OUTCOMES OF THE 19TH SPREP AND ASSOCIATED MEETINGS,

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 10 SUVA 000387

SIPDIS

SENSITIVE

COMMERCE FOR NOAA

AGRICULTURE FOR FOREST SERVICE

STATE PASS INTERIOR FOR OIA AND USGS

STATE PASS EPA

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: SENV AORC PREL XV FM
SUBJECT: OUTCOMES OF THE 19TH SPREP AND ASSOCIATED MEETINGS,
POHNPEI, FSM, SEPTEMBER 4-12, 2008

REFS: A) Suva 289 B) Suva 42 (SOPAC)
C) 07 Port Moresby 370 D) 07 STATE 151155


1. (U) Summary: Important institutional and budget issues dominated
this year's SPREP and related meetings. The SPREP Meeting selected
Cristelle Pratt, who is the current SOPAC director, to be the
director of SPREP (para. 5-7). It adopted modified recommendations
from the report of the recently concluded Independent Corporate
Review, including a recommendation to identify and cost the core
functions of SPREP (para. 8-9). It formulated a response to Pacific
Island Forum leaders' call to absorb SOPAC functions into SPREP and
SPC (para 10-16). The Meeting decided to pursue unpaid members'
contributions, including those of the Commonwealth of the Northern
Mariana Islands, through positive engagement with members (para
17-18),rejected a proposal by the secretariat to change the formula
used to calculate recommended member contributions, and another to
dramatically increase members' contributions (para 20-21).
Ultimately, the Meeting adopted a budget for FY-09 that relies on a
one time solicitation for supplemental voluntary contributions from
members to overcome a serious funding shortfall (para 12-23).


2. (U) The Meeting declared 2009 the "Pacific Year of Climate
Change," reaffirmed its commitment to support the long-vacant
Meteorology and Climatology Officer (MCO) position as a core SPREP
function, and institutionalized the coordination function of the
Pacific Invasives Learning Network (PILN) within SPREP. It also
endorsed the revised Action Strategy for Nature Conservation to
inform the development of a SPREP Action Plan (para 25-27). The
Environment Ministers' Meeting on climate change, which followed the
SPREP Meeting and at which UNFCCC Executive Secretary Yvo de Boer
participated as an invited guest, fizzled because of poor attendance
and wrangling over appointment of the SPREP director (para. 31-33).
The 20th SPREP meeting will take place in Apia, Samoa, sometime
before the 2009 Pacific Island Forum leaders' meeting. End summary.


This message contains action items and recommendations. Please see
paragraph 39.

Introduction:


3. (U) The 19th annual meeting of the South Pacific Regional
Environment Programme (SPREP) took place on Pohnpei in the Federated
States of Micronesia (FSM) September 8-12. FSM Vice President Alik
Alik opened the main SPREP Meeting, which was followed, on the
afternoon of September 12, by a SPREP-convened Environment
Ministers' Meeting and was preceded, on September 4-5, by COP
meetings for the Noumea and Waigani Conventions and on, Sunday
September 7, by a special informal session to consider the
Independent Corporate Review (ICR) of SPREP and the Pacific Island
Forum leaders' decisions on the Regional Institutional Framework
Review (RIF). Embassy Suva-based Pacific Regional Environmental
Officer (REO) Joe Murphy led the U.S. delegation, which included
participants from NOAA, EPA, USGS, U.S. Coast Guard (D14),U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (Honolulu District),U.S. National Invasive
Species Council, and the Department of State (OES/OA).


4. (U) Guam and American Samoa were each represented by their own
delegations and participated actively in the meetings. The U.S. and
the two U.S. territorial delegations cooperated well and were
mutually supportive throughout. Neither the Commonwealth of the
Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) nor Vanuatu attended. All other
members were represented at the SPREP Meeting, although several
departed before the ministerial.

