K0763187 311007 

UNITED 

NATIONS EP

UNEP/OzL.Pro.19/7

United Nations 

Environment 

Programme

Distr.: General 

21 September 2007 

Original: English

Nineteenth Meeting of the Parties 

to the Montreal Protocol on 

Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer

Montreal, 17–21 September 2007 

Report of the Nineteenth Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal 

Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer 

Introduction 

1. The Nineteenth Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the 

Ozone Layer was held at the Palais des Congrès de Montréal in Montreal, Canada, from 17 to 21 

September 2007. It consisted of a high-level segment, held on 17, 18 and 21 September, and a 

preparatory segment, held from 18 to 21 September. 

Part one: high-level segment 

I. Opening of the high-level segment of the meeting 

2. The high-level segment of the meeting was opened by Mr. Omar Rodríguez Tejada, 

Vice-President of the Bureau of the Eighteenth Meeting of the Parties. On behalf of the Bureau, he 

welcomed the meeting participants to Montreal. 

A. Welcome and statements by host Government officials 

3. In his opening statement, Mr. John Baird, Minister for the Environment of Canada, welcomed 

the meeting participants on behalf of the Prime Minister and the Government of Canada. He said that 

the recovery of the ozone layer, which had occurred as a result of implementation of the Montreal 

Protocol, would avert millions of cases of skin cancer and eye cataracts. The fight to eliminate 

ozone-depleting substances was not over, however. While the use of hydrochlorofluorocarbons 

(HCFCs) provided short-term relief, they were not intended to be a permanent solution. HCFCs not only 

harmed the ozone layer but also contributed to global warming; their phase-out remained a priority. 

Canada had been one of the first signatories of the Montreal Protocol and was committed to working 

with the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and other organizations on the critical issues 

of ozone depletion and global warming. During the 20 years of the Montreal Protocol, much had been 

learned about atmospheric science and the fragility of the ozone layer and about what could be achieved 

through global cooperation. If the global community addressed climate change over the coming years 

and decades with the same resolve that led to the adoption of the Montreal Protocol then it would be 

equally successful. 
UNEP/OzL.Pro.19/7 

2 

B. Welcome and statements by United Nations officials and others 

4. In his opening statement, Mr. Achim Steiner, Executive Director of UNEP, said that the 

twentieth anniversary of the Montreal Protocol was an inspiration to those who believed in the power of 

science to influence decision-making and in the ability of States to respond to that science through 

cooperative action. He said that the Protocol’s success had been extraordinary and demonstrated that 

international agreements should not be static but rather should adapt to changing scientific and political 

circumstances. The public perception, he said, was often of a divided rather than a United Nations but 

local and national success in dealing with environmental challenges could only be achieved through 

collaboration with the rest of the world. The effectiveness of the Montreal Protocol offered proof that 

there were still grounds for optimism about the future of the planet and there was an opportunity to take 

the Protocol to the next level by harmonizing work on ozone-depleting substances and greenhouse gases 

and exploring further linkages with the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. He 

urged the meeting participants to seize every opportunity to find solutions that could positively affect 

the quality of life of the current and future generations, stressing that the United Nations was truly the 

forum where such issues could be resolved and where equitable, fair and meaningful agreements could 

be reached. 

II. Recognition of dignitaries and presentation of awards for outstanding 

contributions 

5. During the high-level segment, the Parties recognized the presence of Mr. Mario Molina and 

Mr. Frank Sherwood Rowland, the 1995 Nobel laureates for chemistry whose work had helped form the 

basis for the Montreal Protocol. In addition, to mark the occasion of the twentieth anniversary of the 

Montreal Protocol, Twentieth Anniversary Ozone Protection Awards were presented in the following 10 

categories: 

(a) Visionaries Awards, in recognition of extraordinary contributions to the creation of the 

infrastructure of the Protocol or its Multilateral Fund; 

(b) Outstanding Contributors Awards, in recognition of the extraordinary contributions of 

those who had taken the vision of the founders and advanced it to address current issues; 

(c) Implementers Awards, in recognition of extraordinary contributions by national ozone 

units or individuals, whose hard work at the country level had helped to make the Protocol’s phase-out 

goals a reality; 

(d) Innovators Awards, in recognition of the extraordinary contributions of those whose 

work had facilitated the widespread use of alternatives or alternative technologies that enabled the 

phase-out of ozone-depleting substances; 

(e) Public Awareness Awards, in honour of outstanding work in raising awareness about 

ozone depletion and the global effort to address it; 

(f) Partners Awards, in recognition of the work of civil society and international 

organizations that had played a critical role in the development or implementation of the Protocol; 

(g) Implementing Agency Awards, in recognition of extraordinary assistance to developing 

countries in the global effort to phase out ozone-depleting substances and protect the ozone layer; 

(h) Bilateral Implementing Agency Awards, in recognition of extraordinary assistance to 

developing countries in the global effort to phase out ozone-depleting substances and protect the ozone 

layer; 

(i) Outstanding Service Awards, in recognition of outstanding service to the Parties to the 

Montreal Protocol and the global effort to protect the ozone layer; 

(j) Technology and Economic Assessment Panel Champion Awards, in recognition of 

extraordinary service to the Parties to the Montreal Protocol and the global effort to protect the ozone 

layer. 
UNEP/OzL.Pro.19/7 

3

6. Award ceremonies were held on Sunday, 16 September 2007, at the seminar on the twentieth 

anniversary, “Celebrating 20 Years of Progress”, on Monday, 17 September, during the high-level 

segment of the Nineteenth Meeting of the Parties, and on the evening of Thursday, 20 September. The 

names of the recipients were presented in an awards book published by the Ozone Secretariat to mark 

the occasion and on its website.1

 

7. In addition, Mr. Steiner presented a special award to the Government of Canada for its 

outstanding partnership with the Montreal Protocol and exceptional service to the Parties to the 

Protocol. Mr. Baird presented awards to the Ozone Secretariat and to the secretariat of the Multilateral 

Fund for their extraordinary efforts to protect the ozone layer. The Vice-Minister of the State 

Environment Protection Administration of China, Mr. Zhang Lijun, presented Mr. Marco González, 

Executive Secretary of the Ozone Secretariat, and Ms. Maria Nolan, Chief Officer of the Multilateral 

Fund Secretariat, with tokens of appreciation for their services to the Parties.

III. Organizational matters 

A. Attendance 

8. The Nineteenth Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol was attended by representatives 

of the following Parties to the Montreal Protocol: Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Argentina, Armenia, 

Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, 

Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, 

Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, 

Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Czech Republic, Democratic Republic of the Congo, 

Denmark, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, Estonia, Ethiopia, European 

Community, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, 

Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic 

Republic of), Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Kiribati, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s 

Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Lithuania, 

Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, 

Micronesia (Federated States of), Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, 

Netherlands, New Zealand, Nigeria, Norway, Pakistan, Palau, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, 

Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Romania, Russian Federation, Rwanda, 

Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Senegal, Serbia, Seychelles, Singapore, 

Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, Somalia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, 

Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, the former Yugoslav Republic of 

Macedonia, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab 

Emirates, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United Republic of Tanzania, United 

States of America, Uruguay, Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of), Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, 

Zimbabwe. 

9. Representatives of the Holy See attended as observers. 

10. Representatives of the following United Nations bodies and specialized agencies also attended: 

Global Environment Facility, secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, secretariat of the 

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, United Nations Development Programme, 

United Nations Environment Programme, United Nations Industrial Development Organization, World 

Bank, World Customs Organization, World Health Organization, World Meteorological Organization. 

11. The following intergovernmental, non-governmental and industry bodies were also represented: 

AGC Chemical Americas, Inc, Agramkow/RTI Technologies, Albemarle Corporation, Alliance for 

Responsible Atmospheric Policy, American Farm bureau, American Lung Association, Arysta 

Lifescience North America Corporation, AUSVEG, BENOC Argentina, Boehringer Ingelheim Gmbh, 

California Cut Flowers, California Strawberry Commission, Chemtura Corporation, China Petroleum 

and Chemical Industry Association, Confederation Portugaise, Crop Protection Coalition, Desclean 

Belgium, Dow AgroSciences LLC, Dupont International, Dynatemp International, Inc., Environmental 

Investigation Agency, Equiterre, Florida Fruit and Vegetable Association/Crop Protection Coalition, 

Florida Tomato Exchange/Crop Protection Coalition, Fumigation Service and Supply, Gasco Group, 

M.V., Greenpeace International, Grupo Ecologista del Mayab (Ecological Group of Mayab), Gujarat 

Fluorochemicals Limited, Health and Clean Air, Industrial Technology Research Institute, Institute for 

 1 http://ozone.unep.org/20th_Anniversary/20th_anniv_Awardees.pdf. 
UNEP/OzL.Pro.19/7 

4 

Governance and Sustainable Development, International Council of Environmental Law, International 

Institute of Refrigeration, International Network for Environmental Compliance and Enforcement, 

International Pharmaceutical Aerosol Consortium, Japan Fluorocarbon Manufacturers Association, 

Japan Industrial Conference for Ozone Layer and Climate Protection, Japan Industrial Conference on 

Cleaning, Liasons Franco Nigeraines, Manitoba Ozone Protection Industry Association Natural 

Resources Defense Council, Navin Florine, North American Insulation Manufacturers Association, 

Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, Sierra Club of Canada, Skadden, Arps, Slate, 

Meager and Flom, LLP, Trical, Unisféra, World Business Organization. 

B. Officers 

12. At the opening session of the high-level segment, in accordance with paragraph 1 of rule 21 of 

the rules of procedure, the following officers were elected, by acclamation, to the Bureau of the 

Nineteenth Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol: 

President: Mr. Khalid G. Al-Ali (Qatar) 

(Asian and Pacific group) 

Vice-Presidents: Mr. Miroslav Spasojevic (Serbia) 

(Eastern European group) 

Mr. Nicolas Kiddle (New Zealand) 

(Western European and others group) 

Ms. Mayra Mejia (Honduras) 

(Latin American and Caribbean group) 

Rapporteur: Ms. Jesca Eriyo (Uganda) 

(African group) 

C. Adoption of the agenda of the Nineteenth Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal 

Protocol 

13. The President introduced the provisional agenda of the high-level segment contained in 

document UNEP/OzL.Pro.19/1. The Parties then adopted the following agenda of the high-level 

segment, on the basis of the provisional agenda contained in document UNEP/OzL.Pro.19/1, as orally 

amended: 

1. Opening of the high-level segment: 

(a) Welcome and statements by host Government officials; 

(b) Welcome and statements by United Nations officials and others. 

2. Recognition of dignitaries and presentation of awards for outstanding contributions. 

3. Organizational matters: 

(a) Election of officers for the Nineteenth Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal 

Protocol; 

(b) Adoption of the agenda of the Nineteenth Meeting of the Parties to the 

Montreal Protocol; 

(c) Organization of work. 

4. Status of ratification of the Vienna Convention, the Montreal Protocol and the 

amendments to the Montreal Protocol. 

5. Presentation of the 2006 synthesis report by the assessment panels. 

6. Presentation by the Chair of the Executive Committee of the Multilateral Fund for the 

Implementation of the Montreal Protocol on the work of the Executive Committee, the 

Multilateral Fund secretariat and the Fund’s implementing agencies. 

7. Statements by heads of delegations. 

8. Credentials of representatives. 

9. Report from the co-chairs of the preparatory segment on the result of discussions. 
UNEP/OzL.Pro.19/7 

5

10. Dates and venue for the Twentieth Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol and 

the eighth meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Vienna Convention. 

11. Other matters, including consideration of a Montreal declaration. 

12. Adoption of decisions by the Nineteenth Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal 

Protocol. 

13. Adoption of the report of the Nineteenth Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal 

Protocol. 

14. Closure of the meeting. 

14. The Parties agreed to consider under item 16 of the agenda for the preparatory segment, “Other 

matters”, the endorsement by the Parties of new co-chairs of the Scientific Assessment Panel. 

D. Organization of work 

15. The Meeting of the Parties agreed to follow its customary procedures. It also requested three 

contact groups that had been set up at the twenty-seventh meeting of the Open-ended Working Group of 

the Parties to the Montreal Protocol to continue their deliberations at the current meeting under the same 

chairs. Specifically, those groups were: 

(a) Contact group on terms of reference for the replenishment of the Multilateral Fund 

(co-chaired by Mr. Jozef Buys (Belgium) and Mr. David Omotosho (Nigeria)); 

(b) Contact group on proposed adjustments to the Montreal Protocol (co-chaired by Mr. 

Maas Goote (Netherlands) and Mr. Mikheil Tushishvili (Georgia)); 

(c) Contact group on monitoring transboundary movements of ozone-depleting substances 

and illegal trade (co-chaired by Mr. Nicolas Kiddle (New Zealand) and Mr. Paul Krajnik (Austria)). 

IV. Status of ratification of the Vienna Convention, the Montreal 

Protocol and the amendments to the Montreal Protocol 

16. The Executive Secretary provided an update on the status of ratification of the Vienna 

Convention, the Montreal Protocol and the amendments to the Montreal Protocol as of 21 September 

2007. He said that there were 191 Parties to the Vienna Convention; 191 Parties to the Montreal 

Protocol; 186 Parties to the London Amendment; 178 Parties to the Copenhagen Amendment; 157 

Parties to the Montreal Amendment; and 132 Parties to the Beijing Amendment. 

17. The Meeting of the Parties agreed to adopt a decision noting the information that had been 

provided by the Executive Secretary and urging countries to ratify all instruments to which they were 

not yet party. The decision as adopted is set out below in chapter XII in part three of the present report. 

V. Presentation of the 2006 synthesis report by the assessment 

panels 

18. The co-chairs of the Scientific Assessment Panel, the Environmental Effects Assessment Panel 

and the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel presented the synthesis report of the panels’ 2006 

assessments. 

19. Speaking on behalf of the Scientific Assessment Panel, Mr. A. R. Ravishankara said that the 

Montreal Protocol was working as intended. Its success was shown by the decrease in the sum of 

ozone-depleting substances, as measured by effective equivalent stratospheric chlorine, in the lower 

atmosphere and the stratosphere, as well as early indications of global ozone recovery. The major 

contributors to the observed trends in ozone-depleting substances were the decreases in methyl 

chloroform and methyl bromide, the near constancy of halons and increases in HCFCs. The date for the 

recovery of the Antarctic ozone hole was predicted to be between 2060 and 2075, and those for Arctic 

ozone and global losses to be around 2050. Both climate change and ozone-depleting substance 

decreases had contributed to changes in the ozone layer; the dominant factor for the recovery of the 

ozone layer to pre-1980 values, however, was the decrease in ozone-depleting substances brought about 

by the Montreal Protocol. Various options for further decreasing ozone-depleting substances had been 

evaluated. 
UNEP/OzL.Pro.19/7 

6 

20. Speaking on behalf of the Environmental Effects Assessment Panel, Ms. Janet Bornman said 

that the key findings identified for the environmental effects of increased type B ultraviolet (UV-B) 

radiation included, with respect to human health, damage to the eyes, skin cancers and suppression of 

the immune system, the last of which was linked to the increasing incidence of skin cancers. It was 

noted that for fair-skinned populations, skin cancer had been projected to double during the period 

2000–2015 and that the incidence of melanoma was still rising in children, likely due to early UV-B 

exposure. UV-B radiation also had many effects on plant and aquatic ecosystems and could increase 

biological availability and toxicity of metals and alter carbon and nutrient cycling. Some of those effects 

were compounded by the interaction of climate change factors. This interaction of UV-B radiation and 

climate change factors such as high temperature were also evident for some skin cancers and eye 

damage, which were further exacerbated, and also caused faster degradation of wood and plastics. 

21. Speaking on behalf of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel, Mr. Stephen O. 

Andersen said that it was technically and economically feasible to accelerate the HCFC phase-out, to 

tighten methyl bromide controls and to collect and destroy ozone-depleting substances. Other 

policy-relevant findings were that some carbon tetrachloride and CFC feedstock and process agent uses 

could be replaced by HCFCs or by not-in-kind manufacturing processes; that HCFC use was increasing 

rapidly; that the civil aviation sector had not made progress in adopting alternative technologies in new 

airframe designs; that global phase-out of CFCs in metered-dose inhalers was achievable by 2010; that 

alternatives existed for almost all controlled uses of methyl bromide but that it would be necessary to 

undertake registration of several key chemical alternatives and provide incentives for the use of 

non-chemical alternatives and integrated pest management; that full implementation of barrier films in 

methyl bromide soil fumigation could significantly reduce dosage rates and emissions; that several 

low-global warming potential refrigerants provided comparable energy efficiency to HFC-134a in 

vehicle air conditioning and likely would do so in other sectors and applications; and that a considerable 

portion of the 3.5 million ODP-tonnes of ozone-depleting substances contained in banks was available 

for collection and destruction at costs justified by benefits in reducing ozone-depleting substance and 

greenhouse gas emissions. 

VI. Presentation by the Chair of the Executive Committee of the 

Multilateral Fund for the Implementation of the Montreal Protocol 

on the work of the Executive Committee, the Multilateral Fund 

secretariat and the Fund’s implementing agencies 

A. Presentation by the Chair of the Executive Committee 

22. Mr. Philippe Chemouny, Chair of the Executive Committee of the Multilateral Fund for the 

Implementation of the Montreal Protocol, delivered a presentation on the activities of the Executive 

Committee since the Eighteenth Meeting of the Parties in November 2006, summarizing the report 

contained in document UNEP/OzL.Pro.19/4, which covered the Committee’s fiftieth meeting, which 

took place in New Delhi in November 2006, and its fifty-first and fifty-second meetings, which took 

place in Montreal in May and July 2007. During that period, he reported, the Executive Committee had 

approved a total of 228 projects with a funding commitment of $140.6 million, which, when 

implemented, would result in the phase-out of an estimated 25,000 ODP-tonnes of consumption and 

production of ozone-depleting substances. 

23. He highlighted three major accomplishments. First, pursuant to decision XVIII/9, the Executive 

Committee had approved the terms of reference for a study on the treatment of unwanted 

ozone-depleting substances, including consideration of their destruction. Second, the Executive 

Committee had made an important policy decision on the phase-out of CFC consumption used for 

metered-dose inhalers. Following complex and contentious discussions, the Executive Committee had 

agreed on a framework for providing assistance to countries requiring CFCs for metered-dose inhaler 

manufacture and had subsequently approved projects for two countries and project preparation for 

several others. Third, the Executive Committee had considered surveys on HCFC consumption in 

thirteen countries. The data collected provided the Parties a sense of the magnitude of the issue and had 

already been used as a reference in the current consultations on a possible accelerated phase-out of 

HCFC use. The main challenge of determining how to address HCFCs still remained, however. Given 

the relatively longer phase-out schedule for HCFCs, the Multilateral Fund currently did not have 

guidelines for defining eligible incremental costs. In view of the positive discussions at the last meeting 
UNEP/OzL.Pro.19/7 

7

of the Open-ended Working Group, however, the Executive Committee had requested the Multilateral 

Fund secretariat to prepare a discussion document on options for defining those costs. 

24. He said that he was proud to be able to announce that by July 2007, China, with the assistance 

of the Multilateral Fund, had completely phased out its consumption and production of CFCs, apart 

from a limited amount for the manufacture of metered-dose inhalers, two and a half years ahead of 

schedule. Other countries had also phased out production significantly ahead of the Protocol’s 

deadlines. Partnership, cooperation and collaboration had been the cornerstones of the success of the 

Multilateral Fund and there were grounds for pride in what had been achieved. Nevertheless, the 

remaining steps might well prove to be the most difficult. 

B. Presentation by the United Nations Development Programme 

25. Speaking for the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), Mr. Ad Melkert, Associate 

Administrator, UNDP, said that UNDP was proud to have played a part in the success of the Montreal 

Protocol. Thanks to the efforts of the Protocol’s 191 signatories, it was now expected that the ozone 

layer would recover in the second half of the century. While that was good news, it was also a 

frightening reminder of how long it would take to undo the damage that mankind had done to its own 

environment. 

26. He said that in the early days of the Protocol there had been genuine uncertainty as to whether 

people could be persuaded to forsake useful household utilities for the benefit of something invisible 

and intangible far above them and whether Governments and communities could make the necessary 

adaptations. From the celebratory tone of the current week’s meeting, it was clear that the answer to 

those questions had been resoundingly positive. UNDP was proud to be associated with that success and 

was committed to reconciling the major measures needed to meet global environmental challenges with 

national priorities and to making meaningful changes in people’s lives. 

27. He said that it had been particularly challenging for developing countries to commit to assisting 

with the recovery of the ozone layer when their people had pressing and immediate needs for work, 

energy and water. Ultimately, however, recovery of the global environment was inseparable from 

sustainable development. Indeed, one of the most notable aspects of the Protocol’s success had been the 

engagement of both the developed and the developing worlds, with the creation of synergies in support 

of sustainable development. 

28. He noted that twenty years after the signing of the Montreal Protocol and at the mid-point of the 

period set for achieving the Millennium Development Goals, the Protocol served as a heartening 

demonstration that multilateral cooperation could improve the environment and the lives of the people 

who depended on it. The international community needed to recognize that the poor were the most 

vulnerable to environmental threats, however, and that protection of the environment could not be 

allowed to compromise their economic growth. He concluded by affirming that the Montreal Protocol’s 

cooperative spirit, ambitious intent and inclusive approach could serve as an example to those seeking 

to chart the way forward in the post-Kyoto Protocol era. 

C. Presentation by the United Nations Environment Programme 

29. Speaking on behalf of UNEP, Ms. Sylvie Lemmet, Director, Division of Technology, Industry 

and Economics, UNEP, said that the success of the Montreal Protocol could be attributed to a number of 

factors, one of the most important of which was the committed work of national ozone units in Parties 

operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Montreal Protocol (Article 5 Parties) and countries with 

economies in transition. Despite widely recognized difficulties, in the preceding 15 years Governments 

had succeeded in passing and enforcing legislation at the national level and commercial industries had 

changed technology in midstream. The UNEP OzonAction programme was proud to be associated with 

nearly 145 developing countries where such transformations were taking place and gratified to be 

supported in its efforts by the Multilateral Fund, the Global Environment Facility and bilateral aid 

agencies, notably those of Sweden and Finland. 

30. The role of UNEP as an implementing agency, she said, was to provide capacity-building and 

technology support, and it had employed innovative mechanisms to enhance the effectiveness of those 

activities. Such mechanisms included regional networking of national ozone units, encouraging 

South-South as well as North-South cooperation; targeted special direct compliance assistance to small 

island developing States and countries in transition; a “training the trainers” approach; and the use of 

regional trade councils and customs institutes. The result of such action was better-informed and more 

effective national ozone units. 
UNEP/OzL.Pro.19/7 

8 

31. She noted that a recent independent evaluation of Compliance Assistance Programme activities 

had shown that the Programme had significantly contributed to the compliance of Article 5 Parties, in 

particular low-volume consuming countries, 100 of which UNEP was currently assisting. OzonAction 

had completed country programmes in 107 countries and was implementing institutional strengthening 

projects in a similar number, assisting with the creation of legislation and licensing systems. As a direct 

result, non-compliance with the Protocol was decreasing. Furthermore, all low-volume consuming 

countries had reached and passed the 50 per cent reduction target more than a year ahead of schedule. 

Along with the successes, however, there were still challenges to be faced, notably illegal trade in 

ozone-depleting substances; phase-out of remaining ozone-depleting substances; provision of 

information on emerging technologies relating to exempted ozone-depleting substances; and initiation 

of a “quick start “ programme for the elimination of HCFCs. 

D. Presentation by the United Nations Industrial Development Organization 

32. Mr. Dimitri Piskounov, Managing Director, United Nations Industrial Development 

Organization (UNIDO), recalled that UNIDO had joined the ozone regime as an implementing agency 

relatively late, in 1992. It had implemented its first projects in the plastic foams sector and had then 

moved into the refrigeration sector, promoting the use of hydrocarbons as a replacement for CFCs. 

Having subsequently moved on to the halons, solvents and fumigants sectors, UNIDO had to date 

promoted almost 1,000 projects in 61 countries, helping thereby to phase out 50,000 ODP-tonnes of 

ozone-depleting substances, or around 30 per cent of the total amount phased out in Article 5 Parties. 

UNIDO was also supporting national ozone units in 11 countries. 

33. He said that in the context of the Parties’ current discussions on the possibility of an accelerated 

phase-out of HCFCs, UNIDO looked forward to contributing to the understanding of the scientifically 

and technically complicated issues involved. UNIDO was currently undertaking an initiative to draw 

together expertise on the matter with a view to assisting Article 5 Parties. 

E. Presentation by the World Bank 

34. Ms. Katherine Sierra, Vice-President for Sustainable Development, World Bank, said that the 

Bank applauded its Article 5 Party partners, which had been working steadfastly to institute ozone 

protection policies and programmes that would enable the sustainable phase-out of ozone-depleting 

substances. She recalled that the entry into operation of article 10 had enabled developing countries to 

phase out nearly 375,000 ODP-tonnes of ozone-depleting substances by the end of 2006 through 

technology transfer, technical and policy assistance and grant funding. At the time that it entered into 

force, there had been many uncertainties about appropriate technologies, costs and approaches but the 

Multilateral Fund had evolved into an effective means of delivering targeted assistance for 

clearly-defined objectives. In 2004, the World Bank’s Independent Evaluation Group had substantiated 

the accomplishments under the Protocol’s financial mechanism, including the additional sustainable 

development benefits that had accrued. 

