Trafficking in Persons LOA for Brazil

UNCLAS BRASILIA 001444

SIPDIS

SENSITIVE

E.0. 12365: N/A
TAGS: ELAB EAID PGOV PREL PHUM BR TIP
SUBJECT: Trafficking in Persons LOA for Brazil


1. (SBU) Begin Summary: Our efforts to negotiate a Letter
of Agreement (LOA) with the Brazilian Ministry of External
Relations (MRE) concerning the President's Initiative on
Trafficking in Persons have made no progress and we do not
anticipate movement any time soon. Since the Brazilian
implementing agencies have shown great interest and even
enthusiasm for these projects, we are planning to go ahead
without an all-encompassing LOA. Instead, we and the
Brazilians believe that we can rely on existing agreements
and arrangements to implement the programs. End Summary.


2. (SBU) We have made great progress in Brazil implementing
projects funded by the President's Initiative on
Trafficking in Persons. The HHS portion of the program has
been implemented. The Department of Labor identified
Catholic Relief Services (CRS) in Brazil as an implementing
agency. CRS has partnered with Caritas Brazil and already
begun training and other activities. USAID has reached
agreement with its GOB partners and now that it has
received it funding, has already put out a request for
proposals. National Secretary for Justice Claudia Chagas
stands ready to implement a good part of the Department of
State project, lacking only funding.


3. (SBU) The law enforcement portions of the initiative are
similarly ready to go. A combined DHS/DOJ team traveled to
Brazil last December and met with all the relevant GOB
actors. Since returning to Washington, DHS and DOJ have
worked closely with their counterparts at the Embassy and
in the GOB to develop program plans that are ready for
implementation.


4. (SBU) Characteristically, only the Ministry of External
Relations has been less than enthusiastic. The Ministry
does not see the negotiation of an LOA as a priority, and
has done little to advance discussions. Both the Embassy
and the various Brazilian agencies that would be involved
in these projects have tried numerous times to move the
process along with the MRE, but with no success to date.
We doubt we will ever get an LOA out of the MRE and
continued efforts to do so will only place us in the
position of supplicant. Based on our experience with the
MRE, such a position normally represents neither an
effective approach nor a promising start for a bilateral
program that we are funding.


5. (SBU) Therefore, we are planning to drop efforts to
negotiate an LOA with the MRE. We have ample precedent for
this approach. USAID, DOL, DOJ, and DHS all have bilateral
assistance projects underway without benefit of an LOA with
the Ministry. USAID and DHS have a number of existing
agreements with their GOB counterparts and could operate
under those agreements. Unless instructed otherwise, we
plan to use these existing agreements and arrangements, and
negotiate the addendums necessary directly with the
implementing agencies, rather than continuing to seek an
all-encompassing LOA. We discussed this recommendation
with the MRE high-level official responsible for this issue
and he was receptive to our recommendations and thought
that might be resolved though existing agreements or a
simple exchange of notes.

DANILOVICH