New Director:


SUVA 00000387 002 OF 010



5. (SBU) The Meeting selected Cristelle Pratt to be the new SPREP
Director. Last year's SPREP Meeting determined the composition of
the Selection Advisory Committee (SAC) that evaluated candidates for
SPREP director. For cost reasons, SAC members were drawn primarily
from among those SPREP members with a presence in Apia.
Accordingly, the U.S. charge d'affaires in Apia served on the SAC,
which carefully vetted applicants, and, in accordance with
established procedures, made a recommendation to a closed session of
the Meeting on who, in its view, was most qualified to be the new
SPREP director. Despite some initial reluctance from several member
delegations, including Tuvalu, the Marshall Islands and the Cook
Islands, which had come with instructions to support other
candidates, the Meeting reached consensus to accept the SAC's
recommendation and selected Ms. Pratt to be the new SPREP Director,
replacing the current director, Asterio Takesy, in January 2009.



6. (SBU) Despite his country having joined consensus in the SPREP
Meeting, Tuvalu Deputy Prime Minister, Tavau Teii, attempted,
unsuccessfully, during the Minister's Meeting on September 12 to
reopen the choice of director by alleging that bias was inherent in
the composition of the SAC. Tuvalu received some support from
Samoan Environment Minister Liuga, who asserted that the process was
flawed because members of the SAC were evaluating the applications
of their own countries' nominees. Guam, which as chair of the 18th
SPREP Meeting had also chaired the SAC, strongly defended the
integrity of the process and was supported by the Secretariat, which
observed that the SAC had adhered to the agreed procedures. The
U.S. and several other delegations voiced support for upholding the
decision of the SPREP Meeting. With Tuvalu's unsuccessful candidate
(its former UN Ambassador, Enele Sopoaga) waiting in the wings, the
Deputy PM asserted that Tuvalu did not accept the Meeting's choice
of director and left the hall. The official Outcome Statement of
the Minister's Meeting nevertheless records that ministers
"welcomed" Pratt's appointment.


7. (SBU) Bio Note: Pratt, a Fiji-born New Zealand citizen, is the
current director of the South Pacific Applied Geosciences Commission
(SOPAC). She is well disposed toward the U.S. and has been open and
accessible to the embassy in her current role. She enjoys a good
reputation in Suva and around the region and generally gets high
marks for her stewardship of SOPAC, although some staff there
complain that she has a tendency to put off hard decisions. Her
deliberate "go slow" approach to regional institutional
restructuring (reftel B) has been a source of frustration for
Australia and New Zealand over the past year. In recent discussions
with the REO, however, she has already signaled that she will have a
more forward-leaning stance on this issue in her new role. Pratt
will be SPREP's first female director.

Independent Corporate Review:


8. (U) Last year's SPREP Meeting endorsed an Australian proposal to
commission an "Independent Corporate Review" (ICR) of SPREP. (Note:
reftel D is a report of the 18th SPREP Meeting. End Note.) The
consultant-led review, which was an outgrowth of a requirement in
the funding MOU between the secretariat and AusAid, went beyond an
examination of the secretariat alone and also considered the
organization as a whole. In addition to recommending a number of
specific management reforms within the secretariat, particularity
with regard to personnel practices, the review's report concluded
that "the major issues [facing SPREP] are the lack of clarity
regarding the respective roles of Member Governments and their
regional environmental agency, and how the latter [is] governed."
The report, therefore, called for a definition of the core roles of
SPREP and an examination of the implications of that definition for
the organization, including how to fund core activities.

SUVA 00000387 003 OF 010




9. (U) An underlying assumption of the review was that the main
purpose of SPREP is to deliver services to its Pacific island
country members. Although this assumption biased the analysis in
some important ways, the review, nevertheless, initiated a very
productive discussion among members about how to strengthen and
improve the organization. This discussion will be continued over
the next year as the secretariat formulates a plan for implementing
the review recommendations as modified and then endorsed by the
Meeting. Some review recommendations, such as the, ultimately
rejected, call to form a board to provide guidance to the
secretariat intersessionally, provoked enough controversy that a
friends of the chair group was formed under Australia's leadership
to recast them into a form that could gain the support of the
Meeting. The U.S. took part in the friends' deliberations and
joined consensus on the revised recommendations, which will be
forwarded to the Department (OES/OA) when a final edited version is
received form the secretariat. The Meeting directed the secretariat
to consult with members in the formulation of the implementation
plan and to report intersessionally, after six months, on progress.


