- Email: [email protected]
The protection of the ozone layer
UNITED NATIONS ACTIVITIES
The Protection of !:he Ozone Layer by Harald lteimsoeth* Second session of the UNEP Ad Hoc Working Group of Legal and Teclmical Experts for the Elaboration of a Global Framework Com,ention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer (First Part). Introduction Air pollution in general and the risks to the ozone layer in particular, are of a global nature. The measures and regulations taken by individual countries to preveni, control and reduce harmful effects of activities (industrial and other) are, therefore, certainly not sufficient to cope with the threat that an eventual depletion of the ozone layer poses to mankind. The necessity of international cooperation in this field is widely recognized. The Governing Council of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) decided on 26 May 1981 to convene an Ad Hoc Working Group of Legal and Technical Experts with the task of elaborating a draft International Conventioii for the Protection of the Ozone Layer. At the invitation of Sweden, theAd Hoc Working Group met tor its first session in Stockholm from 20-28 January 1982. Documents prepared by the UNEP secretariat and a draft text of a framework convention, prepared jointly by Finland, Norway and Sweden served as a basis for the work during that first session. The Group heard also a number of technical presentations aimed at clarifying various aspects of the ozone issue. *Dr. jur., retired ambassador, former permanent representative of the Federal Republic of Germany, to UNEP.
to by the ove,rwhelming majority of In its report to the Executive DirecStales all over the world. Consetor of UNEP (UNEP/WG.69/10 and quently, the ~bligations under the Con'. I) the Ad Hoc Group suggested convention should be drafted in a that a further meeting of the Group manner general enough to allow the should be arranged in early Summer of widest possible participation of 1982 and requested that the UNEP States. The question is, however, secretariat undertake new preparatory whether a convention with stipulawork for that session. They asked in tions of such a general nature, Ileal particular for the preparation of a new they contain not much more than a text of a draft framework convention based on comments and proposals declaration of good will, can be made during their first session. This regarded as useful in meeting the threat that lies in the eventual denew text was to be sent by UNEP to all pletion of the ozone layer. member states of the United Nations along with invitations to a second 2. The scientific data on the consequences of industrial and other session of the Group. activities to the ozone layer, are The Governing Council of UNEP still very uncertain. To base stipudecided (by Decision 10/17) on 31 lations of an international convenMay 1982, that a second session of the tion on scientific data that are not Group should be convened. This was generally accepted, be they entered held at the Palais des Nations, Geneva into the convention itself or into front 10 to 17 December 1982. The one of its annexes or protocols, will session was attended by experts from further decrease the acceptability of 28 member States of the UN. Reprethe convention for States whose sentatives of UNIDO, WHO, WMO, activities are involved. EEC and Observers from Poland and 3. The necessity of international coIUCN were also present. operation in research, monitoring and exchange of infomlation in the The Second Session field is widely recognized. The question whether, however, in orThe general discussion at the outder to bring about the wanted coopset of the session gave evidence of the enormous difficulty of the task of the eration, the adoption of a worldWorking Group. Although there was wide international framework convention would be required or even consensus that an International Framefeasible, must be raised. work Convention would be desirable In the course of the session, roughand should be elaborated, there was little agreement as to the general char- ly three groups of countries could be acter and even less to the specific recognized, who had a basically differstipulations of such a Convention. The ent approach to the question of elabocomplex nature of the problems to ration of a global framework convenwhich a solution is to be found by the tion: Group may be summed up as follows: To the first group belong especial1. If the Convention is to be valuable ly the Scandinavian countries, who by and truly global, it must be adhered submitting the first draft of a conven-
0378-777X/83/$3.00 © 1983 North-Holland
Environmental Policy and Law, 10 (1983) tion have shown their great interest in bringing about an internationally binding instrument to '-r..'gtect the ozone layer. They have been joined by Australia, Canada. the Netherlands. Switzerhmd and, with reservations, the Federal Republic of Germany. The second group consists mainly of the bigger, highly industrialized countries such as the USA, the UK, France and Japan. They would be prepared to accept a convention provided ils stipulations arc flexible enough to avoid the danger of greater socio-economic consequences in their countries. To the third group belong some of the developing countries. Their interesl in the convention is limited. They would like to profit from any proposed transfer of technology, but they want to avoid being burdened by the costs, that may arise in connection with the convention. They also fear that stipulations of the convention or of any of its protocols or annexes might endanger or make more expensive the building up of industries in their countries. (The number of developing countries represented at the second session was very small.) No agreement could be reached in the general discussion over whether or not technical annexes or protocols should be developed simultaneously with the framework convention. The discussion on the Preamble and on the 22 articles of the draft convention (UNEP/WG. 78/2), which the UNEP secretariat had prepared in accordance with the recommendation of the Ad Hoc Working Group at its first session, could not d o m u c h more than clarify the position of theabove-mentioned three groups or of tl~e individual countries within or bet~veen them. Only with the"text of article 18 (Entry into Force) was there no disagreement. Article 2 (General Obligations), which was recognized as being central to the'entire draft convention, was the main subject of discussion during the session. No less than four alternative texts for that article had been proposed and during the meetings a number of amendments to these texts had been submitted additionally, for example, a
35
Ad Hoc Working Group of legal and technical experts for the elaboration of a global framework convention for the protection of the ozone layer. From left to right: Rudolf Stettler (Switzerland), Iwona RummeI-Bulska (Secretariat), John Ellis (Secretariat), Willem Kakebeeke {The Netherlands, Rapporteur).