35. She said that the World Bank was proud to have been in the forefront of innovative projects and 

approaches that had addressed emerging country needs while respecting the Fund’s demand for 

accountability, cost-effectiveness and sustainability. The Bank’s operations had centred on national 

execution and measurable results and it had created a technical advisory group to flag emerging 

technology and review the technical soundness of proposals. As the eligibility and cost-effectiveness 

criteria had matured with the approach of the Protocol deadlines, the Bank had pioneered alternative 

financing modalities under the Fund, introducing performance-based approaches which gave countries 

the flexibility to direct funding to priority areas while developing complementary policies for national 

level ozone-depleting substance reductions. That had in turn contributed to the Fund’s new strategic 

direction in 2000, focused on compliance and permanent aggregate reductions. By the end of 2006, the 

World Bank had implemented some 600 projects in 25 countries, disbursing a total of $687 million and 

thereby eliminating nearly 260,000 tonnes of ozone-depleting substances. 

36. She affirmed that although the successes of the Montreal Protocol and the Multilateral Fund 

were to be applauded, there was still challenging work ahead. There was a need to consider ways to help 

countries ensure sustainable CFC and halon consumption. Implementation of national and sectoral 

phase-out plans had shown what was needed to build commitment among stakeholders, to facilitate 

market transition and to promote sustainability. The question was what could be done next to ensure 

that the ozone issue was not forgotten after 2010 and that the capacity and infrastructure built over the 

years was not lost. 
UNEP/OzL.Pro.19/7 

9

37. She said that in order for Article 5 Parties to develop long-term policies on HCFC phase-out, 

there was a need for better understanding of the global supply and demand for HCFC for feedstock and 

non-feedstock applications, future requirements for HCFC-based equipment, availability and cost of 

non-ozone-depleting substances and current global environmental policy. There was also a need for 

prioritization at the country level, taking into account sectoral cost-benefit analyses and industry’s 

capacity for technology absorption. Stand-alone investment and technical assistance activities were not 

sufficient to achieve sustainable phase-out. Rather, results came through ownership and commitment by 

all stakeholders to create the needed policy and institutional environment. 

F. Presentation by the Global Environment Facility 

38. Ms. Patricia Bliss-Guest, Deputy Chief Executive Officer, Global Environment Facility (GEF), 

said that GEF was proud to have contributed decisively to the achievements of the ozone regime, 

helping 18 countries with economies in transition to meet their obligations under the Montreal Protocol. 

In those countries, GEF had committed $183 million in grant resources and leveraged an additional 

$187 towards their efforts, which had achieved a reduction of more than 99 per cent in their 

consumption of ozone-depleting substances, with some 300,000 ODP-tonnes phased out. 

39. There were still challenges ahead, however, to ensure full recovery of the ozone layer and to 

ensure that the ozone and climate regimes were complementary. GEF remained committed to assisting 

eligible recipient countries to implement measures to protect the ozone layer, particularly in conjunction 

with measures to reduce releases of greenhouse gases. On that basis, the GEF strategy for ozone 

depletion mandated support for activities to assist eligible countries with economies in transition to 

phase out HCFCs according to their schedules but encouraged synergies with climate interventions. In 

addition, the GEF strategy for climate change provided for support for replacing HCFC-containing 

equipment in the context of overall energy efficiency programmes where that would maximize climate 

benefits. The ozone strategy also recognized strong linkages with the implementation of the Stockholm 

Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants. 

40. She said that it was increasingly clear that global environmental issues were interrelated and that 

solutions could no longer be pursued in isolation. Increasingly, the global community would need to 

show its capacity to build synergies among the global environmental agreements in order to remediate 

and protect the ozone layer, the global climate, biodiversity and other global commons. 

VII. Statements by heads of delegations 

41. At the high-level segment, statements were made by ministers and other heads of delegations of 

the following Parties, listed in the order in which they spoke: Fiji, Argentina, United States of America, 

Zimbabwe, China, Guinea, European Community, Portugal (on behalf of the European Union and its 

member States), Gabon, Sweden, Colombia, India, Italy, Mauritius, Cuba, United Republic of Tanzania, 

Samoa, Uganda, Mexico, Japan, Dominican Republic, Serbia, Senegal, Solomon Islands, Bhutan, 

France, Benin, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Croatia, Brazil, South Africa, Djibouti, Norway, 

Suriname, Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of), Cambodia, Maldives, Algeria, Mongolia, Mauritania, 

Kenya, Thailand, Chile, Togo, Indonesia, Republic of Korea, Egypt, Switzerland, Russian Federation, 

Lebanon, Turkey, Rwanda, Kyrgyzstan, Myanmar, Micronesia, New Zealand, Ghana, the Philippines, 

Nigeria, Liberia, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Malaysia, Sri Lanka, Ecuador and Pakistan. 

42. A representative of the Holy See made a statement as a non-Party observer. 

43. Statements were also made by representatives of Greenpeace International and the International 

Institute of Refrigeration. 

44. All speakers expressed their appreciation to the Government of Canada for hosting the current 

meeting and for its important contributions to the evolution and achievements of the Montreal Protocol. 

Many representatives congratulated the members of the Bureau on their election and thanked UNEP and 

the Ozone Secretariat, the Multilateral Fund secretariat and implementing agencies, the donor countries, 

the scientific assessment panels, committed scientists and other actors for their role in the Protocol’s 

successful development and implementation. 

45. Several representatives said that the Protocol was an exemplary multilateral environmental 

agreement that demonstrated that States and other actors could tackle international environmental 

problems effectively through the multilateral United Nations system. Some highlighted factors that had 

been instrumental in the Protocol’s success, including the establishment of a multilateral fund to provide 

financial and technical assistance to Article 5 Parties, under the principle of common but differentiated 
UNEP/OzL.Pro.19/7 

10

responsibilities; the active participation of all relevant stakeholders in the Protocol’s development and 

implementation; and its strong scientific basis. Two speakers mentioned the precautionary principle and 

the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities as key principles underlying the Montreal 

Protocol that should be used to tackle other environmental problems, in particular climate change. 

46. Many representatives said that although there were reasons to celebrate the Protocol’s success, 

much work remained to be done and Parties needed to renew their commitments to fulfil the Protocol’s 

objectives and ensure that the ozone layer would recover and stabilize at pre-1980 levels. Most speakers 

identified the continued use of HCFCs as a major challenge to be addressed at the current meeting. In 

that context, many representatives expressed their commitment to phasing out HCFCs ahead of 

schedule, stressing that that would not only benefit the ozone layer but also contribute to combating 

climate change. Several speakers also urged Parties to avoid complacency and to take the opportunity of 

the Protocol’s twentieth anniversary to adopt stronger commitments on HCFCs. One suggested that if 

the Parties agreed on an accelerated phase-out schedule for HCFCs the Protocol would become the most 

effective multilateral environmental agreement agreed to date in combating climate change. 

47. One representative said that viable alternatives to HCFCs were available and could be 

introduced in a cost-effective manner and that new market opportunities could be created for more 

environmentally-friendly alternatives. Several speakers emphasized the linkages between the ozone 

treaties and related environmental agreements such as the United Nations Framework Convention on 

Climate Change and its Kyoto Protocol, the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification in 

those Countries Experiencing Serious Drought and/or Desertification, Particularly in Africa, and the 

Convention on Biological Diversity, stressing that it was vital to ensure that they were implemented in a 

coordinated fashion to ensure that they all contributed to sustainable development and environmental 

protection. Several representatives of Article 5 Parties said that small island developing States were 

particularly vulnerable to climate change and other environmental changes and urged Parties to take 

stronger action on HCFCs at the current meeting. 

48. While agreeing on the adoption of an accelerated schedule to phase out HCFCs, most speakers 

from Article 5 Parties said that they would only be able to implement an accelerated phase-out schedule 

if they received adequate financial and technical assistance through the Protocol’s Multilateral Fund. 

Several stressed the need to provide financial and technical support to those industries that had 

converted from CFCs to HCFCs for a second conversion from HCFCs to climate- and ozone-friendly 

technologies. Several representatives of non-Article Parties expressed their commitment to providing 

appropriate financial and technical support for developing countries for an early phase-out of HCFCs. 

One suggested that it might be necessary to maintain the level of financial and technical assistance 

provided by the Multilateral Fund at current levels during the next ten to fifteen years in order, among 

other things, to support the accelerated phase-out of HCFCs in Article 5 Parties and possible measures 

aimed at destroying CFC and halon stocks. 

49. Other challenges facing the Protocol that were identified by speakers included the need to 

reduce the use of CFCs in metered-dose inhaler manufacture, taking into account possible implications 

for human health; to reduce critical-use exemptions for methyl bromide; and to ensure the 

environmentally sound destruction of ozone-depleting substance banks and stocks and wastes. Several 

representatives stressed the need to combat illegal trade in ozone depleting substances and in that 

context some highlighted the importance of providing continued assistance to Article 5 Parties for the 

establishment of effective import and export licensing systems and the training of customs officials in 

developing countries. One suggested that there was a need to implement an informal prior informed 

consent system between the national ozone units of trading countries and said that the standardized 

labels for ozone-depleting substances to be devised under the Globally Harmonized System of 

Classification and Labelling of Chemicals would become a very useful tool to help prevent illegal trade 

in such substances. One representative drew attention to the problem of CFC-contaminated refrigeration 

equipment imported illegally into countries that lacked the capacity to destroy them in an 

environmentally sound manner and called on Parties to adopt a decision on the establishment of 

regional centres for destroying such equipment. 

50. Many speakers outlined the status of their countries’ ratification of the ozone instruments and 

their efforts to fulfil their obligations under the Protocol. The latter included work to phase out 

controlled substances, sometimes ahead of schedule; to promote and move towards alternative 

technologies, including climate-friendly ones; to combat illegal trade in ozone-depleting substances 

through, among other things, the establishment of licensing systems on the export and import of such 

substances and the training of customs officials; and to ensure that critical-use exemptions for methyl 

bromide and essential-use exemptions for the use of CFCs in metered-dose inhalers were subjected to 

stringent controls and were not used more than was necessary. 
UNEP/OzL.Pro.19/7 

11

51. Many representatives of Article 5 Parties thanked the Multilateral Fund and its implementing 

agencies and various non-Article 5 Parties for their support in the implementation of the Protocol in 

developing countries. Several urged non-Article 5 Parties to continue providing assistance to ensure the 

successful implementation by Article 5 Parties of their terminal phase-out management plans. Others 

emphasized the need to ensure the availability of efficient and affordable alternatives to ozone-depleting 

substances, which they said should not only protect the ozone layer but also the climate system. Many 

speakers emphasized the importance of awareness-raising activities and training programmes for 

refrigeration technicians, customs officers and other actors to ensure the successful implementation of 

the Montreal Protocol and urged the Multilateral Fund to continue supporting such activities. 

52. The representative of one non-Article 5 Party outlined his country’s successful efforts to phase 

out the use of methyl bromide and announced that it would soon achieve a complete transition towards 

alternatives and had therefore decided not to submit critical-use nominations for the following years. 

Noting that his country was the world’s second largest consumer of methyl bromide, he said that his 

country’s progress demonstrated that the complete phase-out of methyl bromide was possible and he 

urged other Parties to follow the same path. One speaker commended the progress and urged other 

Parties to show real commitment to the phase-out of methyl bromide. Another expressed concern that 

the proposal that Article 5 Parties should be required to report their expected imports of methyl bromide 

annually to the Ozone Secretariat would impose an additional burden that might be rejected by some 

Article 5 Parties. Another representative stressed the need to find viable alternatives to methyl bromide 

for quarantine and pre-shipment applications in Article 5 Parties and urged Parties to accept alternative 

technologies such as heat treatment in order to allow Article 5 Parties to reduce their use of methyl 

bromide. 

53. Concerning the future of the Montreal Protocol, many speakers expressed support for a draft 

decision on the matter submitted by Canada (UNEP/OzL.Pro.19/3, section F). One representative said 

that it was appropriate to reflect on the future architecture of the Protocol and its possible contribution 

to other multilateral environmental agreements but that it would be premature to adopt a decision to 

remodel the Protocol’s architecture at present. Several speakers wondered what would become of the 

Protocol after the deadline for the complete phase-out of CFCs had been reached. Many Article 5 

Parties stressed their continued need for technical and financial support to avoid slipping back to the 

pre-Protocol era. They expressed the hope that the solidarity between Article 5 and non-Article 5 Parties 

that had characterized the Protocol’s implementation would be maintained. 

54. The representative of a non-Article 5 Party suggested that it might be useful to consider whether 

the Multilateral Fund could serve as the financial mechanism for other multilateral environmental 

agreements in the field of chemicals management and how the linkages between the Fund and the 

Global Environment Facility could be strengthened. That would ensure that the experience acquired by 

the Fund and its implementing agencies was not lost. 

55. Another representative expressed concern about the future of the ozone layer and of humankind. 

He said that it was necessary to learn from past mistakes and avoid solutions that would create future 

problems, such as the promotion of HCFCs in efforts to phase out CFCs. It was time, he said, to admit 

that nature was much more complicated and sophisticated than was usually accepted and he called on 

the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel to look for alternatives derived purely from nature. 

That, he suggested, was necessary to avoid having to celebrate the 100th anniversary of implementation 

of the Montreal Protocol. 

56. A representative of a non-Party, speaking as an observer, highlighted the need for greater 

international cooperation with a view to strengthening the alliance between mankind and the 

environment. 

57. The representative of a non-governmental organization said that the Montreal Protocol provided 

four valuable lessons on how to tackle other environmental problems: that international cooperation was 

essential to respond effectively to environmental crises; that civil society could and should play a 

vigorous role in addressing such crises; that government policies should be grounded in science and the 

precautionary principle; and that mandatory targets for the phase-out of environmentally harmful 

substances were crucial for achieving real results. He said that the Protocol reflected the interests of 

industry, however, and that more could have been done to promote the development and marketing of 

safer technologies. The chemical industry, he said, had yet to take responsibility for the vast damage 

that its products had caused and should contribute financially to the environmentally sound destruction 

of banks of ozone-depleting substances. 
UNEP/OzL.Pro.19/7 

12

58. The representative of an intergovernmental organization said that while refrigeration was vital to 

humanity and played a positive role in sustainable development due to its numerous applications, 

including in food preservation, health and energy, its contribution to the deterioration of the ozone layer 

and climate change presented two enormous challenges for the refrigeration sector. The replacement of 

HCFCs with less energy-intensive refrigeration systems and environmentally friendly refrigerants 

represented a solution to those challenges, but it was essential to provide information and financial and 

technical assistance to Article 5 Parties to support that process. 

Part two: preparatory segment (commencing 18 September 2007) 

I. Organizational matters 

59. The preparatory segment of the meeting was opened by its Co-Chairs, Ms. Marcia Levaggi 

(Argentina) and Mr. Mikkel Sørensen (Denmark), at 10.10 a.m. on Tuesday, 18 September 2007. An 

opening statement was made by Mr. González. 

60. Mr. González welcomed the meeting participants and thanked the Government of Canada for 

hosting the twentieth anniversary activities and meetings. He praised what he said were the remarkable 

efforts of Governments, individuals and organizations to phase out the majority of ozone-depleting 

substances. While that success merited celebration, however, it was necessary for the Parties to renew 

their commitment to the phase-out of the remaining ozone-depleting substances, particularly in Article 5 

Parties. Turning to the agenda for the current meeting, he said that it would be necessary to consider the 

various proposals to accelerate the Protocol’s HCFC phase-out schedule together with the level of 

funding to support the efforts of Article 5 Parties. Other key issues before the Parties included 

nominations for methyl bromide critical-use exemptions; the status of data reporting, licensing systems 

and action plans; compliance-related issues; illegal trade; and the future of the Multilateral Fund and 

other Protocol institutions. The Parties’ deliberations, he said, should reflect the spirit of cooperation 

and good will that had characterized the original negotiations on the Protocol and its implementation 

over the years. Any successful environmental treaty, he concluded, required constant revision, and early 

consideration of future policy challenges would facilitate well-informed and thoughtful discussions on 

updating the Protocol and increasing its effectiveness. 

A. Adoption of the agenda of the preparatory segment 

61. The Co-Chair introduced the provisional agenda for the preparatory segment contained in 

document UNEP/OzL.Pro.19/1. The Parties then adopted the following agenda for the preparatory 

segment on the basis of the provisional agenda contained in that document: 

1. Organizational matters: 

(a) Adoption of the agenda of the preparatory segment; 

(b) Organization of work. 

2. Consideration of membership of Protocol bodies for 2008: 

(a) Members of the Implementation Committee; 

(b) Members of the Executive Committee of the Multilateral Fund for the 

Implementation of the Montreal Protocol; 

(c) Co-Chairs of the Open-ended Working Group. 

3. Financial reports of the trust funds for the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the 

Ozone Layer and the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer and 

budgets of the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer. 

4. Hydrochlorofluorocarbon (HCFC) issues: 

(a) Technology and Economic Assessment Panel report on assessment of measures 

for addressing ozone depletion, with a focus on HCFCs (decision XVIII/12); 

(b) Consideration of adjustments to the HCFC phase-out schedule of the Montreal 

Protocol; 

(c) Consideration of additional work on HCFCs. 
UNEP/OzL.Pro.19/7 

13

5. Consideration of methyl-bromide related issues: 

(a) Review of nominations for critical-use exemptions for methyl bromide for 2008 

and 2009; 

(b) Report and proposal on preventing harmful trade in methyl bromide stocks to 

Article 5 Parties (report of the Eighteenth Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal 

Protocol (UNEP/OzL.Pro.18/10), para. 97). 

6. Consideration of issues related to the Multilateral Fund for the Implementation of the 

Montreal Protocol: 

(a) Need for a study on the 2009–2011 replenishment of the Multilateral Fund; 

(b) Consideration of the request of the Executive Committee of the Multilateral 

Fund to change its terms of reference to modify if necessary the number of times 

that it meets. 

7. Monitoring transboundary movements of, and preventing illegal trade in, 

ozone-depleting substances (decision XVIII/18). 

8. Consideration of issues related to the future challenges to be faced by the Montreal 

Protocol (decision XVIII/36): 

(a) Refining the institutional arrangements of the Montreal Protocol; 

(b) Establishing a multi-year agenda for the Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal 

Protocol to address key policy issues identified by the Parties. 

9. Consideration of issues arising out of the 2007 reports of the Technology and Economic 

Assessment Panel: 

(a) Review of nominations for essential-use exemptions for 2008 and 2009; 

(b) Process agent related proposals (decisions XVII/6 and XVII/8); 

(c) Technology and Economic Assessment Panel final report on carbon tetrachloride 

emissions and opportunities for reductions (decision XVIII/10); 

(d) Consideration of n-propyl bromide proposal (decision XVIII/11); 

(e) Technology and Economic Assessment Panel report on campaign production of 

chlorofluorocarbons for production of metered-dose inhalers (decision 

XVIII/16); 

(f) Any other issues arising out of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel 

reports: funding for travel of Panel experts from non-Article 5 Parties. 

10. Review of the deferral of consideration by the Implementation Committee and the 

Meeting of the Parties of the carbon tetrachloride compliance status of Parties operating 

under Article 5 which provide evidence that their deviations are due to the use of that 

chemical for analytical and laboratory processes (decision XVII/13). 

11. Future of the laboratory and analytical use exemption (decision XV/8). 

12. Assessment of new very short-lived ozone-depleting substances. 

13. Status of Romania. 

14. Proposed areas of focus for the assessment panels’ 2010 quadrennial reports (Article 6 

and decision XV/53). 

15. Compliance and data reporting issues considered by the Implementation Committee. 

16. Other matters. 

62. During the adoption of the agenda of the preparatory segment, the Meeting of the Parties agreed 

to take up under item 9 (f) of the agenda, “Other issues arising out of the 2006 reports of the 

Technology and Economic Assessment Panel”, a proposal from Australia relating to halons. The 

Meeting of the Parties also agreed to consider, under item 16 of the agenda, “Other matters”, a proposal 

by one representative to discuss the nomination of individuals to serve on the Scientific Assessment 

Panel. 
UNEP/OzL.Pro.19/7 

14

B. Organization of work 

63. The Meeting of the Parties agreed to follow its customary procedure and to establish contact 

groups as necessary. Also, as agreed by the Parties in discussing the organization of work of the current 

meeting during the opening session of the high-level segment, three of the contact groups established 

during the twenty-seventh meeting of the Open-ended Working Group continued their deliberations 

during the preparatory segment of the current meeting. 

II. Consideration of membership of Protocol bodies for 2008 

A. Members of the Implementation Committee 

B. Members of the Executive Committee of the Multilateral Fund for the 

Implementation of the Montreal Protocol 

C. Co-Chairs of the Open-ended Working Group 

64. Introducing the item, the Co-Chair recalled that it would be necessary at the current meeting to 

nominate candidates for several positions in Montreal Protocol bodies for 2008, according to the 

procedures set out in paragraphs 3–5 of document UNEP/OzL.Pro.19/2. He called on the regional 

groups to submit nominations to the Ozone Secretariat. 

65. The Parties subsequently agreed on the membership of the Implementation Committee and the 

Executive Committee and on the co-chairs of the Open-ended Working Group and forwarded draft 

decisions reflecting that agreement to the high-level segment for consideration and possible approval. 

III. Financial reports of the trust funds for the Vienna Convention for the 

Protection of the Ozone Layer and the Montreal Protocol on 

Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer and budgets of the 

Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer 

66. Introducing the item, the Co-Chair noted that it had been the practice at past meetings to 

establish a budget committee to review budget-related documents and prepare one or more draft 

decisions on budgetary matters for consideration by the Meeting of the Parties. Accordingly, the 

Meeting of the Parties agreed to establish such a committee, to be chaired by Mr. Jiří Hlaváček 

(Czech Republic) and Mr. Alessandro Peru (Italy). 

67. Mr. Peru subsequently reported that the budget committee had agreed on a draft decision on the 

budget for the Trust Fund for the Montreal Protocol. The Meeting of the Parties agreed to forward the 

draft decision to the high-level segment for consideration and possible adoption. 

IV. Hydrochlorofluorocarbon (HCFC) issues 

A. Technology and Economic Assessment Panel report on assessment of measures 

for addressing ozone depletion, with a focus on HCFCs (decision XVIII/12) 

68. Introducing the item, the Co-Chair recalled that by decision XVIII/12 the Meeting of the Parties 

had requested the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel to undertake further work to assess the 

measures listed in the report of the Ozone Secretariat workshop on the special report on ozone depletion 

and climate change prepared by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the Technology 

and Economic Assessment Panel entitled “Safeguarding the Ozone Layer and the Global Climate 

System: Issues Related to Hydrofluorocarbons and Perfluorocarbons”.2

 By the same decision it had also 

requested the Secretariat to facilitate consultations by the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel 

with relevant organizations to enable the Panel to draw on the work already carried out under those 

organizations and to consider, in cooperation with the Scientific Assessment Panel, the implications of 

those findings for the recovery of the ozone layer. The Technology and Economic Assessment Panel 

had subsequently established a task force to address the matter, which had prepared a report for the 

consideration of the Nineteenth Meeting of the Parties. 

 2 For more information on the workshop on the special report, see chapter VII of part one of the report of the 

Eighteenth Meeting of the Parties (UNEP/OzL.Pro.18/10). 
UNEP/OzL.Pro.19/7 

15

69. The co-chairs of the task force, Mr. Radhey S. Agarwal, Mr. Paul Ashford, and Mr. Lambert 

Kuijpers, gave a presentation on the work and findings of the task force. Highlighting the main 

baseline-related conclusions, Mr. Agarwal said that the study had demonstrated that there would be a 

year-on-year decrease in annual emissions in the period ahead of the freeze as HCFC emissions fell, 

with a plateau at 50,000 ODP-tonnes per annum; that during the freeze period there would be a similar 

plateau for emissions at 900 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (approximately 3.5 per cent of 

current annual global greenhouse gas emissions); that the refrigeration sector accounted for 45 per cent 

in ozone terms and 85 per cent in climate terms; and that unabated trichloromethane (HFC-23) 

emissions from continuing feedstock production could add 450 million tonnes of carbon dioxide 

equivalent annually. 

70. Turning to issues relating to the Clean Development Mechanism, he said that 260,000 tonnes of 

HCFC production currently qualified for credits under the Mechanism (60–63 per cent of developing 

country production); that subsequent increases in production at already approved plants did not 

currently qualify for additional credits because it was considered to be the result of “new” capacity; that 

the duration of the Mechanism’s commitments was currently limited to not more than ten years; that the 

differing categorization of “new” and “existing” plants was leading to varying cost bases for HCFC-22 

production; and that the value of Clean Development Mechanism credits was up to 10 times the cost of 

HFC-23 emissions abatement and was likely to exceed the sales revenue of HCFC-22; that revenues 

received by chemical suppliers from such credits might provide an additional competitive advantage; 

that a decrease in HCFC-22 price was unlikely to increase sales of refrigeration equipment, although in 

products with more elastic demand, such as aerosols or foams, the impact of lower prices would be 

greater; that lower prices might also influence feedstock use; that a levy at the national level was being 

used in one country to constrain financial benefits to manufacturers; and that there was a real risk of 

“new” plants or capacity being installed without HFC-23 emissions abatement. 

