VZCZCXRO8808
RR RUEHAP RUEHKN RUEHKR RUEHMJ RUEHPB
DE RUEHSV #0455/01 3391928
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 041928Z DEC 08
FM AMEMBASSY SUVA
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 0861
INFO RUCPDC/USDOC WASHDC
RUEHAP/AMEMBASSY APIA 0234
RUEHBK/AMEMBASSY BANGKOK 0950
RUEHSW/AMEMBASSY BERN 0001
RUEHBY/AMEMBASSY CANBERRA 2137
RUEHKO/AMEMBASSY TOKYO 0133
RUEHKN/AMEMBASSY KOLONIA 0288
RUEHKR/AMEMBASSY KOROR 0180
RUEHMJ/AMEMBASSY MAJURO 0716
RUEHFR/AMEMBASSY PARIS 0134
RUEHPB/AMEMBASSY PORT MORESBY 1617
RUEHRO/AMEMBASSY ROME 0028
RUEHWL/AMEMBASSY WELLINGTON 0203
RUCNDT/USMISSION USUN NEW YORK 0354

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 05 SUVA 000455 
 
SIPDIS 
 
BANGKOK FOR REO AND USAID 
 
ROME PASS USMISSION TO FAO 
 
COMMERCE FOR NOAA 
 
E.O 12958: N/A 
TAGS: SENV EAID KGHG XV WS SZ
SUBJECT: First Pacific Island Climate Change Roundtable Meeting 
 
¶1. Summary: The South Pacific Regional Environment Program (SPREP) 
convened the first Pacific Roundtable on Climate Change (CCRT) in 
Apia, Samoa from 14 - 17 October with funding from the Government of 
Switzerland. 133 participants from governments, regional 
organizations, academia, civil society and the media took part. The 
Swiss touted their proposal to fund adaptation efforts through a 
global carbon levy.  Roundtable discussions centered on food 
security, adaptation strategies, information gaps and knowledge 
sharing.  (Participants developed an inventory of regional 
activities and set plans in place for developing a Pacific Climate 
Change Portal.) Kiribati got no support for considering population 
relocation as an option. A UN proposal to set up a Pacific UN 
Climate Change Center was met with some skepticism by donors and 
regional organizations. End Summary. 
 
¶2. The CCRT met from 14 to 17 October at the National University of 
Samoa to share information on current and planned actions on climate 
change in the region; to finalize a matrix providing a clear 
overview of ongoing and planned activities including a proposed 
climate change portal; and to agree on next steps for the Action 
Plan and CCRT process. Representatives from all Pacific island 
countries (PICs) were present except Fiji and PNG. The US, UK, 
Australia, New Zealand, the EU, Japan, and Switzerland were also 
represented, as were ADB, UNDP, UNEP, UNESCO, UN Population Fund, 
FAO, the Red Cross, Swedish Commission on Climate Change and 
Development, IUCN, the Secretariat of the Pacific Community (SPC), 
the Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat, the South Pacific Applied 
Geosciences Commission (SOPAC) and various local and international 
NGOs working in the region. USG participants were Eileen Shea, 
Director of NOAA's Integrated Data and Environmental Applications 
Center (IDEA) and Embassy Suva's Regional Environment Affairs 
Specialist (RES). Le Laulu, President of Counterpart International 
based in Washington, DC facilitated the CCRT, which was opened by 
Wellington-based Swiss Ambassador Dr. Beat Nobs. Background papers 
are available from:  http://www.sprep.org/climate_change/pccr.htm. 
 
Swiss funding scheme for the Bali Action Plan 
 
¶3. Ambassador Nobs presented a Swiss proposal to finance climate 
change adaptation through a global carbon levy to be established 
uniformly across the countries based on the principles of "common 
but differentiated responsibilities" and of "polluter pays." The 
proposal would establish a new mechanism for national and 
international climate change adaptation to be financed based on 
emissions and economic strength. 
 
