
2008: 
 
---To take full advantage of the WTO decision by explaining 
the significance of the case, particularly to developing 
countries, and by stressing the global scientific consensus on 
the safety of agbiotech products demonstrated by the WTO final 
panel decision. 
 
---To publicize the benefits of agbiotech as a development 
tool by stressing the poverty alleviation and food security 
benefits of the reduced inputs and increased yields offered by 
agbiotech.  Our messages should reinforce the environmental 
gains from decreased use of insecticides and reduced soil 
erosion, stress the potential for improved nutrition and 
disease prevention, and encourage the development and 
commercialization of agbiotech products that meet the unique 
needs of developing nations. 
 
---To continue to open markets and advocate responsible 
regulation, by following up to ensure EU compliance with the 
WTO ruling, by minimizing the trade impact of the Protocol on 
Biosafety (Cartagena Protocol),and by encouraging trade 
facilitative guidance in the Codex Alimentarius.  The Fourth 
Conference of Parties of the Cartagena Protocol will be held 
in May 2008 in Germany and will be crucial to our efforts as 
we continue to work bilaterally and in multilateral 
institutions to ensure that global commerce in agbiotech 
products is not unfairly impeded. 
 
---As a new goal in FY 2008, to promote understanding of the 
potential of agbiotech to contribute to production of 
biofuels, and to help ensure food safety. 
 
¶5. (U)  Although our biotech strategy is a global one, we plan 
to pay particular attention to advancing this strategy through 
active engagement with key countries, with the medium-term 
goal of establishing models of agbiotech trade and development 
 
STATE 00160639  002 OF 004 
 
 
success that can be a powerful demonstration to others.  These 
key countries in FY 2008 include: 
 
---Brazil 
---Burkina Faso 
---China 
---Colombia 
---Czech Republic 
---Egypt 
---Germany 
---Ghana 
---India 
---Indonesia 
---Kenya 
---Nicaragua 
---Nigeria 
---Peru 
---Philippines 
---Romania 
---Russia 
---South Africa 
---Thailand 
---Ukraine 
---Vatican 
---Vietnam 
 
The State Biotech Advocacy Toolkit 
---------------------------------- 
 
¶6. (U)  The Department works with a host of other USG 
agencies, international organizations, NGOs and industry to 
promote understanding and acceptance of biotechnology as well 
as new initiatives related to this technology.  Within the 
State Department, the Office of Agricultural, Biotechnology 
and Textile Trade Affairs (EB/TPP/ABT) takes primary 
responsibility within State for agbiotech issues. 
 
¶7. (U)  State and other USG agencies, such as USDA and USAID, 
have resources to help posts support USG biotech policy. 
Close collaboration among all relevant embassy sections and 
agencies is key to ensuring that posts fully exploit the range 
of available USG biotech resources.  Historically, those posts 
that have been most successful at putting together convincing 
agbiotech advocacy programs are those that have established 
working groups within their embassies.  In order to facilitate 
effective coordination between EEB and the field on agbiotech 
issues, posts should forward points of contact for agbiotech 
issues to EEB/TPP/ABT, John Finn and Gary Clements. 
 
¶8. (U)  To support your biotech efforts, posts are encouraged 
to use the International Visitors Leadership Program (IVLP) 
and the IIP Speakers Program, the latter of which EEB helps 
fund.  IIP maintains an excellent website at 
http://usinfo.state.gov/ei/economic_issues/bi otechnology.html. 
Posts should consider including agbiotech participants---under 
their regular allotments---for the IVLP program. For example, 
visits to U.S. farms where biotech crops are being cultivated, 
as well as discussions with U.S. farmers, have proven to be 
effective ways of dispelling concerns about biotech on the 
part of foreign visitors. Posts should consider adding a 
biotech component to IV programs for a wide range of opinion 
leaders, not just biotech specialists. 
 