71. Mr. Ashford continued the presentation by explaining that the task force had considered four 

HCFC phase-out scenarios: the “baseline” scenario (growth in consumption up to 2015, followed by a 

constant level of consumption and instantaneous phase-out in 2040); the “freeze 2012” scenario (growth 

in consumption up to 2012, followed by a constant level of consumption with instantaneous phase-out 

in 2040); the “linear 2021” scenario (growth in consumption up to 2015, followed by a constant level of 

consumption until 2021 and linear phase-out ending in 2030); and the “linear 2016” scenario (growth in 

consumption until 2015, followed by linear phase-out beginning in 2016 and ending in 2025). Such 

scenarios necessarily involved a degree of artificiality, he noted, but acted as usable illustrations. 

72. He explained that accelerated HCFC phase-out had been demonstrated to be technically and 

economically feasible for almost all sectors in the countries of the European Union and for some sectors 

in many other countries, although there might need to be minor exceptions for very small quantities of 

HCFCs. Avoiding HCFC growth might be less costly than subsequent elimination of HCFC use. New 

control measures were likely to stimulate new low-global-warming-potential and not-in-kind 

alternatives that would reduce costs and decrease potential climate impacts. 

73. Noting that the 2012 freeze by itself would reduce emissions by around 75,000 ODP tonnes, he 

said that the task force had concluded that a 15-year advance in linear phase-out of HCFCs would 

reduce emissions by 468,000 ODP-tonnes and by up to 18 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent 

by 2050. Other key conclusions with regard to HCFC phase-out had been that higher growth rates in the 

period to 2015 would increase the emission reductions associated with accelerated HCFC phase-out; 

that adoption of low global warming-potential alternatives and improved containment of higher global 

warming potential alternatives were essential to maximizing greenhouse gas emissions reductions 

identified for the refrigeration sector, with that sector accounting for 80 per cent of overall potential 

greenhouse gas emissions reduction; that a lag between technology transition and changes in refrigerant 

demand patterns would occur as long as existing stocks could be serviced; that early development of 

low global warming potential alternatives needed to be encouraged; that Parties might wish to consider 

an essential-use provision for limited uses that lacked alternatives; and that an accelerated phase-out 

could avoid the need for new HCFC-22 capacity in the period up to 2050. 

74. Turning to the other practical measures to achieve reductions in emissions of ozone-depleting 

substances that the task force had considered, he said that the key conclusions were that the potential 

emission reductions from other practical measures were greater than those that could be achieved by an 

accelerated HCFC phase-out; that the option to accelerate the HCFC phase-out and implement all 

technically feasible practical measures would yield greater benefits than either action alone; that such a 

combination could provide a cumulative emissions reduction of nearly 1.25 million ODP-tonnes and 

potentially more than 30 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent; that the most significant 

contributions would come from leakage reductions in the commercial refrigeration sector (80,000–
UNEP/OzL.Pro.19/7 

16

90,000 ODP-tonnes) and the management of halon banks (about 90,000 ODP-tonnes); that end-of-life 

measures provided cumulative ozone and climate benefits of around 300,000 ODP-tonnes and about 

6 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent, respectively; that early retirement of certain refrigeration 

equipment could provide an additional reduction of 130,000 ODP tonnes and 3.5–4 billion tonnes of 

carbon dioxide equivalent; and that the “linear 2021” (10-year advance) and the “linear 2016” (15-year 

advance) scenarios provided the greatest emissions reductions, particularly in developing countries. 

75. In the ensuing discussion many representatives welcomed the work that had gone into the very 

detailed report. Several speakers warned, however, that the proper forum at which to address the climate 

dimensions of a possible accelerated phase-out of HCFCs would be the forthcoming eleventh session of 

the Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Others 

asked why the Panel had not considered the varying costs of alternative technologies under differing 

climatic conditions and in different regions of the world, saying that such an assessment was important. 

76. Several speakers expressed concern that the credits provided under the Clean Development 

Mechanism for HFC-23 destruction might act as a perverse incentive to increased production of 

HCFC-22. One representative said that his Party did not agree with the notion expressed in the task 

force report that granting Clean Development Mechanism benefits for new capacity should be 

encouraged in order to “level the playing field” between new and existing plants. He also said that the 

issue should be discussed and decided under the aegis of the Kyoto Protocol rather than the Montreal 

Protocol. 

77. There was some discussion of the feasibility and effects of introducing alternatives to HCFCs. 

Several representatives sought more information about the predicted growth in feedstock uses of 

HCFCs and on the minor HCFC applications for which there were no current alternatives. Several 

representatives suggested that for a number of reasons it would be difficult to achieve the climate 

benefits predicted in the report. In that regard, one suggested that other measures, such as prevention of 

leakage and recovery and destruction, could have as much benefit as accelerated phase-out of HCFCs. 

78. The representative of a non-governmental organization said that it had been known for 20 years 

that accelerating the phase-out of HCFCs was one of the most effective ways to remediate the damage 

to the ozone layer and that Article 2F of the Protocol stated that their use should be limited to 

applications for which other more environmentally suitable alternatives or technologies were not 

available. He said that Parties had ignored that provision for 20 years and now needed to act urgently. In 

so doing, however, it was essential that they avoid switching to HFCs with a high global warming 

potential. 

79. Responding to various comments from representatives, Mr. Ashford said that while the task 

force had recognized that cost effectiveness would be a key component of any decision on accelerated 

phase-out addressing issues of cost was beyond the task force’s remit. He said that the task force’s 

report should not be interpreted as making any specific recommendations, which had not been within its 

mandate. In order to assess the impact of the Clean Development Mechanism over the coming 20 years, 

however, it had been necessary for the task force to speculate on the direction that the Mechanism 

would take on issues such as the future treatment of new HCFC plants. Additionally, he noted that the 

report cited several examples of technologies for which no HCFC alternatives were available and that 

they were generally highly specialized applications in the solvents and medical sectors. Finally, he said 

that the situation regarding the use of HCFCs in extruded polystyrene foams in one Party needed further 

assessment. 

80. Referring to the issue of growth in the use of feedstock, Mr. Kuijpers said that the information 

in the report represented an extrapolation based on a growth rate known from the literature. He said that 

the task force had no further information that would allow it to predict whether the figures would turn 

out to reflect reality and that they represented a conservative estimate of a possible production profile. 

Further study by the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel would be needed to substantiate the 

estimates on inadvertent losses from feedstock. With regard to HCFC-123 substitution, the view of the 

task force had been that use of that substance should not be considered essential. It was noted that the 

task force report did address the matter of alternatives in general, making clear that for certain 

applications alternatives did already exist while for others they were yet to be developed. Development 

of alternatives, particularly those with a low global warming potential, could be expected to continue. 
UNEP/OzL.Pro.19/7 

17

B. Consideration of adjustments to the HCFC phase-out schedule of the Montreal 

Protocol 

81. Introducing the item, the Co-Chair noted that proposals to adjust the HCFC control provisions 

of the Protocol were set out in document UNEP/OzL.Pro.19/3. He added that a contact group had been 

established at the twenty-seventh meeting of the Open-ended Working Group to discuss the proposals 

and that a report prepared by the co-chairs of that group to facilitate further discussion could be found in 

document UNEP/OzL.Pro.19/INF/4. Submissions by Parties on the proposals discussed at the Working 

Group meeting had been posted on the Ozone Secretariat website. 

82. Mr. Maas Goote, co-chair of the contact group, said that informal consultations on the matter 

had taken place subsequent to the twenty-seventh meeting of the Open-ended Working Group. The 

Parties involved had moved closer to agreement and the co-chairs were in the process of preparing a 

proposal for consideration by the contact group at the current meeting. As agreed by the Parties in 

discussing the organization of work of the current meeting during the opening session of the high-level 

segment, the contact group would meet again during the current meeting to consider the issue further 

and would take up the co-chairs’ proposal. 

83. During the ensuing discussion, one representative called on the global community to accelerate 

the phase-out of HCFCs in a way that supported energy efficiency and climate change objectives, noting 

that a suite of non-ozone-depleting alternatives was available to smooth the transition. He also 

expressed concern at the possibility of increased production of HCFC-22 in Article 5 Parties in order to 

produce HFC-23 as a byproduct, the destruction of which would earn certified emission reductions 

under the Clean Development Mechanism of the Kyoto Protocol, constituting a perverse incentive to 

continue or increase production of an ozone-depleting substance. Another representative, noting the 

financial constraints faced by Article 5 Parties, stressed the importance of providing levels of funding 

appropriate to facilitating an accelerated phase-out schedule. 

84. The co-chair of the contact group subsequently announced that the group had met during the 

current meeting and agreed on the terms of an adjustment to the Protocol’s HCFC phase-out schedule. 

The terms of that agreement were set out in a draft decision setting forth the details of the proposed 

adjustment and an annex thereto, set out in a separate conference room paper, containing the text of 

Article 2F and Article 5 of the Protocol, amended in accordance with the terms of the draft decision. He 

said that the historic agreement would move HCFC phase-out forward by a full decade, with significant 

interim reductions in consumption by comparison with the original phase-out provisions. He paid tribute 

to the spirit of cooperation shown by the members of the contact group, offering special thanks to his 

co-chair, and noted that the agreement represented a manifestation of the principle of common but 

differentiated responsibilities. Following the co-chair’s report the Meeting of the Parties agreed to 

forward the draft decision and its annex to the high-level segment for consideration and possible 

approval. 

C. Consideration of additional work on HCFCs 

1. Proposal on additional work on HCFCs 

85. Introducing the item, the Co-Chair recalled that at the twenty-seventh meeting of the 

Open-ended Working Group the representative of Kuwait had submitted a draft decision proposing 

additional work on HCFC issues. The draft decision had included requests to the Technology and 

Economic Assessment Panel to undertake certain studies; a request to the Executive Committee of the 

Multilateral Fund to consider funding certain projects and to organize a workshop on alternatives to 

HCFCs; and a request to the Parties to provide assistance in the context of considering adjustments to 

the Protocol’s HCFC control schedule. 

86. The representative of Kuwait, speaking on behalf of several countries in West Asia, outlined 

that draft decision, noting that it included a request to the Ozone Secretariat to organize an international 

workshop on available alternatives to HCFC-using technologies to be held back-to-back-with a meeting 

of either the Open-ended Working Group or the Meeting of the Parties in 2008. He said that the overall 

purpose of the draft decision was to facilitate acceptance by Article 5 Parties of proposed adjustments to 

the HCFC phase-out schedules. 

87. The representative of the European Community announced that the Community was planning a 

workshop for early 2008 to cover the issues mentioned in the draft decision. The workshop would 

concentrate on the needs of Article 5 Parties. Another representative said that his Party would send 

experts to participate in the workshop. 
UNEP/OzL.Pro.19/7 

18

88. The Meeting of the Parties agreed to establish a contact group, to be chaired by Mr. Khaled 

Klaly (Syrian Arab Republic), to consider the draft decision further. In the light of the overlap between 

the contact group’s work and that of the contact groups that had been mandated to consider financial 

issues and HCFCs, it was agreed that the outcomes of the various contact groups would need to be 

looked at in close conjunction with one another. 

89. Speaking on behalf of Mr. Klaly, the representative of Kuwait subsequently reported that the 

contact group had agreed on a revised draft decision on additional work on HCFCs. The Meeting of the 

Parties agreed to forward the draft decision to the high-level segment for consideration and possible 

adoption. 

2. Eligibility of South Africa for Multilateral Fund assistance 

90. The representative of South Africa introduced a draft decision on the eligibility of South Africa 

for financial assistance from the Multilateral Fund, which had been circulated as a conference room 

paper. She explained that although the Ninth Meeting of the Parties had reclassified South Africa as an 

Article 5 Party (decision IX/27), her Government had not requested financial assistance from the 

Multilateral Fund for the purpose of fulfilling the commitments that it had undertaken prior to that 

meeting. She noted that because South Africa had ratified the Copenhagen Amendment in 2001, the 

draft decision acknowledged that, like any other Article 5 Party, South Africa was eligible for technical 

and financial assistance from the Multilateral Fund for fulfilling its obligations regarding HCFCs. 

91. The Meeting of the Parties agreed to forward the draft decision, as orally amended, to the 

high-level segment for consideration and possible adoption. 

V. Consideration of methyl-bromide-related issues 

A. Review of nominations for critical-use exemptions for methyl bromide for 2008 

and 2009 

92. Introducing the item, the Co-Chair thanked the Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee 

for its hard work in reviewing the critical-use nominations in a timely manner for consideration by the 

Parties. The Committee divided its presentation on critical-use nominations for methyl bromide into 

four sections presented by its four co-chairs: Mr. Mohamed Besri, Mr. Ian Porter, Ms. Michelle 

Marcotte and Ms. Marta Pizano. 

93. Mr Besri, Co-Chair of the Subcommittee on Soils, introduced the 2008–2009 critical-use 

nominations for methyl bromide. He said that overall consumption of methyl bromide had declined 

considerably, adding that 95 per cent of the reduction of methyl bromide for controlled uses in 

non-Article 5 Parties was attributable to the phase-out of pre-plant soil uses. Large reductions had 

occurred in critical-use exemptions applied for by member States of the European Community. Several 

countries that had previously had critical-use exemptions had not applied for them in 2008, including 

Belgium, France, Greece, Italy, Malta, New Zealand, Switzerland and the United Kingdom of Great 

Britain and Northern Ireland. The United States of America had nominated approximately 5,000 tonnes 

for 2009 and Israel around 900 tonnes for 2008 and 2009; several other countries had nominated 

amounts less than 300 tonnes for either 2008 or 2009. Methyl bromide stocks reported by Parties 

totalled 8,740 tonnes at the end of 2006. 

94. Mr. Porter, Co-Chair of the Subcommittee on Soils, presented an overview of the 43 critical-use 

nominations for pre-plant soil use, down from 70 in the last round. Fourteen nominations had been 

submitted by two Parties for 2008 and 29 from five Parties for 2009. Israel was the only Party applying 

for both years and there were no Parties submitting nominations that had not previously done so. Israel 

and the United States had applied for critical-use exemptions for a number of pre-plant uses. The 

Committee considered that impending registration of a key alternative (1,3-D/chloropicrin) would 

influence the assessment of methyl bromide required for Israel’s critical-use exemptions in 2009. 

Standard criteria for dosage rates, use of low-permeability barrier films and consideration of methyl 

bromide/chloropicrin formulations remained unchanged from the 2006 round of nominations. 

95. He indicated that amounts nominated for soil use had dropped from 6,494 tonnes in 2008 to 

5,859 metric tonnes in 2009. The Committee had recommended less than the nominated amounts when 

the dosage rates were considered too high to conform with standard best practices, when suitable 

alternatives had been identified or when further reductions were made possible by the use of methyl 

bromide/chloropicrin formulations with lower amounts of methyl bromide. Significant progress had 

been made in the phase-out of methyl bromide for many sectors, especially the two major pre-plant uses 

of methyl bromide: strawberry fruit and tomato crops. Australia, France, Italy, New Zealand, Spain, and 
UNEP/OzL.Pro.19/7 

19

the United Kingdom had phased out methyl bromide for strawberry fruit, while for Israel and the United 

States the transition had not yet been completed. For tomato crops, Australia, Belgium, Greece, Italy 

and Spain had phased out use of methyl bromide; in the United States the transition had not been 

completed. 

96. Mr. Porter outlined several issues relating to the 2007 round of critical-use nominations. 

Regulations on alternatives in Israel and California were preventing further adoption of key alternatives, 

including 1,3-D/chloropicrin, in key sectors accounting for the use of approximately 2,600 tonnes of 

methyl bromide. Low-permeability barrier films to reduce emissions from the remaining uses of methyl 

bromide had proved very effective, with substantial adoption occurring in major methyl bromide user 

regions, though potential for increased use of barrier films existed in Australia, Canada, Japan and the 

United States. Also, economic justification, especially the provision of completed partial budgets, was 

still not being supplied with many critical use nominations. On the positive side, in 2007–2008 

registration was pending in Australia and the United States for a key alternative, methyl iodide, 

considered to be a one-to-one replacement for methyl bromide and to be technically suitable for several 

of the remaining pre-plant soil uses. 

97. An undefined quantity, possibly greater than 1,300 tonnes, of methyl bromide had been used by 

one Party for pre-plant soil fumigation in strawberry runners, nursery stock, forest nurseries and turf 

under the quarantine and pre-shipment exemption. Noting that other Parties had in some cases had their 

critical-use nominations for those uses rejected by the Parties, he said that the quarantine and 

pre-shipment exemption provided no incentive to reduce methyl bromide emissions, to lower dosage 

rates or to conduct trials to evaluate alternatives. 

98. In her report Ms. Marcotte, Co-Chair of the Subcommittee on Quarantine, Structures and 

Commodities, highlighted a number of positive developments. The United States had withdrawn its 

2009 cocoa bean nomination, representing a 51-tonne decrease in its critical-use nomination; the 

European Community had stopped methyl bromide use for post-harvest fumigation and Canada was 

undertaking research into mill fumigation using sulfuryl fluoride and heat; Israel was continuing to 

decrease use of methyl bromide for fumigation of high-moisture dates and in flour mills; Poland had 

almost completed its port commodity treatment phase-out; and Japan had identified an alternative 

treatment in its fresh chestnut research programme that was awaiting regulatory approval. Critical-use 

nominations for methyl bromide use in structures and commodities had decreased from a total of 44 for 

2006 to 15 for the current year. 

99. In the 2006 round of critical use nominations for 2008, a quantity of 593.737 tonnes had been 

recommended. An additional quantity of 11.53 tonnes had been nominated for 2008, of which 9.179 

tonnes had been recommended. The quantity nominated for 2009 was 478.719 tonnes, of which 451.178 

tonnes had been recommended. Ms. Marcotte said that the Methyl Bromide Technical Options 

Committee’s Quarantine, Structures and Commodities Subcommittee continued to be firmer in not 

recommending the use of methyl bromide in certain instances, for example where good processing 

practices should result in adequate pest control without use of methyl bromide; where Parties had failed 

to document the lack of efficacy of alternatives; or where nominated uses were higher than standard 

dosage rates, unless justified with test results. In addition, the Committee had recommended reductions 

of methyl bromide use where adoption rates for alternatives continued to be too low even though 

alternatives were available and commercially adopted in the nominating Party’s region. She noted too 

that methyl bromide had been completely phased out for many commodity uses. The Committee 

expected phase-out rates in the higher ranges, unless a Party documented and validated registration 

restrictions, economic infeasibility or other barriers specific to that Party. The focus during the current 

year would be on the flour mills sector, where the availability of alternatives was such that high 

adoption of alternatives should be achievable. 

100. In her report Ms. Pizano outlined the workplan for the 2008 round of critical-use nominations. 

The Committee was requesting a budget of $57,250 for the effective evaluation of critical-use 

nominations according to its mandate. Specific purposes for which funds were needed were as follows: 

to hire a specialist to update information on controls for nutsedge, a key target pest for over 50 per cent 

of remaining critical-use nominations; to undertake field studies to review methyl bromide use and the 

suitability of alternatives in industries that were submitting critical-use nominations; and to fund travel 

for non-Article 5 Party co-chairs and Committee members who had no funding to attend meetings. The 

handbook on critical-use nominations for methyl bromide was being revised and the new version would 

be on the website by October 2007. She also said that a change in standard presumptions was being 

proposed for the 2008 round, whereby maximum dosage rates would be revised for pathogens and for 

nutsedge control in the vegetable and strawberry sectors. 
UNEP/OzL.Pro.19/7 

20

101. Responding to the issues raised, one co-chair of the Methyl Bromide Technical Options 

Committee said that the Committee was not aware of any alternatives to methyl bromide in the 

fumigation of high-moisture dates but it was hoped that at some stage funding would be made available 

for research into the matter. On the correlation between the registration of alternatives and the 

assessment of critical-use nominations, another co-chair said that the issue was not straightforward as it 

was difficult to predict how long the approval and registration of alternatives would take. The 

Committee could only assess nominations in the light of currently available information. 

102. There was some discussion of the related issues of the rate of methyl bromide phase-out, the 

number of critical-use nominations and the use of alternatives. One representative expressed concern at 

the slow speed at which alternatives were being introduced and the large quantities of methyl bromide 

that were being nominated by some Parties, adding that available stocks should be exhausted before 

new production was approved by the Parties. The representative of the European Community said that 

nominations for critical use and production of methyl bromide by some Parties continued to be 

excessive, in view of the available alternatives and stocks, a situation not consistent with the Protocol’s 

provisions and the decisions of the Parties. The Party had submitted a draft decision on the matter, 

which had been circulated as a conference room paper. 

103. One representative said that his country had, since the listing of methyl bromide as a controlled 

substance in 1992, achieved significant reductions in methyl bromide consumption, although its 

agricultural production systems required the continued use of methyl bromide in limited geographic 

areas where severe pest infestation occurred. He said that projections indicated that pre-2005 stocks in 

his country would be fully depleted by 2009. He also expressed concern that the Methyl Bromide 

Technical Options Committee had taken a decision to operate as two independent subcommittees 

without notifying and consulting the Parties. In addition, he said that the Committee had not provided 

sufficient information on the meta-analysis that it used to analyse alternatives to methyl bromide and he 

requested the Committee to prepare, before the next meeting of the Open-ended Working Group, a 

detailed description of how the meta-analysis was being used in the consideration of critical-use 

exemptions. He said that further explanation should be given of the technical and economic 

justifications for proposed changes to the standard presumptions in some sectors. Finally, he said that 

his country had submitted a draft decision on those matters, which had been circulated as a conference 

room paper. 

104. The representative of a non-governmental organization said that continued damage was being 

caused by the large exemptions being allowed for methyl bromide, arguing that one country in 

particular was responsible for a large percentage of critical use nominations and was making insufficient 

efforts to adopt alternatives already used in many other countries with similar climates, reduce 

stockpiles and ensure that all exemptions were for critical uses. He said that no new production should 

take place until those issues had been resolved. 

105. The Meeting of the Parties agreed to establish a contact group on nominations for critical-use 

exemptions for methyl bromide for 2008 and 2009, to be chaired by Mr. Pierre Pinault (Canada), to 

consider the matter further. 

106. The proponents of the proposals subsequently reported that the group had reached agreement on 

a draft decision on critical-use exemptions for methyl bromide for 2008 and 2009. The Meeting of the 

Parties agreed to forward the draft decision to the high-level segment for consideration and possible 

adoption. 

B. Report and proposal on preventing harmful trade in methyl bromide stocks to 

Article 5 Parties (report of the Eighteenth Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal 

Protocol (UNEP/OzL.Pro.18/10), para. 97) 

107. The Co-Chair recalled that, pursuant to decision Ex.I/4, the Open-ended Working Group at its 

twenty-sixth meeting had considered a report by the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel on 

options that the Parties might wish to consider for preventing trade in methyl bromide stocks that was 

harmful to Article 5 Parties as consumption was reduced in non-Article 5 Parties. The Open-ended 

Working Group had discussed a draft decision on the matter at its twenty-seventh meeting but had not 

reached consensus. The proponents of that draft decision had taken into account the comments made at 

the twenty-seventh meeting and had circulated a revised draft decision to Parties for comment during 

the intersessional period. At its current meeting, the Meeting of the Parties had before it the latest 

version of the draft decision (UNEP/OzL.Pro.19/3, section B). 
UNEP/OzL.Pro.19/7 

21

108. One of the proponents of the draft decision said that Article 5 Parties had made great progress in 

phasing out methyl bromide and that those efforts should not to be undermined by harmful imports of 

methyl bromide. He explained that the definition of the term “harmful trade” used in the draft decision 

matched that used in the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel report that had been produced 

pursuant to paragraph 9 (a) of decision Ex.I/4. The term thus meant trade that adversely affected the 

implementation of control measures by any Party, allowed back-sliding from the introduction of 

alternatives to methyl bromide already achieved or was contrary to the domestic policy of either an 

importing or an exporting Party. 

109. He pointed out that the basic domestic needs allowance for methyl bromide production in 

non-Article 5 Parties was 36 per cent more than the amount that the Methyl Bromide Technical Options 

Committee had predicted would be consumed by Article 5 Parties in 2007 and he therefore advocated a 

reduction in production by non-Article 5 Parties. He noted, however, that the decision was not meant to 

address quarantine and pre-shipment uses of methyl bromide. 

110. One representative said that more information was required before Parties could consider 

reducing the production allowance for methyl bromide for basic domestic needs in non-Article 5 

Parties. He therefore proposed that the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel be requested to 

examine the issue in more detail and report to the Parties to assist them in any future deliberations. 

