Keep Us Strong WikiLeaks logo

Currently released so far... 97115 / 251,287

Articles

Browse latest releases

Browse by creation date

Browse by origin

A B C D F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W Y Z

Browse by tag

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z
ETRD EAGR ETTC EAID ECON EFIN ECIN EINV ELAB EAIR ENRG EPET EWWT ECPS EIND EMIN ELTN EC ETMIN EUC EZ ET ELECTIONS ENVR EU EUN EG EINT ER ECONOMICS ES EMS ENIV EEB EN ECE ECOSOC EK ENVIRONMENT EFIS EI EWT ENGRD ECPSN EXIM EIAD ERIN ECPC EDEV ENGY ECTRD EPA ESTH ECCT EINVECON ENGR ERTD EUR EAP EWWC ELTD EL EXIMOPIC EXTERNAL ETRDEC ESCAP ECO EGAD ELNT ECONOMIC ENV ETRN EIAR EUMEM ENRGPARMOTRASENVKGHGPGOVECONTSPLEAID EREL ECOM ECONETRDEAGRJA ETCC ETRG ECONOMY EMED ETR ENERG EITC EFINOECD EURM EENG ERA EXPORT ENRD ECONEINVETRDEFINELABETRDKTDBPGOVOPIC EGEN EBRD EVIN ETRAD ECOWAS EFTA ECONETRDBESPAR EGOVSY EPIN EID ECONENRG EDRC ESENV ETT EB ENER ELTNSNAR ECHEVARRIA ETRC EPIT EDUC ESA EFI ENRGY ESCI EE EAIDXMXAXBXFFR EETC ECIP EIAID EIVN EBEXP ESTN EING EGOV ETRA EPETEIND ELAN ETRDGK EAIDRW ETRDEINVECINPGOVCS EPEC ENVI ELN EAG EPCS EPRT EPTED ETRB EUM EAIDS EFIC EFINECONEAIDUNGAGM EAIDAR ESF EIDN ELAM EDU EV EAIDAF ECN EDA EXBS EINTECPS ENRGTRGYETRDBEXPBTIOSZ EPREL EAC EINVEFIN ETA EAGER EINDIR ECA ECLAC ELAP EITI EUCOM ECONEFINETRDPGOVEAGRPTERKTFNKCRMEAID EARG ELDIN EINVKSCA ENNP EFINECONCS EFINTS ECCP ETC EAIRASECCASCID EINN ETRP EAIDNI EFQ ECOQKPKO EGPHUM EBUD ECONEINVEFINPGOVIZ ENERGY ELB EINDETRD EMI ECONEFIN EIB EURN ETRDEINVTINTCS EIN EFIM ETIO ELAINE EMN EATO EWTR EIPR EINVETC ETTD ETDR EIQ ECONCS EPPD ENRGIZ EISL ESPINOSA ELEC EAIG ESLCO EUREM ENTG ERD EINVECONSENVCSJA EEPET EUNCH ECINECONCS ETRO ETRDECONWTOCS ECUN EFND EPECO EAIRECONRP ERGR ETRDPGOV ECPN ENRGMO EPWR EET EAIS EAGRE EDUARDO EAGRRP EAIDPHUMPRELUG EICN ECONQH EVN EGHG ELBR EINF EAIDHO EENV ETEX ERNG ED
KMDR KPAO KPKO KJUS KCRM KGHG KFRD KWMN KDEM KTFN KHIV KGIC KIDE KSCA KNNP KHUM KIPR KSUM KISL KIRF KCOR KRCM KPAL KWBG KN KS KOMC KSEP KFLU KPWR KTIA KSEO KMPI KHLS KICC KSTH KMCA KVPR KPRM KE KU KZ KFLO KSAF KTIP KTEX KBCT KOCI KOLY KOR KAWC KACT KUNR KTDB KSTC KLIG KSKN KNN KCFE KCIP KGHA KHDP KPOW KUNC KDRL KV KPREL KCRS KPOL KRVC KRIM KGIT KWIR KT KIRC KOMO KRFD KUWAIT KG KFIN KSCI KTFIN KFTN KGOV KPRV KSAC KGIV KCRIM KPIR KSOC KBIO KW KGLB KMWN KPO KFSC KSEAO KSTCPL KSI KPRP KREC KFPC KUNH KCSA KMRS KNDP KR KICCPUR KPPAO KCSY KTBT KCIS KNEP KFRDCVISCMGTCASCKOCIASECPHUMSMIGEG KNNB KGCC KINR KPOP KMFO KENV KNAR KVIR KDRG KDMR KFCE KNAO KDEN KGCN KICA KIMMITT KMCC