sentence to cover the concern of the developing countries, i.e.. "Using for this purpose the best practical means at their disposal, and in accordance with their capabilities". The Rapportcur of the session and the secretariat tried very hard to decrease the number of alternative texts by proposing amalgamated texts and to make disappear, one by one, the many square brackets. Their endeavours were met only partly with success because basic positions of countries were involved and the time allotted to the session of the Ad Hoc Working Group was much too short. One major problem, which could not be solved in the discussion of Article 2, was whether protocols and/ or annexes should be adopted or whether technical matters could be dealt with in the text of the convention itself. Upon the decision of this question depends the text of articles 9 to 13. It seems obvious, however, that a framework convention without annexes and/or protocols outlining necessary activities in the scientific, technical and legal fields might remain a dead paper. The experts from the USA submitted two draft texts of annexes at the beginning o f the meeting, one dealing With research and monitoring and the other with guidelines for infor=
mation exchange (see page 61). Both draft texts were not discussed during the session, but may serve as a background for the special paper which the UNEP secretariat is requested to prepare by the working group. That paper should also contain a list of chemical substances/activities which may affect the ozone layer. Just in time for the second session of the group, the UNEP secretariat had prepared a paper on the financial implications of the convention tbr the protection of the ozone layer (UNEP/ WG.78/7). This paper was also not discussed in the session, it contains interesting information not only about the rather high budget estimates to cover the costs of the convention secretariat, but also about ideas of the UNEP secretariat of including all ozone related activities, both of a legal and technical nature within the convention secretariat operating under a single budget. The proposals are. that some financial support for the first two years could be provided by the Environment Fund. After that, all costs would have to be borne by contributions of the contracting parties to the convention through a special ozone trust fund, to be administered by the Executive Director of UNEP. This
0378-777X/83/$3.00 © 1983 North-Holland
Environmental Policy and Law, 10 (1983)
36 administration to be done in accordance with the financial rules and regulations of the United Nations meaning that even the costs of this administration are to be paid out of the special ozone trust fund and that the Environment Fund woukl be relieved entirely from expenditures in connection with ozone layer problems. During the last hour of the session, the Ad Hoc Working Group adopted
recommendations for the future work of the Group. They recommended to the Executive Director of UNEP, after the Netherlands government had pledged financial support, to arrange for a further meeting of the Group between 11 and 20 April 1983. as a continuation of the second session. They further recommended, that the sixth session of the Co-ordinating Committee Ozone Layer (CCOL),
should be held immediately before or after the next mceting of the Working Group and that the CCOL transmit a summary of its report to the second part of the second session of the Group in April 1983. (For background material, see also Em'ironmental Policy and Law, 8 (1982). 2, page 49, "A Look at Some Issues before an Ozone Convention".)