111. It was generally agreed that harmful trade was an important issue for Article 5 Parties. 

Nevertheless, several representatives were concerned about the potential burden on Parties that would 

arise from the proposals to request non-Article 5 Parties to report to the Ozone Secretariat on stocks of 

methyl bromide and to request Article 5 Parties to submit to the Ozone Secretariat in September of each 

year a notification of the expected volume of their methyl bromide imports in the following year. 

Several representatives of Article 5 Parties expressed doubt as to their countries’ ability to give an 

accurate prediction of methyl bromide imports and one representative said that the proposal that the 

notifications be published on the Ozone Secretariat website raised issues of commercial confidentiality. 

Several representatives said that rather than eradicate harmful trade the proposed actions might simply 

impede normal trade; they suggested that a fully functioning licensing system would be most effective 

in dealing with the problem. One representative suggested that the actions requested by the decision 

might require an adjustment. 

112. Given the complexity of the issue, the Meeting of the Parties decided to refer the matter for 

further consideration by the contact group on monitoring transboundary movements of, and preventing 

illegal trade in, ozone-depleting substances. 

113. The co-chair of that contact group subsequently reported to the Meeting of the Parties on the 

group’s deliberations. He said that it had been unable to reach consensus on the measures contained in 

the draft decision. Some members had deemed the proposed additional reporting requirements for both 

Article 5 and non-Article 5 Parties to be too burdensome. Furthermore, he pointed out, there could be no 

consideration of whether to adjust the Protocol in order to reduce production of methyl bromide by 

non-Article 5 Parties to a level that corresponded to the basic domestic needs of Article 5 Parties until 

such an adjustment had been officially proposed by a Party. The group had also discussed but had not 

agreed on the creation of a system for the exchange of information between importing and exporting 

Parties similar to that set out in decision XVII/12 on minimizing production of CFCs by non-Article 5 

Parties to meet the basic domestic needs of Article 5 Parties. 

114. He said that, similarly, no consensus had been reached on whether the issue should be taken up 

by the Open-ended Working Group at its twenty-eighth meeting. To enable the matter to be considered 

further, the contact group therefore suggested that the proponents of the draft decision submit a proposal 

for an adjustment to the Protocol that provided for a reduction in production of methyl bromide by 

non-Article 5 Parties. One of the proponents of the draft decision agreed to do so. One representative 

recalled that such a proposal needed to be submitted at least six months before the meeting at which it 

was to be considered. 

115. In the light of the report of the contact group, the Meeting of the Parties agreed that it would not 

forward the draft decision to the high-level segment. 
UNEP/OzL.Pro.19/7 

22

VI. Consideration of issues related to the Multilateral Fund for the 

Implementation of the Montreal Protocol 

A. Need for a study on the 2009−2011 replenishment of the Multilateral Fund 

116. Introducing the item, the Co-Chair recalled that since 1990 the Multilateral Fund for the 

Implementation of the Montreal Protocol had worked on the basis of three-year funding cycles, with the 

last replenishment decision in 2005 covering the period 2006–2008. It had been the custom of the 

Parties, in the year prior to each replenishment decision, to develop terms of reference for a study on the 

upcoming replenishment. Accordingly, the matter was due for consideration in the current year in 

preparation for the 2008 replenishment decision, which would cover the period 2009–2011. The 

Open-ended Working Group at its twenty-seventh meeting had considered a draft decision on the matter 

and agreed to forward it to the Meeting of the Parties for consideration at the current meeting. Certain 

sections of the draft decision were enclosed in square brackets, to indicate a lack of consensus on the 

text therein. 

117. As agreed by the Parties in discussing the organization of work of the current meeting during the 

opening session of the high-level segment, the Meeting of the Parties requested the contact group on 

terms of reference for a study on the replenishment of the Multilateral Fund (co-chaired by Mr. Jozef 

Buys (Belgium) and Mr. David Omotosho (Nigeria)) that had been established at the Working Group’s 

twenty-seventh meeting to reconvene to consider the matter further. 

118. The co-chair of the contact group subsequently presented a revised draft decision on the terms 

of reference for the study on the 2009–2011 replenishment of the Multilateral Fund, which had been 

circulated as a conference room paper. He noted that some text in the draft decision remained bracketed, 

as it was contingent upon the outcomes of the discussions of the contact group considering adjustments 

to the HCFC phase-out schedule of the Montreal Protocol. 

119. On the understanding that the bracketed text would be amended to reflect the outcome of the 

discussion of the contact group considering adjustments to the HCFC phase-out schedule of the 

Montreal Protocol, the Meeting of the Parties agreed to forward the draft decision to the high-level 

segment for consideration and possible adoption. 

B. Consideration of the request of the Executive Committee of the Multilateral Fund 

to change its terms of reference to modify if necessary the number of times that it 

meets 

120. The Co-Chair recalled that the Executive Committee had requested a change in its terms of 

reference to give it the flexibility to modify the number of meetings it held each year. The Open-ended 

Working Group had considered the matter at the twenty-seventh meeting and reached consensus. 

Accordingly, the Open-ended Working Group had forwarded a draft decision for consideration by the 

Meeting of the Parties at its current meeting (UNEP/OzL.Pro.19/3, section D) that would allow the 

Executive Committee to hold either two or three meetings each year. 

121. The Meeting of the Parties agreed to forward the draft decision to the high-level segment for 

consideration and possible adoption. 

VII. Monitoring transboundary movements of, and preventing illegal 

trade in, ozone-depleting substances (decision XVIII/18) 

122. The Co-Chair recalled that by its decision XVII/16 the Meeting of the Parties had requested that 

a study be carried out on the feasibility of developing a system for monitoring the transboundary 

movement of ozone-depleting substances. By its decision XVIII/18 the Meeting of the Parties had 

invited Parties to submit comments, focusing in particular on their priorities with respect to the medium 

and longer-term options listed in the study and/or all other possible options, with a view to identifying 

those cost-effective actions which could be given priority by the Parties both collectively through 

further action to be considered under the Protocol and at the regional and national levels. 

123. In accordance with decision VIII/18, the Open-ended Working Group at its twenty-seventh 

meeting had considered a draft decision and agreed to forward it for consideration by the Nineteenth 

Meeting of the Parties. Certain sections of the draft decision were enclosed in square brackets to 

indicate a lack of consensus on the text therein. 
UNEP/OzL.Pro.19/7 

23

124. As agreed by the Parties in discussing the organization of work of the current meeting during the 

opening session of the high-level segment, the Meeting of the Parties requested the contact group on 

monitoring transboundary movements of, and preventing illegal trade in, ozone depleting substances, 

co-chaired by Mr. Nicolas Kiddle and Mr. Paul Krajnik, to consider the matter further. 

125. Mr. Krajnik subsequently reported on the contact group’s deliberations and presented a draft 

decision that it had prepared. He said that the group had restructured the original draft decision to make 

the presentation of ideas more logical. Many issues had been discussed by the contact group but only 

those on which consensus had been reached had been included in the draft decision. Among the issues 

that did not appear were destruction of ozone-depleting substances; extension of the labelling and 

documentation of alternatives to ozone-depleting substances, which was considered by some contact 

group members to be beyond the scope of the Montreal Protocol because it pertained mainly to 

non-ozone-depleting substances; means of storing ozone-depleting substances awaiting customs 

controls, given that a lack of storage facilities might encourage illegal trade; and the introduction of 

additional reporting requirements, which were deemed by some members to be too burdensome. 

126. The Meeting of the Parties agreed to forward the draft decision to the high-level segment for 

consideration and possible adoption. 

VIII.Consideration of issues related to the future challenges to be faced by 

the Montreal Protocol (decision XVIII/36)

A. Refining the institutional arrangements of the Montreal Protocol 

127. The Co-Chair recalled that the Open-ended Working Group at its twenty-seventh meeting had 

considered a draft decision on refining the institutional arrangements of the Montreal Protocol. That 

draft decision, among other things, had proposed that the Ozone Secretariat be requested to collect 

information and to report to the Parties on meetings held by other multilateral environmental 

agreements and on opportunities to optimize data reporting; that the Ozone and Multilateral Fund 

secretariats be requested to prepare business plans; and that the Ozone Secretariat be requested to hire a 

contractor to analyse the ozone-related activities being carried out within UNEP, with a view to 

identifying opportunities for streamlining. The draft decision had been considered by a contact group set 

up by the Open-ended Working Group, which had concluded that further discussion was required on the 

draft decision. 

128. One representative said that the issue of refining the institutional arrangements of the Montreal 

Protocol was inextricably linked with the possible adjustment of the Protocol to accelerate the phase-out 

of HCFCs, which was also under consideration at the current meeting. He said that if no adjustment was 

made then the consequent low levels of activity in the years following the 2010 CFC phase-out deadline 

would dictate the need for a change in the Protocol’s institutional arrangements and a lower level of 

financing. 

129. After extensive discussion of the timing of further discussion on the matter, the Meeting of the 

Parties agreed to refer the issue to the contact group on terms of reference for the replenishment of the 

Multilateral Fund that had been established at the Open-ended Working Group’s twenty-seventh 

meeting and reconvened under sub-item 6 (a) of the agenda of the preparatory segment. 

130. The co-chair of the contact group subsequently reported that, owing to lack of time, the group 

had been unable to take up the matter at the current meeting. The Meeting of the Parties accordingly 

decided to defer consideration of the matter to a later date. 

B. Establishing a multi-year agenda for the Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal 

Protocol to address key policy issues identified by the Parties 

131. The Co-Chair recalled that at its twenty-seventh meeting, the Open-ended Working Group had 

discussed the possibility of establishing a multi-year agenda for the meetings of the Parties that would 

address such issues as the remaining production and consumption of ozone-depleting substances; banks 

and stockpiles of ozone-depleting substances; the extent and predictability of funding for a global 

programme of scientific monitoring of the ozone layer; the evolution of the work of the Multilateral 

Fund and its secretariat; the need for work by the subsidiary bodies of the Montreal Protocol in the 

future and its scope; future management and oversight of the Montreal Protocol and its key institutions; 

and ways to maintain compliance and combat illegal trade. Following that discussion, the Working 

Group had agreed to forward a draft decision for consideration by the Meeting of the Parties at its 

nineteenth meeting (UNEP/OzL.Pro.19/3, section G). 
UNEP/OzL.Pro.19/7 

24

132. The representative of Canada, the proponent of the draft decision, explained that the intention 

was to establish a workplan on key tasks to be completed in the next four or five years. As those tasks 

were numerous, he suggested that it would be beneficial to prioritize them, giving precedence to those 

that had to be carried out in the near term, including notably any that might ensue from a decision to 

accelerate HCFC phase-out. 

133. Some representatives suggested that the matter could be discussed in the contact group 

considering the terms of reference for the study on replenishment of the Multilateral Fund, since the 

level of replenishment was related to the level of work that the bodies of the Protocol would have to 

complete. Others, however, suggested that in view of the very heavy workload at the current meeting, 

the matter should be postponed to another meeting, possibly the Twentieth Meeting of the Parties. One 

representative suggested that even if debate on the issue were to be postponed the Parties should in the 

meantime provide for studies and the gathering of relevant information. 

134. The Meeting of the Parties agreed that in view of its heavy workload at the current meeting, it 

would defer consideration of the issue to a later date. 

IX. Consideration of issues arising out of the 2007 reports of the 

Technology and Economic Assessment Panel 

A. Review of nominations for essential-use exemptions for 2008 and 2009 

135. Introducing the report by the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel on the nominations 

for essential use exemption, the Co-Chair said that three Parties had submitted requests for essential-use 

exemptions for metered-dose inhalers, namely, the European Community, the Russian Federation and 

the United States of America. The Russian Federation had also requested an exemption for CFCs for its 

aerospace industry. The Technology and Economic Assessment Panel had recommended approval of all 

of the nominated amounts. A draft decision on the three nominations for metered-dose inhaler uses was 

contained in document UNEP/OzL.Pro.19/3 (section J), as was a draft decision on the Russian 

Federation’s nomination for aerospace uses (section H). In addition, the European Community prepared 

another draft decision on the metered-dose inhaler nominations, which was circulated in a conference 

room paper. 

136. The representative of the European Community presented the draft decision it had prepared, 

noting that as a result of the progress made by relevant industries, the Community was in a position to 

request an exemption for only 200 tonnes of CFCs rather than the approved 316 tonnes originally 

requested and recommended by the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel. The Party also 

announced its intent to refrain from making any nominations for the manufacture of metered-dose 

inhalers in 2010 and subsequent years and suggested that all non-Article 5 Parties make the same 

commitment. Toward that end, it noted that it had submitted a new proposed decision on the matter. 

137. One representative expressed concern about certain elements of the European Community’s 

draft decision, suggesting that it might be unrealistic to expect production of metered-dose inhalers to 

cease by the end of 2009 in her country and questioning whether technically and economically feasible 

alternatives existed for the CFCs used in all types of metered-dose inhalers. Another representative 

described progress his country had made, as well as the ongoing legal procedures it was employing to 

determine the most appropriate time to eliminate the production of CFC-based metered-dose inhalers. 

The representative of the Russian Federation, responding to a query about the scale of his Party’s 

nomination for aerospace uses, voiced surprise that the issue was being raised again in the light of the 

fact that it had been thoroughly discussed and virtually settled at the last meeting of the Open-ended 

Working Group, following compromises by his Government. 

138. At the suggestion of the Co-Chair, it was agreed that the three Parties, together with other 

interested Parties, would consult informally to reach agreement on the texts of the draft decisions. 

139. The representative of the Russian Federation subsequently reported that there was full 

agreement on the draft decision on the essential-use exemption for the Russian aerospace industry. The 

Meeting of the Parties agreed to forward the draft decision to the high-level segment for consideration 

and possible adoption. 

140. The representative of the European Community subsequently reported that the Parties had 

reached agreement on a revised draft decision on the essential-use exemption for CFCs for 

metered-dose inhalers in the European Union, the Russian Federation and the United States of America. 

The Meeting of the Parties agreed to forward the draft decision to the high-level segment for 

consideration and possible adoption. 
UNEP/OzL.Pro.19/7 

25

B. Process-agent-related proposals (decisions XVII/6 and XVII/8) 

141. Introducing the sub-item, the Co-Chair recalled that pursuant to decision XVII/6, the 

Open-ended Working Group at its twenty-seventh meeting had heard reports from the Executive 

Committee of the Multilateral Fund and from the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel on 

various process-agent-related matters. As a result of those reports and related discussions, the 

Open-ended Working Group had forwarded a draft decision (UNEP/OzL.Pro.19/3, section I), proposing 

the replacement of the current list of process agent applications found in table A of decision X/14 and 

table A-bis of decision XVII/8 with an updated list, for consideration by the Meeting of the Parties at its 

current meeting. 

142. The Meeting of the Parties agreed to forward the draft decision to the high-level segment for 

consideration and possible adoption. 

C. Technology and Economic Assessment Panel final report on carbon tetrachloride 

emissions and opportunities for reductions (decision XVIII/10) 

143. Introducing the sub-item, the Co-Chair recalled that by decision XVIII/10 the Meeting of the 

Parties had requested the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel to prepare a final report on 

carbon tetrachloride emissions and opportunities for reductions, focusing on obtaining better data on 

industrial emissions, investigating further issues related to the production of carbon tetrachloride and 

estimating emissions from other sources such as landfills. He said that the Panel had been unable to 

complete that task due to difficulties in obtaining relevant data. 

144. The representative of the Panel said that a group had been set up to look at the issue further and 

would report on its findings in its 2008 progress report. The Meeting of the Parties agreed that the Panel 

should be allowed more time to complete its work on the matter. 

D. Consideration of n-propyl bromide proposal (decision XVIII/11) 

145. The Meeting of the Parties agreed to consider sub-item 9 (d) and item 12 of the agenda of the 

preparatory segment together. 

146. Introducing sub-item 9 (d), the Co-Chair recalled that by decision XVIII/11 the Parties had 

requested the Scientific Assessment Panel to update existing information on the ozone-depleting 

potential of n-propyl bromide and had requested the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel to 

continue its assessment of global emissions. At its twenty-seventh meeting the Open-ended Working 

Group had considered the matter and had prepared a draft decision (UNEP/OzL.Pro.19/3, section K) for 

consideration by the Nineteenth Meeting of the Parties. 

147. Introducing item 12, the Co-Chair recalled that at its twenty-seventh meeting the Open-ended 

Working Group had considered the matter of very short-lived ozone-depleting substances and had 

prepared and forwarded a draft decision (UNEP/OzL.Pro.19/3, section N) for consideration by the 

Nineteenth Meeting of the Parties. The draft decision urged Parties, in accordance with decision X/8, to 

report to the Secretariat on their production and consumption of trifluoroiodomethane, 

1,2-dibromoethane, bromoethane and other artificially produced very short-lived substances and 

requested the Secretariat, in accordance with decision XIII/5, to update the list of new ozone-depleting 

substances accordingly. 

148. The representative of the European Community noted that both draft decisions had been further 

amended as the result of informal consultations following the twenty-seventh meeting of the 

Open-ended Working Group and that they were before the Parties in conference room papers. 

149. One representative said that it was too early to add n-propyl bromide to the list of 

ozone-depleting substances because consumption of the substance was not very high, its 

ozone-depleting potential was low and further research was needed. Another representative noted that 

n-propyl bromide and other short-lived substances had been discussed in Scientific Assessment Panel 

reports going back to 1998 and that the Parties had not seen fit to take action on them. Another said that 

if short-lived and very short-lived substances were to be considered for action by the Meeting of the 

Parties they should be dealt with in broad groups rather than as discrete substances. 

150. In the light of the lack of consensus on the matter, the Meeting of the Parties decided to defer 

further discussion to a future meeting. 
UNEP/OzL.Pro.19/7 

26

E. Technology and Economic Assessment Panel report on campaign production of 

chlorofluorocarbons for production of metered-dose inhalers (decision XVIII/16) 

151. The Co-Chair explained that in accordance with decision XVIII/16 the Technology and 

Economic Assessment Panel had reported to the Open-ended Working Group at its twenty-seventh 

meeting on its progress in assessing the need for and the feasibility, optimal timing and recommended 

quantities of a limited campaign production of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) for metered-dose inhalers in 

both Article 5 and non-Article 5 Parties. She said that the Open-ended Working Group had discussed 

the possibility of maintaining the current system of “just-in-time production”. The Working Group did 

not achieve consensus, however, and accordingly agreed that following that meeting interested Parties 

would consult informally on the text of a draft decision on the matter for consideration by the 

Nineteenth Meeting of the Parties. 

152. In the ensuing discussion, one representative said that her Government was currently engaged in 

consultations with pharmaceutical companies that manufactured CFCs for metered-dose inhalers and 

was accordingly not yet in a position to make a decision on the item. 

153. The Meeting of the Parties therefore agreed to defer further consideration of the matter until a 

later meeting. 

F. Any other issues arising out of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel 

reports: funding for travel of Panel experts from non-Article 5 Parties

1. Funding for travel of Panel experts from non-Article 5 Parties 

154. The Co-Chair recalled that in its 2007 progress report, the Technology and Economic 

Assessment Panel had requested the Parties to consider covering the cost of up to twenty-six travels for 

non-Article 5 members of the Panel and its technical options committees in 2007 and 2008. She noted 

that the Open-ended Working Group had discussed the Panel’s request at its twenty-seventh meeting but 

had not reached agreement on the matter. 

155. In the ensuing discussion, one representative questioned whether the issue should have been 

included in the agenda of the current meeting in view of the fact that no Party had raised it for 

discussion or submitted a draft decision on the matter. Some representatives voiced doubts about the 

desirability of funding individual Panel experts, whose expenses, they said, should be covered by their 

respective countries. One representative, however, expressed concern that certain Parties would cease to 

support the Panel financially, stressing the fundamental importance of maintaining the quality of the 

Panel’s work and supporting its members. He therefore urged serious consideration of the Panel’s 

request, arguing that it would have only a minor impact on the Protocol’s budget. 

156. Subsequently, the representative of Switzerland presented a draft decision on the financial 

requirements of the Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee for 2008, which had been circulated 

as a conference room paper. He explained that the decision acknowledged that financial support was 

needed to cover the travel expenses of experts from non-Article 5 Parties and provided for the adoption 

of a budget based on the workplan and financial requirements of the Methyl Bromide Technical Options 

Committee set out in table 9 of the August 2007 final report of the Technology and Economic 

Assessment Panel on the evaluation of the 2007 critical use nominations for methyl bromide and related 

matters. 

157. Later in the meeting, the representative of Switzerland announced that Switzerland was 

withdrawing the draft decision but hoped that the Parties would find alternative means of supporting 

experts from non-Article 5 Parties. 

2. Follow-up to the 2006 assessment report of the Halons Technical Options Committee 

158. As agreed by the Parties in discussing the organization of work of the current meeting during the 

opening session of the high-level segment, the Meeting of the Parties took up under the present agenda 

item consideration of a draft decision on halon stocks. 

159. Introducing the sub-item, the representative of Australia recalled that the Parties had requested 

the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel’s Halons Technical Options Committee to consider 

the issue of halon stocks. She presented a draft decision on the matter, which was circulated as a 

conference room paper and which, as amended, reflected the Committee’s recommendations on the 

matter set out in its 2006 assessment report and suggestions proposed by several Parties during informal 

consultations before and at the current meeting. 
UNEP/OzL.Pro.19/7 

27

160. The Meeting of the Parties agreed to forward the draft decision to the high-level segment for 

consideration and possible adoption. 

X. Review of the deferral of consideration by the Implementation 

Committee and the Meeting of the Parties of the carbon-tetrachloride 

compliance status of Parties operating under Article 5 which provide 

evidence that their deviations are due to the use of that chemical for 

analytical and laboratory processes (decision XVII/13) 

161. Introducing the item, the Co-Chair explained that by decision XVII/13, the Meeting of the 

Parties had decided to defer consideration of the compliance status in relation to the control measures 

for carbon tetrachloride of Parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 who provided evidence to 

the Ozone Secretariat that any deviation from their consumption targets was due to the use of carbon 

tetrachloride for analytical and laboratory processes. She noted that to date four Article 5 Parties had 

taken advantage of the provisions of decision XVII/13 and that the deferral granted by the decision was 

due to expire at the end of 2007. 

162. The representative of Chile introduced a draft decision on behalf of the group of Latin America 

and Caribbean countries. She said that in recognition of the difficulties that Article 5 Parties were facing 

in finding viable alternatives to carbon tetrachloride for analytical and laboratory processes that 

complied with relevant international standards the draft decision would further defer consideration by 

the Implementation Committee and the Meeting of the Parties of the compliance status of Article 5 

Parties regarding control measures on carbon tetrachloride until 2010. 

163. In the ensuing discussion, a number of representatives from Article 5 Parties expressed support 

for the draft decision and reiterated their commitment to refrain from using carbon tetrachloride 

whenever possible. 

164. The Meeting of the Parties agreed to forward the draft decision to the high-level segment for 

consideration and possible adoption. 

XI. Future of the laboratory and analytical use exemption (decision XV/8) 

165. The Co-Chair recalled that by decision XV/8, the Meeting of the Parties had extended the 

exemption for laboratory and analytical uses of some ozone-depleting substances until 31 December 

2007. Following consideration of the matter at its twenty-seventh meeting, the Open-ended Working 

Group had forwarded two draft decisions (UNEP/OzL.Pro.19/3, sections L and M), to the Meeting of 

the Parties. One draft decision provided for the extension of the exemption until 2009 and the other until 

2015. 

166. In the ensuing discussion, one representative suggested that the Technology and Economic 

Assessment Panel and the Chemical Technical Options Committee should compile a list of laboratory 

and analytical uses of ozone-depleting substances, with an indication of the uses for which alternatives 

were available and a description of those alternatives. Another representative said that that would be an 

enormous task, given the thousands of laboratory and analytical procedures using high purity 

ozone-depleting substances in small quantities; instead, he suggested, greater incentives were needed for 

those involved in laboratory and analytical work to develop procedures that did not use ozone-depleting 

substances. 

167. The Meeting of the Parties agreed that interested Parties would meet informally during the 

current meeting in an attempt to reach agreement on a draft decision. 

168. The representative of the United States of America subsequently reported that interested Parties 

had met to discuss the two draft decisions on laboratory and analytical use exemptions and had merged 

them into a single draft decision, which had been circulated as a conference room paper. The Meeting of 

the Parties agreed to forward the draft decision to the high-level segment for consideration and possible 

adoption. 

XII. Assessment of new very short-lived ozone-depleting substances 

169. The Meeting of the Parties agreed to consider sub-item 9 (d) and item 12 of the agenda of the 

preparatory segment together. The report of the discussions on the two items is set out above in chapter 

IX, section D. 
UNEP/OzL.Pro.19/7 

28

XIII.Status of Romania 

170. Introducing the item, the Co-Chair recalled that at its twenty-seventh meeting the Open-ended 

Working Group had considered a proposal by Romania to be removed from the list of Parties operating 

under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Montreal Protocol. The Working Group had produced a draft 

decision on the issue for consideration by the Nineteenth Meeting of the Parties (UNEP/OzL.Pro.19/3, 

section O). 

