DEMARCHING THE UN SECRETARIAT ON POSSIBLE

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