US embassy cable - 05PARIS4111

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