171. The Meeting of the Parties agreed to forward the draft decision to the high-level segment for 

consideration and possible adoption. 

XIV.Proposed areas of focus for the assessment panels’ 2010 quadrennial 

reports (Article 6 and decision XV/53) 

172. The Co-Chair recalled that the Open-ended Working Group at its twenty-seventh meeting had 

agreed to request the Ozone Secretariat to engage in discussions with the assessment panels and had put 

forward a proposal on possible areas of focus for the panels’ 2010 assessment. The Nineteenth Meeting 

of the Parties had before it proposed terms of reference for the Scientific Assessment Panel, the 

Environmental Effects Panel and the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel prepared by the 

Secretariat on the basis of those discussions, which were circulated in a conference room paper. 

173. Several representatives said that the proposed terms of reference were a good start but required 

further consideration. The Meeting of the Parties therefore agreed that interested Parties should consult 

to review the proposed terms of reference and report to the Meeting of the Parties on the outcome of 

those discussions. 

174. One representative subsequently presented a draft decision that had been agreed during the 

informal consultations. Several representatives proposed amendments to the text. One representative 

said that, according to his understanding of the draft decision, the mention of production and use in 

various applications of ozone-depleting substances covered feedstock production and use. The Parties 

agreed that that understanding would be reflected in the present report. 

175. The Meeting of the Parties agreed to forward the draft decision, as orally amended, to the 

high-level segment for consideration and possible adoption. 

XV. Compliance and data reporting issues considered by the 

Implementation Committee 

176. The Co-Chair invited Ms. Robyn Washbourne (New Zealand), President of the Implementation 

Committee, to present a summary of the report of the thirty-ninth meeting of the Committee, which had 

taken place from 12 to 14 September 2007, and the draft decisions prepared by the Committee, which 

had been circulated in a conference room paper. 

177. She said that, due to the increasing workload of the Committee, it was recommending that its 

mid-year meeting be extended from two to three days and that provision be made for that adjustment in 

the Protocol’s budget. 

178. She observed that the draft decisions before the Meeting of the Parties, together with the 

recommendations of the Committee in the full report of its thirty-ninth meeting, illustrated every stage 

of the compliance system of the Montreal Protocol, including data reporting and clarification, requests 

for and approval of plans of action, monitoring of plan implementation and welcoming of Parties back 

into compliance. The Parties’ data reporting performance in 2007 had been less impressive than in 

recent years. Only about 130 of the 190 Parties required to report their production and consumption data 

for 2006 (68 per cent) had so far done so. Those that had not yet done so were encouraged to report their 

data before the 30 September deadline. All Parties had, however, reported their data for all years prior to 

2006 and all had also reported their base-year and baseline data. 

179. She noted that several Parties had requested changes in their baseline data for various 

substances. In most cases the Committee had needed to request further information from the Parties so 

that it could assess the requests properly. The request that had been received from Turkmenistan for a 

revision of its baseline data for methyl bromide, on the other hand, was well-supported, could serve as a 

model to other Parties with similar national circumstances and was recommended for approval. 
UNEP/OzL.Pro.19/7 

29

180. It was a matter of concern, she said, that 12 Parties to the Montreal Amendment had still not 

notified the Secretariat that they had established licensing systems, which were vital to tackling illegal 

trade and monitoring compliance. The Committee’s experience had shown too that it was important that 

Parties’ licensing systems incorporate all the elements listed in Article 4B of the Protocol and that they 

were operated and monitored effectively. 

181. Turning to the issue of compliance, she said that the Implementation Committee had prepared a 

draft decision that would request Saudi Arabia to produce a plan of action for methyl bromide, which 

would be considered in conjunction with that Party’s methyl bromide baseline data revision request. 

Plans of action had been submitted by Paraguay for CFCs and carbon tetrachloride and by the Islamic 

Republic of Iran for carbon tetrachloride and were also the subject of draft decisions. 

182. With regard to the monitoring of adherence to the plans of action approved for those Parties that 

had been in non-compliance, she said that the full report of the Committee listed many Parties that had 

met or were in advance of their time-specific phase-out benchmarks. Further information had been 

requested from the small number of Parties that had not provided the information required to confirm 

that they had fulfilled the commitments for 2006 contained in their plans of action. Regarding a matter 

of non-compliance by Greece, she noted that the Party had ceased all production of CFCs and had no 

plans to resume. In the light of data subsequently received, it had become unnecessary to forward to the 

current meeting draft decisions on Azerbaijan, El Salvador and Serbia contained in the report of the 

Committee’s June 2007 meeting. 

183. She recalled that by decision XVII/12 the Meeting of the Parties had urged non-Article 5 Parties 

exporting CFCs to Article 5 Parties to request (and submit to the Secretariat) written affirmations from 

the Article 5 Parties that the CFCs to be exported were genuinely needed for domestic consumption and 

would not place the Article 5 Parties in non-compliance. The Committee had prepared a draft decision 

for the Meeting of the Parties that would request the Committee to review the Parties’ implementation 

of the reporting requests contained in decision XVII/12. That reporting was not yet fully operational and 

was being monitored by the Committee. To assist in combating illegal trade, the Secretariat had been 

requested to identify those Parties that had not reported in accordance with decision XVII/16, which 

urged Parties to use the new reporting format to identify the destinations of exports of all ozone 

depleting substances. 

184. She recalled too that by decision XVIII/17 the Meeting of the Parties had requested the 

Secretariat to maintain a consolidated record of cases in which Parties had explained that their 

deviations from the Protocol’s control measures were the consequence of stockpiling for particular uses 

in future years. In reviewing that record, the Committee had noted that the identity of the Parties 

concerned was not included. In the interest of transparency, the Committee had requested the Secretariat 

to include such information in all future versions of the record. 

185. Recalling that at its thirty-eighth meeting the Committee had considered a paper on the 

challenges associated with future implementation of the non-compliance procedure, she highlighted the 

Committee’s conclusions on two of the issues. The first issue concerned the requirement in paragraph 9 

of the non-compliance procedure that the Committee make its meeting reports available to the Parties 

not later than six weeks before meetings of the Parties. As the Committee’s second meeting each year 

was held immediately prior to the annual meeting of the Parties that requirement was not complied with. 

The Committee had concluded, however, that that arrangement had several advantages and 

recommended its continuation. Second, the Committee had directed the Secretariat to precede the text of 

the draft decisions presented in the conference room paper circulated at the meeting of the Parties for 

adoption with a tabular summary of the draft decisions. 

186. In closing, she thanked the representatives of the Multilateral Fund secretariat and the 

implementing agencies and the Chair of the Executive Committee for their assistance. She also thanked 

the Ozone Secretariat for its support and the members of the Committee for their hard work. In 

particular she expressed the great appreciation of the Implementation Committee for the work and 

support of Ms. Tamara Curll, who would soon be resigning from her post as Monitoring and 

Compliance Officer of the Ozone Secretariat. The international ozone community, she concluded, had 

helped build a compliance system that was regarded with respect and as a model to be emulated. 

187. In the ensuing discussion, those representatives who spoke praised the work and reporting of the 

Implementation Committee and welcomed its proposals. One representative expressed support for the 

Committee’s current approach to the implementation of paragraph 9 of the Non-compliance Procedure. 

With respect to the Committee’s proposal to review implementation of decision XVII/12, however, he 

noted that many decisions “urged” Parties to take certain actions related to reporting. He said that his 

delegation did not consider such reporting to be obligatory and that if the Committee were to review all 
UNEP/OzL.Pro.19/7 

30

such reporting requests its workload would increase significantly. Another representative expressed 

support for the Committee’s request that the report prepared in accordance with decision XVIII/17 

should identify the Parties concerned. 

188. The Meeting of the Parties agreed to forward the draft decisions recommended by the 

Implementation Committee to the high-level segment for consideration and possible adoption. 

XVI.Other matters 

A. Draft Montreal Declaration 

189. The Co-Chair recalled that Canada had presented a proposal for a “Montreal Declaration” at the 

twenty-seventh meeting of the Open-ended Working Group. The Parties had discussed the matter at that 

meeting and agreed that intersessional work on the proposal would continue through an electronic 

dialogue. 

190. One representative gave an update on the intersessional consultations and explained that the 

proposed declaration was intended to reaffirm the commitments that Parties had made when they 

adopted the Protocol and to give a sense of the direction of the work ahead in the coming decade. 

Eleven Parties had submitted comments on the initial draft of the declaration, which had been posted on 

the Ozone Secretariat website. The draft text had then been revised, taking into account those 

comments. He said that he looked forward to continuing discussions at the present meeting on the basis 

of the amended draft and suggested that an additional paragraph might be needed in the event that the 

Parties agreed to an adjustment of the Protocol with regard to accelerated HCFC phase-out. 

191. A contact group was set up to consider the proposed Montreal declaration, to be chaired by 

Mr. Pierre Pinault (Canada). 

192. Speaking on behalf of Mr. Pinault, one representative reported that the group had reached 

agreement on the text of the draft Montreal Declaration, noting that the inclusion of one introductory 

paragraph would be contingent upon the outcomes of the discussions of the contact group considering 

adjustments to the HCFC phase-out schedule of the Montreal Protocol. She thanked participants for 

their creativity and flexibility and the spirit of compromise that had enabled the group to reach 

consensus on a draft Montreal Declaration. 

193. The Meeting of the Parties agreed to forward the draft Montreal Declaration to the high-level 

segment for consideration and possible adoption. 

B. Endorsement of new co-chairs of the Scientific Assessment Panel 

194. In accordance with its decision at the time of the adoption of the agenda of the high-level 

segment, the Meeting of the Parties took up under the present agenda item the issue of endorsement by 

the Parties of new co-chairs of the Scientific Assessment Panel. 

195. Introducing the item, the representative of the United States of America paid homage to the 

exceptional service that the Scientific Assessment Panel had provided to the Parties for more than two 

decades. He recalled that in May 2007 the Secretariat had received letters of resignation from two 

co-chairs of the Scientific Assessment Panel, Mr. Daniel Albritton and Mr. Robert Watson. He noted 

that as a result of their departure and the sad death of another co-chair, Mr. Gérard Mégie, there were 

three co-chair positions vacant on the Panel. 

196. He said that three formal nominations for co-chairs had accordingly been made: two by the 

United States of America and one by the United Kingdom. He announced the nomination by the United 

States of America of Mr. A. R. Ravishankara of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

and Mr. Paul Newman of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. The representative of the 

United Kingdom announced the nomination of Mr. John A. Pyle of the University of Cambridge. 

197. The Meeting of the Parties agreed that the representatives of the United Kingdom of Great 

Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America would prepare a proposal on the election 

of the co-chairs of the Scientific Assessment Panel for its consideration. 

198. The representative of the United Kingdom subsequently presented a draft decision on the 

election of the co-chairs of the Scientific Assessment Panel. Following consideration of that draft 

decision, the Meeting of the Parties agreed to forward it to the high-level segment for consideration and 

possible adoption. 
UNEP/OzL.Pro.19/7 

31

Part three: Continuation of the high-level segment 

VIII. Credentials of representatives 

199. The representative of the Secretariat reported that the Bureau of the Nineteenth Meeting of the 

Parties had approved the credentials of the representatives of 115 of the 157 Parties represented at the 

meeting. The Bureau had also approved the representation of one of the 157 Parties on the 

understanding that its credentials would be forwarded to the Secretariat as soon as possible. The Bureau 

urged all Parties attending future meetings of the Parties to make their best efforts to submit credentials 

to the Secretariat as required under rule 18 of the rules of procedure. 

IX. Report from the co-chairs of the preparatory segment on the result of 

discussions 

200. Mr. Sørensen reported that the preparatory segment had been very successful and he thanked all 

representatives for their hard work in creating that success. He said that during its preparatory segment 

the Meeting of the Parties had dealt with a large number of issues and had reached agreement on more 

than 20 draft decisions, which it recommended for final adoption. The President of the Meeting of the 

Parties thanked the co-chairs for their work and praised the spirit of cooperation shown during the 

negotiations. 

X. Dates and venue for the Twentieth Meeting of the Parties to the 

Montreal Protocol and the eighth meeting of the Conference of the 

Parties to the Vienna Convention 

201. Summarizing his Party’s progress in implementing the Montreal Protocol and expressing his 

hope that the Parties would maintain their current momentum as they moved ahead in implementing the 

Protocol, the representative of Qatar conveyed an offer from his Government to host the Twentieth 

Meeting of the Parties in Doha in 2008. 

202. Following a brief video presentation on Qatar, the Meeting of the Parties warmly welcomed the 

offer. 

XI. Other matters, including consideration of a Montreal declaration 

203. No matters were raised for discussion under the present item. The Parties’ consideration of the 

draft Montreal Declaration is discussed under item 16 (“Other matters”) of the agenda of the preparatory 

segment. In the light of its discussions during the preparatory segment, the Meeting of the Parties 

adopted the Montreal Declaration as set out in chapter 12 below. 

XII. Adoption of decisions by the Nineteenth Meeting of the Parties to the 

Montreal Protocol 

204. The Meeting of the Parties decides: 

 Decision XIX/1: Ratification of the Vienna Convention, the Montreal Protocol and the London, 

Copenhagen, Montreal and Beijing amendments to the Protocol

1. To note with satisfaction the large number of countries that have ratified the Vienna 

Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer and the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete 

the Ozone Layer; 

2. To note that, as of 21 September 2007, 191 Parties had ratified the Vienna Convention 

on Protection of the Ozone Layer, 191 Parties had ratified the Montreal Protocol on Substances that 

Deplete the Ozone Layer, 186 Parties had ratified the London Amendment to the Montreal Protocol, 

178 Parties had ratified the Copenhagen Amendment to the Montreal Protocol, 157 Parties had ratified 

the Montreal Amendment to the Montreal Protocol and 132 Parties had ratified the Beijing Amendment 

to the Montreal Protocol; 

3. To urge all States that have not yet done so to ratify, approve or accede to the Vienna 

Convention and the Montreal Protocol and its amendments, taking into account that universal 

participation is necessary to ensure the protection of the ozone layer; 
UNEP/OzL.Pro.19/7 

32

Decision XIX/2: Membership of the Implementation Committee 

1. To note with appreciation the work done by the Implementation Committee under the 

Non-compliance Procedure of the Montreal Protocol in the year 2007; 

2. To confirm the positions of Bolivia, Georgia, India, Tunisia and the Netherlands for one 

further year and to select Jordan, Mauritius, Mexico, New Zealand and the Russian Federation as 

members of the Committee for a two-year period commencing 1 January 2008; 

3. To note the selection of Tunisia to serve as President and of the Russian Federation to 

serve as Vice-President and Rapporteur, respectively, of the Implementation Committee for one year 

with effect from 1 January 2008; 

Decision XIX/3: Membership of the Executive Committee of the Multilateral Fund for the 

Implementation of the Montreal Protocol 

1. To note with appreciation the work done by the Executive Committee with the 

assistance of the Fund Secretariat in the year 2007; 

2. To endorse the selection of Belgium, Australia, Romania, Germany, Japan, Sweden, 

and the United States of America as members of the Executive Committee representing Parties not 

operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Protocol and the selection of Gabon, Sudan, China, 

India, Lebanon, the Dominican Republic and Uruguay as members representing Parties operating under 

that paragraph, for one year effective from 1 January 2008; 

3. To note the selection of Gabon to serve as Chair and Mr. Husamuddin Ahmadzai 

(Sweden) to serve as Vice-Chair of the Executive Committee for one year with effect from 1 January 

2008; 

Decision XIX/4: Co-Chairs of the Open-ended Working Group of the Parties to the Montreal 

Protocol 

To endorse the selection of Mr. Mikkel Aaman Sorensen (Denmark) and Ms. Judy Francis 

Beaumont (South Africa) as Co-Chairs of the Open-ended Working Group of the Parties to the 

Montreal Protocol for 2008; 

Decision XIX/5: Financial matters: financial reports and budgets 

1. To approve the 2008 budget for the Trust Fund for the Montreal Protocol on Substances 

that Deplete the Ozone Layer in the amount of $4,618,880 and to take note of the proposed 2009 budget 

of $4,887,129, as set out in annex I to the report of the Nineteenth Meeting of the Parties3

; 

2. To authorize the Ozone Secretariat to draw down $341,947 in 2008; 

3. To approve, as a consequence of the draw-down referred to in paragraph 2 above, total 

contributions to be paid by the Parties of $4,276,933 for 2008; 

4. That the contributions of individual Parties shall be listed in annex II to the report of the 

Nineteenth Meeting of the Parties; 

5. To authorize the Ozone Secretariat to maintain a constant operating cash reserve of the 

estimated annual planned expenditures that will be used to meet the final expenditures under the trust 

fund. The Parties agree to increase the approved budget for the operating cash reserve for 2008 to 

11.3 per cent and to contribute 3.7 per cent of the budget for the cash operating reserve in 2009, after 

which time the Parties will strive to maintain an operating cash reserve of 15 per cent; 

6. To express its concern over delays in payment of agreed contributions by Parties, 

contrary to the provisions in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the terms of reference for the administration of the 

Trust Fund for the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer; 

7. To urge all Parties to pay their contributions promptly and in full and also to urge Parties 

that have not done so to pay their contributions for prior years as soon as possible; 

 3 UNEP/OzL.Pro/19/7. 
UNEP/OzL.Pro.19/7 

33

8. To encourage Parties, non-Parties and other stakeholders to contribute financially and 

with other means to assist members of the three assessment panels and their subsidiary bodies with their 

continued participation in the assessment activities under the Protocol; 

9. To invite Parties to notify the Ozone Secretariat of all contributions made to the 

Montreal Protocol Trust Fund at the time such payments are made; 

10. To request the Executive Secretary, in accordance with rule 14 of the rules of procedure, 

to provide Parties with an indication of the financial implications of draft decisions whose 

implementation cannot be funded from existing resources within the budget of the Montreal Protocol 

Trust Fund; 

11. To request the Ozone Secretariat to ensure its implementation of secretariat-related 

decisions adopted by the Meeting of the Parties as approved and within the budget and the availability 

of financial resources in the Trust Fund; 

12. To request the Ozone Secretariat to inform the Open-ended Working Group on all 

sources of income received, including the reserve and fund balance and interest as well as actual and 

projected expenditures and commitments, and to request the Executive Secretary to provide an 

indicative report on all expenditures against budget lines; 

13. To request the Open-ended Working Group to keep under review the financial 

information provided by the Ozone Secretariat, including the timeliness and transparency of that 

information. 

Decision XIX/6: Adjustments to the Montreal Protocol with regard to Annex C, Group I, 

substances (hydrochlorofluorocarbons) 

The Parties agree to accelerate the phase-out of production and consumption of 

hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs), by way of an adjustment in accordance with paragraph 9 of Article 

2 of the Montreal Protocol and as contained in annex III to the report of the Nineteenth Meeting of the 

Parties,4

 on the basis of the following: 

1. For Parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Protocol (Article 5 Parties), 

to choose as the baseline the average of the 2009 and 2010 levels of, respectively, consumption and 

production; and 

2. To freeze, at that baseline level, consumption and production in 2013; 

3. For Parties operating under Article 2 of the Protocol (Article 2 Parties) to have 

completed the accelerated phase-out of production and consumption in 2020, on the basis of the 

following reduction steps: 

(a) By 2010 of 75 per cent; 

(b) By 2015 of 90 per cent; 

(c) While allowing 0.5 per cent for servicing the period 2020–2030; 

4. For Article 5 Parties to have completed the accelerated phase-out of production and 

consumption in 2030, on the basis of the following reduction steps: 

(a) By 2015 of 10 per cent; 

(b) By 2020 of 35 per cent; 

(c) By 2025 of 67.5 per cent; 

(d) While allowing for servicing an annual average of 2.5per cent during the period 

2030–2040; 

5. To agree that the funding available through the Multilateral Fund for the Implementation 

of the Montreal Protocol in the upcoming replenishments shall be stable and sufficient to meet all 

agreed incremental costs to enable Article 5 Parties to comply with the accelerated phase-out schedule 

both for production and consumption sectors as set out above, and based on that understanding, to also 

direct the Executive Committee of the Multilateral Fund to make the necessary changes to the eligibility 

criteria related to the post-1995 facilities and second conversions;

 4 UNEP/OzL.Pro.19/7. 
UNEP/OzL.Pro.19/7 

34

6. To direct the Executive Committee, in providing technical and financial assistance, to 

pay particular attention to Article 5 Parties with low volume and very low volume consumption of 

HCFCs; 

7. To direct the Executive Committee to assist Parties in preparing their phase-out 

management plans for an accelerated HCFC phase-out; 

8. To direct the Executive Committee, as a matter of priority, to assist Article 5 Parties in 

conducting surveys to improve reliability in establishing their baseline data on HCFCs; 

9. To encourage Parties to promote the selection of alternatives to HCFCs that minimize 

environmental impacts, in particular impacts on climate, as well as meeting other health, safety and 

economic considerations; 

10. To request Parties to report regularly on their implementation of paragraph 7 of Article 

2F of the Protocol; 

11. To agree that the Executive Committee, when developing and applying funding criteria 

for projects and programmes, and taking into account paragraph 6, give priority to cost-effective 

projects and programmes which focus on, inter alia: 

(a) Phasing-out first those HCFCs with higher ozone-depleting potential, taking into 

account national circumstances; 

(b) Substitutes and alternatives that minimize other impacts on the environment, including 

on the climate, taking into account global-warming potential, energy use and other relevant factors; 

(c) Small and medium-size enterprises; 

12. To agree to address the possibilities or need for essential use exemptions, no later than 

2015 where this relates to Article 2 Parties, and no later than 2020 where this relates to Article 5 Parties; 

13. To agree to review in 2015 the need for the 0.5 per cent for servicing provided for in 

paragraph 3, and to review in 2025 the need for the annual average of 2.5 per cent for servicing 

provided for in paragraph 4 (d); 

14. In order to satisfy basic domestic needs, to agree to allow for up to 10% of baseline 

levels until 2020, and, for the period after that, to consider no later than 2015 further reductions of 

production for basic domestic needs; 

15. In accelerating the HCFC phase-out, to agree that Parties are to take every practicable 

step consistent with Multilateral Fund programmes, to ensure that the best available and 

environmentally-safe substitutes and related technologies are transferred from Article 2 Parties to 

Article 5 Parties under fair and most favourable conditions; 

Decision XIX/7: Eligibility of South Africa for financial assistance from the Multilateral Fund 

Recalling decision IX / 27, which, while accepting the classification of South Africa as a 

developing country for the purposes of the Montreal Protocol, noted that South Africa has undertaken 

not to request financial assistance from the Multilateral Fund for fulfilling commitments undertaken by 

developed countries prior to the Ninth Meeting of the Parties, 

Noting that the adjustment for HCFC control measures of the Nineteenth Meeting of the Parties 

contains new obligations undertaken by all developing countries, including South Africa, 

That South Africa, as a developing country operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the 

Montreal Protocol, is eligible for technical and financial assistance from the Multilateral Fund for 

fulfilling its commitments to phase out both production and consumption of HCFCs, consistent with 

decision XIX/6 of the Nineteenth meeting of the Parties; 

Decision XIX/8: Additional work on hydrochlorofluorocarbons 

Noting that by decision XIX/6 the Meeting of the Parties adopted an adjustment to the Montreal 

Protocol to accelerate the phase-out of hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) and noting the impact of 

those adjustments on efforts towards the recovery of the ozone layer,
UNEP/OzL.Pro.19/7 

35

Expressing appreciation for the work done by the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel 

and its technical options committees in analyzing the global status of HCFC consumption, banks, 

emissions and technologies and noting the need for further information on alternative technology 

acceptance and promotion among Parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Protocol 

(Article 5 Parties),

Welcoming the European Commission’s intention to organize and hold a workshop in 2008 on 

alternatives to HCFCs and their availability in Article 5 Parties, 

Taking into consideration the difficulties faced by some Article 5 Parties facing specific 

climatic conditions and other unique operating conditions, such as those as in mines that are not open pit 

mines, in the air-conditioning and refrigeration sectors, 

1. To request the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel to conduct a scoping study 

addressing the prospects for the promotion and acceptance of alternatives to HCFCs in the refrigeration 

and air-conditioning sectors in Article 5 Parties, with specific reference to specific climatic conditions 

and unique operating conditions, such as those as in mines that are not open pit mines, in some Article 5 

Parties; 

2. To request the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel to provide a summary of 

the outcome of the study referred to in the preceding paragraph in its 2008 progress report with a view 

to identifying areas requiring more detailed study of the alternatives available and their applicability; 

 Decision XIX/9: Critical-use exemptions for methyl bromide for 2008 and 2009 

Noting with appreciation the work done by the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel 

and its Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee, 

Noting that Parties submitting requests for methyl bromide have supported their requests with 

management strategies as requested under decision Ex.I/4, 

1. To permit, for the agreed critical-use categories for 2008 set forth in table A of the annex 

to the present decision for each Party, subject to the conditions set forth in the present decision and 

decision Ex.I/4 to the extent that those conditions are applicable, the levels of production and 

consumption for 2008 set forth in table B of the annex to the present decision which are necessary to 

satisfy critical uses, in addition to the amounts permitted in decision XVIII/13; 

2. To permit, for the agreed critical-use categories for 2009 set forth in table C of the annex 

to the present decision for each Party, subject to the conditions set forth in the present decision and in 

decision Ex.I/4 to the extent that those conditions are applicable, the levels of production and 

consumption for 2009 set forth in table D of the annex to the present decision which are necessary to 

satisfy critical uses, with the understanding that additional levels of production and consumption and 

categories of uses may be approved by the Meeting of the Parties in accordance with decision IX/6; 

3 To request the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel to ensure that recent 

findings with regard to the adoption rate of alternatives are annually updated and reported to the Parties 

in its first report of each year and inform the work of the Panel; 

4. That when assessing supplemental requests for critical use exemptions for 2009 for a 

specific nomination, the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel should take into account the most 

current information, including any information on domestic implementation of related 2008 and 2009 

critical uses, in accordance with paragraph 2 of decision IX/6; 

5. That a Party with a critical use exemption level in excess of permitted levels of 

production and consumption for critical uses is to make up any such differences between those levels by 

using quantities of methyl bromide from stocks that the Party has recognized to be available; 

6. That Parties shall endeavour to license, permit, authorize or allocate quantities of 

critical-use methyl bromide as listed in tables A and C of the annex to the present decision; 

7. That each Party which has an agreed critical use renews its commitment to ensure that 

the criteria in paragraph 1 of decision IX/6 are applied when licensing, permitting or authorizing critical 

use of methyl bromide and, in particular, the criterion laid down in paragraph 1 (b) (ii) of decision IX/6. 