Regional Institutional Restructuring:


10. (U) Intertwined with consideration of the ICR, but largely
overshadowing it, was the Meeting's discussion of the decisions of
the Pacific Island Forum (PIF) Leaders' Meetings in 2007 and 2008 to
absorb the functions of SOPAC into SPREP and the Secretariat of the
Pacific Community (SPC). This decision grew out of the Regional
Institutional Framework Review (RIF) conducted under the auspices of
the PIF in 2006-7 and is strongly backed by Australia and New
Zealand as a way of "rationalizing" existing regional institutional
arrangements, which they regard as duplicative and inefficient.


11. (U) The U.S. delegation clearly stated continuing USG discomfort
with the RIF process in both the informal Sunday session and in the
SPREP Meeting. We reiterated our position that regional
restructuring entails substantive, legal, financial, and
administrative issues that must be carefully considered; expressed
our concern that the Forum leaders decision directly affected
countries and organizations not formally affiliated with the PIF;
and insisted that decisions about SPREP's future be based solely on
a careful analysis of its core functions and on thorough
consultations on the needs and expectations of all SPREP members.
Guam strongly supported the U.S. position, and American Samoa too
stated its reservations about the Forum leaders' decision.


12. (U) The Fiji delegation, whose military led interim government
did not participate in the 2008 PIF leaders' meeting, said that Fiji
did not feel bound by the 2008 decision and, in fact, now opposed
the SOPAC rationalization effort. The Fiji representative also
complained that the RIF process had taken place largely outside the
governing bodies of the organizations concerned.


13. (U) The French representative informed the meeting that,
although, like the United States, France is not a PIF member, it
"respected the leaders' decision." The Cook Islands expressed
sympathy for the U.S. position, but explained that they were bound
to uphold the PIF leaders' decision. Other Forum members too voiced
continued support for the leaders' decision, although some, most
especially Kiribati, stated concerns about the possible loss of
SOPAC programs.


14. (SBU) The heads of the Australian and New Zealand delegations
both told us they were taken by surprise by the U.S. stance. The
Australian response was, nevertheless, highly constructive and, over
the course of the week, we were able to work together with Australia

SUVA 00000387 004 OF 010


in a friends of the chair grouping with New Zealand and Fiji to
chart a way forward on the issue. The final decision document
adopted by the Meeting acknowledges the clearly stated intention of
a majority of SPREP members, as reflected in the PIF leaders'
decision, to move forward at a rapid pace to address the issue of
institutional restructuring. It puts, however, the issue in the
context of the affected organizations' own governing structures.
Although it establishes a process to consider possible absorption of
SOPAC functions, it does not imply any predetermined outcome of that
process. The final RIF decision has been sent to the Department
(OES/OA and EAP/ANP).


15. (U) Specifically, the process the Meeting adopted directed the
SPREP director to work with the CEOs of SOPAC and SPC to jointly
identify proposed institutional arrangements; commission an
independent analysis of the legal, financial administrative, and
programmatic implications of the proposed arrangements; circulate
the joint proposal and analysis to members with an invitation to
attend a joint meeting of members of the three organizations in May
of 2009 to consider the documents; and subject to the guidance of
that meeting, collaborate with the other CEOs to prepare joint
recommendations for new institutional arrangements by July 2009 for
consideration of the three organizations' governing bodies before
the next PIF meeting. At Fiji's insistence, the decision mandates
quarterly updates for members and instructs the SPREP director to
"seek and share the views of, and give due consideration to, all
members of SPREP, SPC and SOPAC.


16. (U) According to the decision, the SPREP director must take
account of the ICR recommendations in his deliberations on new
institutional arrangements. In that connection, the final item of
the ICR decision is particularity salient: "The Meeting agreed that
before RIF-related decisions are implemented, SPREP members should
clearly redefine the role of the region's environment organization
and commit to funding and governing it effectively."

