Disclaimer: This site has been first put up 15 years ago. Since then I would probably do a couple things differently, but because I've noticed this site had been linked from news outlets, PhD theses and peer rewieved papers and because I really hate the concept of "digital dark age" I've decided to put it back up. There's no chance it can produce any harm now.
| Identifier: | 05QUITO1799 |
|---|---|
| Wikileaks: | View 05QUITO1799 at Wikileaks.org |
| Origin: | Embassy Quito |
| Created: | 2005-08-03 18:46:00 |
| Classification: | UNCLASSIFIED |
| Tags: | SENV EAID ECON EFIS ETRD PGOV AORC EC Environment UN |
| Redacted: | This cable was not redacted by Wikileaks. |
This record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available.
UNCLAS QUITO 001799 SIPDIS E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: SENV, EAID, ECON, EFIS, ETRD, PGOV, AORC, EC, Environment, UN SUBJECT: BOTH CONCERN AND INDIFFERENCE GREET UNESCO'S GALAPAGOS DECISION REF: QUITO 853 1. Summary. Meeting in Durban, South Africa in July, UNESCO's World Heritage Committee addressed deteriorating conservation efforts in the Galapagos National Park and Marine Reserve. Regretting the lack of attention given to the Galapagos by the GOE, the Committee called for United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) and the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) to evaluate the Park and Marine Reserve for inclusion on the list of World Heritage sites in danger. While the GOE appeared genuinely concerned that UNESCO was considering identifying the Galapagos as "in danger," indifference marked the response of islanders and members of the tourism, fishing, and scientific sectors. End summary. UNESCO Takes GOE to Task ------------------------ 2. Reflecting UNESCO's growing concern regarding the environmental stability of the Galapagos, the World Heritage Committee addressed the status of the Galapagos Islands Heritage Site during its 29th session held July 11-17, in Durban, South Africa. The review of the Galapagos at the meeting followed an April 2005 visit to the Galapagos by the Director of UNESCO's World Heritage Center, who at that time decided to recommend a technical assessment (reftel). The main Committee decision in Durban was to send a joint mission of UNESCO and IUCN to examine the state of conservation in the Galapagos and to advise whether conditions in the Galapagos warrant their inclusion on the List of World Heritage in Danger. The Committee had strong language for the GOE, formally noting its regret that the GOE had not submitted a report due February 1, 2005 that had been requested by the Committee at its 28th session last year. This report, which was to outline the GOE's plan to manage migration to and illegal fishing in the islands, has now been tagged with a February 1, 2006 deadline. GOE Concerned - But Not the Islanders ------------------------------------- 3. In a meeting with econoff, Vice Minister of Environment Alfredo Carrasco appeared genuinely concerned about the outcome of the Durban meetings. While he acknowledged that marine conservation was lacking in some areas, he expressed frustration that UNESCO did not focus on the success that has been achieved in terrestrial conservation, noting that the GOE would be more amenable to supporting a joint UNESCO/IUCN review of the site if it were to include a terrestrial review as well. In a Galapagos Donors meeting chaired by Minister of Environment Anita Alban, the GOE re- emphasized their concern regarding the Galapagos, noting their commitment to conserving the Galapagos. To show its commitment, the GOE pledged to complete the required report ahead of schedule, with a tentative date set for October 2005. 4. However, in econoff's July 23-28 meetings with fishing cooperatives, women's groups, Park officials, scientists, non-governmental organizations, and tourism sector officials, no one mentioned the UNESCO decision as an issue of concern. When econoff raised the issue, the tenor of their responses ranged from indifference to inquiries about what government officials in Quito were doing about the matter. Comment ------- 5. The contrast between GOE concern and local indifference helps to illustrate the Galapagos conservation conundrum. For the GOE, UNESCO's decision to press forward with the "in danger" issue is considered a sanction or black mark within the international community and a claim that the GOE lacks the responsibility to conserve the Galapagos, hence the GOE's concern. Meanwhile, the islanders simply want to go about their business without caring much about how they are viewed by the world at large. The strong reaction from UNESCO will help focus GOE attention on the Galapagos. However, much more will be needed beyond this reprimand to fully address the variety of competing interests and the lack of government leadership if we are to preserve this World Heritage site. Memmott
Latest source of this page is cablebrowser-2, released 2011-10-04