Each Party is requested to report on the implementation of the present paragraph to the Ozone 

Secretariat by 1 February for the years to which this decision applies; 
UNEP/OzL.Pro.19/7 

36

8. To request the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel to continue publishing 

annually in its progress report prior to each meeting of the Open-ended Working Group the stocks of 

methyl bromide held by each nominating Party as reported in that Party’s accounting framework report; 

9. To recognize the continued contribution of the Methyl Bromide Technical Options 

Committee’s expertise and to agree that, in accordance with section 4.1 of the Technology and 

Economic Assessment Panel’s terms of reference, the Committee should continue to develop its 

recommendations in a consensus process that includes full discussion among all available members of 

the Committee; 

10. To note the importance of transparency in the critical-use exemption process and to 

request the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel to provide to the Open-ended Working Group 

at its next meeting a written explanation of its methodology for using its meta-analysis in its work and to 

disclose to the Parties in a written explanation any significant changes or deviations it intends to make to 

that methodology before it undertakes any such change or deviation; 

11. That Parties licensing, permitting or authorizing methyl bromide for critical uses shall 

request the use of emission minimization techniques such as virtually impermeable films, barrier film 

technologies, deep shank injection and/or other techniques that promote environmental protection, 

whenever technically and economically feasible; 

12 . That each Party should continue to ensure that its national management strategy for the 

phase-out of critical uses of methyl bromide addresses the aims specified in paragraph 3 of decision 

Ex.I/4;

Annex to decision XIX/9 

Critical-use exemptions for 2008 and 2009

Table A. 2008 agreed critical-use categories (metric tonnes) 

Australia Rice (1.80)* 

Canada Pasta (6.067) 

Israel Dates (1.800), Flour mills (0.312), Broomrape (250.000), Cucumber – protected (18.750), Cut flowers 

– bulbs – protected (114.450), Cut-flowers – open field (44.750), Melon – protected and field (87.500), 

Potato (93.750), Sweet potatoes (111.500), Strawberry runners (Sharon and Gaza) (31.900), Strawberry 

fruit – protected (Sharon and Gaza) (105.960), 

Poland Coffee and cocoa beans (0.500), Medicinal herbs and mushrooms (0.500), Strawberry runners (11.995) 

Spain Cut flowers (Andalucia and Catalonia) (17.000), Strawberry runners (215.000), Strawberry and pepper 

– research (0.151) 

* This amount was first approved in decision XVIII/13, conditional on the Technology and Economic 

Assessment Panel’s 2007 progress report. 

Table B: 2008 permitted levels of production and consumption (metric tonnes) 

Australia 1.80** 

Canada 6.067 

Israel 860.672 

Poland * 12.995 

Spain * 232.151 

* The production and consumption of the European Community shall not exceed 245.146 metric tonnes for the 

purposes of the agreed critical uses. 

** This amount was first approved in decision XVIII/13, conditional on the Technology and Economic 

Assessment Panel’s 2007 progress report. 
UNEP/OzL.Pro.19/7 

37

Table C: 2009 agreed critical-use categories (metric tonnes) 

Australia Strawberry runners (29.790), Rice (7.820) 

Canada Mills (26.913), Strawberry runners (Prince Edward Island) (7.462) 

Japan Chestnuts (5.800), Cucumbers (34.300), Ginger – field (63.056), Ginger – protected (8.325), Melons 

(91.100), Peppers green and hot (81.149), Watermelon (21.650) 

United States of 

America 

Commodities (45.623), NPMA food processing structures (cocoa beans removed) (54.606), Mills and 

processors (291.418), Dried cured pork (18.998), Cucurbits (407.091), Eggplant – field (48.691), Forest 

nursery seedlings (122.060), Nursery stock – fruit, nut, flower (25.326), Orchard replant (292.756), 

Ornamentals (107.136), Peppers – field (548.984), Strawberries – field (1,269.321), Strawberry runners 

(7.944), Tomatoes – field (1,003.876), Sweet potato slips (18.144) 

Table D: 2009 permitted levels of production and consumption (metric tonnes) 

Australia 37.610 

Canada 34.375 

Japan 305.380 

United States of America 3,961.974* 

* Minus available stocks 

Decision XIX/10: Terms of reference for the study on the 2009–2011 replenishment of the 

Multilateral Fund for the Implementation of the Montreal Protocol 

Recalling decisions VII/24, X/13, XIII/1 and XVI/35 on previous terms of reference for studies 

on the replenishment of the Multilateral Fund for the Implementation of the Montreal Protocol, 

Recalling also decisions VIII/4, XI/7, XIV/39, and XVII/40 on previous replenishments of the 

Multilateral Fund, 

1. To request the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel to prepare a report for 

submission to the Twentieth Meeting of the Parties, and to present it through the Open-ended Working 

Group at its twenty-eighth meeting, to enable the Twentieth Meeting of the Parties to take a decision on 

the appropriate level of the 2009–2011 replenishment of the Multilateral Fund. In preparing its report, 

the Panel should take into account, among other things: 

(a) All control measures and relevant decisions agreed by the Parties to the Montreal 

Protocol and the Executive Committee, including decisions agreed by the Nineteenth Meeting of the 

Parties and the Executive Committee at its fifty-third and fifty-fourth meetings insofar as those 

decisions will necessitate expenditure by the Multilateral Fund during the period 2009–2011, including 

scenarios which indicate eligible incremental costs and cost-efficiencies associated with implementation 

by Parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the adjustments and decisions relating to HCFCs, 

and, in addition, the Panel should provide indicative figures for the periods 2012–2014 and 2015–2017 

in order to provide information to support a stable level of funding that would be updated prior to 

figures for those periods being finalized; 

(b) The need to allocate resources to enable all Parties operating under paragraph 1 of 

Article 5 to maintain compliance with Articles 2A–2I of the Montreal Protocol and possible new agreed 

compliance measures relevant to the period 2009–2011 under the Montreal Protocol; 

(c) Rules and guidelines agreed by the Executive Committee, up to and including its 

fifty-fourth meeting, for determining eligibility for funding of investment projects (including those in 

the production sector), non-investment projects and sectoral or national phase-out plans; 

(d) Approved country programmes; 

(e) Financial commitments in 2009–2011 relating to national or sectoral phase-out plans 

agreed by the Executive Committee; 
UNEP/OzL.Pro.19/7 

38

(f) The provision of funds for accelerating phase-out and maintaining momentum, taking 

into account the time lag in project implementation; 

(g) Experience to date, including limitations and successes of the phase-out of 

ozone-depleting substances achieved with the resources already allocated, as well as the performance of 

the Multilateral Fund and its implementing agencies; 

(h) The impact that the international market, ozone-depleting substance control measures 

and country phase-out activities are likely to have on the supply of and demand for ozone-depleting 

substances, the corresponding effects on the price of ozone-depleting substances and the resulting 

incremental costs of investment projects during the period under review;

(i) Administrative costs of the implementing agencies and the cost of financing the 

secretariat services of the Multilateral Fund, including the holding of meetings; 

2. That, in undertaking this task, the Panel should consult widely with all relevant persons 

and institutions and other relevant sources of information deemed useful; 

3. To request the Panel to provide additional information on the levels of funding required 

for replenishment in each of the years 2012, 2013 and 2014 and to study the financial and other 

implications of a possible longer replenishment period, in particular whether such a measure would 

provide for more stable levels of contributions; 

4. That the Panel shall strive to complete its work in time to enable its report to be 

distributed to all Parties two months before the twenty-eighth Meeting of the Open-ended Working 

Group; 

5. To request the Panel to take into account the conclusions resulting from the study 

conducted by the Executive Committee pursuant to paragraph 2 of decision XVIII/9 in the event that 

proposals for control measures related to the subject of that study are submitted to the Ozone Secretariat. 

Decision XIX/11: Revision of the terms of reference of the Executive Committee 

To amend paragraph 8 of the terms of reference of the Executive Committee of the Multilateral 

Fund for the Implementation of the Montreal Protocol, as modified by the Ninth Meeting of the Parties 

in decision IX/16 and the Sixteenth Meeting of the Parties in decision XVI/38, to read: 

“8. The Executive Committee shall have the flexibility to hold two or three meetings 

annually, if it so decides, and shall report at each Meeting of the Parties on any decision taken 

there. The Executive Committee should consider meeting, when appropriate, in conjunction 

with other Montreal Protocol meetings.” 

Decision XIX/12: Preventing illegal trade in ozone-depleting substances 

Acknowledging the need for action to prevent and to minimize illegal trade in controlled 

ozone-depleting substances and the importance of this issue in continuing discussions on the future of 

the Protocol, 

Mindful of decision XVIII/18, which requested the Parties to provide written comments on the 

report entitled “ODS Tracking Feasibility Study on developing a system for monitoring the 

transboundary movement of controlled ozone-depleting substances between Parties” and requested the 

Ozone Secretariat to provide a compilation of such comments to the Nineteenth Meeting of the Parties 

in 2007, 

Noting with appreciation the comments of the Parties on the medium- and longer-term options 

put forward in the tracking feasibility study, 

Noting that there are other initiatives that could be used in the monitoring of the transboundary 

movements of controlled ozone-depleting substances between Parties, 

Acknowledging that an important first step toward effective monitoring of transboundary 

movements of ozone-depleting substances between Parties would be better implementation and 

enforcement of existing mechanisms, 
UNEP/OzL.Pro.19/7 

39

Acknowledging the initiative to attempt to combat illegal trade through informal prior informed 

consent by countries in the South Asian and South East Asia and Pacific regions and implementation of 

Project Sky Hole Patching by the Regional Intelligence Liaison Office of the World Customs 

Organization,

Recognizing the benefits of transparency and information sharing on measures established by 

Parties to combat illegal trade,

Noting that action relevant to trade in ozone-depleting substances may occur in other forums 

such as the World Customs Organization, 

1. To remind all Parties of their obligation under Article 4B of the Protocol to establish an 

import and export licensing system for all controlled ozone-depleting substances; 

2. To urge all Parties to fully and effectively implement and actively enforce their systems 

for licensing the import and export of controlled ozone-depleting substances as well as 

recommendations contained in existing decisions of the Parties, notably decisions IX/8, XIV/7, 

XVII/12, XVII/16 and XVIII/18; 

3. That Parties wishing to improve implementation and enforcement of their licensing 

systems in order to combat illegal trade more effectively may wish to consider implementing 

domestically on a voluntary basis the following measures: 

(a) Sharing information with other Parties, such as by participating in an informal prior 

informed consent procedure or similar system; 

(b) Establishing quantitative restrictions, for example import and/or export quotas; 

(c) Establishing permits for each shipment and obliging importers and exporters to report 

domestically on the use of such permits; 

(d) Monitoring transit movements (trans-shipments) of ozone-depleting substances, 

including those passing through duty-free zones, for instance by identifying each shipment with a 

unique consignment reference number; 

(e) Banning or controlling the use of non-refillable containers; 

(f) Establishing appropriate minimum requirements for labelling and documentation to 

assist in the monitoring of trade of ozone-depleting substances; 

(g) Cross-checking trade information, including through private-public partnerships; 

(h) Including any other relevant recommendations from the ozone-depleting substances 

tracking study; 

4. To request the Ozone Secretariat to continue to collaborate with the World Customs 

Organization in relation to possible actions by Parties on any new amendments to the Harmonized 

Commodity Description and Coding System with respect to ozone-depleting substances and to report to 

the Meeting of the Parties on actions taken at the World Customs Organization. 

Decision XIX/13: Essential-use nominations for Parties not operating under paragraph 1 of 

Article 5 for controlled substances for 2008 and 2009 

Noting with appreciation the work done by the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel 

and its Medical Technical Options Committee, 

Mindful that, according to decision IV/25, the use of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) for 

metered-dose inhalers does not qualify as an essential use if technically and economically feasible 

alternatives or substitutes are available that are acceptable from the standpoint of environment and 

health, 

Noting the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel's conclusion that technically 

satisfactory alternatives to chlorofluorocarbon-based metered-dose inhalers are available for 

short-acting beta-agonists and other therapeutic categories for asthma and chronic obstructive 

pulmonary disease, 

Mindful that paragraph 8 of decision XII/2 allows the transfer of CFCs between metered-dose 

inhaler companies, 
UNEP/OzL.Pro.19/7 

40

Welcoming the continued progress in several Parties not operating under paragraph 1 of 

Article 5 in reducing their reliance on CFC-containing metered-dose inhalers as alternatives are 

developed, receive regulatory approval and are marketed for sale, 

1. To authorize the levels of production and consumption for 2008 and 2009 necessary to 

satisfy essential uses of CFCs for metered-dose inhalers for asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary 

disease specified in the annexes to the present decision; 

2. That Parties not operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Montreal Protocol, when 

licensing, authorizing or allocating essential-use exemptions for a manufacturer of metered-dose 

inhalers, shall ensure, in accordance with paragraph 1 (b) of decision IV/25, that pre- and post-1996 

stocks of controlled substances are taken into account such that no more than a one-year operational 

supply is maintained by the manufacturer; 

3. That Parties not operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Montreal Protocol will 

request each company, consistent with paragraph 1 of decision VIII/10, to notify the relevant authority, 

for each metered-dose inhaler product for which the production of CFCs is requested, of: 

(a) The company’s commitment to the reformulation of the concerned products; 

(b) The timetable in which each reformulation process may be completed; 

(c) Evidence that the company is diligently seeking approval of any chlorofluorocarbon-free 

alternative(s) in its domestic and export markets and transitioning those markets away from its 

chlorofluorocarbon products; 

4. The Parties listed in Annex A to the present decision shall not nominate for the production 

of essential use volumes of CFCs for the manufacture of metered-dose inhalers in 2010 or any year 

thereafter. 

Annex A to decision XIX/13

Essential-use authorizations for 2008 of CFCs for metered-dose inhalers 

approved by the Nineteenth Meeting of the Parties (in metric tonnes)

Party 2008 approved amount 

European Community 200 

Russian Federation 212 

Annex B to decision XIX/13 

Essential-use authorizations for 2009 of CFCs for metered-dose inhalers 

approved by the Nineteenth Meeting of the Parties (in metric tonnes) 

Party 2009 approved amount 

United States of America 282 

Decision XIX/14: Essential-use exemption for chlorofluorocarbon-113 for aerospace applications 

in the Russian Federation 

Noting with appreciation the work done by the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel 

and its Chemicals Technical Options Committee, 

Taking into consideration that adequate identified alternatives for chlorofluorocarbon-113 

(CFC-113) do not currently exist for use in the aerospace industry of the Russian Federation and that the 

search for its alternatives continues, as confirmed in the 2006 assessment report of the Technology and 

Economic Assessment Panel and its Chemicals Technical Options Committee, 

Noting the readiness of the Russian Federation to explore the possibility of importing CFC-113 

for its aerospace industry needs from available global stocks in accordance with the recommendations 

of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel and its Chemicals Technical Options Committee, 
UNEP/OzL.Pro.19/7 

41

 Also noting that the Russian Federation is ready to receive prior to February 2008 a small group 

of experts in replacing ozone-depleting substance solvents in the aerospace industry nominated by the 

Technology and Economic Assessment Panel and its Chemicals Technical Options Committee with the 

aim of evaluating the applications and recommending proven alternatives where possible, 

1. To authorize the levels of production and consumption of CFC-113 in the Russian 

Federation for essential-use exemptions for chlorofluorocarbons in its aerospace industry in the amount 

of 140 metric tonnes in 2008; 

2. To authorize the volume of 130 metric tonnes of CFC-113 nominated for 2009 by the 

Russian Federation provided that no alternatives are identified by the Technology and Economic 

Assessment Panel that can be implemented by 2009; 

3. To request the Russian Federation to explore further the possibility of importing 

CFC-113 for its aerospace industry needs from available global stocks in accordance with the 

recommendations of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel and its Chemicals Technical 

Options Committee. 

Decision XIX/15: Replacement of table A and table A-bis in relevant process agent decisions 

 1. To adopt the table in the annex to the present decision as a list of process agent applications to 

replace table A of decision X/14 as it was amended in decision XVII/7 and to replace table A-bis in 

decision XVII/8. 

Annex to decision XIX/15 

Table A. List of uses of controlled substances as process agents 

Process ODS 

1 Elimination of NCl3 in chlor-alkali production CTC 

2 Chlorine recovery by tail gas absorption in chlor-alkali production CTC 

3 Production of chlorinated rubber CTC 

4 Production of endosulfan CTC 

5 Production of ibuprofen CTC 

6 Production of dicofol CTC 

7 Production of chlorosulfonated polyolefin (CSM) CTC 

8 Production of aramid polymer (PPTA) CTC 

9 Production of synthetic fibre sheet CFC-11 

10 Production of chlorinated paraffin CTC 

11 Photochemical synthesis of perfluoropolyetherpolyperoxide precursors of 

Z-perfluoropolyethers and difunctional derivatives 

CFC-12 

12 Reduction of perfluoropolyetherpolyperoxide intermediate for production of 

perfluoropolyether diesters 

CFC-113 

13 Preparation of perfluoropolyether diols with high functionality CFC-113 

14 Production of cyclodime CTC 

15 Production of chlorinated polypropene CTC 

16 Production of chlorinated EVA CTC 

17 Production of methyl isocyanate derivatives CTC 

18 Production of 3-phenoxybenzaldehyde CTC 

19 Production of 2-chloro-5-methylpyridine CTC 

20 Production of imidacloprid CTC 

21 Production of buprofenzin CTC 

22 Production of oxadiazon CTC 

23 Production of chloradized N-methylaniline CTC 
UNEP/OzL.Pro.19/7 

42

24 Production of 1,3-dichlorobenzothiazole CTC 

25 Bromination of a styrenic polymer BCM 

26 Synthesis of 2,4-D (2,4- dichlorophenoxyacetic acid) CTC 

27 Synthesis of DEHPC (di-(2-ethylhexyl) peroxydicarbonate) CTC 

28 Production of radio-labelled cyanocobalamin CTC 

29 Production of high modulus polyethylene fibre CFC-113 

30 Production of vinyl chloride monomer CTC 

31 Production of sultamicillin BCM 

32 Production of prallethrin (pesticide) CTC 

33 Production of o-nitrobenzaldehyde (for dyes) CTC 

34 Production of 3-methyl-2-thiophenecarboxaldehyde CTC 

35 Production of 2-thiophenecarboxaldehyde CTC 

36 Production of 2-thiophene ethanol CTC 

37 Production of 3,5-dinitrobenzoyl chloride (3,5-DNBC) CTC 

38 Production of 1,2-benzisothiazol-3-ketone CTC 

39 Production of m-nitrobenzaldehyde CTC 

40 Production of tichlopidine CTC 

41 Production of p-nitro benzyl alcohol CTC 

42 Production of tolclofos methyl CTC 

Decision XIX/16: Follow-up to the 2006 assessment report by the Halons Technical Options 

Committee 

 Welcoming the 2006 assessment report of the Halons Technical Options Committee of the 

Technology and Economic Assessment Panel, 

Welcoming also the continuing reduction in global halon use, 

Noting the concern expressed by the Halons Technical Options Committee about the availability 

of certain halons around the world,

1. To request the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel to undertake a further study 

on projected regional imbalances in the availability of halon 1211, halon 1301 and halon 2402 and to 

investigate and propose mechanisms to better predict and mitigate such imbalances in the future; 

2. To request the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel, when undertaking the 

study, to consult with the Secretariat of the Multilateral Fund on the outcomes of its study on the 

operation of halon banks around the world and to use such information from that study as may be 

relevant to its own review; 

3. To request the Ozone Secretariat to make available 2004, 2005 and 2006 halon 

consumption figures by type of halon to the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel for its study; 

4. To request the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel to submit its study in time 

to allow the Twentieth Meeting of the Parties to consider its results; 

5. To encourage Parties which have requirements for halon 1211, halon 1301 and halon 

2402 to provide the following information to the Ozone Secretariat by 1 April 2008 to assist the 

Technology and Economic Assessment Panel with its study: 

(a) Projected need for halon 1211, halon 1301 and halon 2402 to support critical or essential 

equipment through the end of its useful life; 

(b) Any difficulties experienced to date, or foreseen, in accessing adequate halons to support 

critical or essential equipment; 

6. To encourage Parties, on a regular basis, to inform their critical users of halons, 

including the maritime industries, the aviation sector and the military, of the need to prepare for reduced 

access to halons in the future and to take all actions necessary to reduce their reliance on halons; 
UNEP/OzL.Pro.19/7 

43

7. To request the Ozone Secretariat to write to the International Maritime Organization 

secretariat and to the secretariat of the International Civil Aviation Organization to draw their attention 

to the decreasing availability of halons for marine and aviation uses and to the need to take all actions 

necessary to reduce reliance on halons in their respective sectors. 

Decision XIX/17: Use of carbon tetrachloride for laboratory and analytical uses in Parties 

operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Montreal Protocol 

Recognizing the difficulties faced by countries operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the 

Montreal Protocol in their search for viable alternatives to analytical methods that comply with 

international standards, 

Considering that carbon tetrachloride plays an important role in analytical and laboratory 

processes and that there are currently no alternatives to it for some of those processes in Parties 

operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5, 

Recalling that in decision XVII/13 the Parties agreed that the Implementation Committee and 

the Meeting of the Parties should defer until 2007 consideration of the compliance status in relation to 

the Montreal Protocol control measures for carbon tetrachloride of Parties operating under paragraph 1 

of Article 5, 

Recalling also that in decision XVII/13 the Parties agreed that the Nineteenth Meeting of the 

Parties would review the deferral referred to above in order to address the period 2007–2009, 

1. That the Implementation Committee and the Meeting of the Parties should defer until 

2010 consideration of the compliance status in relation to the control measures for carbon tetrachloride 

of Parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 which provide evidence to the Ozone Secretariat with 

their data reports, submitted in accordance with Article 7, showing that any deviation from the respective 

consumption target is due to the use of carbon tetrachloride for analytical and laboratory processes;

2. To urge Parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 to minimize the consumption of 

carbon tetrachloride in laboratory and analytical uses by applying the global exemption criteria and 

procedures for laboratory and analytical uses of carbon tetrachloride currently established for Parties not 

operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5; 

Decision XIX/18: Laboratory and analytical-use exemption 

1. To extend until 31 December 2011 the global laboratory and analytical-use exemption, 

under the conditions set out in annex II of the report of the Sixth Meeting of the Parties5

 and decisions 

XV/8, XVI/16, and XVIII/15, for the controlled substances in all annexes and groups of the Montreal 

Protocol except Annex C, group 1; 

2. To request the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel and its Chemicals 

Technical Options Committee to provide, by the Twenty-first Meeting of the Parties, a list of laboratory 

and analytical uses of ozone-depleting substances, indicating those for which alternatives exist and 

which are therefore no longer necessary and describing those alternatives; 

3. To eliminate the testing of organic matter in coal from the global exemption for 

laboratory and analytical uses of controlled substances. 