Budget and Funding Issues:


17. (U) The Meeting again took up the recurring "problem" of unpaid
members' contributions. Although the SPREP Agreement is clear that
members' contributions are voluntary, the secretariat keeps a
running tally of contributions relative to the "director's
recommended contribution" level, which is derived by applying an
agreed formula to each year's approved budget. Countries that fall
short of this level are frequently described in SPREP documents as
being "in arrears," although the U.S. consistently objects to the
use of this term. At the end of 2007, cumulative unpaid members'
contributions totaled almost $400,000 in the context of just over
$900,000 in budgeted annual member contributions. Most of this
total is attributable to three members: Nauru ($148,000),the
Solomon Islands ($124,000) and the CNMI ($57,480). The Secretariat
presented members with a paper, which it prepared at the direction
of last year's Meeting, that laid out three options: 1) write off
the debt, 2) engage in "proactive consultations" with countries that
are behind in their contributions, or 3) impose sanctions on them.



18. (U) The U.S. joined consensus on option 2, after repeating our
objection to the use of the term arrears, rejecting the
secretariat's analysis of the option of "writing off the debt," on
the grounds that the United States does not recognize that failure
to make voluntary contributions constitutes debt, and stating
categorical opposition to the imposition of sanctions on members
failing to satisfy this non-existent debt. The U.S. was alone in
this stance, however, and much of this agenda item was taken up with
countries apologies for past late payments and promises to do better
in the future. The Solomon Islands representative announced his

SUVA 00000387 005 OF 010


government's intention to clear over $80,000 of its "arrears" and
even Nauru's representative acknowledged his country's obligation.



19. (U) The discussion of unpaid member contributions set the stage
for a suite of highly contentious budget-related issues. Following
up on a decision from last year's meeting to undertake a salary
review based on an analysis of salary trends in Australia, New
Zealand and Fiji, the secretariat presented this year's meeting with
a proposal to increase professional compensation by an average of
approximately 14% to bring it in line with the average of reference
market salaries. Members were also presented with a proposal to
increase support staff salaries, depending on grade, by 14-31% based
on an analysis of the Samoan labor market. Both proposals were
approved subject to the availability of funds.


20. (U) In addition, the secretariat disclosed that, as a result of
rising costs, current program and budget levels would leave it with
a major funding shortfall in 2009. The director reminded members
that he had warned the 18th SPREP Meeting about the vanishing
accumulated surpluses that had supported recent budgets. He then
presented members with a budget that included an overall increase of
48% in members' contributions--approximately 61% if salary increases
were included. He also put forward a proposal to change the formula
for determining individual members' recommended contributions that
would have shifted much of the funding burden from island states and
territories to Australia, to harmonize SPREP funding with the
current SPC scale of assessments in which Australia pays a 33%
share.


21. (SBU) The Australians, who the secretariat had not consulted in
advance on this matter, flatly rejected the proposed change to the
funding formula. This move left all members feeling the pain of the
secretariat's proposed budget increase, and support for it among
island delegations withered. When the U.S. delegation announced
that the USG was not prepared to increase its membership
contribution at all, it became clear that the Meeting would require
a new budget submission. The secretariat, however, balked and
asserted that it could not formulate a new budget proposal in time
for the meeting to consider it and that, without dramatically
increased funding, it would have to sharply curtail services to
members.


22. (U) Once again, the meeting resorted to a friends of the chair
group, in this case composed of the secretariat and the major
contributors (the United States, Australia, New Zealand, and
France). The agreement that emerged, and which was subsequently
endorsed by the Meeting, entailed the secretariat cutting its
corporate services budget by a little over 8%, selectively delaying
hiring, deferring implementation of professional staff salary
increases until after the next SPREP Meeting, adding pledged
payments of unpaid member contributions to the budget, and making a
solicitation for a special, one-time "voluntary supplemental
contribution" to make up the remaining shortfall. Proceeds of this
special solicitation were budgeted at $212,000, an additional 23% on
top of members' budgeted contribution levels, which remain
unchanged. Projected contributions to the special solicitation were
allocated to members in the budget based on their normal share of
annual member contributions. (Applying this formula, the U.S. is
being asked for a 20% share of the special voluntary supplemental
contribution: $42,326.) The U.S. joined consensus on this revised
budget with the clear understanding that members are under no
obligation to actually make a "voluntary supplemental contribution"
at the budgeted or any other level and were only agreeing to a
good-faith effort to supplement their member contributions by the
suggested amount.