¶9. (U)  Specially designed biotech Voluntary Visitors projects 
involving host government officials, industry leaders, and 
academics might also be considered.  The Foreign Press Center 
could arrange biotech reporting tours for both U.S. based 
foreign media or arrange visits by foreign media to the U.S. 
PAO's should coordinate these efforts directly with the 
relevant PA and ECA offices, though EB/TPP/ABT would 
appreciate receiving info copies of proposals and nominations, 
and stands ready to assist ECA and posts with programming 
efforts. 
 
¶10. (U)  Staff members of EEB's office of Agriculture, 
Biotechnology and Textile Affairs (EB/TPP/ABT), are available 
as appropriate to advocate in host capitals, troubleshoot 
problematic legislation, and participate as public speakers on 
agbiotech. 
 
¶11. (U)  Perhaps most importantly, EEB has available biotech 
outreach funds which can be allocated to posts to further 
agbiotech policy and promote acceptance of the technology. 
The funds are administered by EEB's Office of Agriculture, 
Biotechnology and Textile Trade Affairs, with the assistance 
of EEB/EX, and are detailed below. 
 
EEB'S BIOTECH OUTREACH FUNDS FOR FY 2008 
--------------------------------------- 
 
¶12. (U)  The Bureau of Economic, Energy, and Business Affairs 
 
STATE 00160639  003 OF 004 
 
 
(EEB) has received funding in each of the last five fiscal 
years for outreach projects related to agricultural 
biotechnology.  Although the full level of funding for fiscal 
year 2008 is not yet certain, EEB encourages posts to propose 
projects such as conferences, workshops and seminars to take 
advantage of these funds to promote the acceptance of ag 
biotech. 
 
¶13. (U)  Funds are targeted towards public outreach to develop 
support for USG trade and development policy positions on 
biotechnology.  Projects should aim to provide accurate 
information on the benefits of biotechnology to policymakers 
and consumers in other countries and to encourage the adoption 
of science-based regulatory systems. In the light of 
discussions with Congressional staff, funds should be used to 
create support for USG positions in regions outside the 
European Union (EU) or to limit the influence of EU negative 
views on biotechnology.  However, we will consider on a case 
by case basis proposals from EUR posts that are consistent 
with our overall strategy. 
 
¶14. (U)  One goal is to facilitate trade in agbiotech products 
by promoting understanding of the technology and encouraging 
the adoption of fair, transparent, and science-based policies 
and practices in other countries.  Another important goal is 
to promote understanding of biotechnology as a tool for 
supporting economic growth and improving food safety and 
security in developing countries. Starting this year we 
encourage proposals that address uses of biotechnology in the 
production of biofuels. 
 
¶15. (U)  Acceptance of funds is contingent on post 
agreeing to provide within one month of completion of the 
project a report including the following elements: 
 
-- A detailed description of the audience reached (number 
of attendees and nature of audience, e.g. producers, 
consumers, policymakers), with a particular emphasis on 
those individuals that may influence national biotech 
policy. 
 
-- Analysis on whether the program influenced public 
perceptions. 
 
-- Level of media coverage (and, if possible, the size of 
the audience serviced by media). 
 
¶16. (U)  We urge post public diplomacy officers to consult 
with econ officers, EST officers, and Foreign Agricultural 
Service staff in crafting proposed projects prior to 
submission of requests.  IIP will be sending separate messages 
to select posts soliciting proposals for speaker projects as 
funds become available from EEB.  Posts are encouraged to send 
proposals for FY 08 agbiotech projects to the Department not 
later than January 30, 2008.  Projects received after that 
date will be considered based on available resources. 
 
Requests should outline: 
 
-- The cost of the proposed program; 
-- The target audiences; 
-- The specific agbiotech issues to be addressed; 
-- How the project would help meet USG policy objectives 
(purpose and impact); 
-- Proposed length of program; 
-- Name of post responsible officer and contact 
information. 
 