KLFU KMSG KSEC KUM KCUL KMNP KSMT KCOM KOMCSG KSPR KPMI KRAD KIND KCRP KAUST KWAWC KTER KCHG KRDP KPAS KITA KTSC KPAOPREL KWGB KIRP KJUST KMIG KLAB KTFR KSEI KSTT KAPO KSTS KLSO KWNN KPOA KHSA KNPP KPAONZ KBTS KWWW KY KJRE KPAOKMDRKE KCRCM KSCS KWMNCI KESO KWUN KPLS KIIP KEDEM KPAOY KRIF KGICKS KREF KTRD KFRDSOCIRO KTAO KJU KWMNPHUMPRELKPAOZW KEN KO KNEI KEMR KKIV KEAI KWAC KRCIM KWCI KFIU KWIC KCORR KOMS KNNO KPAI KBWG KTTB KTBD KTIALG KILS KFEM KTDM KESS KNUC KPA KOMCCO KCEM KRCS KWBGSY KNPPIS KNNPMNUC KWN KERG KLTN KALM KCCP KSUMPHUM KREL KGH KLIP KTLA KAWK KWMM KVRP KVRC KAID KSLG KDEMK KX KIF KNPR KCFC KFTFN KTFM KPDD KCERS KMOC KDEMAF KMEPI KEMS KDRM KEPREL KBTR KEDU KNP KIRL KNNR KMPT KISLPINR KTPN KA KJUSTH KPIN KDEV KTDD KAKA KFRP KWNM KTSD KINL KJUSKUNR KWWMN KECF KWBC KPRO KVBL KOM KFRDKIRFCVISCMGTKOCIASECPHUMSMIGEG KEDM KFLD KLPM KRGY KNNF KICR KIFR KM KWMNCS KAWS KLAP KPAK KDDG KCGC KID KNSD KMPF KPFO KDP KCMR KRMS KNPT KNNNP KTIAPARM KDTB KNUP KPGOV KNAP KNNC KUK KSRE KREISLER KIVP KQ KTIAEUN KPALAOIS KRM KISLAO KWM KFLOA
PHUM PINR PTER PGOV PREL PREF PL PM PHSA PE PARM PINS PK PUNE PO PALESTINIAN PU PBTS PROP PTBS POL POLI PA PGOVZI POLMIL POLITICAL PARTIES POLM PD POLITICS POLICY PAS PMIL PINT PNAT PV PKO PPOL PERSONS PING PBIO PH PETR PARMS PRES PCON PETERS PRELBR PT PLAB PP PAK PDEM PKPA PSOCI PF PLO PTERM PJUS PSOE PELOSI PROPERTY PGOVPREL PARP PRL PNIR PHUMKPAL PG PREZ PGIC PBOV PAO PKK PROV PHSAK PHUMPREL PROTECTION PGOVBL PSI PRELPK PGOVENRG PUM PRELKPKO PATTY PSOC PRIVATIZATION PRELSP PGOVEAIDUKNOSWGMHUCANLLHFRSPITNZ PMIG PREC PAIGH PROG PSHA PARK PETER POG PHUS PPREL PS PTERPREL PRELPGOV POV PKPO PGOVECON POUS PGOVPRELPHUMPREFSMIGELABEAIDKCRMKWMN PWBG PMAR PREM PAR PNR PRELPGOVEAIDECONEINVBEXPSCULOIIPBTIO PARMIR PGOVGM PHUH PARTM PN PRE PTE PY POLUN PPEL PDOV PGOVSOCI PIRF PGOVPM PBST PRELEVU PGOR PBTSRU PRM PRELKPAOIZ PGVO PERL PGOC PAGR PMIN PHUMR PVIP PPD PGV PRAM PINL PKPAL PTERE PGOF PINO PHAS PODC PRHUM PHUMA PREO PPA PEPFAR PGO PRGOV PAC PRESL PORG PKFK PEPR PRELP PREFA PNG PGOVPHUMKPAO PRELECON PINOCHET PFOR PGOVLO PHUMBA PRELC PREK PHUME PHJM POLINT PGOVPZ PGOVKCRM PGOVE PHALANAGE PARTY PECON PEACE PROCESS PLN PRELSW PAHO PEDRO PRELA PASS PPAO PGPV PNUM PCUL PGGV PSA PGOVSMIGKCRMKWMNPHUMCVISKFRDCA PGIV PRFE POGOV PEL PBT PAMQ PINF PSEPC POSTS PHUMPGOV PVOV PHSAPREL PROLIFERATION PENA PRELTBIOBA PIN PRELL PGOVPTER PHAM PHYTRP PTEL PTERPGOV PHARM PROTESTS PRELAF PKBL PRELKPAO PKNP PARMP PHUML PFOV PERM PUOS PRELGOV PHUMPTER PARAGRAPH PERURENA PBTSEWWT PCI PETROL PINSO PINSCE PQL PEREZ PBS