Factors encumbering effective adaptation across the region 
 
¶4. Over the course of the week, discussions highlighted common 
issues impeding effective adaptation efforts in PICs: lack of 
financial resources and human capacity; lack of integration, 
coordination and cooperation between the different government 
agencies; lack of awareness at community level; lack of data and 
poor maintenance of climatic/weather data collecting equipment; lack 
of political will/support, lack of leadership, and failure to 
mainstream climate change into national/sector planning. 
Participants also acknowledged the need to move towards 
evidence-based methods of decision making. On the issue of national 
capacity, PICs stated that in most countries, there is only one 
Climate Change Officer in Government.  This is a clear sign that 
while countries have identified climate change as a priority, they 
have not allocated enough financial and human resources to address 
the problem. Some countries highlighted that staff who have been 
trained left to join other organizations mostly because of better 
pay. Some participants highlighted the need to upscale pilot 
projects and share lessons learned. Participants also discussed poor 
linkages between biodiversity, health, agriculture and climate 
change projects and considered establishing a joint expert group on 
biodiversity and climate change to better coordinate activities of 
the Pacific Climate Change Roundtable and the Pacific Roundtable on 
Nature Conservation and Protected Areas. 
 
 
SUVA 00000455  002 OF 005 
 
 
Adaptation Funding/future commitments 
 
¶5. According to SPREP, the Pacific islands region received a total 
of USD 42.1 million between the period 1999 to 2008 for climate 
adaptation/risk and disaster management and climate support 
(including capacity building, research and monitoring) projects. 
AUSAID made a presentation on Australia's new climate initiative, 
which entails a commitment of 150 million Australian dollars for 
climate change adaptation. According to the AUSAID presentation, the 
primary geographic emphasis of the program will be Australia's 
neighboring island countries, but targeted policy and technical 
assistance will also be available for other countries in the region. 
The objectives of the program are to: establish a sound policy, 
scientific and analytical basis for long-term Australian action to 
help developing partner countries adapt to the impacts of climate 
change; increase understanding in partner countries of the impacts 
of climate change on their natural and socioeconomic systems; 
enhance partner country capacity to assess key climate 
vulnerabilities and risks, formulate appropriate adaptation 
strategies and plans, mainstream adaptation into decision making, 
and identify and help finance priority adaptation measures to 
increase the resilience of partner countries to the impacts of 
climate change. Japanese representatives discussed Tokyo's Cool 
Earth Partnership initiative for adaptation and improved access to 
clean energy projects. Under this initiative, Japan will fund 
measures to assist developing countries that are vulnerable to the 
adverse effects of climate change. 
 
¶6. Some PIC representatives asked that donors provide countries with 
their criteria for funding and with clear reporting requirements. 
They complained that a lot of their time is "wasted" on reporting to 
the donor agencies. PIC representatives also requested that donor 
activities be better coordinated. The CCRT heard complaints that 
some countries were not able to access funds because they didn't 
have the expertise to write proposals. Cook Islands representative 
added that donors could play a part in ensuring that the projects 
they fund are in line with national priorities. The Swiss Ambassador 
responded by saying that countries need to take a lead and tell 
donors what their priorities are and not rely on donors to provide 
guidance. Often donors are told that projects are donor driven and 
this is mostly because countries are not able to provide a 
leadership role, he said. 
 
¶7. Pacific island country representatives showed little interest in 
discussing mitigation in this forum. Few participants attended the 
mitigation session or engaged in plenary discussions on the topic. 
Nevertheless, the countries did recognize that national policies 
should be developed to ensure that countries adapt their energy 
sectors to renewable energy. (Comment: The renewable energy agenda 
in the region is driven more by the high fuel prices than climate 
concerns.  End comment.) 
 
