358. Telegram From the United States USUN Environmental Mission to the Department of State1
2901. Subject: Ozone Layer Protocol Negotiations, Vienna February 23–27 (Report #2—Status).
1. Summary—Second round of negotiations proceeding in workmanlike fashion and, in US Del’s view, focusing on proper range of issues. In contrast to first meeting in Geneva last December, UNEP working group seems to accept as given need for longer term strategy for control of CFC’s and other chemicals, and there is increased movement by key parties, including EC, to accept some form of scheduled reduction beyond first step freeze on production (or adjusted production).
2. Session got off to good start Monday morning with strong statement by UNEP Deputy Executive Director Mansfield stressing: urgency of concluding protocol; UNEP’s disappointment with slow pace to date; the need for a broad scope agreement to control chlorine (and bromine) emissions, not just certain chemicals; and imperative of avoiding quote weak and ineffective protocol unquote which would be to quote neglect our mandate unquote. These themes echoed by subsequent speakers, including Chairman Lang (Austria) and U.S. Representative Benedick in U.S. plenary statement (septel).
3. Discussions moved quickly toward concentration on key issues posed by Chairman as eight questions subsuming scope of chemical coverage, how to expand list at later date, calculation of emissions, base figure for initiating limitations/reductions, special situation of developing countries, trade among parties, and between parties and non-parties, long term strategies, and financial/administrative aspects. Following several rounds of discussions (Monday p.m. and Tuesday a.m.),2 plenary adjourned in favor of four specialized working groups established by Chairman after consultation with selected delegation heads, including U.S. working groups, each scheduled for two sessions Tuesday and Wednesday, examining science issues (e.g., periodic assessment mechanism); control strategy; developing country treatment; and trade. (Note: US Del believes U.S. efforts prior to session with UNEP organizers to ensure such a sharp focus, including use of working groups, proved very influential.)
[Page 1025]4. Attendance appears somewhat larger than Geneva session, with Kenya, Nigeria, Thailand and Philippines joining list of Geneva attendees (albeit essentially silent). Notable absences including China, India, Spain, Greece, Portugal (and Australia). Japan represented (only) by Geneva-based Representative and industry representative from Tokyo (who has participated to only very limited extent).
5. On positive side, most delegations seem to accept need for broad scope protocol that will at least designate certain chemicals (e.g. halons) for study even if controlled chemicals are fewer in number. US Del believes, however, that it will be possible to get agreement to go beyond control (freeze) of only CFC’s 11 and 12. Particularly encouraging is Soviet willingness to discuss quote other chemicals which need to be dealt with over longer term unquote, given rigid posture in Geneva in opposition to discussing anything beyond 11 and 12.
6. In addition, there is movement toward U.S. control scenario based on scheduled reduction. While EC continues to be major stumbling block (and appears particularly dug in against both U.S. preference for quote adjusted production unquote formula and including halons in a protocol), the EC submitted a discussion paper with new last paragraph publicly acknowledging for the first time that quote some reduction (in CFC’s) could be a desirable precautionary measure unquote.3 Private discussions also indicate split in EC ranks with momentum toward agreeing with U.S. to begin down the reduction path (but not to accept phase out goal) with some form of scheduled first step reduction in production. At same time EC beginning to probe to see how far U.S. prepared to go to compromise. US Del will be in better position to gauge progress and outlook after Wednesday p.m.4 plenary when working group reports will be discussed.
7. Regarding current status of two major working groups, Group on Control Measures made very little progress in addressing the issues with which it was charged. The majority of its time was spent in discussing production vs. adjusted production (production minus exports to parties plus imports minus amount destroyed). Canada and the Nordic countries (as expected) joined the U.S. in supporting the adjusted production formula while the USSR, Australia, New Zealand and Denmark also indicated support. However, the EC held firm to the view that controlling production (or production and imports, as separate quantities), was simpler to implement and therefore more effective. Numerous delegations pointed out that the adjusted produc[Page 1026]tion was: (A) virtually as simple to implement; (B) exactly equivalent environmentally; (C) and much more equitable than using production (which would result in conferring monopoly rights to current producers). By contrast, the sub-group on trade issues made considerable progress. The group agreed to focus primarily on the question of trade between parties and non-parties. It discussed and concluded that any restrictions on imports from non-parties would likely not be inconsistent with the GATT and other international treaties. The U.S. then introduced its revised trade article which, after some initial questions, was accepted with few modifications as the product of the sub-group.
- Source: Reagan Library, Bledsoe, Ralph: Files, 330—Stratospheric Ozone (1985 to June 1987) [6]. Limited Official Use; Immediate. Sent Immediate for information to Nairobi, USUN Geneva, and USUN New York.↩
- February 23 and February 24, respectively.↩
- Not further identified.↩
- February 25. In telegram 60881 to multiple recipients, March 3, the Department provided a summary of the meeting that emphasized the final days. (Reagan Library, Bledsoe, Ralph: Files 330—Stratospheric Ozone (1985 to June 1987) [6])↩