SUVA 00000387 006 OF 010



23. (SBU) The French told us that they had come prepared to support
a budget increase of up to 15%, and could probably apply that amount
to the special contribution. Australian and New Zealand
representatives said they would be able to meet their part of the
solicitation and would likely make up most of the shortfall from
other members. The three other major donors strongly urged the U.S.
to try to make some additional contribution.

Environmental Activities and Issues:


24. (U) LCDR Joe Zwack of the 14th Coast Guard District made a very
well received presentation on the Oceania Regional Response Team
(ORRT) during a lunchtime side event on September 4. The
presentation highlighted ORRT's role of supporting Federal On-Scene
Coordinators in their response to oil and hazardous substance marine
pollution incidents in Hawaii and the U.S. Pacific territories and
its pre-planning products tools and activities. Zwack described
recent ORRT consultations with SPREP and prospects for increased
regional cooperation in preparing for and responding to marine
pollution incidents. Also, on September 12, Guam EPA's Betwin
Alokoa offered a lively and well attended presentation on efforts to
manage pesticides in Guam. His talk initiated a useful discussion
among participants, particularity those from the Freely Associated
States, that will contribute to further collaboration and
information sharing.


25. (U) In terms of substance, one of the highlights of the Meeting
was its decision to endorse recommendations contained in a U.S.
paper, prepared and presented by Howard Diamond of NOAA's National
Climatic Data Center, on meteorology and climatology support by
SPREP. The Meeting reaffirmed its commitment to support the
long-vacant Meteorology and Climatology Officer (MCO) position as a
core SPREP function, undertook to investigate creation of a Pacific
Meteorological Committee to aid in supporting the needs of the
region, and to investigate the relationship with and effectiveness
of the World Meteorological Organization's Sub-Regional Office that
is collocated with SPREP at its offices in Apia. Although final
decisions on whether or not to fill the vacant MCO position will
depend on the review of core functions called for in the Independent
Corporate Review, this decision did put the Meeting clearly on
record on the issue: The present arrangement, where the U.S.-funded
Pacific Islands Global Climate Observing System (PI-GCOS) officer
performs essential elements of the vacant MCO position, does not do
justice to either important function.


26. (U) Another significant action, was the Meeting's decision to
institutionalize the coordination function of the Pacific Invasives
Learning Network (PILN) within SPREP and to use PILN as a model for
its capacity building work. (Note: PILN is a participant-driven
peer learning network intended to empower effective invasive species
management by facilitating the sharing of skills, resources, and
information. This highly regarded two-year pilot project, launched
in May 2006, received some initial State (OESI) funding and includes
the U.S. Forest Service as a partner. Guam, American Samoa, and
Hawaii were three of the fourteen jurisdictions included in the
pilot. A recent external review reached the conclusion that PILN
had been successful, that it had "exceeded some of its original
expectations," and that it had a strong uptake by countries."
Renewed funding from The Nature Conservancy has extended the program
for another year but its long term future is uncertain. End Note.)
Comment: The Meeting's decision to institutionalize support for PILN
lays the foundation for defining its work as part of SPREP's core
functions in the ICR-instigated review and to prioritize this
activity as something members should pay for. End Comment.


27. (U) The Meeting also endorsed a proposal by the Secretariat to
declare 2009 the Pacific Year of Climate Change, which will be

SUVA 00000387 007 OF 010


launched at the Pacific Climate Change Roundtable in Apia October
14-17. It also endorsed the "Action Strategy for Nature
Conservation in the Pacific Region (2008-2012)" as a "document to
inform the development of the SPREP Action Plan for Managing the
Environment." (For background on the Action Strategy, see reftels A
and C.)

Noumea and Waigani Conventions:


28. (U) The 9th Ordinary Meeting of the Contracting Parties to the
Convention for the Protection of the Natural Resources and
Environment of the South Pacific Region and Related Protocols (the
Noumea Convention) took place on September 4 but did not have a
quorum. The meeting reconvened briefly on September 5, with the
requisite level of participation, to ratify the outcomes of the
meeting on the 4th. Budget and institutional issues were easily
disposed of. No final action was taken on the secretariat's
proposal to modify the amendment provisions of the Convention, and
the issues will be taken up again at the next meeting, after the
secretariat completes a survey of parties' views on the matter. The
U.S. was one of several countries that has not submitted a Country
Report on the implementation of its obligations under the
Convention. We noted that our report is not yet finished.


