Identifier
Created
Classification
Origin
09GENEVA121
2009-02-11 15:03:00
UNCLASSIFIED
US Mission Geneva
Cable title:  

UNECE Environment for Europe Process: New and Improved

Tags:  ENRG SENV EIND UN ECE ECOSOC KUNR 
pdf how-to read a cable
R 111503Z FEB 09
FM USMISSION GENEVA
TO SECSTATE WASHDC 7984
USMISSION USUN NEW YORK 
AMEMBASSY NAIROBI 
EU MEMBER STATES COLLECTIVE
USEU BRUSSELS
UNCLAS GENEVA 000121 



STATE FOR OES/EGC FOR GTHOMPSON
STATE FOR OES/ENV FOR JMATUSZAK, ASALZBERG
STATE FOR IO/EDA FOR RWEBBER
STATE FOR EUR/PGI FOR DTESSLER
NAIROBI FOR USUNEP FOR JSTEWART
EU EMBASSIES FOR EST OFFICERS

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: ENRG SENV EIND UN ECE ECOSOC KUNR
SUBJECT: UNECE Environment for Europe Process: New and Improved

REF: 08 Geneva 927

UNCLAS GENEVA 000121



STATE FOR OES/EGC FOR GTHOMPSON
STATE FOR OES/ENV FOR JMATUSZAK, ASALZBERG
STATE FOR IO/EDA FOR RWEBBER
STATE FOR EUR/PGI FOR DTESSLER
NAIROBI FOR USUNEP FOR JSTEWART
EU EMBASSIES FOR EST OFFICERS

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: ENRG SENV EIND UN ECE ECOSOC KUNR
SUBJECT: UNECE Environment for Europe Process: New and Improved

REF: 08 Geneva 927


1. Summary. The UN Economic Commission for Europe's (UNECE)
Committee on Environmental Policy (CEP) met January 20-23, for final
negotiations on the reform of the Environment for Europe (EfE)
Process, which is anchored by periodic Ministerial Conferences.
After lengthy negotiations, the draft EfE reform was adopted and
will now go to the UNECE's Commission for endorsement at a political
level. The U.S. achieved all of its goals, and the 2011 EfE
ministerial conference in Kazakhstan will now focus on just two
themes and produce a negotiated outcome document limited to two
pages. End Summary.

-------------- ---
Reform of the Environment for Europe Ministerial
-------------- ---


2. The UN Economic Commission for Europe's (UNECE) Committee on
Environmental Policy (CEP) has served as the sponsor of the
Environment for Europe Ministerial Conference (EfE) since it began
in 1991. Unfortunately, the preparatory process for the last two
conferences had been costly and largely unproductive requiring many
meetings over several years and focused exclusively on a lengthy
negotiated statement. In October 2007, the EfE agreed to a U.S.
proposal to conduct a substantial reform process as a prerequisite
for UNECE continuing to serve as the Secretariat for the EfE
Process. The EfE reform process was given a deadline of March 2009,
the next meeting of the UNECE, to negotiate an outcome of the reform
process.


3. The CEP met three times in 2008 to hammer out a reform. In
October the CEP held a contentious round of negotiations that led
the OES/ENV representative to make a clear statement to other
members that the EfE Process would have move to a host organization
in which the U.S. does not participate if there was no political
will for a reformed preparatory process and outcome. The U.S.
strongly supports a focused process and Conference which would
stress implementation of agreements and which would facilitate
discussions of lessons learned and best practices amongst Ministers
and representatives of civil society, including the private sector.

In order to achieve this, it was paramount for the U.S. to achieve a
reform agreement to limit the preparatory process on a maximum of
two themes and an outcome document restricted to two pages. The
U.S. agreement to any kind of outcome document was a large
concession to other member states. Past experience has demonstrated
that the preparatory process and conference are often consumed with
negotiating a long outcome statement that diverts attention from the
activities associated with the chosen themes.


4. Knowing that there would not be another chance at negotiations,
members were motivated to come to an agreement at the January CEP
session. Not surprisingly, negotiations ultimately came down to
trade-offs between the U.S. and the EU, led by the Presidency of the
Czech Republic. The Czechs felt a tremendous sense of
responsibility and ownership, speaking for 27 EU members and
considering EfE to be their own child (the Czechs hosted the very
first EfE Ministerial conference in 1991).


5. The proposed reform allows for actions by interested ministers on
specific subjects and/or specific subregions, but the EfE will not
be a tool for launching large negotiated initiatives. The U.S.
stressed the importance that action at the national level plays in
building subregional and, eventually, international partnerships.


6. Other achievements included an enhanced role for the private
sector in the preparatory process and EfE conferences, and a clear
understanding that the CEP is the convener, not the coordinator of
the EfE process, especially in carrying out the mid-term review of
the implementation of EfE outcomes. This latter point is critical
in reframing the EfE in terms of national ownership of activities
and outcomes, so that member states do not expect the CEP
Secretariat to initiate data collection, analysis, etc.

--------------
Comment
--------------


7. Some delegates had expected a change of tactic from the U.S. now
that we are in a new administration. We made the point that while
substance on many issues may change, the U.S. will continue to value
efficient processes that are transparent and support the growth of
capacity and responsibility at the national level.


8. The new and improved EfE process continues U.S. efforts in the UN
Commission on Sustainable Development and the United Nations
Environment Program to focus on action and implementation; it could
also be a template for reforming other international fora. While
there was significant pressure to have an open-ended outcome
document, there was also an unspoken understanding among the members
that ten to twenty page outcome documents are unwieldy, distracting
and ultimately meaningless as they fill up with platitudes and wish
lists.


9. Now comes the hard part. Process must become substance and lead
to concrete achievements for the environment. The reformed
preparatory process calls for the identification of themes no later
than 18 months before the Conference, which is planned for sometime
before the fall of 2011. This means that the discussion on possible
themes, based on environmental reports, should occur at the October
2009 CEP meeting. We will encourage engagement from EUR/ACE and
USAID to ensure the focus of the work coincides with the
environmental priorities they are addressing in Eastern and
Southeastern Europe, the Caucasus and Central Asia. The next EfE
Conference will be held in 2011 in Kazakhstan. End Comment.

STORELLA#