Clash looms over CFC proposals

Date: 29/01/1998

By Simon Coss

ENVIRONMENT Commissioner Ritt Bjerregaard and her industry counterpart Martin Bangemann look set to clash over plans to tighten EU rules governing the use of CFCs and other ozone-depleting substances.

Environmental campaigners fear the relatively tough proposals currently being drafted by the Directorate-General for environmental policy (DGXI) risk being seriously watered down by officials in Bangemann's industry department (DGIII).

Bjerregaard is planning to present her proposals for updating a 1994 EU directive on ozone protection in the spring.

"I am quite sure that what DGXI will propose internally will be quite OK, but I think the major bottleneck will be DGIII," said Dr Sebastian Oberthür of the Berlin-based Centre for International and European Environmental Research.

Sources say Bjerregaard's proposals will be broadly based on an international agreement on ozone depletion drawn up in Montreal, Canada last September.

That agreement set out rules for phasing out the use of three substances: chloro-fluorocarbons (CFCs) and hydrochloro-fluorocarbons (HCFCs), both of which are used in refrigeration plants, and the pesticide methyl bromide.

The Montreal accord reaffirmed a 1996 agreement banning the production of CFCs in industrialised countries - a step which the EU had already taken a year earlier.

It also introduced a new target for phasing out the use of methyl bromide by 2005 and called for a system of import and export licences to be set up for trading in ozone-depleting substances. This last proviso is seen as a vital weapon in the fight against the illegal trade in CFCs.

The fundamental question which Bjerregaard's officials now have to answer is whether to bring Union legislation into line with Montreal or to push ahead with tougher rules.

It is on this point that the differences between DGXI and its DGIII colleagues look set to emerge.

The chemical industry is adamant that European firms should not be forced to meet tougher standards than their competitors elsewhere in the world.

"Most of our members have operations in the EU and the US. In an international company, the production would be shut down in favour of the facility in the US," said Bent Jensen of the European Chemical Industry Council (CEFIC).

Jensen's organisation is particularly concerned that Bjerregaard will seek to limit the quantities of HCFCs European companies are allowed to produce. Present rules only cover the use of these substances within the Union, leaving firms free to produce as much as they can sell on international markets.

European Commission sources suggest environment officials are "very sympathetic" to the idea of proposing limits for HCFC production and stress that the 2005 phase-out date for methyl bromide is the minimum the institution will call for.

But industry is warning that any attempt to end the use of methyl bromide before that deadline would cause problems for farmers in southern member states.

Farmers in Morocco, Tunisia and Algeria, who compete directly with EU producers, will all be permitted to use the pesticide until 2015, as Montreal laid down different deadlines for industrialised and developing countries.

Experts at DGXI are currently putting the finishing touches to their initial draft of the proposals, and it is due to be sent to other interested departments - notably DGIII - in the coming weeks.