29. (U) One issue that emerged in the discussion of country reports
was the question of the classification and proper disposal of
asbestos. If it is classified as hazardous waste, then disposing of
it at sea appears to be a violation of the Convention. The SPREP
secretariat, nevertheless, seems to have advised the Cook Islands
that it was acceptable to load a ship that it was going to scuttle
with asbestos waste. A number of small island countries expressed
an urgent need for advice on environmentally sound and permissible
ways to dispose of asbestos waste.


30. (U) The Waigani Convention, covering waste shipment, held an
unremarkable COP on September 5, which also lacked a quorum and
contained little substantive discussion. (The U.S. has not signed
this Treaty.) The poor attendance and lack of substantive
discussion in the two Convention meetings left a number of
participants asking if they should discontinue regular meetings or
subsume their business into the regular SPREP meeting agenda. The
topic of how to improve attendance was actually on the agenda of
both meetings but this discussion too ended inconclusively.

Ministerial Meeting:


31. (U) SPREP convened a Pacific Environment Ministers' meeting on
12 September. Patterned on the Global Ministerial Environment
Forum, the event is intended to bring environment ministers from
around the region together every two years to discuss issues of
particular concern. This year's theme was climate change and
featured participation by UNFCCC Executive Secretary Yvo de Boer.


32. (SBU) Very few ministers (at most three) actually attended this
year, however, and flight schedules meant that a number of
delegations had to leave before the start of the ministerial. The
few participants that remained for the event were most interested in
the selection of SPREP director and other institutional matters,
which led to a protracted procedural discussion about the
relationship of the Ministerial to the just-concluded SPREP Meeting.
When the secretariat informed participants that the two were
separate events and that the ministers could not revisit SPREP
Meeting decisions, the Samoan environment minister declared that
traveling to Pohnpei had been a waste of his time. De Boer, who had
sat through this entire discussion, and the argument about SPREP
director selection that preceded it, was about to reach the same
conclusion--remarking to members of the U.S. delegation the next

SUVA 00000387 008 OF 010


morning that he "could not believe he had traveled around the World
for this."


33. (U) During a welcome dinner for ministerial delegations on
September 11, at which de Boer was the guest of honor, he had spoken
about how moving it was for him finally to be in the Pacific, "on
the front lines of climate change." He expressed his hope that an
understanding of the plight of small island developing states could
help to stir the world to action, "especially those industrialized
countries that have so far been reluctant to commit to meaningful
reductions in their greenhouse gas emissions." He continued in that
vein at the Ministerial. In remarks punctuated by repeated power
failures, which, because of the requirement for French translation,
entailed long silences, de Boer told a nearly empty room that the
presence of "so many ministers and senior officials" was a sign of
the region's political commitment to addressing the problem of
climate change. When the floor was finally opened for discussion,
no one spoke. Repeated prompting by de Boer and Takesy had no
effect, and, in the end, the meeting concluded without anyone making
a statement or responding to de Boer's remarks.

Future meetings:


34. (U) The 20th SPREP meeting will take place in Apia, Samoa
sometime in 2009 before the next Pacific Islands Forum Leaders'
Meeting. Papua New Guinea expressed its willingness to host the
21st SPREP Meeting and associated meetings in Madang in 2010.

Comment:


35. (SBU) The vacuous Noumea and Waigani Convention meetings that
preceded the SPREP Meeting, the farcical Ministerial that followed
it, the secretariat's inexplicable handling of the budget, and the
Meeting's absorption with institutional issues should not overshadow
the fact that this was a critically important meeting for SPREP.
The problematic aspects of the events point to the serious
shortcomings of the organization both in terms of the secretariat's
functioning and members' level of engagement, including our own.
These weaknesses were identified by the ICR and recognized by the
Meeting. New leadership and the start of the process of identifying
and funding SPREP's core functions offer real opportunities for the
organization to more fully realize its potential as a forum for
promoting genuine environmental cooperation throughout the Pacific.
SPREP's heavy reliance on project funds to support its growth has
helped make it an institution that is seen by most members, and
which sees itself, primarily as an aid delivery vehicle. An
approach that concentrates the energy and resources of the
institution on a cluster of functions that members have agreed are
central to their expectations of the organization could help restore
the balance between SPREP the intergovernmental forum and SPREP the
service provider.