Food Security - an emerging issue and new priority 
 
¶8. Many countries highlighted that there is a need to seriously look 
at food security issues. A steering committee made up of SPREP, SPC, 
USP, and FAO met in closed sessions during the week to look at next 
steps on how to incorporate the Rome 2008 Summit Declaration into 
the Action Plan and the Pacific Climate Change project, as well as 
other initiatives. The steering committee, during their report back 
to the plenary, highlighted some of the key food security issues for 
the region, with emphasis on those that had serious climate change 
implications or where climate change would exacerbate the current 
stresses. They concluded that there is an urgent need to build the 
resilience of food production systems to climate change, 
particularly by diversifying the options for growing crops and 
harvesting fish. The committee recognized the efforts that are 
already underway in the region including the US Department of 
State's "Conserving and Promoting Crop Diversity to Enhance Food 
Security in a Changing Climate" project with SPC. Other issues of 
relevance to the region that the committee identified included the 
need to step up investment in science and technology for food and 
 
SUVA 00000455  003 OF 005 
 
 
agriculture, undertake vulnerability analyses for all food 
production sectors, and mainstream climate change adaptation into 
national policies, strategies and programmes related to agriculture, 
forestry and fisheries. They also highlighted the need to maintain 
biodiversity and apply an ecosystem based approach. The steering 
committee also presented some ideas as to how the region could put 
the Rome outcomes into a proper regional perspective. 
 
¶9. In terms of next steps, their presentation advocated undertaking 
vulnerability analyses for all food production sectors, raising 
awareness of threats to food security and available solutions at the 
community level, providing incentives for economic growth to 
increase the options for achieving food security, and ensuring the 
appropriateness of agricultural courses taught in tertiary 
institutes. FAO would convene a further meeting of the steering 
committee to finalize the plan to 'regionalize' the High Level 
Declaration and implement the adaptations needed in the Pacific to 
provide food security in the face of climate change. The committee 
noted that work in this area should be aligned closely with the 
Mauritius Strategy for the sustainable development of Small Island 
Developing States and the UNFCCC Bali Action Plan. 
 
Relocation - the last option for a sinking atoll nation? 
 
¶10. Kiribati raised the issue of relocation.  David Lambourne, 
Kiribati's Solicitor General, told participants that, while many 
PICs are considering relocating within their own countries, Kiribati 
is considering extra-territorial relocation as an option. Lambourne 
emphasized that many people in Kiribati are not keen on moving. 
Nevertheless, if extra- territorial relocation does occur, Lambourne 
said that the people of Kiribati would, "not like to be taken to 
some refugee camp in Australia," so must plan now for better 
options. No other delegation addressed this issue, which has been 
the subject of heated internal debate among PICs in their 
preparations for global climate negotiations. 
 
Pacific Islands Climate Change Portal 
 
¶11. NOAA's Eileen Shea presented on information needs, 
communications issues and the potential for a regional climate 
change web based portal. CCRT participants agreed that there is a 
need for the Pacific climate change portal, and that a small 
technical group made up of experts and interested persons identify 
what already exists in the international and regional communities 
and explore the lessons learned from existing initiatives such as 
the Pacific Disaster net and Pacific Islands Global Climate 
Observing Systems (PI-GCOS). The CCRT noted that SPREP has a mandate 
as a clearinghouse for climate change information, and urged that 
SPREP pursue a climate change knowledge advisor position as a high 
priority and endorsed an ongoing role for it in support of the 
Pacific Climate Change Portal.  NOAA, Australian and New Zealand 
representatives agreed to explore options for a scooping phase for 
the portal. (In addition, Australia expressed a strong interest in 
collaborating with the US in climate services and portal development 
in the context of the Pacific Climate Information System (PaCIS) and 
the broader Roundtable endeavor.) 
 
Climate Change Inventory/Matrix 
 
¶12. SPREP and the UNDP Suva Office have developed a Climate Change 
Matrix for the region. The SPREP matrix consists of information on 
projects that are implemented by national governments and by CROP 
agencies while the UNDP matrix contains information on projects the 
donors are funding. Both the SPREP and UNDP matrices will be shared 
with stakeholders with an aim to better coordinate climate change 
initiatives in the region. 
 
