FY 2008 BIOTECHNOLOGY OUTREACH STRATEGY

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