36. (SBU) This process is an opportunity for the United States. The
near absence of U.S. bilateral foreign assistance for the Pacific
means that, despite our contributions to multilateral funding and
technical organizations, the USG is not seen to be directly and
deeply engaged in many of the major regional and multi-country
environment initiatives that are underway. Because these
initiatives are typically launched and implemented as foreign aid
projects, the USG's environmental efforts in Hawaii, our Pacific
territories, and in the Freely Associated States are rarely
connected to aid-funded efforts in the rest of the Pacific. A
revitalized SPREP could offer a means to correct this disconnect by
linking environment-related projects and programs undertaken in "the
American Pacific" to what is happening in the region as a whole.


37. (SBU) To a limited extent, SPREP already does this for us. NOAA

SUVA 00000387 009 OF 010


has made use of SPREP to facilitate its support for PI-GCOS and
ICRI. PILN is of direct benefit to U.S. jurisdictions but also
connects officials in those jurisdictions to counterparts throughout
the region. The Western Pacific Fisheries Council has employed
SPREP to pursue its mandate to protect sea turtles, DOE enlisted
SPREP to carryout public and government relations efforts related to
its Atmospheric Radiation Monitoring Program, and ORRT has recently
initiated cooperative exchanges with SPREP staff. There is room to
do much more.


38. (SBU) PIF leaders' push for regional institutional restructuring
prompted SPREP members to begin a process for addressing the
organization's weakness but the overwhelming political pressure to
find a home for SOPAC functions before the next PIF meeting
threatens to preempt that process. There is a danger that hasty
decisions about SOPAC functions might weaken SPREP or distort its
character. At the same time, delayed decisions in SPREP might
result in lost opportunities if SOPAC functions that complement what
are determined to be SPREP's core activities are absorbed by SPC.
End comment.


39. (SBU) Action Items and Recommendations:

--RIF: The agreement reached by SPREP members on how to approach
regional institutional restructuring is dependent for its success on
pursuing a parallel approach in SPC, which will require that the
U.S. message at the upcoming SPC meeting in Noumea be the same as it
was in Pohnpei.

--Review of Core Functions: the RIF agreement is integrally
connected to the ICR decision, in particular to the analysis of
SPREP's core functions. To realize the opportunities of this
analysis, and possible restructuring, we must think carefully
between now and May about what we really want from SPREP, and what
we are willing to pay for. We must then fully engage with members
in the review to make sure we get those things. This effort will
require interagency discussions to determine what USG environmental
objectives could be better met if linked to the regional initiatives
we envision as falling within SPREP's core functions.

--PILN: One example of this kind of synergy is PILN, which has
proven to be a valuable project for the region and for the U.S.
jurisdictions it connects to the broader Pacific. Exploring
long-term funding options from USG resources could pay lasting
dividends both in terms of regional perceptions and environmental
protection.

--Funding: Although the secretariat's handling of the budget at this
meeting left much to be desired, increased airfares and electricity
costs alone, plus wage inflation in the Samoan labor market, have
strained SPREP's finances. It is time to consider the possibility
of increasing our member contribution again. It would also
strengthen our hand in the discussion about SPREP's role and
functions if the U.S. could find some way to make a voluntary
supplemental contribution to help alleviate the organization's
immediate funding woes.

--Funding and the RIF decision: The US is not a member of SOPAC, but
the shift of important functions to SPREP or SPC, organizations in
which the US is a member, provides an opportunity for the US to
explore options for increasing our engagement with those
institutions, specifically for those issue areas we consider
important, such as Earth observations and disaster management.

--CNMI's unpaid member contributions: The Secretariat will be
approaching CNMI about its unpaid member contributions. The
Department may wish to consider alerting CNMI to this impending

SUVA 00000387 010 OF 010


approach.

--Finally, we owe the Secretariat a report on implementation of the
United States' Noumea Convention obligations.

This cable was prepared by delegation head Joe Murphy.

Pruett