[]
Sea Convention Signed Delegations from 144 countries met in Montego Bay, Jamaica, I'rom 6-10 December for the final session and signing ceremony of the Third United Nations Conference on tile Law of the Sea.* A total of 119 delegations signed the Convention on tile 10 I.)ecetnber: 117 States. tile Cook lshmds (a self governing associated State) and tile United Nations Council for Namibia. In addition to signing the Convention, they also signed the Final Act of the Conference. In addition, 23 States which did not sign the Convention joined in signing the Final Act, a record of the Conference. The total number of Final Act signatures was 150, including nine observer delegatiens and the United Nations Council for Namibia. In his address at the closing ceremonies, Secretary-General Perez de Cuellar noted that "'never in the history of international relations have such a large number of countries immediately signed the result of their deliberations, thereby committing themselves to act in accordance with their obligations". The President of the Conference, Tommy T.B. Koh (Singapore), announced that Fiji had also ratified the Convention. becoming the first State to do s o . As expected, a number of industrialized states which oppose the provi*The journal has reported regularly on all of the Conference.
sessions
sions on deep seabed mining did not sign the t r e a t y - including Belgium, haly. the United Kingdom. the United States and tile Federal Republic of Germany. Japan stated that it was unable to sign at the present time because of the recent change in government but added that the Convention "merits its support and signature" However, other potential mining countries and major seabed investors Canada, France, the Nethcrhmds, india and the USSR - did sign the Convention and were joined by the Scandinavian countries, Australia and New Zealand. During the four days preceding the signing ceremony, 120 statements by
delegations were made. A number of countries expressed the hope that the Preparatory Conunission could serve as a vehicle to achieve aceonunodations that would enable additiomd states to adhere to tile Treaty. The UK stated that it wanted to explore with others the prospects for further improvements in tile seabed provisions. including technology transfer. The Preparatory Commission for tile main institutions to be established under the Convention the International Seabed Authority and the International Tribunal on the Law of the Sea -- will convene its first session at Kingston. Jamaica beginning 15 March, 1983.
The opening session. Edward Seaga, Prime Minister of Jamaica, welcoming delegates. To his right are ambassador Ratray (Jamaica), Daniel Hall (Executive Secretary of the Conference), Tommy Koh (President of the LOS Conference), and Bernardo Zuleta (Special Representative of the Secretary General to UNCLOS). Courtesy: Sierra Club
0378-777X/83/$3.00 © 1983 North-Holland
The Protection of !:he Ozone Layer by Harald lteimsoeth* Second session of the UNEP Ad Hoc Working Group of Legal and Teclmical Experts for the Elaboration of a Global Framework Com,ention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer (First Part). Introduction Air pollution in general and the risks to the ozone layer in particular, are of a global nature. The measures and regulations taken by individual countries to preveni, control and reduce harmful effects of activities (industrial and other) are, therefore, certainly not sufficient to cope with the threat that an eventual depletion of the ozone layer poses to mankind. The necessity of international cooperation in this field is widely recognized. The Governing Council of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) decided on 26 May 1981 to convene an Ad Hoc Working Group of Legal and Technical Experts with the task of elaborating a draft International Conventioii for the Protection of the Ozone Layer. At the invitation of Sweden, theAd Hoc Working Group met tor its first session in Stockholm from 20-28 January 1982. Documents prepared by the UNEP secretariat and a draft text of a framework convention, prepared jointly by Finland, Norway and Sweden served as a basis for the work during that first session. The Group heard also a number of technical presentations aimed at clarifying various aspects of the ozone issue. *Dr. jur., retired ambassador, former permanent representative of the Federal Republic of Germany, to UNEP.
