Points to make
1. You are aware of the problem over application of the
Montreal Protocol to Taiwan. Had hoped to find way of resolving this at Copenhagen, but Taiwanese action in
raising the profile brought matters to an impasse.
2.
Trade,
We have two sets of concerns. Environmental,
getting Taiwan to comply with Montreal targets. allowing trade in CFCS with Taiwan to continue. This is
particularly important for UK, because of Hong Kong
interest, but also because of UK business investments in
plant in Taiwan.
3.
We believe only way forward is to take the view that
Taiwan is not covered by the provisions in the Protocol
concerning trade controls, because it is not a "ŝtate not party." As you know, this is the interpretation
which the US and Japan have taken.
4.
However this literal interpretation sits
unfortunately with the wording in the English text of EC Regulation 594/91, which talks of "non-Parties" rather than "States not party." Understand this distinction is
not present in the French text.
5. Hope that in your drafting of the new Regulation on
halons and methyl bromide, you will use the Protocol
wording "States not party". [It would be particularly
useful if, in doing so, you could include a definition
making clear that the reference to "non-Parties" in Reg
594/91 means "States not party."]
6. If we fail to achieve this, we risk losing out on
both trade and environment objectives. We could make
clear to the Taiwanese informally, that our adoption of
this interpretation is conditional on their good
behaviour.
ENVIRONMENT, SCIENCE AND ENERGY DEPARTMENT
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.