Decision XIX/19: Request by Romania to be removed from the list of developing countries under 

the Montreal Protocol 

1. To note the request by Romania to be removed from the list of developing countries 

operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5; 

2. To approve the request by Romania and note further that Romania shall assume the 

obligations of a Party not operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Montreal Protocol from 1 

January 2008; 

 5 UNEP/OzL.Pro.6/7. 
UNEP/OzL.Pro.19/7 

44

Decision XIX/20: Terms of reference for the Scientific Assessment Panel, the Environmental 

Effects Assessment Panel and the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel 

1. To note with appreciation the excellent and highly useful work conducted by the 

Scientific Assessment Panel, the Environmental Effects Assessment Panel and the Technology and 

Economic Assessment Panel and their colleagues worldwide in preparing their 2006 assessment reports, 

including the 2007 synthesis report; 

2. To request the three assessment panels to update their 2006 reports in 2010 and submit 

them to the Secretariat by 31 December 2010 for consideration by the Open-ended Working Group and 

by the Twenty-third Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol in 2011; 

3. To request the assessment panels to keep the Parties to the Montreal Protocol informed 

of any important new developments; 

4. That for the 2010 report the Scientific Assessment Panel should consider issues 

including: 

(a) Assessment of the state of the ozone layer and its future evolution; 

(b) Evaluation of the Antarctic ozone hole and Arctic ozone depletion and the predicted 

changes in these phenomena; 

(c) Evaluation of the trends in the concentration of ozone-depleting substances in the 

atmosphere and their consistency with reported production and consumption of ozone-depleting 

substances and the likely implications for the state of the ozone layer; 

(d) Assessment of the interaction between climate change and changes on the ozone-layer; 

(e) Assessment of the interaction between tropospheric and stratospheric ozone, 

(f) Description and interpretation of the observed changes in global and polar ozone and in 

ultraviolet radiation, as well as future projections and scenarios for those variables, taking into account 

among other things the expected impacts of climate change; 

 (g) Assessment of consistent approaches to evaluating the impact of very short-lived 

substances, including potential replacements, on the ozone layer; 

(h) Identification and reporting, as appropriate, on any other threats to the ozone layer; 

5. That the Environmental Effects Assessment Panel should consider the following issues 

for future updates and the 2010 report: 

(a) Continued identification of the environmental impacts of ozone depletion and the 

environmental impacts of the interaction of ozone depletion and climate change for all areas that are 

assessed; 

(b) Assessment of the effects on human health from stratospheric ozone depletion; 

(c) Assessment of the impact of increased UV-B radiation on terrestrial and aquatic 

ecosystems and their interactions with each other and biogeochemical cycles; 

(d) Impact of stratospheric ozone depletion on the troposphere and its implications for the 

environment; 

(e) Assessment of the significance of UV-B radiation on materials; 

6. That the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel should, among other matters, 

consider the following topics: 

(a) The impact of the phase-out of ozone-depleting substances on sustainable development, 

particularly in Parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 and countries with economies in 

transition; 

(b) Technical progress in all sectors; 

(c) Technically and economically feasible choices for the reduction and elimination of 

ozone-depleting substances through the use of alternatives, taking into account their impact on climate 

change and overall environmental performance; 

(d) Technical progress on the recovery, reuse and destruction of ozone-depleting 

substances; 
UNEP/OzL.Pro.19/7 

45

(e) Accounting for the production and use in various applications of ozone-depleting 

substances, ozone-depleting substances in inventories, ozone-depleting substances in products and the 

production and use in various applications of very short-lived substances; 

(f) Accounting of emissions of all relevant ozone-depleting substances with a view to 

updating continuously use patterns and coordinating such data with the Scientific Assessment Panel in 

order periodically to reconcile estimated emissions and atmospheric concentrations; 

Decision XIX/21: Non-compliance in 2005 with the provisions of the Montreal Protocol governing 

production of the controlled substances in Annex A, group I, (chlorofluorocarbons) and the 

requirements of Article 2 of the Protocol with regard to the transfer of CFC production rights by 

Greece 

Noting that Greece ratified the Montreal Protocol on 29 December 1988, the London 

Amendment on 11 May 1993, the Copenhagen Amendment on 30 January 1995, the Montreal 

Amendment on 27 January 2006 and the Beijing Amendment on 27 January 2006 and is classified as a 

Party not operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Protocol, 

Noting also that Greece has reported annual production for the Annex A, group I, controlled 

substances (CFCs) of 2,142.000 ODP-tonnes for 2005 to meet the basic domestic needs of Parties 

operating under Article 5 of the Protocol, which exceeds the Party’s maximum allowable production 

level for those controlled substances of 730 ODP-tonnes, 

Noting with appreciation the explanation submitted by the Party that 1,374 ODP-tonnes of its 

excess production of CFCs is attributable to a transfer of CFC production allowances from the 

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to Greece in 2005, but noting with concern that 

Greece did not notify the Secretariat prior to the date of the transfer in accordance with the requirements 

of Article 2 of the Protocol, 

Noting also the explanation submitted by Greece that the 38 ODP-tonnes of total reported CFC 

production in 2005 that was not accounted for by the transfer of production allowances reflected the 

Party’s misunderstanding as to the calculation of its baseline for the production of CFCs to meet the 

basic domestic needs of Parties operating under Article 5 of the Protocol and data reporting errors by 

the Party for the baseline year 1995, 

Noting further the information submitted by Greece in support of its request to revise the data 

for the year 1995 that is used to calculate the Party’s baseline for the production of CFCs to meet the 

basic domestic needs of Parties operating under Article 5 of the Protocol, 

Recalling recommendation 39/16 of the Implementation Committee under the Non-compliance 

Procedure of the Montreal Protocol, which concluded that the information submitted by Greece did not 

meet the requirements of decision XV/19 of the Fifteenth Meeting of the Parties for substantiating 

requests for the revision of baseline data, primarily because the Party could not verify the accuracy of 

the proposed new baseline data as required by paragraph 2 (a) (iii) of decision XV/19, 

Noting with appreciation, however, that Greece ceased CFC production in January 2006, will 

not issue licenses to produce CFCs in the future and reported ozone-depleting substances data for 2006 

that confirms its return to compliance with the Protocol’s CFC production control measures in that year, 

1. That Greece was in non-compliance in 2005 with the provisions of Article 2 of the 

Protocol that prescribe the procedure for the transfer of production rights, while acknowledging the 

Party’s regret at its failure to comply with the notification requirement of Article 2 and its undertaking 

to ensure that any future transfers are conducted in accordance with that Article; 

2. That Greece was also in non-compliance in 2005 with the production control measures 

under the Montreal Protocol for the controlled substances contained in Annex A, group I, (CFCs) of the 

Protocol;

3. To monitor whether the Party continues to refrain from producing CFCs. To the degree 

that the Party is working toward and meeting the specific Protocol control measures, it should continue 

to be treated in the same manner as a Party in good standing; 
UNEP/OzL.Pro.19/7 

46

4. To caution Greece in accordance with item B of the indicative list of measures that may 

be taken by a Meeting of the Parties in respect of non-compliance that, in the event that it fails to remain 

in compliance, the Parties will consider measures consistent with item C of the indicative list of 

measures. Those measures may include the possibility of action available under Article 4 of the 

Protocol; 

Decision XIX/22: Non-compliance with the Montreal Protocol by Paraguay 

Noting that Paraguay ratified the Montreal Protocol and its London Amendment on 3 December 

1992, the Copenhagen and Montreal Amendments on 27 April 2001 and the Beijing Amendment on 

18 July 2006, is classified as a Party operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Protocol and had its 

country programme approved by the Executive Committee in February 1997, 

Noting also that the Executive Committee has approved $1,787,030 from the Multilateral Fund 

for the Implementation of the Montreal Protocol in accordance with Article 10 of the Protocol to enable 

Paraguay’s compliance, 

1. That Paraguay has reported annual consumption for the controlled substances in 

Annex A, group I, (CFCs) for 2005 of 250.7 ODP-tonnes, which exceeds the Party’s maximum 

allowable consumption of 105.3 ODP-tonnes for those controlled substances for that year, and was 

therefore in non-compliance with the consumption control measures under the Montreal Protocol for 

CFCs in 2005, 

2. That Paraguay has reported annual consumption of the controlled substance in Annex B, 

group II, (carbon tetrachloride) for 2005 of 0.7 ODP-tonnes, which exceeds its maximum allowable 

consumption of 0.1 ODP-tonnes for that controlled substance for that year, and was therefore in 

non-compliance with the consumption control measures under the Montreal Protocol for carbon 

tetrachloride in 2005, 

3. To record with appreciation the submission by Paraguay of a plan of action to ensure its 

prompt return to compliance with the Protocol’s CFC and carbon tetrachloride control measures, under 

which, without prejudice to the operation of the financial mechanism of the Protocol, Paraguay 

specifically commits itself: 

(a) To reducing CFC consumption to no greater than: 

(i) 31.6 ODP-tonnes in 2007, 2008 and 2009; 

(ii) Zero ODP-tonnes in 2010, save for essential uses that may be authorized by the 

Parties; 

(b) To reducing carbon tetrachloride consumption to no greater than: 

(i) 0.1 ODP-tonnes in 2007, 2008 and 2009; 

(ii) Zero ODP-tonnes in 2010, save for essential uses that may be authorized by the 

Parties; 

(c) To monitoring its import licensing and quota system for ozone-depleting substances and 

to extending that system to carbon tetrachloride; 

(d) To monitoring the implementation of its ban on the export of all ozone-depleting 

substances and the import of refrigeration and air-conditioning equipment, whether new or used, which 

use CFC-11 or CFC-12; 

4. To urge Paraguay to work with the relevant implementing agencies to implement its 

plan of action to phase out consumption of CFCs and carbon tetrachloride; 

5. To monitor closely the progress of Paraguay with regard to the implementation of its 

plan of action and the phase-out of CFCs and carbon tetrachloride. To the degree that the Party is 

working toward and meeting the specific Protocol control measures, it should continue to be treated in 

the same manner as a Party in good standing. In that regard, Paraguay should continue to receive 

international assistance to enable it to meet those commitments in accordance with item A of the 

indicative list of measures that may be taken by a Meeting of the Parties in respect of non-compliance; 
UNEP/OzL.Pro.19/7 

47

6. To caution Paraguay in accordance with item B of the indicative list of measures that 

may be taken by a Meeting of the Parties in respect of non-compliance that, in the event that it fails to 

remain in compliance, the Parties will consider measures consistent with item C of the indicative list of 

measures. Those measures may include the possibility of actions available under Article 4, such as 

ensuring that the supply of the CFCs and carbon tetrachloride that are the subject of non-compliance is 

ceased so that exporting Parties are not contributing to a continuing situation of non-compliance; 

Decision XIX/23: Potential non-compliance in 2005 with the provisions of the Montreal Protocol 

governing consumption of the controlled substance in Annex E (methyl bromide) by Saudi Arabia 

and request for a plan of action 

Noting that Saudi Arabia ratified the Montreal Protocol and its London and Copenhagen 

Amendments on 1 March 1993 and is classified as a Party operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of 

the Protocol, 

Noting also that the Executive Committee of the Multilateral Fund for the Implementation of the 

Montreal Protocol has approved $65,000 from the Fund in accordance with Article 10 of the Protocol to 

enable Saudi Arabia’s compliance,

1. That Saudi Arabia reported annual consumption for the controlled substance in Annex E 

(methyl bromide) for 2005 of 27.6 ODP-tonnes, which exceeds its maximum allowable consumption 

level of 0.5 ODP-tonnes for that controlled substance for that year, and is therefore presumed in the 

absence of further clarification to be in non-compliance in 2005 with the control measures under the 

Montreal Protocol for methyl bromide; 

2. To request Saudi Arabia to submit to the Secretariat, as a matter of urgency and no later 

than 29 February 2008, for consideration by the Implementation Committee at its next meeting, an 

explanation for its excess consumption, together with a plan of action with time-specific benchmarks to 

ensure the Party’s prompt return to compliance. Saudi Arabia may wish to consider including in its plan 

of action the establishment of import quotas to support the phase-out schedule and policy and regulatory 

instruments that will ensure progress in achieving the phase-out; 

3. To monitor closely the progress of Saudi Arabia with regard to the phase-out of methyl 

bromide. To the degree that the Party is working toward and meeting the specific Protocol control 

measures, it should continue to be treated in the same manner as a Party in good standing. In that regard, 

Saudi Arabia should continue to receive international assistance to enable it to meet its commitments in 

accordance with item A of the indicative list of measures that may be taken by a Meeting of the Parties 

in respect of non-compliance; 

4. To caution Saudi Arabia in accordance with item B of the indicative list of measures that 

may be taken by a Meeting of the Parties in respect of non-compliance that, in the event that it fails to 

return to compliance in a timely manner, the Meeting of the Parties will consider measures consistent 

with item C of the indicative list of measures. Those measures may include the possibility of actions 

available under Article 4, such as ensuring that the supply of the methyl bromide that is the subject of 

non-compliance is ceased so that exporting Parties are not contributing to a continuing situation of 

non-compliance;

Decision XIX/24: Request for change in baseline data by Turkmenistan 

Noting that Turkmenistan has submitted a request to revise its consumption data for the 

Annex E controlled substance (methyl bromide) for the baseline year 1998 from zero to 14.3 

ODP-tonnes, 

Noting also that decision XV/19 of the Fifteenth Meeting of the Parties sets out the 

methodology for the submission and review of requests for the revision of baseline data, 

Noting with appreciation the extensive efforts undertaken by Turkmenistan to fulfil the 

information requirements of decision XV/19, in particular its efforts to verify the accuracy of its 

proposed new baseline data through the inspection of methyl bromide use sites, 

1. That Turkmenistan has presented sufficient information in accordance with 

decision XV/19 to justify its request to change its baseline data on the consumption of methyl bromide; 

2. To change the baseline consumption data of Turkmenistan for methyl bromide for the 

year 1998 from zero to 14.3 ODP-tonnes; 
UNEP/OzL.Pro.19/7 

48

Decision XIX/25: Data and information provided by the Parties in accordance with Article 7 of 

the Montreal Protocol 

Noting with appreciation that 130 Parties out of the 190 that should have reported data for 2006 

have done so and that 72 of those Parties reported their data by 30 June 2007 in accordance with 

decision XV/15, 

Noting with concern, however, that the number of Parties that have reported 2006 data is lower 

than the number of Parties that reported 2005 data by September of 2006, 

Noting that a lack of timely data reporting by Parties impedes effective monitoring and 

assessment of Parties’ compliance with their obligations under the Montreal Protocol, 

Noting also that reporting by 30 June each year greatly facilitates the work of the Executive 

Committee of the Multilateral Fund for the Implementation of the Montreal Protocol in assisting Parties 

operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Protocol to comply with the Protocol’s control measures, 

1. To urge the Parties that have yet to report their data for 2006 to report the required data 

to the Secretariat in accordance with the provisions of Article 7 of the Montreal Protocol, working 

closely with the implementing agencies where appropriate; 

2. To request the Implementation Committee to review at its next meeting the situation of 

those Parties that have not submitted their 2006 data by that time; 

3. To encourage Parties to continue to report consumption and production data as soon as 

figures are available, and preferably by 30 June each year, as agreed in decision XV/15; 

Decision XIX/26: Report on the establishment of licensing systems under Article 4B of the 

Montreal Protocol 

Noting that paragraph 3 of Article 4B of the Montreal Protocol requires each Party, within three 

months of the date of introducing its system for licensing the import and export of new, used, recycled 

and reclaimed substances in Annexes A, B, C and E of the Protocol, to report to the Secretariat on the 

establishment and operation of that system, 

Noting with appreciation that 143 Parties to the Montreal Amendment to the Protocol have 

established import and export licensing systems for ozone-depleting substances as required under the 

terms of the amendment, 

Noting also with appreciation that 26 Parties to the Protocol that have not yet ratified the 

Montreal Amendment have also established import and export licensing systems for ozone-depleting 

substances, 

Recognizing that licensing systems provide for the monitoring of imports and exports of 

ozone-depleting substances, prevent illegal trade and enable data collection,

1. To record that Barbados, Cook Islands, Eritrea, Haiti, Kiribati, Nauru, Niue, Sao Tome 

and Principe, Somalia, Tonga, United Republic of Tanzania and Uzbekistan are Parties to the Montreal 

Amendment to the Protocol, that they have not yet established import and export licensing systems for 

ozone-depleting substances and are therefore in non-compliance with Article 4B of the Protocol and 

that financial assistance has been approved for all of them; 

2. To request each of the 12 Parties listed in paragraph 1 to submit to the Secretariat as a 

matter of urgency and no later than 29 February 2008, for consideration by the Implementation 

Committee under the Non-Compliance Procedure of the Montreal Protocol at its fortieth meeting, a plan 

of action to ensure the prompt establishment and operation of an import and export licensing system for 

ozone-depleting substances; 

3. To encourage all remaining Parties to the Protocol that have not yet ratified the Montreal 

Amendment to ratify it and to establish import and export licensing systems for ozone-depleting 

substances if they have not yet done so; 

4. To urge all Parties that already operate licensing systems for ozone-depleting substances 

to ensure that they are structured in accordance with Article 4B of the Protocol and that they are 

implemented and enforced effectively; 
UNEP/OzL.Pro.19/7 

49

5. To review periodically the status of the establishment of import and export licensing 

systems for ozone-depleting substances by all Parties to the Protocol, as called for in Article 4B of the 

Protocol; 

Decision XIX/27: Compliance with the Montreal Protocol by the Islamic Republic of Iran 

Noting that the Islamic Republic of Iran ratified the Montreal Protocol on 3 October 1990, the 

London and Copenhagen Amendments to the Protocol on 4 August 1997 and the Montreal Amendment 

to the Protocol on 17 October 2001, is classified as a Party operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of 

the Protocol and had its country programme approved by the Executive Committee of the Multilateral 

Fund for the Implementation of the Montreal Protocol in June 1993, 

Noting also that the Executive Committee has approved $65,323,350 from the Multilateral Fund 

in accordance with Article 10 of the Protocol to enable the Islamic Republic of Iran’s compliance, 

Noting further that decision XVII/13 of the Seventeenth Meeting of the Parties provides that the 

Implementation Committee under the Non-compliance Procedure of the Montreal Protocol should defer 

until 2007 consideration of compliance with the Protocol’s carbon tetrachloride control measures by any 

Article 5 Party that provides evidence to the Ozone Secretariat with its annual data report that its 

deviation from the Protocol’s annual consumption limit was due to the use of carbon tetrachloride for 

analytical and laboratory processes, 

Congratulating the Islamic Republic of Iran on its reported data for carbon tetrachloride 

consumption in 2006, which shows that it was in compliance with its obligations under the control 

measures of the Montreal Protocol for that substance in that year, 

1. That the Islamic Republic of Iran reported annual consumption for the controlled 

substance in Annex B, group II, (carbon tetrachloride) for 2005 of 13.6 ODP-tonnes, which exceeds the 

Party’s maximum allowable consumption of 11.6 ODP-tonnes for that controlled substance for that 

year, but that the Party’s excess consumption was for laboratory and analytical uses; 

2. To record with appreciation the submission by the Islamic Republic of Iran of a plan of 

action to ensure its prompt return to compliance with the Protocol’s carbon tetrachloride control 

measures, under which, without prejudice to the operation of the financial mechanism of the Protocol, 

the Islamic Republic of Iran specifically commits itself: 

 (a) To reducing consumption to no greater than: 

 (i) 11.6 ODP-tonnes in 2007; 

 (ii) Zero ODP-tonnes in 2008, save for essential uses that may be authorized by the 

Parties; 

 (b) To monitoring its existing system for licensing imports and exports of ozone-depleting 

substances, including import quotas; 

3. To urge the Islamic Republic of Iran to work with the relevant implementing agencies to 

implement its plan of action to phase out consumption of carbon tetrachloride; 

4. To monitor closely the progress of the Islamic Republic of Iran with regard to the 

implementation of its plan of action and the phase-out of carbon tetrachloride. To the degree that the 

Party is working toward and meeting the specific Protocol control measures, it should continue to be 

treated in the same manner as a Party in good standing. In that regard, the Islamic Republic of Iran 

should continue to receive international assistance to enable it to meet those commitments in 

accordance with item A of the indicative list of measures that may be taken by a Meeting of the Parties 

in respect of non-compliance; 

5. To caution the Islamic Republic of Iran in accordance with item B of the indicative list 

of measures, that, in the event that it fails to remain in compliance, the Parties will consider measures 

consistent with item C of the indicative list of measures. Those measures may include the possibility of 

actions available under Article 4, such as ensuring that the supply of the carbon tetrachloride that is the 

subject of non-compliance is ceased so that exporting Parties are not contributing to a continuing 

situation of non-compliance; 
UNEP/OzL.Pro.19/7 

50

Decision XIX/28: Implementation of paragraph 1 of decision XVII/12 with respect to the 

reporting of production of chlorofluorocarbons by Parties not operating under paragraph 1 of 

Article 5 of the Montreal Protocol to meet the basic domestic needs of Parties operating under 

paragraph 1 of Article 5 

Recalling that decision XVII/12 of the Seventeenth Meeting of the Parties urges Parties not 

operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Protocol (non-Article 5 Parties), prior to exporting 

chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) to Parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 (Article 5 Parties), to 

request written affirmations from such Parties that the CFCs are required by them and that their 

importation will not result in those Parties’ non-compliance, 

Recalling also that paragraph 1 of decision XVII/12 urges all non-Article 5 Parties that produce 

CFCs to meet the basic domestic needs of Article 5 Parties to include in their annual data reports to the 

Secretariat copies of the written affirmations they receive from prospective importing Parties pursuant 

to that decision, 

Recalling further that paragraph 2 of decision XVII/12 requests the Secretariat to report at each 

regular meeting of the Parties the level of production of CFCs in non-Article 5 Parties to meet the basic 

domestic needs of Article 5 Parties, as compared to their allowed production set out in Article 2A of the 

Protocol, and when doing so to include copies of the affirmations referred to above, together with 

available data on transfer of production rights, 

To request the Implementation Committee under the Non-compliance Procedure of the Montreal 

Protocol to review, on the basis of the report prepared by the Secretariat in accordance with paragraph 2 

of decision XVII/12, the implementation by the Parties of paragraph 1 of decision XVII/12, and to 

report its conclusions, including any appropriate recommendations, to the Meeting of the Parties; 

Decision XIX/29: Selection of new co-chairs of the Scientific Assessment Panel 

1. To thank the following co-chairs who served as co-chairs of the Scientific Assessment 

Panel since its inception for their long and outstanding efforts on behalf of the Montreal Protocol: 

(a) Mr. Daniel Albritton (United States of America); 

(b) Mr. Robert Watson (United States of America); 

2. To express sadness at the passing of Dr. Gérard Mégie (France) and admiration for his 

work as Co-Chair of the Scientific Assessment Panel, in which capacity he guided the preparation of the 

Panel’s 1998 and 2002 assessment reports; 

3. To select the following new co-chairs of the Scientific Assessment Panel: 

(a) Mr. John Pyle (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland); 

(b) Mr. Paul Newman (United States of America); 

(c) Mr. A. R. Ravishankara (United States of America); 

Decision XIX/30: Twentieth Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol 

To convene the Twentieth Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol in Doha, Qatar, in 

2008. 

 Decision XIX/31: Montreal Declaration 

To adopt the Montreal Declaration set out in annex IV to the report of the Nineteenth Meeting 

of the Parties.6

 6 UNEP.OzL.Pro.19/7. 
UNEP/OzL.Pro.19/7 

51

Comments made at the time of adoption of decisions 

205. Following the adoption of the decision on HCFCs the representative of the Russian Federation 

said that it had been very difficult for his country to take a positive stance on the proposal to adjust the 

Protocol to accelerate the phase-out of HCFCs. In a spirit of compromise, however, his country had not 

objected to the proposed adjustment. He said that the Russian Federation would examine the timeline 

set out in the decision and do its utmost to ensure the accelerated phase-out of HCFCs in spite of the 

difficulty of that task. 

206. The representative of China said that the acceleration of the HCFC phase-out schedule 

represented a historic milestone. He affirmed, however, that it would mean that China, as the largest 

producer and consumer of HCFCs in the world, would have to show great responsibility and make great 

sacrifices to achieve the agreed reductions. He said that he was convinced, however, that if Parties made 

full use of the experience of the past 20 years and developed countries provided adequate funding and 

technologies, all targets of the phase-out would be reached. 

207. The representatives of India, the United States of America and Sudan expressed their deep 

gratitude to the Government and people of Canada for their warm hospitality and to all those who had 

contributed to making the current meeting a success. 

208. The representative of India observed that important decisions had been adopted to tackle the 

remaining challenges facing the world in the effort to save the ozone layer. The representative of the 

United States of America commended the Parties for their decision to accelerate the phase-out of 

HCFCs in both Article 5 and non-Article 5 Parties. His Government, he said, was aware of the 

difficulties that some Parties would face in accelerating the phase-out of HCFCs and was deeply 

gratified that they had nevertheless committed to it. The decision adopted by the Parties met his 

Government’s highest expectations and represented a major accomplishment in the protection of the 

ozone layer. He also voiced his country’s appreciation for the work of the Ozone Secretariat in 

facilitating consideration of the matter at the current meeting. 

XIII. Adoption of the report of the Nineteenth Meeting of the Parties to the 

Montreal Protocol 

209. The present report was adopted on Friday, 21 September 2007, on the basis of the draft report 

submitted to the Meeting of the Parties. 

XIV. Closure of the meeting 

210. The Parties expressed their sincere appreciation to the Government and people of Canada for 

their excellent assistance and hospitality during the meeting. 