Browse by classification

Community resources

courage is contagious

Viewing cable 05PARIS4111, OECD REPORTING: WORKING PARTY ON ENVIRONMENTAL

If you are new to these pages, please read an introduction on the structure of a cable as well as how to discuss them with others. See also the FAQs

Understanding cables
Every cable message consists of three parts:
  • The top box shows each cables unique reference number, when and by whom it originally was sent, and what its initial classification was.
  • The middle box contains the header information that is associated with the cable. It includes information about the receiver(s) as well as a general subject.
  • The bottom box presents the body of the cable. The opening can contain a more specific subject, references to other cables (browse by origin to find them) or additional comment. This is followed by the main contents of the cable: a summary, a collection of specific topics and a comment section.
To understand the justification used for the classification of each cable, please use this WikiSource article as reference.

Discussing cables
If you find meaningful or important information in a cable, please link directly to its unique reference number. Linking to a specific paragraph in the body of a cable is also possible by copying the appropriate link (to be found at theparagraph symbol). Please mark messages for social networking services like Twitter with the hash tags #cablegate and a hash containing the reference ID e.g. #05PARIS4111.
Reference ID Created Released Classification Origin
05PARIS4111 2005-06-13 07:31 2011-08-24 00:00 UNCLASSIFIED Embassy Paris
This record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available.

130731Z Jun 05
UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 04 PARIS 004111 
 
SIPDIS 
 
FROM USOECD 
 
STATE FOR EUR/ERA AND EUR/PPD 
STATE FOR OES/CMCMURRAY 
WHITE HOUSE FOR CEQ/JCONNAUGHTON, RDIXON, KCAUTHEN 
EPA FOR OIA/AYRES, JMORANT, KMASON, GCASTELLANOS 
EPA FOR OAR/HOLMSTEAD 
EPA FOR OPPTS/SHAZEN, BMILROY 
EPA FOR AO/AFARRELL, SHOYT, DLEAF 
EPA FOR OW/BFEWELL, RGORKE 
EPA FOR OECA/PHARRIS 
EPA FOR REGION 8/RROBERTS 
EPA FOR OEI/LTRAVERS 
EPA FOR OPEI/ACRISTOFARO 
EPA FOR OGC/ABERNS 
DOI FOR RBOWMAN 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: SENV ETRD KSCA FR OECD CZ
SUBJECT: OECD REPORTING: WORKING PARTY ON ENVIRONMENTAL 
PERFORMANCE, REVIEW OF THE UNITED STATES, REVIEW OF THE 
CZECH REPUBLIC, AND SPECIAL SESSION MEETING ON "BEYOND THE 
2ND CYCLE," MAY 17-19, 2005, PARIS, FRANCE. 
 
