Identifier
Created
Classification
Origin
05PARIS1086
2005-02-22 08:35:00
UNCLASSIFIED
Embassy Paris
Cable title:  

OECD/NEA MULTILATERAL NUCLEAR ENVIRONMENT

Tags:  ENRG OTRA TRGY FR TECH RU 
pdf how-to read a cable
This record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available.
UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 03 PARIS 001086 

SIPDIS

FROM USOECD PARIS

STATE FOR EUR/ERA
STATE FOR NP/SC
STATE FOR L/NP

E.O. 12958: NA
TAGS: ENRG OTRA TRGY FR TECH RU
SUBJECT: OECD/NEA MULTILATERAL NUCLEAR ENVIRONMENT
PROGRAM IN RUSSIA (MNEPR) COMMITTEE MEETING

-------
Summary
-------

The OECD Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) Multilateral
Nuclear Environment Program in Russia (MNEPR) Committee
Meeting was held 19-20 January at the NEA Headquarters
in Issy-Les-Molineaux, France. The Netherlands
reported its recent submission of its ratification
document to the Depositories. The Committee reached
consensus on proffering an invitation to Nordic
Environmental Finance Corporation (NEFCO) to become a
Party. The Russian diplomatic note on taxation was
accepted with the Swedish co-chairperson noting that it
did not change the rights and obligations of the
Parties. The Joint Interpretation of the MNEPR
Framework Agreement was accepted by the Committee, with
the subsequent steps being for the co-chair to provide
it to one of the Depositories, and for the Depository
to then promulgate it to the Parties. The Russian co-
chairperson clarified the position of the Russian
Federal Atomic Energy Agency (ROSATOM). A Legal Task
Force was reconstituted to examine procedural issues.
End Summary.

--------------------------------------------- --------
Contributing Parties Pre-Meeting
--------------------------------------------- --------

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 03 PARIS 001086

SIPDIS

FROM USOECD PARIS

STATE FOR EUR/ERA
STATE FOR NP/SC
STATE FOR L/NP

E.O. 12958: NA
TAGS: ENRG OTRA TRGY FR TECH RU
SUBJECT: OECD/NEA MULTILATERAL NUCLEAR ENVIRONMENT
PROGRAM IN RUSSIA (MNEPR) COMMITTEE MEETING

--------------
Summary
--------------

The OECD Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) Multilateral
Nuclear Environment Program in Russia (MNEPR) Committee
Meeting was held 19-20 January at the NEA Headquarters
in Issy-Les-Molineaux, France. The Netherlands
reported its recent submission of its ratification
document to the Depositories. The Committee reached
consensus on proffering an invitation to Nordic
Environmental Finance Corporation (NEFCO) to become a
Party. The Russian diplomatic note on taxation was
accepted with the Swedish co-chairperson noting that it
did not change the rights and obligations of the
Parties. The Joint Interpretation of the MNEPR
Framework Agreement was accepted by the Committee, with
the subsequent steps being for the co-chair to provide
it to one of the Depositories, and for the Depository
to then promulgate it to the Parties. The Russian co-
chairperson clarified the position of the Russian
Federal Atomic Energy Agency (ROSATOM). A Legal Task
Force was reconstituted to examine procedural issues.
End Summary.

-------------- --------------
Contributing Parties Pre-Meeting
-------------- --------------


1. A meeting of the Contributing Parties was held at
OECD Headquarters prior to the full Committee meeting
chaired by Patrick Reyners, Head of Legal Affairs, NEA.
Swedish Committee representative Nystrom, was re-
elected as the Committee co-chairperson representing
the donor Parties. All Parties agreed to accept the
Joint Interpretation of the MNEPR Framework Agreement.
German Committee representative Ranau, and legal
counsel Pelzer, emphasized the need for the co-
chairpersons to provide the Joint Interpretation to one
of the two Depositories (the Minister of Foreign
Affairs of the Russian Federation and the Secretary
General of the OECD). The Joint Interpretation would
then be promulgated by the Depositories to the Parties,
who would in turn convey their confirmation of the
document. While it was understood that the Russian
Federation might have to go through a ratification
procedure, the Germans offered that they would likely
provide their confirmation via a `note verbale' or

diplomatic note. Reyners offered that the
confirmation did not have to be very formal and could
even be in the form of an email message.


2. The donor Committee members reviewed the Russian
diplomatic note on taxation and agreed to accept the
latest version. The U.S. Committee member stated that
the USG was willing to accept it on the belief that it
would not be possible to obtain any further
improvements to the text and understanding the
importance to other Parties to resolve the matter. He
noted that the Russian text version of the diplomatic
note is the controlling text, rather than the English
version, notwithstanding MNEPR provisions that English
text prevails. Secondly, it was suggested that the co-
chair reiterate to the Russian delegation that the
diplomatic note was merely a description of procedures
the Russians have put in place and do not limit or
modify Parties rights to such exemptions, which are
established in the Agreement. The co-chair and other
Committee members concurred. The donor Committee
members reviewed the Joint Interpretation of the MNEPR
Agreement and reached consensus on its acceptance.