¶17. (U)  Program proposals will be reviewed by EEB/TPP/ABT. 
Please slug cables for EEB/TPP/ABT/BTT - John Finn 
(finnjw@state.gov) and Gary Clements (clementsga@state.gov). 
 
¶18. (U)  EEB/TPP/ABT will work with posts to further develop 
promising proposals.  Average size of program has been 
$10,000-25,000, with some as small as $2,000 and others as 
large as $100,000. 
 
¶19. (U)  EEB's Biotech Outreach funds come with a number of 
restrictions on how they can be used, so only certain types of 
projects are appropriate.  Applicable restrictions include: 
 
-- Funds may be used to pay for travel by participants or 
speakers to an international meeting or conference hosted by 
the USG in the United States or for travel by speakers from 
the United States to another country. 
 
-- EEB funds cannot be used for International Visitor programs 
or to fund other travel by non-government employees; 
 
-- Funds cannot be used for representational events or to 
provide food or beverages for receptions or meals; 
 
STATE 00160639  004 OF 004 
 
 
 
-- Funds cannot be provided as grants or otherwise to provide 
foreign assistance or training; 
 
-- The funds expire at the end of the fiscal year. 
 
Background 
---------- 
 
¶20. (U)  In the last ten years more than 475 million 
hectares/1.1 billion acres of biotechnology crops have been 
planted around the world.  Last year, nearly two dozen 
countries grew biotechnology crops on more than 240 million 
acres/100 million hectares.  Agbiotech growth continues even 
in Europe:  six EU member states now grow biotech crops. 
 
¶21. (U)  This is not just a technology for large 
agribusinesses.  More than ninety percent of farmers 
benefiting from the technology are in the developing world. 
In 2006, some 9.3 million small farmers in the developing 
world benefited from biotechnology crops. Biotech plantings in 
the developing world increased by 21% in 2006.  Biotech offers 
the potential to help developing countries attack the cycle of 
poverty, address food security needs, and improve farmers' 
lives and incomes.  Studies indicate remarkable gains by 
farmers adopting biotech cotton in India, leading to record 
cotton exports.  Scientists are developing new crops that 
resist drought and disease and provide health benefits to 
farmers and nutritional benefits to consumers, as well as 
ensure a reliable supply of staple crops for the developing 
world (see USTR's Fact Sheet on agbiotech and development): 
http://ustr.gov/assets/Trade_Sectors/Agricult ure/Biotechnology 
/asset_upload_file372_8905.pdf). 
 
 
¶22. (U)  Agbiotech also provides environmental benefits. 
Adoption of biotech crops has significantly reduced 
insecticide use (by an estimated 172,000 metric tons of active 
ingredients from 1996-2004), and has allowed many farmers to 
adopt no till farming practices, thereby reducing soil erosion 
and consumption of energy and water.  Reduced use of 
pesticides in China (an estimated 67 percent reduction in 
applications among biotech cotton farmers since 2003) has 
resulted in significant health benefits to Chinese cotton 
farmers, who previously suffered from exposure to dangerous 
and sometimes lethal levels of pesticides (see USTR's Fact 
Sheet on agbiotech and the environment): 
http://ustr.gov/assets/Trade_Sectors/Agricult ure/Biotechnology 
/asset_upload_file850_8906.pdf). 
 
¶23. (U)  These positive developments form the backdrop against 
which the WTO dispute settlement panel issued its recent 
decision in the biotech case filed against the EU by the 
United States, Canada and Argentina.  The panel agreed that 
the EU moratorium on approvals of biotech products and Member 
State bans on previously approved products were not science- 
based and, therefore, were inconsistent with WTO rules 
(Reftel). 
 
¶24. (U)  For additional informational materials (including 
fact sheets, remarks, and related links on agbiotech) 
addressees should visit the EB/TPP/ABT/BTT website at 
www.state.gov/e/eb/tpp/c10319.htm. 
 
¶25. (U)  M/P has cleared on this telegram. 
 
¶26. (U)  Minimize considered. 
RICE