2009 Pacific Year for Climate Change - "Our century's challenge - 
Our Pacific response" 
 
¶13. In Pohnpei in September, the 19th SPREP Meeting declared 2009 
the "Pacific Year for Climate Change."  SPREP presented 
 
SUVA 00000455  004 OF 005 
 
 
possible/planned activities for next year. CCRT members commented on 
the activities and suggested that campaigns should be designed to 
meet national as well as regional objectives. SPREP is in the 
process of developing a regional communication plan. SPREP suggested 
that countries develop national communications plans as well. 
 
UN Pacific Center for Climate Change? 
 
¶14. FAO's Dr. Vili Fuavao, the Acting Resident Coordinator of the UN 
agencies, presented a new UN initiative to establish an inter-agency 
Climate Change Centre for the Pacific. Fuavao explained the 
rationale behind the proposal and stated that there will be a 
thorough consultation with all relevant stakeholders such as 
government climate change focal points, experts and civil society. 
Although a number of participants expressed concerns that the 
proposal is another top-down UN effort. The Samoan Government is 
very supportive of the idea and has already allocated a piece of 
land on which the proposed center will be built. When asked if any 
background document was available on the Center, Fuavao said that 
that center is just an idea and there will be a consultation 
process. We subsequently obtained a draft concept paper that is 
being circulated within the UN circles (copies passed to OES/EGC and 
IO/EDA).  The main objective stated for this proposal is to further 
develop and strengthen the capacity of Pacific countries and 
understand and respond to the effects of climate change.  The centre 
would supposedly provide means to effectively channel the resources 
of the UN, other partner agencies, regional institutions and 
development partners on climate change. It would also approach 
climate change from a "sustainable human development perspective" 
rather than just an environmental issue. 
 
¶15. CCRT members asked whether the establishment of a Climate Change 
Centre would increase the effectiveness of climate change programmes 
of the UN and other agencies in the Pacific. Delegates asked if 
another climate change center is really needed and if the 
establishment of this center will result in duplication of work. NZ 
representative Tom Wilson sounded a word of caution and remarked 
that such initiatives place additional demands on the donor 
community. CCRT members questioned how the center would fund itself 
and if there will be any implications on the work of regional 
organizations such as SPREP. 
 
Next steps 
 
¶16. A second CCRT is planned for next year to consider the 
ramifications of COP-14 at Poznan. The meeting will review 
activities planned for the Pacific Year for Climate Change and 
should be held in time to produce actions in further support of the 
year. The CCRT noted the interest of the Marshall Islands in hosting 
this event. The next meeting would also consider operationalizing 
the matricies and the portal. The facilitator suggested that 
participants should also consider the need to make future meetings 
of the CCRT as carbon neutral as possible and look for community 
programmes in the host country to donate their carbon offsets to, 
building on existing initiatives. Furthermore participants were 
urged to start discussing the transformation of their organizations 
into carbon neutral entities. There is a need for the CCRT 
secretariat, based at SPREP, to investigate the potential for a 
regional study on the economic aspects of climate change for the 
Pacific region, the affects of climate change on tourism, and to 
develop appropriate actions for adaptation and mitigation in that 
sector.  The facilitator stated that the countries need to seek 
private sector support for these efforts. 
 
¶17. Comment:  As it stands, the Pacific region has limited capacity 
to adapt to climate change. Countries lack both technical expertise 
and financial resources. There is a serious need for 
climatic/weather data and equipment. Donors have been asked to pay 
special attention to the capacity needs of the region and where 
possible help build regional capacity. SPC, SPREP and SOPAC are the 
three regional organizations which are assisting countries at 
different levels and they have been asked to better coordinate their 
 
SUVA 00000455  005 OF 005 
 
 
climate-related programs. Members of the CCRT recognized that, since 
climate change is a cross-cutting issue, there is a need to better 
integrate it into the different sectors. The proposed UN Center for 
Climate Change would probably have serious implications on the 
operations of regional institutions and donors, however, and would 
be an expensive and inefficient mechanism to attempt to achieve this 
integration.  End Comment. 
 
¶18. NOAA IDEA Center Director Eileen Shea cleared this report. 
McGann