to by the ove,rwhelming majority of In its report to the Executive DirecStales all over the world. Consetor of UNEP (UNEP/WG.69/10 and quently, the ~bligations under the Con'. I) the Ad Hoc Group suggested convention should be drafted in a that a further meeting of the Group manner general enough to allow the should be arranged in early Summer of widest possible participation of 1982 and requested that the UNEP States. The question is, however, secretariat undertake new preparatory whether a convention with stipulawork for that session. They asked in tions of such a general nature, Ileal particular for the preparation of a new they contain not much more than a text of a draft framework convention based on comments and proposals declaration of good will, can be made during their first session. This regarded as useful in meeting the threat that lies in the eventual denew text was to be sent by UNEP to all pletion of the ozone layer. member states of the United Nations along with invitations to a second 2. The scientific data on the consequences of industrial and other session of the Group. activities to the ozone layer, are The Governing Council of UNEP still very uncertain. To base stipudecided (by Decision 10/17) on 31 lations of an international convenMay 1982, that a second session of the tion on scientific data that are not Group should be convened. This was generally accepted, be they entered held at the Palais des Nations, Geneva into the convention itself or into front 10 to 17 December 1982. The one of its annexes or protocols, will session was attended by experts from further decrease the acceptability of 28 member States of the UN. Reprethe convention for States whose sentatives of UNIDO, WHO, WMO, activities are involved. EEC and Observers from Poland and 3. The necessity of international coIUCN were also present. operation in research, monitoring and exchange of infomlation in the The Second Session field is widely recognized. The question whether, however, in orThe general discussion at the outder to bring about the wanted coopset of the session gave evidence of the enormous difficulty of the task of the eration, the adoption of a worldWorking Group. Although there was wide international framework convention would be required or even consensus that an International Framefeasible, must be raised. work Convention would be desirable In the course of the session, roughand should be elaborated, there was little agreement as to the general char- ly three groups of countries could be acter and even less to the specific recognized, who had a basically differstipulations of such a Convention. The ent approach to the question of elabocomplex nature of the problems to ration of a global framework convenwhich a solution is to be found by the tion: Group may be summed up as follows: To the first group belong especial1. If the Convention is to be valuable ly the Scandinavian countries, who by and truly global, it must be adhered submitting the first draft of a conven-
0378-777X/83/$3.00 © 1983 North-Holland
Environmental Policy and Law, 10 (1983) tion have shown their great interest in bringing about an internationally binding instrument to '-r..'gtect the ozone layer. They have been joined by Australia, Canada. the Netherlands. Switzerhmd and, with reservations, the Federal Republic of Germany. The second group consists mainly of the bigger, highly industrialized countries such as the USA, the UK, France and Japan. They would be prepared to accept a convention provided ils stipulations arc flexible enough to avoid the danger of greater socio-economic consequences in their countries. To the third group belong some of the developing countries. Their interesl in the convention is limited. They would like to profit from any proposed transfer of technology, but they want to avoid being burdened by the costs, that may arise in connection with the convention. They also fear that stipulations of the convention or of any of its protocols or annexes might endanger or make more expensive the building up of industries in their countries. (The number of developing countries represented at the second session was very small.) No agreement could be reached in the general discussion over whether or not technical annexes or protocols should be developed simultaneously with the framework convention. The discussion on the Preamble and on the 22 articles of the draft convention (UNEP/WG. 78/2), which the UNEP secretariat had prepared in accordance with the recommendation of the Ad Hoc Working Group at its first session, could not d o m u c h more than clarify the position of theabove-mentioned three groups or of tl~e individual countries within or bet~veen them. Only with the"text of article 18 (Entry into Force) was there no disagreement. Article 2 (General Obligations), which was recognized as being central to the'entire draft convention, was the main subject of discussion during the session. No less than four alternative texts for that article had been proposed and during the meetings a number of amendments to these texts had been submitted additionally, for example, a
35
Ad Hoc Working Group of legal and technical experts for the elaboration of a global framework convention for the protection of the ozone layer. From left to right: Rudolf Stettler (Switzerland), Iwona RummeI-Bulska (Secretariat), John Ellis (Secretariat), Willem Kakebeeke {The Netherlands, Rapporteur).