 
------- 
SUMMARY 
------- 
 
1. OECD's Environmental Performance Review (EPR) of the 
U.S., the first such assessment in nearly a decade, was the 
centerpiece of May 17-19 meetings convened by OECD's Working 
Party on Environmental Performance (WPEP).  The U.S. EPR 
peer review session, involving OECD staff and delegates from 
24 other OECD member countries, took place on May 17th.  The 
Czech Republic's EPR peer review session took place on May 
19th, and a Special Session to discuss the future of OECD 
EPRs was held on May 18th.  James Connaughton, Chairman of 
the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), led 
the U.S. delegation.  Major actions and decisions on the 
week taken included: 1) discussion and approval of the 
Conclusions and Recommendations chapter of the U.S. EPR by 
the Working Party; 2) discussion 1of the final text of the 
main U.S. EPR report with the OECD Environmental Directorate 
staff; 3) discussion and approval of the Conclusions and 
Recommendations chapter of the Czech Republic's EPR by the 
Working Party; and 4) presentations to, and discussions by, 
the Working Party concerning the next (3rd) round of 
Environmental Performance Reviews, scheduled to start in 
2007-2008. END SUMMARY 
--------------------------------------------- ------------ 
Discussion and Approval of the U.S. EPR in the Working Party 
on Environmental Performance (WPEP) 
--------------------------------------------- ------------ 
 
2.   OECD Deputy Secretary General Akasaka opened the 
meeting and recognized the U.S. leadership role in 
establishing OECD's Environmental Performance Review process 
and in providing world leadership in the area of the 
environment.  Ambassador Constance Morella thanked the 
Secretariat for its review and introduced Delegation Head, 
 
SIPDIS 
James Connaughton. 
 
3.   Chairman Connaughton, in opening remarks, addressed 
three issues of particular interest to the Secretariat and 
OECD member countries: federalism, water issues, and climate 
change. Concerning federalism, the Chairman gave a 
historical review of the origins of the U.S. system of 
environmental protection.  Concerning water issues, Chairman 
Connaughton addressed safe drinking water, water pollution 
(specifically the progress that has been made on point- 
source pollution) and the work remaining on non-point water 
pollution.  He noted the U.S. progress in moving from a "no 
net-loss" wetlands program to one of a "net-gain" program. 
On climate change he described the President's 2002 Climate 
Change initiative, which has resulted in significant federal 
and matching fund investments, and both domestic and 
international partnerships.  He noted that the U.S. rise in 
greenhouse gas emissions is, like other OECD countries, due 
to an increase in population, cars, distances traveled, 
larger homes and larger electricity demand (i.e. a challenge 
of managing growth). 
 
4.   In the detailed question and answer session on air 
pollution, the U.S. delegation explained why CO2 is not 
included in the Clean Air Act; defended our current cap 
levels within our cap and trade emission trading program; 
addressed efforts to reduce mercury and other heavy metals; 
and explained our renewable energy activities. 
 
5.   Concerning water issues, the U.S. was asked about water 
quality and water quantity issues.   In the U.S. response, a 
distinction between water-rich and water-poor areas of the 
U.S. was made; an explanation of the historic origins of 
western water rights was given; a description of the 
increase in water system monitoring and water quality 
standard stringency was presented; and a lively discussion 
about shifting water use from agricultural to other end uses 
through the introduction of water "banks" and other pricing 
systems ensued. 
6.   Concerning nature and biodiversity, the U.S. was 
congratulated for its long history of natural lands 
protections and a discussion ensued on several issues 
including invasive species; farm and agricultural practices; 
biodiversity; and the role of regional partnerships in 
improving watershed system health. 
 
7.   Concerning Effective and Efficient Environmental 
Management, the U.S. engaged with numerous countries in a 
discussion of our integrated permit systems and energy and 
transport environmental subsidies.  Concerning Environmental 
Federalism, the U.S. successfully explained our unique 
system of federal, state, local and tribal roles.   Chairman 
Connaughton and EPA Regional Administrator Robbie Roberts 
explained how the federal government works in cooperation 
with states and local government. 
 
