Ozone Aid for Third World Slow to Arrive

International efforts to help Third World countries switch from chemicals that destroy the Earth’s protective ozone layer are being hampered by a lack of funds and inadequate planning, two officials said Sunday.

Despite a pledge made last June, most industrialized nations have not paid their share of $54 million in annual contributions to an unprecedented environmental fund to help developing nations turn to safer chemical substitutes, a United Nations official said.

Only about $3 million, mostly from Nordic countries, has been contributed to the fund, said United Nations Environment Program chief Mostafa K. Tolba.

“What do they mean by this, and when is the money coming? Are we talking (about) a piece of paper, or actual actions,” Tolba said in a telephone interview from Geneva, referring to landmark amendments to an ozone protection treaty approved in London last June. The treaty was negotiated under U.N. auspices.

Tolba, who is credited with a major role in winning international approval of the historic ozone treaty known as the Montreal Protocol, said the funding problem is delaying approval of several proposals by developing countries to switch to more costly ozone-friendly chemicals. But a U.S. official said proposals developed by two U.N. agencies for spending the money overlap and are so vague that it would be “foolish” to pay for them without extensive revisions.

Word of the problems comes just a week after new scientific studies warned that the ozone layer over the United States and other nations in the mid-latitudes has eroded from 4.5% to 5% over the last decade, more than twice as fast as previously documented.

Based on those findings, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency calculated that upward of 200,000 additional deaths from skin cancer could be expected in the United States over the next 50 years.

The findings lend new urgency to quickly approving Third World projects to switch to chemical substitutes for ozone-depleting substances widely used in solvents, refrigeration and air conditioning.

Industrialized countries account for 90% of the ozone depletion problem. But developing nations with huge populations are expected to contribute measurably to the problem as they seek to raise their standards of living, unless the costs of expensive ozone-friendly substitutes are subsidized by developed countries.

Eileen Claussen, an EPA official who represents the United States on the fund’s executive committee, said that the United States would push hard to speed up approval of projects for developing countries.

She said the United States would call for funding most of the projects during the next 10 years, instead of a more measured expenditure over 20 years.

The ozone layer in the stratosphere shields life on the planet from harmful ultraviolet rays from the sun. These rays can cause skin cancer and eye cataracts and weaken the body’s immune system. There is also concern that they can damage plants, crops and the phytoplankton in the ocean that form the base of the marine food chain.

Establishment of the fund was agreed to last June in London by 53 nations that signed the Montreal Protocol, an international accord to phase out by the year 2000 most ozone-destroying chemicals, such as chlorofluorocarbons or CFCs. Developing countries were given an additional 10 years.

The fund was hailed as a major advance in worldwide efforts to restore the ozone layer. It marked the first time that industrialized nations acknowledged in a treaty an obligation to assist developing countries respond to a global environmental threat.

Tolba said the slow funding response is disturbing. He said he has directed his representative to raise the issue “very firmly” with the executive committee.

At the same time, Eileen Claussen, an EPA official who represents the United States on the fund’s executive committee, said Sunday that she was dismayed by the quality of $7.5 million in spending proposals developed by the United Nations Environment Program and United Nations Development Program.

“They’re all asking money for some of the same things. They didn’t coordinate well among themselves, and some of the requests are so vague that we would be very foolish to fund them as an executive committee,” Claussen said.

She said she hopes that the executive committee this week would make dramatic progress in rewriting the proposals so that they are acceptable.

In contrast, she said a series of proposals totaling $3.5 million that have been offered by the World Bank do appear to meet the executive committee’s funding criteria. Those projects involve Mexico, Brazil, Tunisia and Egypt.

Claussen said the United States has contributed $1 million of the $13.5 million it owes this year and expects to deposit an additional $5 million today. The U.S. share is one-fourth of the total fund.

Tolba said he expects $20 million to $30 million will be contributed by the United States and other industrialized countries by June. He said the money was due in January.

For the moment, Claussen said, there is enough money to meet demands.

She said all but 20% of the U.S. share would be deposited before year’s end. The treaty allows contributing countries to withhold 20%, provided those funds are donated directly to developing countries through bilateral aid programs.

But she said the delays in implementing the historic fund are “serious.”

“Here we are and it’s nine months since we signed the agreement in London. . . . This does not look like a very good way to do business to me,” said Claussen, who was a member of the U.S. delegation at the London conference where the treaty was signed.

Her view appeared to be shared by Tolba, as well as by other authorities, including former U.S. Ambassador Richard E. Benedick, who was chief U.S. negotiator when the Montreal Protocol was approved in 1987, and who has recently published a book on the subject, “Ozone Diplomacy.”

But Benedick and Tolba questioned proposals being floated by the United States not to give developing nations 10 years more than industrialized countries to phase out ozone-destroying chemicals.

“This is not going to be done by . . . taking away the 10 years (granted developing countries). They will dig in their heels for sure and say no,” Tolba said.