sentence to cover the concern of the developing countries, i.e.. "Using for this purpose the best practical means at their disposal, and in accordance with their capabilities". The Rapportcur of the session and the secretariat tried very hard to decrease the number of alternative texts by proposing amalgamated texts and to make disappear, one by one, the many square brackets. Their endeavours were met only partly with success because basic positions of countries were involved and the time allotted to the session of the Ad Hoc Working Group was much too short. One major problem, which could not be solved in the discussion of Article 2, was whether protocols and/ or annexes should be adopted or whether technical matters could be dealt with in the text of the convention itself. Upon the decision of this question depends the text of articles 9 to 13. It seems obvious, however, that a framework convention without annexes and/or protocols outlining necessary activities in the scientific, technical and legal fields might remain a dead paper. The experts from the USA submitted two draft texts of annexes at the beginning o f the meeting, one dealing With research and monitoring and the other with guidelines for infor=
mation exchange (see page 61). Both draft texts were not discussed during the session, but may serve as a background for the special paper which the UNEP secretariat is requested to prepare by the working group. That paper should also contain a list of chemical substances/activities which may affect the ozone layer. Just in time for the second session of the group, the UNEP secretariat had prepared a paper on the financial implications of the convention tbr the protection of the ozone layer (UNEP/ WG.78/7). This paper was also not discussed in the session, it contains interesting information not only about the rather high budget estimates to cover the costs of the convention secretariat, but also about ideas of the UNEP secretariat of including all ozone related activities, both of a legal and technical nature within the convention secretariat operating under a single budget. The proposals are. that some financial support for the first two years could be provided by the Environment Fund. After that, all costs would have to be borne by contributions of the contracting parties to the convention through a special ozone trust fund, to be administered by the Executive Director of UNEP. This
0378-777X/83/$3.00 © 1983 North-Holland
Environmental Policy and Law, 10 (1983)
36 administration to be done in accordance with the financial rules and regulations of the United Nations meaning that even the costs of this administration are to be paid out of the special ozone trust fund and that the Environment Fund woukl be relieved entirely from expenditures in connection with ozone layer problems. During the last hour of the session, the Ad Hoc Working Group adopted
recommendations for the future work of the Group. They recommended to the Executive Director of UNEP, after the Netherlands government had pledged financial support, to arrange for a further meeting of the Group between 11 and 20 April 1983. as a continuation of the second session. They further recommended, that the sixth session of the Co-ordinating Committee Ozone Layer (CCOL),
should be held immediately before or after the next mceting of the Working Group and that the CCOL transmit a summary of its report to the second part of the second session of the Group in April 1983. (For background material, see also Em'ironmental Policy and Law, 8 (1982). 2, page 49, "A Look at Some Issues before an Ozone Convention".)
[]
Sea Convention Signed Delegations from 144 countries met in Montego Bay, Jamaica, I'rom 6-10 December for the final session and signing ceremony of the Third United Nations Conference on tile Law of the Sea.* A total of 119 delegations signed the Convention on tile 10 I.)ecetnber: 117 States. tile Cook lshmds (a self governing associated State) and tile United Nations Council for Namibia. In addition to signing the Convention, they also signed the Final Act of the Conference. In addition, 23 States which did not sign the Convention joined in signing the Final Act, a record of the Conference. The total number of Final Act signatures was 150, including nine observer delegatiens and the United Nations Council for Namibia. In his address at the closing ceremonies, Secretary-General Perez de Cuellar noted that "'never in the history of international relations have such a large number of countries immediately signed the result of their deliberations, thereby committing themselves to act in accordance with their obligations". The President of the Conference, Tommy T.B. Koh (Singapore), announced that Fiji had also ratified the Convention. becoming the first State to do s o . As expected, a number of industrialized states which oppose the provi*The journal has reported regularly on all of the Conference.
sessions
sions on deep seabed mining did not sign the t r e a t y - including Belgium, haly. the United Kingdom. the United States and tile Federal Republic of Germany. Japan stated that it was unable to sign at the present time because of the recent change in government but added that the Convention "merits its support and signature" However, other potential mining countries and major seabed investors Canada, France, the Nethcrhmds, india and the USSR - did sign the Convention and were joined by the Scandinavian countries, Australia and New Zealand. During the four days preceding the signing ceremony, 120 statements by
delegations were made. A number of countries expressed the hope that the Preparatory Conunission could serve as a vehicle to achieve aceonunodations that would enable additiomd states to adhere to tile Treaty. The UK stated that it wanted to explore with others the prospects for further improvements in tile seabed provisions. including technology transfer. The Preparatory Commission for tile main institutions to be established under the Convention the International Seabed Authority and the International Tribunal on the Law of the Sea -- will convene its first session at Kingston. Jamaica beginning 15 March, 1983.
The opening session. Edward Seaga, Prime Minister of Jamaica, welcoming delegates. To his right are ambassador Ratray (Jamaica), Daniel Hall (Executive Secretary of the Conference), Tommy Koh (President of the LOS Conference), and Bernardo Zuleta (Special Representative of the Secretary General to UNCLOS). Courtesy: Sierra Club
0378-777X/83/$3.00 © 1983 North-Holland