356. Telegram From the Embassy in France to Multiple Recipients1
56660. Subject: UNEP Negotiations on Protocol to Protect Ozone Layer, Geneva, December 1–5, 1986 (Delegation Report). Ref: A) State 364665, B) State 349396, C) State 255252 (Notal).2
1. Summary: First round of resumed negotiations by quote ad hoc group of government-designated legal and technical experts for preparation of a protocol on chlorofluorocarbons to the Vicuna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer unquote concluded early Friday afternoon (December 5). Representatives from all regional blocs agreed that new measures must be taken in near-term to control emissions of ozone depleting chemicals. However, while differences over the scope, stringency and time-phasing of control measures were narrowed, they were not resolved. Discussions helped clarify specifics and rationale of various proposals; delineated issues related to control strategies, trade aspects, and developing country participation that require further analysis by the U.S. and others; established that Euro [Page 1021] pean Communities (EC), Japan and USSR are prepared to move beyond previously-held positions (although how far is yet to be determined); and revealed unexpectedly strong developing country support for a protocol and U.S. positions in general (albeit from a sparse LDC turnout). Prospects for next session heavily dependent upon European Communities’ willingness to consider control measures over long term, and UNEP’s ability to prepare adequate basis for discussions, including attracting participation by more governments. Overall, USDel believes importance of this initial round of negotiations captured very well in Washington Post editorial over weekend which observed that quote all the movement is in the right direction unquote.3 End summary.
2. Participation: Week-long negotiating session attracted some 120 participants from 25 governments and the Commission for the European Communities, 5 other intergovernmental organizations (UNEP, OECD, WHO, ECF, and Council of Europe), and nine nongovernmental international bodies, including International Chamber of Commerce, European Chemical Industry and Aerosol Associations, Environmental Defense Fund, World Resources Institute and Natural Resources Defense Council. Government participation was only one-half of UNEP’s earlier estimate (of 55): (Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Denmark, Egypt, Finland, France, FRG, Hungary, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Netherlands, Norway, Philippines, Portugal, Sweden, Switzerland, USSR, USA, UK, and Uruguay). Following were notable absences: China, India, Kenya, Nigeria, and EC members Ireland, Spain, and Greece. Belgium, new chair of Council of European Communities beginning on 1 January, was represented (on limited basis only) by Geneva Mission Officer, as was Mexico. Large American contingent present. In addition to official delegation (headed by State Department Deputy Assistant Secretary Richard Benedick), session attracted six congressional staffers, five industry representatives and four private environmental organizations.
3. Atmospherics: Meeting ably run by elected bureau: Winfred Lang (Austria) Chairman; Vladimir Zacharov (USSR) and Ahmed Ibrahim (Egypt) Vice-Chairman; Geraldo Nascimento-Silva (Brazil), Rapporteur. UNEP Deputy Executive Director William Mansfield set good tone in opening statement which emphasized accumulating scientific evidence of threat to global ecosystem, and the solid groundwork and momentum which the past two years of international scientific meetings and consultations had [illegible]. Mansfield’s quote rising tide in the affairs of men unquote was somewhat stemmed, however, by UNEP’s failure to have key draft protocol texts (by U.S. and Canada) available for distribution until second day, and subsequent inability to produce translations of meeting room papers quickly in all languages. (USSR reserved on final report in absence of Russian version.)
4. Meeting was very useful in defining a common understanding of key concerns and options on which an effective second session depends. Several delegates expressed strong support for U.S. trade article. EC proposal called for study only. Informal discussions revealed broad interest in including trade provision in protocol to provide necessary teeth and safeguards, and also in examining the feasibility of having it include products which contain or are made with controlled chemicals.
5. Developing Country Treatment—Nordic and USSR proposals both exempted LDCs from contract provisions, Soviets providing complete exemption while Nordics applying provisions only to parties with per capita use above 8.2 kg. Canada indicated support for exemption of any country with per capita use below world average (0.16 kg.). [Page 1022] Argentina argued strongly for a quote polluter pays approach unquote, without elaborating. (Argentine Representive very helpful and supportive of U.S. positions throughout, as was Egyptian delegate.)
6. Next Working Group Meeting: UNEP Secretariat announced that next meeting has been scheduled for February 23–27, 1987.4 However, EC (with Japanese support) asked for postponent until April, since EC Council will not meet until March 20. USSR further complicated situation by saying that no further session should be held until UNEP’s Governing Council (which convenes in mid-June) can clarify working group’s mandate regarding scope of chemicals to be considered. U.S., Nordics, Canada and Argentina strongly argued that February date (known to all parties for over a year) should be maintained. Result was that working group referred the issue to UNEP Executive Director Tolba for resolution.
- Source: Reagan Library, Robert Johnson Files, Stratospheric Ozone—#4. Unclassified. Sent Priority to the Department of State. Sent to the White House, the OECD collective, Beijing, Brasilia, Brussels, Buenos Aires, Cairo, Dakar, Kuwait City, Lagos, Manila, Mexico City, Montevideo, Moscow, Nairobi, New Delhi, USUN Geneva, Commerce, Energy, and NASA.↩
- In telegram 364665 to multiple recipients, November 22, the Department transmitted alternative texts of operative protocol articles for the December 1–5 sessions. (Department of State, Environmental Issues, 1979–1993, Lot 93D395, Ozone) In telegram 349396 to multiple recipients, November 7, the Department requested that Embassies discuss the upcoming meeting with their host governments. (Department of State, Central Foreign Policy File, D860851–0115) Telegram 255252 was not found.↩
- See “Hooked on Chlorofluorocarbons,” Washington Post, December 4, 1986, p. A22.↩
- See Document 358.↩