8.   Concerning the Environment and Economy interface, the 
U.S. defended its system of environmental policy in regards 
to transport environmental pollution.  The U.S. noted that 
our extensive system of fuel and vehicle pollution control 
regulations successfully internalizes most of the 
environmental externalities associated with transport. In 
contrast to the European system of relatively high fuels 
taxes, the U.S. system was explained and discussed. 
Similarly, in regards to agricultural subsidies, Chairman 
Connaughton explained recent U.S. government efforts to 
reduce environmentally harmful agricultural practices by 
shifting subsidies to more conservation-oriented practices. 
He also noted that the President is opposed to any new 
subsidies for oil and gas development.  There was also an 
interesting discussion on the current state of U.S. 
environmental information reporting.  The U.S. EPR contained 
an original recommendation that the U.S. renew its annual 
nation-wide environmental reports.   Several from the U.S. 
delegation explained the current use of electronic 
information dissemination and how the U.S. has moved well 
beyond the age of the "paper" report. 
 
9.   Concerning Climate Change, the U.S. answered numerous 
questions from the other countries.  We explained our 
investments in energy efficient and greenhouse gas reduction 
technologies and again explained our position on the Kyoto 
Protocol.  Chairman Connaughton explained that we have 
negotiated sector specific commitments on reducing energy 
intensity and that states are internalizing these new 
federal strategies.  He noted the new energy service 
contracts initiative for federal facilities, which could 
lead to a 46 million metric ton reduction in CO2 by 2015, 
and the methane-to-markets partnership program. 
 
10.  The session concluded with a successful consensus 
negotiation on the exact text of the U.S. EPR's Conclusions 
and Recommendations chapter.    The U.S. thanked the 
Secretariat for an instructive information exchange and for 
 
SIPDIS 
a healthy dialogue on the state of U.S. environmental 
performance and policies, and reiterated our desire to take 
the recommendations of the OECD back to the U.S. for robust 
implementation. 
 
--------------------------------------------- -------------- 
Special Session: Beyond the 2nd Cycle (of Environmental 
Performance Reviews) 
--------------------------------------------- -------------- 
 
11.  On Wednesday, May 18th the U.S. and other countries 
participated in a discussion of possible ways to proceed 
with the next round of OECD country-specific environmental 
performance reviews.   The meeting received presentations 
from other parts of the OECD (Development Assistance 
Committee, Economics Directorate) on their current processes 
for producing country level reviews in their respective 
areas.  The delegation also heard an update from the 
International Energy Agency (IEA) on their country energy 
review process.  Notable from these presentations was the 
fact that the DAC and Economics Directorate funded 95% and 
100% respectively of the country reviews out of their OECD 
Part 1 budget, whereas the Environment Directorate is 
increasingly dependent on voluntary contributions to 
maintain the number of reviews it is performing. 
 
12.  A discussion of how to conduct the next cycle of OECD 
country level environmental performance reviews revealed 
some common observations.   First, most countries noted that 
the length between reviews of a country (now approaching 7-8 
years) is too long and likely to get longer if additional 
countries join the OECD.   Suggested ideas for shortening 
the cycle included reducing the budget and number of OECD 
staff associated with each review; limiting the number of 
subject areas each review covers; and picking special topics 
to conduct comparative studies between countries, rather 
than continuing to produce similarly broad, country-specific 
EPRs.    Several countries noted the increased Ministerial- 
level participation in the EPRs and the increased relevancy 
of the EPRs in the country being reviewed.  Several 
countries supported the idea of producing "derived" products 
from the reviews, such as that done on water by the WPEP 
several years ago. 
 
