US embassy cable - 05OTTAWA2658

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 OTTAWA 002658 
 
SIPDIS 
 
OES/ENV:JGOURLEY 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: SENV, ETRD, ECON 
SUBJECT: DEMARCHE RESPONSE, OTTAWA: STRATEGIC APPROACH TO 
INTERNATIONAL CHEMICALS MANAGEMENT 
 
REF: SECSTATE 157172 
 
1.  Summary:  Econ officers met with officials from 
Environment Canada, International Trade Canada (ITCan), and 
Foreign Affairs Canada (FAC); at the meeting, all officials 
made it clear that Canada will be guided in the SAICM process 
by Environment Canada.  The Canadians suggested that a 
voluntary initiative such as SAICM would benefit from a 
"split message", where it could be clarified that 
hazard-focus might be appropriate for industry and private 
organizations while risk-management is more appropriate for 
government regulatory efforts.  ACTION REQUEST: if there is 
evidence that REACH is becoming part of the SAICM process, 
the Canadian officials would like to have specific 
information.  END ACTION REQUEST and Summary. 
 
2.  The Canadians seemed surprised by the demarche in 
general, stating that they had no indication that the SAICM 
process was proceeding in ways that could adversely affect 
industry or trade.  The ITCan officer separately indicated 
that he had heard of no concerns from Canadian companies, 
which incidentally will form part of the SAICM delegation. 
(Comment: We may receive a different readout of industry 
opinion from Industry Canada, but they will not be able to 
respond until next week. End Comment.) 
 
3.  In particular, the Canadian officials were surprised by 
the inclusion of REACH as an element of concern in our 
talking points.  FAC, ITCan and Environment Canada 
representatives all stated that they had no evidence that 
REACH was part of SAICM and said that their sense is that the 
EU is no longer pushing REACH in SAICM.  Separately, ITCan 
provided us with the UK draft compromise text and Canada's 
Position paper on Reach submitted to the European Parliament 
and shared with U.S. Department of Commerce earlier this year 
(we can provide these documents upon request.)  The Canadian 
position on SAICM is that it is now a case more of "what's in 
it for the developing countries" than a developed-nation push. 
 
4.  The Canadian officials, particularly the representative 
from Environment Canada (John Arseneau, Director General, 
Risk Assessment), did not seem concerned about specific 
details outlined in the talking points that indicated that 
SAICM's reach may be becoming overly broad (for example, they 
do not share U.S. concern about the potential broadening of 
the definition of the precautionary principle, but did 
confirm that they wish to see precaution defined as it was in 
the Rio declaration of 1992.)  DG Arseneau emphasized that 
SAICM will be voluntary and stated Environment Canada's 
opinion that there was no time to get the text perfect. 
 
5.  The Canadians recommended that the United States 
fine-tune its message on these concerns, suggesting 
specifically that SAICM could include multiple approaches. 
For example, DG Arseneau emphasized that a hazard-based 
approach might be appropriate for companies or NGOs, while a 
risk-management approach might be more appropriate for 
government regulators.   Arseneau suggested that separating 
private and government approaches and focusing on the 
voluntary nature of SAICM would improve the U.S. message. 
Also, he suggested that focusing on concerns over 'releases' 
and 'exposure' (both inherently risk-based) might encourage 
SAICM delegates to move beyond a limited hazard focus. 
 
6.  Per reftel request (paragraph 15), we had specifically 
demarched the FAC officer who will be attending the APEC 
Chemical Dialogue Steering Group meeting September 7.  Ryan 
Kuffner, Economic Policy Officer (APEC), explained however 
that he will basically be the "face" for Environment Canada 
at this meeting, and consequently DG Arseneau provided 
specific comments on our talking points.  The Canadian stance 
is that, since SAICM is just "informational", they do not see 
APEC as an influence. 
 
7.  With respect to structure and funding of SAICM, Canada, 
like the USG, opposes creating a new financial mechanism to 
fund SAICM and proposes using the existing Global 
Environmental Fund.  Canada suggests two phases of funding: 
20-30 million dollars of voluntary contributions, 
partnerships and bilateral in phase 1 and long-term 
implementation using the Global Environment Fund in Phase 2. 
 
8.  Comment:  It was clear from our meeting with Canadian 
officials that SAICM will continue to be a responsibility of 
Environment Canada, and unless we can provide more specific 
evidence of trade implications or renewed interest in REACH, 
it is unlikely that FAC and ITCan will be much involved. If 
Industry Canada has any different information, we will 
provide it as soon as possible.  End comment. 
 
Visit Canada's Classified Web Site at 
http://www.state.sgov.gov/p/wha/ottawa 
 
WILKINS