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