US embassy cable - 04RANGOON894

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 RANGOON 000894 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SENSITIVE 
 
STATE FOR EAP/BCLTV, OES 
BANGKOK FOR ESTH 
USPACOM FOR FPA 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: SENV, PGOV, BM, NGO 
SUBJECT: BURMA NGOS LAY OUT CONSERVATION PRIORITIES 
 
REF: 2004 OESI FUNDING PROPOSAL FOR "CONSERVATION 
 
     GATEWAY" 
 
1. (SBU) Summary: A team of locally based environmental NGOs, 
backed by local experts, has produced a comprehensive 
analysis of Burma's most pressing priorities for biodiversity 
conservation.  The report is the first of its kind that we've 
seen and is realistic in its objectives and its assessment of 
the key barriers to success: weak civil society, limited 
resources, and poor government policies.  We think the USG 
can help address some of the report's central challenges 
without violating restrictions on passing assistance to the 
GOB.  End summary. 
 
First, Identify the Problem 
 
2. (U) A Rangoon-based contractor for UK NGO BirdLife 
International led a small team of Rangoon-based INGOs in 
drafting a comprehensive assessment of Burma's conservation 
priorities (pouched to EAP/BCLTV).  The report, entitled 
"Investment Opportunities in Biodiversity Conservation by 
Civil Society in Myanmar," was drafted at the behest of a 
group of local environmental NGOs and academics following an 
August 2003 roundtable discussion of the critical situation 
for Burma's biodiversity.  The Chief of Mission (COM) and 
econoff attended a July 9 briefing on the results of the 
assessment. 
 
3. (U) The group, and subsequent draft report, identified in 
Burma 72 priority sites, ten priority corridors, and at least 
145 globally threatened species in Burma.  The major threats 
to these areas and species were: (1) overexploitation of 
certain animal species for food and the international 
wildlife trade (mostly to China), (2) habitat loss (from 
logging and infrastructure projects), (3) conversion to farm 
land (especially oil palms); and, to a lesser degree, (4) 
invasive species and (5) pollution.  The report's authors 
were cautious not to put too much blame on the GOB for these 
situations, though they did clearly mention the negative 
impact of poor administration of environmental policies, 
anemic GOB spending on conservation, and environmentally 
unfriendly development and land-use policies. 
 
Next, Be Realistic 
 
4. (U) The NGOs and experts responsible for the report agreed 
that considering the poor state of civil society and a dearth 
of funding it was unrealistic to expect positive 
"conservation outcomes" for each of these priority areas. 
Thus, the report's authors established a more manageable list 
of areas where conservation partners could focus their 
energies. 
 
5. (U) In the final analysis, the experts chose seven 
priority corridors.  Within these corridors the authors 
identified 37 priority sites and four additional sites 
outside the corridors (because they contained globally 
endangered species or globally threatened species endemic to 
Burma).  Finally, the experts narrowed the list of species to 
38 -- including 11 globally endangered species and nine 
globally threatened species endemic to Burma. 
 
Better Coordination and Education Needed 
 
6. (U) The report also stressed the need for a better 
conservation infrastructure in Burma.  These "thematic" or 
strategic priorities included making biodiversity and 
conservation a part of broader GOB policy decisions, building 
civil society's capacity to participate in conservation, and 
improving coordination among local and international NGOs to 
most efficiently use limited resources. 
 
Who'll Foot the Bill? 
 
7. (U) One of the most important obstacles to achievement of 
the report's "conservation outcomes" is lack of funding.  The 
report blamed sanctions by "western governments" for 
discouraging investment in this area and also the GOB for not 
attaching enough budgetary importance to conservation.  The 
GOB as a signatory to the Convention on Biological Diversity 
has committed to providing financial support for biodiversity 
protection, however little has materialized.  Likewise local 
civil society and private sector actors have provided 
basically nothing for conservation.  Though the funds are 
lacking for effective protection, the report rightly 
recognizes the GOB's improving attitude toward conservation 
with its recent decisions to set aside two large areas of 
land as protected areas. 
 
8. (U) The report identifies the Japanese government and the 
UN as the largest bilateral and multilateral donors to Burma, 
though neither spend particularly much on conservation 
programs.  The multilateral development banks (MDBs) are not 
active in Burma due to Burma's arrears to the World Bank and 
U.S. opposition to MDB programming in Burma.  Likewise large 
private environmental funds, such as the Critical Ecosystem 
Partnership Fund, do not offer grants for Burma because they 
often receive significant contributions from the World Bank 
and other private foundations that will not support anything 
in Burma. 
 
9. (SBU) In this thrifty environment, the UN resident 
coordinator in Rangoon is taking the lead to try and respond 
to the the report's challenge to find investment.  In a 
sidebar conversation with the COM, representatives of the 
German and Japanese Embassies, and several INGOs, during the 
July 9 briefing, the UN official said he intends to approach 
the Global Environmental Facility (GEF) to see about getting 
GEF funding into Burma.  He cited the recent success of 
getting money approved for Burma from the Global Fund for TB, 
Malaria, and HIV/AIDS as evidence that proper monitoring and 
accountability mechanisms are in place here to receive 
disbursements of GEF funds.  The GEF focal point for Burma is 
the director of the National Commission for Environmental 
Affairs, a 1986 Humphrey Fellow and close Embassy contact. 
 
Comment: There's Merit, But Not Money 
 
10. (SBU) We welcome the report as the first in-depth 
analysis of the country's conservation priorities.  The 
report is comprehensive and realistic in its scope and its 
prescriptions.  Finding funding will be a challenge, though 
the GEF may be a good (though longer-term) partial solution. 
In the more immediate term, we think the USG can help this 
worthy cause in a small way without violating restrictions on 
assisting the GOB.  Two of the report's strategic priorities 
(building civil society and improving NGO coordination) are 
precisely the objectives driving a proposed local 
"Conservation Gateway" NGO that would act as a clearinghouse 
for information, allow coordination among environmental NGOs 
already on the ground, and integration of new entrants (ref 
memo).  Minimal USG funding, either from OES or EAP 
resources, would get this Gateway up and running in short 
order.  End comment. 
Martinez