3. Reyners noted that the NEA MNEPR administrative
costs had been supported during the past year through a
generous contribution from Norway. He suggested that
if each Contributing Party could provide an equally
apportioned amount, calendar year 2005 could be
covered. He offered that donations in the amount of
3,000-5,000 Euros should cover the 2005 expenses.
Finnish Committee representative Kaupila, countered
that since these appeared to be annual expenses of the
NEA, the costs should be covered within the annual
OECD/NEA budget. After further discussion, this issue
was deferred without any determination.

--------------
2005 MNEPR Committee Meeting
--------------


4. The initial item of the Committee meeting was the
election of the co-chairs. Nystrom had been selected
as co-chair for the Contributing Parties and Russian
Committee member Antipov (Vice Chief, ROSATOM),was
elected as co-chair for the Russian Party. After
general administrative issues were concluded, the
discussion moved to the issue of inclusion of the
Contact Experts Group (CEG). Under the Framework
Agreement, the Committee may decide to admit as
Observers, an interested state, inter-governmental
organization or regional economic integration
organization being subject to public international law
not party to the Agreement (Article 4, para 5). Of
specific concern was the inability to invite the CEG as
an Observer, since it did not meet these requirements.
After discussion, the issue was placed under the
examination of a newly reconstituted Legal Task Force.


5. The Netherlands Committee member stated that his
country had deposited its instrument of ratification on
13 January 2005. The UK, the European Community, the
European Atomic Energy Community, Germany, Belgium and
the U.S. have yet to deposit their instruments of
ratification, acceptance or approval.


6. The intention of NEFCO to accede to the Framework
Agreement was then discussed. The Committee reached
consensus on the accession of NEFCO and an invitation
was duly proffered.


7. The committee accepted the Russian Diplomatic Note
on Tax Exemption (No.5558/dvbr). This note dealt with
the exemption from value added tax and other taxes on
equipment and goods purchased within the territory of
the Russian Federation for implementation of projects
within the framework of the Agreement. It also applied
to services rendered within the territory of the
Russian Federation for the same. The exemption shall
be provided by the Russian Party at the time of the
transaction (i.e., at the source). Co-chair Nystrom
noted that this diplomatic note did not modify any
rights or obligations under the MNEPR Agreement.

-------------- --------------
Joint Interpretation of the MNEPR Framework Agreement
-------------- --------------


8. The Committee concurred on the Joint Interpretation
of the MNEPR Framework Agreement. It was also
understood that only representatives of the Parties
could be elected chairpersons, as noted in Article 4,
paragraph 4. Co-chair Nystrom stated that the Joint
Interpretation would be considered to be constructively
delivered to the Depositories and constructively
provided by the Depositories to the Parties. After the
meeting, Nystrom clarified his comments to the U.S. and
German Committee members by agreeing that the Joint
Interpretation would actually be provided to at least
one of the Depositories and then be sent by one of
Depositories to the Parties. He concurred that the
Depositories would have to provide the Joint
Interpretation to the Parties in order for the Parties
to officially respond with their respective
concurrences.

--------------
Clarification of ROSATOM's Status
--------------


9. Russian Co-Chair Antipov clarified that ROSATOM was
the legal successor to MINATOM (the Ministry of Atomic
Energy). He had been requested to clarify ROSATOM's
relation in relation to the Annex to the Protocol on
Claims, Legal Proceedings, and Indemnification since
MINATOM is cited therein as being the provider for the
indemnity confirmation letter to be provided to
Parties. Different understandings had been developed
among Parties regarding ROSATOM's status. Antipov
further noted that ROSATOM has the characteristics of a
ministry but also has the status of an agency. It had
been moved out of the Ministry of Energy and now was
under the direct responsibility of the Prime Minister.
He noted that a diplomatic note should have been
delivered to the Parties providing official designation
of ROSATOM's status.


10. Antipov then went on to the question concerning the
qualifications of Committee members. He initially
wanted to know whether the Committee members present
had been properly selected/appointed by their
respective governments. NEA Legal Director and
Secretariat member Reyners responded that all Committee

SIPDIS
members had been properly accredited and seated.
Antipov then suggested that there be a more formalized
process, such as written letters from respective
Ministries of Foreign Affairs so denoting the Committee
members. He went on to try to have the MNEPR Committee
determine which national ministry would handle matters
of spent nuclear fuel and radioactive waste within the
Parties. This maneuver was rebuffed, and Reyners moved
that the question of accreditation of Committee members
be reviewed by the Legal Task Force.


11. Antipov then questioned the paper on identification
of "good practices" in implementing agreements or
contracts. He took umbrage that the Russian Federation
had not been consulted and wanted to be included in any
such review. The NEA Secretariat and the Swedish Co-
Chair stated that the work would continue further with
inclusion of Russian input.


12. No decision was taken on the venue and time for the
next MNEPR Committee meeting. It was generally agreed
that unless a Party called for a meeting sooner, that
the next Committee meeting would be held in early 2006.
The Finnish Committee member had tentatively offered
Helsinki as a venue. The Netherlands and Belgium
offered that the March/April time period would be best,
due to competing requirements for Committee members.

SMOLIK