13.  The Chairman and Secretariat agreed to summarize the 
day's deliberations and present them in form of a discussion 
paper to member countries for further reflection.  The 
Chair's summary of the day's discussions noted: a) length of 
reports is acceptable; b) themes (e.g. economy and social 
interface) should be more focused; c) use of a preliminary 
questionnaire to develop advance detailed information for 
the review delegation teams should be continued and 
broadened; d) review meetings like those held this week 
could be even more policy focused; and e) WPEP should keep 
producing 3 to 4 country level reviews per year with 1 or 2 
derived products which would be dependent upon existing 
information.  Several delegations requested that an 
electronic discussion group be established to maintain idea- 
sharing on this subject. This was declined by the 
secretariat and chairman in favor of an iterative process, 
 
SIPDIS 
culminating in presentation of a status report to the 
Environment Policy Committee (EPOC) in March 2006. 
--------------------------------------------- -------------- 
Environmental Performance Review of the Czech Republic 
--------------------------------------------- -------------- 
 
14.  As with the U.S. EPR, the Czech Republic's EPR was 
thoroughly debated amongst all member countries.   Most 
countries applauded the Czech Republic's significant 
progress in reducing environmental pollution, especially air 
pollution.   The U.S. asked if the recent leveling off of 
air pollution emission reductions signaled the beginning of 
a more difficult period for future progress.  The Czech 
delegation responded by thanking the U.S. EPA for providing 
technical assistance over the period of review for air 
pollution control and noted that they are struggling against 
significant increases in economic activity, increased 
vehicle ownership and the resultant environmental pollution. 
The Czech Republic is very interested in establishing a cap 
and trade system for greenhouse gas emission trading and a 
discussion on their progress was lively.  The Czech 
Republic's relative lack of progress on cleaning up surface 
and ground water pollution was noted and the international 
dimension of surface water pollution issues was discussed. 
The Czech delegation explained their interest in increasing 
the amount of rail transport, in optimizing the growth in 
highway traffic, and described their success in moving the 
country into a system of European Community environmental 
laws and regulations.   Since the last EPR of the Czech 
Republic in 1997, they have passed 16 major environmental 
statutes; have decreased ambient levels of SO2 emissions by 
48 percent, and VOC levels by 16 percent; and have done all 
this with increasing public support for environmental 
progress.  The share of people who believe the Czech 
government is dealing well with environmental issues 
increased from 30% in 1997 to 54% in 2002.  An update on 
this poll in 2004 shows some 73% of the population is 
satisfied with the quality of their local environment. 
 
15.  The attending member countries debated and approved by 
consensus the Czech EPR's Conclusions and Recommendations 
section and applauded the Czech delegation's continued 
dedication to improving the environmental quality and health 
of the Republic.  The Czech delegation acknowledged that the 
easiest steps in curbing rampant air and water pollution had 
been taken and that future challenges would need to be met 
through increased use of economic and fiscal instruments, 
substitution of cleaner fuels and production processes, and 
continued major financial investments in a cleaner economy. 
 
16. COMMENT:  Throughout the week's discussions-and 
especially during the May 17 EPR peer review, the U.S. 
delegation was treated with professional respect by its 
foreign interlocutors.  Numerous questions, showing keen 
interest in the U.S. environmental management experience of 
recent years, were posed and fielded without polemics or 
posturing.  Excellent preparation on the part of EPA and 
other agency2 staff, 3and the workmanlike attitude of OECD 
secretariat personnel, combined with years of previous 
 
SIPDIS 
experience working with each other, yielded a positive 
outcome for all concerned.  Publication of the U.S. EPR as 
an OECD report later this year will merit attention on the 
part of Department public diplomacy personnel as an 
internationally validated account of America's impressive 
environmental record. 
 
17.  This cable has been cleared by CEQ, EPA/OIA, DOI, and 
State/OES. 
 
MORELLA 
 
 
 
 
 
_______________________________ 
1I do not believe our approval of their draft or their 
approval of our changes was the outcome; rather, we had a 
discussion of our concerns over some portions of their text 
and their concerns and questions on our proposed revisions, 
with some indications of where they agreed or disagreed with 
us, but the final text to be determined by them.  I 
accordingly believe "discussion of the final text" is a more 
accurate description. 
2Although EPA did much of the work, there was significant 
input from State, DOT, NOAA and Interior 
3