211. In his closing statement on behalf of the host Government Mr. Baird said that the adoption of 

the decisions by the Meeting of the Parties marked a historic day for the environment and for the ozone 

layer. The decision to accelerate the phase-out of production and consumption of HCFCs by a full 

decade was a great achievement for the planet and would contribute greatly to efforts to combat global 

warming. He congratulated all representatives for their understanding, open-mindedness and spirit of 

cooperation during the week. He thanked UNEP, the bodies of the Montreal Protocol and officials from 

the Ministry of Environment of Canada for their hard work in support of the current meeting. Twenty 

years ago, the world community had been inspired to tackle a global problem, and the current meeting 

celebrated the success of the Montreal Protocol and the efforts to build upon that success. 

212. Following Mr. Baird’s statement and the further exchange of courtesies, the President declared 

the meeting closed at 10.35 p.m. on Friday, 21 September 2007. 
UNEP/OzL.Pro.19/7 

52

Annex I 

Financial matters: financial reports and budgets 

TRUST FUND FOR THE MONTREAL PROTOCOL ON SUBSTANCES THAT DEPLETE THE OZONE LAYER 

Approved 2007 and 2008 budgets and indicative 2009 budget 

 

w/

m 

2007 

(US$) 

w/

m 

2008 

(US$) 

w/

m 

2009 

(US$) 

10 PROJECT PERSONNEL COMPONENT 

 1100 Project personnel 

 1101 Executive Secretary (D-2) (shared with the Vienna 

Convention, VC) 6 135,500 6 139,565 6 143,752 

 1102 Deputy Executive Secretary (D-1) 12 241,000 12 248,230 12 255,677 

 1103 Senior Legal Officer (P-5) 12 165,000 12 169,950 12 175,049 

 1104 Senior Scientific Affairs Officer (P-5) (shared with VC) 6 87,500 6 90,125 6 92,829 

 1105 Administrative Officer (P-4) (paid by UNEP) 0 0 0 

 1106 Database Manager (Information System & Technology - 

P3) 

12 122,000 12 125,660 12 127,294 

 1107 Programme Officer (Communication & Information - 

P3) (paid from VC) 

12 0 12 0 12 0 

 1108 Programme Officer (Monitoring and Compliance) - P3 12 120,000 12 123,600 12 127,308 

 1199 Sub-total 871,000 897,130 921,908 

 1200 Consultants 

 1201 Assistance in data-reporting, analysis and promotion of 

the implementation of the Protocol 

 30,000 40,000 40,000 

 1299 Sub-total 30,000 40,000 40,000 

 1300 Administrative Support 

 1301 Administrative Assistant (G-7) (shared with VC) 6 18,000 6 18,900 6 19,845 

 1302 Personal Assistant (G-6) 12 28,500 12 29,925 12 31,421 

 1303 Programme Assistant (G-6) (paid by VC) 12 0 12 0 12 0 

 1304 Information Assistant (G-6) (shared with VC) 6 14,500 6 15,225 6 15,986 

 1305 Programme Assistant (G-6) (shared with VC) 6 13,000 6 13,650 6 14,333 

 1306 Documents Clerk (G-4) 12 19,000 12 19,950 12 20,948 

 1307 Data Assistant (G-6) 12 31,000 12 32,550 12 34,178 

 1308 Programme Assistant - Fund (G-6) (paid by UNEP) 12 0 12 0 12 0 

 1309 Logistics Assistant (G-3) (paid by UNEP) 12 0 12 0 12 0 

 1310 Bilingual Senior Secretary (G-6) (paid from VC) 12 0 12 0 12 0 

 1320 Temporary Assistance 18,000 18,900 18,900 

 1321 Open-ended Working Group Meetings1

 556,432 450,000 450,000 

 1322 Preparatory and Parties Meetings (shared with VC every 

three years, applies to the twentieth Meeting of the 

Parties to the Montreal Protocol and Eighth Conference 

of the Parties to the Vienna Convention in 2008 

 500,000 350,000 500,000 

 1323 Assessment Panel Meetings 100,000 100,000 100,000 

 1324 Bureau Meeting 20,000 20,000 20,000 

 1325 Implementation Committee Meetings2

 90,000 111,200 111,200 

 1326 MP informal consultation meetings 5,000 5,000 5,000 

 1399 Sub-total 1,413,432 1,185,300 1,341,810 

 1600 Travel on Official Business 

 1601 Staff travel on official business 210,000 210,000 210,000 

 1602 Conference Services staff travel on official business 15,000 15,000 15,000 

 1699 Sub-total 225,000 225,000 225,000 

1999 COMPONENT TOTAL 2,539,432 2,347,430 2,528,718 

30 MEETING/PARTICIPATION COMPONENT 

 3300 Support for Participation3

 

 3301 Assessment Panel Meetings 500,000 500,000 500,000 

 3302 Preparatory and Parties Meetings 350,000 400,000 350,000 

 3303 Open-ended Working Group Meetings 344,000 300,000 300,000 
UNEP/OzL.Pro.19/7 

53

 3304 Bureau Meeting 20,000 20,000 20,000 

 3305 Implementation Committee Meetings 125,000 125,000 125,000 

 3306 Consultations in an informal meeting 20,000 10,000 10,000 

 3399 Sub-total 1,359,000 1,355,000 1,305,000 

3999 COMPONENT TOTAL 1,359,000 1,355,000 1,305,000 

40 EQUIPMENT AND PREMISES COMPONENT 

 4100 Expendable Equipment (items under $1,500) 

 4101 Miscellaneous expendables (shared with VC) 17,000 17,000 22,000 

 4199 Sub-total 17,000 17,000 22,000 

 4200 Non-Expendable Equipment 

 4201 Personal computers and accessories 5,000 5,000 10,000 

 4202 Portable computers 2,273 0 5,000 

 4203 Other office equipment (server, fax, scanner, furniture 

etc.) 

 8,000 5,000 10,000 

 4204 Photocopiers 10,000 10,000 10,000 

 4299 Sub-total 25,273 20,000 35,000 

 4300 Premises 

 4301 Rental of office premises (shared with VC) 28,000 28,000 33,000 

 4399 Sub-total 28,000 28,000 33,000 

4999 COMPONENT TOTAL 70,273 65,000 90,000 

50 MISCELLANEOUS COMPONENT 

 5100 Operation and Maintenance of Equipment 

 5101 Maintenance of equipment and others (shared with VC) 20,000 20,000 25,000 

 5199 Sub-total 20,000 20,000 25,000 

 5200 Reporting Costs 

 5201 Reporting3

 50,000 50,000 55,000 

 5202 Reporting (Assessment Panels) 15,000 15,000 15,000 

 5203 Reporting (Protocol Awareness) 5,000 5,000 5,000 

 5299 Sub-total 70,000 70,000 75,000 

 5300 Sundry 

 5301 Communications 35,000 40,000 46,000 

 5302 Freight charges 70,000 60,000 60,000 

 5303 Training 6,500 6,500 10,500 

 5304 Others (International Ozone Day & 20th anniversary of 

Montreal Protocol)3

 10,000 10,000 10,000 

 5399 Sub-total 121,500 116,500 126,500 

 5400 Hospitality 

 5401 Hospitality3

 15,000 15,000 20,000 

 5499 Sub-total 15,000 15,000 20,000 

5999 COMPONENT TOTAL 226,500 221,500 246,500 

99 TOTAL DIRECT PROJECT COST 4,195,205 3,988,930 4,170,218 

Programme support costs (13%) 545,376 518,560 542,127 

 GRAND TOTAL (inclusive of programme support costs) 4,740,581 4,507,490 4,712,345 

Operating cash reserve exclusive 

of PSC 0 111,390 174,784 

 TOTAL BUDGET 4,740,581 4,618,880 4,887,129 

 Draw down4

 463,648 341,947 610,196 

 Contribution from the Parties 4,276,933 4,276,933 4,276,933 

1 The cost of the 2-day workshop on Future Challenges of the Montreal Protocol held back to back with the 27th Open-ended Working Group has been 

added to this line. 

2

 The Parties have decided to allocate $21,200 for one additional day’s Implementation Committee meeting in the year, back to back with the meeting of 

the Open-ended Working Group. 

3

 It is understood that in order to facilitate the celebration of the twentieth anniversary of the Montreal Protocol for 2007 only, lines 5200, 5304, 5401 and 

3300 can be augmented with any unspent funds from any other budget line, and can also be augmented with participation funds that have accrued or may 

accrue due to travel cancellations by participants. 

4

 The draw-down in 2007 has been adjusted to maintain the agreed level of contributions by the Parties. Draw down levels in 2008 and 2009 have been set 

with a view toward maintaining the level of contributions constant through 2009. 
UNEP/OzL.Pro.19/7 

54

Explanatory notes for the approved 2007 and 2008 budgets and indicative 

2009 budget of the Trust Fund for the Montreal Protocol on Substances that 

Deplete the Ozone Layer 

Budget line Comment

Personnel component 

1101–1108 

1105

Indicative professional salary costs applicable to the Nairobi duty station for 

2008–2009 have been used for the 2008 and 2009 budget proposals. Unspent 

commitments normally revert to the Montreal Protocol Trust Fund. 

An adjustment has been made in these budget lines to cover changes in the 

salaries and entitlements of staff in the professional and higher categories. 

The post of Administrative Officer continues to be paid from the 13 per cent 

programme support costs based on actual expenditures. The Secretariat 

requested the approval of the Parties for the reclassification of this post to P-5 

level to reflect the increased responsibility and work levels since it was 

upgraded in 1998. 

Consultants – 1201 Assistance in data reporting, updating of publications and translation of 

essential features of the Ozone Secretariat website, as well as in the 

development of a fully interlinked digital system at the Secretariat, will 

continue to be required. Funds under this line may be transferred to line 1100 

to create or support short-term professional posts if necessary. 

Administrative 

support/personnel 

1301–1307 

Standard general service salary costs applicable to the Nairobi duty station 

have been used for the 2008 and 2009 budget proposals. An adjustment has 

been made in these budget lines in 2007 to cover an increase in salaries, which 

took effect in November 2006. 

1308 and 1309 

1310 

The posts of Programme Assistant (Fund) and Logistics Assistant continue to 

be paid from the 13 per cent programme support costs. 

The post of bilingual secretary is funded from the Vienna Convention trust 

fund. 

1320 The Secretariat still continues to require funding for general temporary 

assistance, particularly in the area of documents preparation for meetings, 

regular website development and maintenance, archiving and arrangements 

for participants’ attendance at meetings. 

Administrative 

support/conference services – 

1321–1326 

Necessary funds may be transferred from the conference servicing budget 

lines (1321–1326) should such services be required to be rendered either by 

individual consultancies or under corporate contracts. 

The current conference servicing costs have been based on the following 

reasons and assumptions: 

1321: The budget proposed is for one meeting of the Open-ended Working 

Group to be held each year in 2008 and 2009 in Nairobi or at another United 

Nations venue, in the six official United Nations languages. 

1322: The budget for 2008 is lower than in 2007 as the cost of the Twentieth 

Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol in 2008 is shared with the 

eighth meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Vienna Convention. 

It is assumed that the Meeting of the Parties and its preparatory meeting will 

be held in Nairobi in 2008 and 2009, in the six official United Nations 

languages. When meetings are not held in Nairobi, the additional costs that 

that entails will be borne by the Government hosting the meetings. 

1323: The budget allocation in 2008 and 2009 will cover the costs of 

organizing annual meetings of the assessment panels and the Technology and 

Economic Assessment Panel’s technical options committees, together with 

communication and other sundry costs related to the work of panel members 

from developing countries and countries with economies in transition. 

1324: One Bureau meeting is scheduled for each of the years 2008 and 2009, 

with provision for interpretation and document translation into the appropriate 

languages based on the membership of the Bureau. 

1325: At least two Implementation Committee meetings of three days’ 

duration are scheduled for each of the years 2008 and 2009 with interpretation 
UNEP/OzL.Pro.19/7 

55

Budget line Comment

and document translation as required, to be held back-to-back with the 

Open-ended Working Group meetings and the meetings of the Parties in those 

years. The Parties have agreed to add one additional day’s meeting in the year, 

back to back with the meeting of the Open-ended Working Group. 

1326: At least one informal consultation meeting per year, expected to take 

place in Nairobi, is envisaged for 2008 and 2009 to facilitate the work of 

assisting the Parties and also in promoting ratification of and compliance with 

the Montreal Protocol and its amendments. 

Travel on official business – 

1601-1602 

Travel on official business for 2008 and 2009 is being maintained at the 2007 

level. 

Meetings/Participation 

component – 3300 

3301 

Participation of representatives of developing countries 

The participation of representatives of Article 5 Parties in the various Protocol 

meetings is assumed at $5,000 per meeting per representative, taking into 

account not more than one person’s travel costs per country, using the most 

appropriate and advantageous economy-class fare and United Nations daily 

subsistence allowances. 

The budget provision requested in 2008 and 2009 for members and experts of 

the assessment panels and the technical options committees attending 

assessment panel meetings is being maintained at 2007 levels. 

3302 

3303 

In 2008, the total participation costs, based on some 80 participants attending 

the joint eighth meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Vienna 

Convention and the Twentieth Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal 

Protocol, is borne fully by the Montreal Protocol Trust fund. In 2009, the 

budget allocation reverts back to 2007 levels. 

Participation costs are based on some 60 participants attending the 

Open-ended Working Group meetings in both 2008 and 2009. 

3304 Participation costs are based on one Bureau meeting a year for four Bureau 

members from developing countries or countries with economies in transition 

at each meeting. 

3305 The participation costs for the two Implementation Committee meetings per 

year are based on eight members from developing countries and countries 

with economies in transition at each meeting and one representative each from 

three or four countries invited by the Implementation Committee at each 

meeting. Provision has also been made for travel by the Implementation 

Committee President or Vice-President from an Article 5 Party to attend three 

Executive Committee meetings a year. 

3306 Funds have been allocated to finance the participation of two participants 

from developing countries and countries with economies in transition as part 

of informal consultations in 2008 and 2009 on critical issues relating to the 

Montreal Protocol, which, it is expected, will be held in Nairobi. 

Equipment and premises 

component 

Expendable equipment – 4101 The cost of miscellaneous expendables is being increased minimally in 2009 

to take into account inflation. Resource utilization is being monitored 

constantly in order to maintain low expenditure levels. 

Non-expendable equipment – 

4200 

A minimal provision in 2008 and 2009 has been made to provide for increased 

server capacity and to enable the Secretariat to replace equipment as and when 

required. 

Premises (rent) – 4300 The allocation for rental of premises in 2009 has a minimal increase to reflect 

inflation. 

Miscellaneous component 

Operation and maintenance of 

equipment – 5101 

The provision for operation and maintenance of equipment is being increased 

minimally in 2009 to cover increased maintenance costs for constantly 

increasing server capacity and additional computing requirements for staff. 

Reporting costs (including 

editing, translation, duplication, 

publication and printing) – 

5201–5203 

General reporting costs for the Secretariat are provided for under these lines. 

Line 5202 is reserved for reporting of assessment panels. 
UNEP/OzL.Pro.19/7 

56

Budget line Comment

Sundry – 

Communications – 5301 

Careful monitoring of telecommunications resources and the use of electronic 

mail instead of facsimile communications enable the Secretariat to maintain a 

relatively low budget provision under this line. 

Freight and post – 5302 The additional dispatch of documentation in connection with the twentieth 

anniversary has been taken into consideration in the revision of the 2007 

budget. 

Training – 5303 The provision for training will be maintained to meet evolving training needs 

and to cater for training schemes introduced by the United Nations as a result 

of the ongoing human resources reform programme. 

Others (International Ozone 

Day and twentieth anniversary 

of the Montreal Protocol) – 

5304 

In 2007, the amount requested was for celebration activities in connection 

with the twentieth anniversary celebration of the Montreal Protocol and the 

International Year of the Ozone Layer, as declared by the Parties in 

decision XVI/45. 

The Ozone Secretariat will continue to provide assistance to certain countries 

during 2008 and 2009 to assist in their preparations for the celebration of the 

International Day for the Preservation of the Ozone Layer. 

Hospitality – 5401 Hospitality arrangements follow the usual procurement procedures of the 

United Nations. 

In 2008, the cost of the official hospitality reception is being shared between 

the Montreal Protocol and the Vienna Convention because of the joint 

Twentieth Meeting of the Parties and the eighth meeting of the Conference of 

the Parties. An additional amount of $5,000 for 2009 is being requested as the 

cost for that year will not be shared with the Vienna Convention. 
UNEP/OzL.Pro.19/7 

57

Annex II

Trust Fund for the Montreal Protocol on the Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer 

Scale of Contributions by the Parties for 2008 and 2009 based on the United Nations scale of 

assessments 

(General Assembly Resolution A/RES/61/237 of 13 February 2007 with a maximum assessment rate of 22 per cent) 

(in United States dollars) 

NAME OF PARTY 

UN scale of 

assessment for years 

2007-2009 

Adjusted 

UN scale to 

exclude 

noncontributors 

Adjusted 

UN scale 

with 22% 

maximum 

assessment 

rate 

considered 

2008 

CONTRIBUTIONS 

BY PARTIES 

INDICATIVE 2009 

CONTRIBUTIONS 

BY PARTIES 

Afghanistan 0.001 0.000 0.000 0 0 

Albania 0.006 0.000 0.000 0 0 

Algeria 0.085 0.000 0.000 0 0 

Angola 0.003 0.000 0.000 0 0 

Antigua and Barbuda 0.002 0.000 0.000 0 0 

Argentina 0.325 0.325 0.324 13,853 13,853 

Armenia 0.002 0.000 0.000 0 0 

Australia 1.787 1.787 1.781 76,171 76,171 

Austria 0.887 0.887 0.884 37,808 37,808 

Azerbaijan 0.005 0.000 0.000 0 0 

Bahamas 0.016 0.000 0.000 0 0 

Bahrain 0.033 0.000 0.000 0 0 

Bangladesh 0.010 0.000 0.000 0 0 

Barbados 0.009 0.000 0.000 0 0 

Belarus 0.020 0.000 0.000 0 0 

Belgium 1.102 1.102 1.098 46,973 46,973 

Belize 0.001 0.000 0.000 0 0 

Benin 0.001 0.000 0.000 0 0 

Bhutan 0.001 0.000 0.000 0 0 

Bolivia 0.006 0.000 0.000 0 0 

Bosnia and Herzegovina 0.006 0.000 0.000 0 0 

Botswana 0.014 0.000 0.000 0 0 

Brazil 0.876 0.876 0.873 37,339 37,339 

Brunei Darussalam 0.026 0.000 0.000 0 0 

Bulgaria 0.020 0.000 0.000 0 0 

Burkina Faso 0.002 0.000 0.000 0 0 

Burundi 0.001 0.000 0.000 0 0 

Cambodia 0.001 0.000 0.000 0 0 

Cameroon 0.009 0.000 0.000 0 0 

Canada 2.977 2.977 2.967 126,894 126,894 
UNEP/OzL.Pro.19/7 

58

NAME OF PARTY 

UN scale of 

assessment for years 

2007-2009 

Adjusted 

UN scale to 

exclude 

noncontributors 

Adjusted 

UN scale 

with 22% 

maximum 

assessment 

rate 

considered 

2008 

CONTRIBUTIONS 

BY PARTIES 

INDICATIVE 2009 

CONTRIBUTIONS 

BY PARTIES 

Cape Verde 0.001 0.000 0.000 0 0 

Central African Republic 0.001 0.000 0.000 0 0 

Chad 0.001 0.000 0.000 0 0 

Chile 0.161 0.161 0.160 6,863 6,863 

China 2.667 2.667 2.658 113,680 113,680 

Colombia 0.105 0.105 0.105 4,476 4,476 

Comoros 0.001 0.000 0.000 0 0 

Congo 0.001 0.000 0.000 0 0 

Cook Islands - 0.000 0.000 0 0 

Costa Rica 0.032 0.000 0.000 0 0 

Cote d'Ivoire 0.009 0.000 0.000 0 0 

Croatia 0.050 0.000 0.000 0 0 

Cuba 0.054 0.000 0.000 0 0 

Cyprus 0.044 0.000 0.000 0 0 

Czech Republic 0.281 0.281 0.280 11,978 11,978 

Democratic People's Republic of 

Korea 0.007 0.000 0.000 0 0 

Democratic Republic of the Congo 0.003 0.000 0.000 0 0 

Denmark 0.739 0.739 0.737 31,500 31,500 

Djibouti 0.001 0.000 0.000 0 0 

Dominica 0.001 0.000 0.000 0 0 

Dominican Republic 0.024 0.000 0.000 0 0 

Ecuador 0.021 0.000 0.000 0 0 

Egypt 0.088 0.000 0.000 0 0 

El Salvador 0.020 0.000 0.000 0 0 

Equatorial Guinea 0.002 0.000 0.000 0 0 

Eritrea 0.001 0.000 0.000 0 0 

Estonia 0.016 0.000 0.000 0 0 

Ethiopia 0.003 0.000 0.000 0 0 

European Community 2.500 2.500 2.492 106,562 106,562 

Fiji 0.003 0.000 0.000 0 0 

Finland 0.564 0.564 0.562 24,040 24,040 

France 6.301 6.301 6.280 268,579 268,579 

Gabon 0.008 0.000 0.000 0 0 

Gambia 0.001 0.000 0.000 0 0 

Georgia 0.003 0.000 0.000 0 0 

Germany 8.577 8.577 8.548 365,593 365,593 

Ghana 0.004 0.000 0.000 0 0 

Greece 0.596 0.596 0.594 25,404 25,404 

Grenada 0.001 0.000 0.000 0 0 

Guatemala 0.032 0.000 0.000 0 0 
UNEP/OzL.Pro.19/7 

59

NAME OF PARTY 

UN scale of 

assessment for years 

2007-2009 

Adjusted 

UN scale to 

exclude 

noncontributors 

Adjusted 

UN scale 

with 22% 

maximum 

assessment 

rate 

considered 

2008 

CONTRIBUTIONS 

BY PARTIES 

INDICATIVE 2009 

CONTRIBUTIONS 

BY PARTIES 

Guinea 0.001 0.000 0.000 0 0 

Guinea-Bissau 0.001 0.000 0.000 0 0 

Guyana 0.001 0.000 0.000 0 0 

Haiti 0.002 0.000 0.000 0 0 

Honduras 0.005 0.000 0.000 0 0 

Hungary 0.244 0.244 0.243 10,400 10,400 

Iceland 0.037 0.000 0.000 0 0 

India 0.450 0.450 0.448 19,181 19,181 

Indonesia 0.161 0.161 0.160 6,863 6,863 

Iran (Islamic Republic of) 0.180 0.180 0.179 7,672 7,672 

Ireland 0.445 0.445 0.443 18,968 18,968 

Israel 0.419 0.419 0.418 17,860 17,860 

Italy 5.079 5.079 5.062 216,492 216,492 

Jamaica 0.010 0.000 0.000 0 0 

Japan 16.624 16.624 16.568 708,595 708,595 

Jordan 0.012 0.000 0.000 0 0 

Kazakhstan 0.029 0.000 0.000 0 0 

Kenya 0.010 0.000 0.000 0 0 

Kiribati 0.001 0.000 0.000 0 0 

Kuwait 0.182 0.182 0.181 7,758 7,758 

Kyrgyzstan 0.001 0.000 0.000 0 0 

Lao People's Democratic Republic 0.001 0.000 0.000 0 0 

Latvia 0.018 0.000 0.000 0 0 

Lebanon 0.034 0.000 0.000 0 0 

Lesotho 0.001 0.000 0.000 0 0 

Liberia 0.001 0.000 0.000 0 0 

Libyan Arab Jamahiriya 0.062 0.000 0.000 0 0 

Liechtenstein 0.010 0.000 0.000 0 0 

Lithuania 0.031 0.000 0.000 0 0 

Luxembourg 0.085 0.000 0.000 0 0 

Madagascar 0.002 0.000 0.000 0 0 

Malawi 0.001 0.000 0.000 0 0 

Malaysia 0.190 0.190 0.189 8,099 8,099 

Maldives 0.001 0.000 0.000 0 0 

Mali 0.001 0.000 0.000 0 0 

Malta 0.017 0.000 0.000 0 0 

Marshall Islands 0.001 0.000 0.000 0 0 

Mauritania 0.001 0.000 0.000 0 0 

Mauritius 0.011 0.000 0.000 0 0 

Mexico 2.257 2.257 2.249 96,204 96,204 

Micronesia (Federated States of) 0.001 0.000 0.000 0 0 
UNEP/OzL.Pro.19/7 

60

NAME OF PARTY 

UN scale of 

assessment for years 

2007-2009 

Adjusted 

UN scale to 

exclude 

noncontributors 

Adjusted 

UN scale 

with 22% 

maximum 

assessment 

rate 

considered 

2008 

CONTRIBUTIONS 

BY PARTIES 

INDICATIVE 2009 

CONTRIBUTIONS 

BY PARTIES 

Monaco 0.003 0.000 0.000 0 0 

Mongolia 0.001 0.000 0.000 0 0 

Montenegro 0.001 0.000 0.000 0 0 

Morocco 0.042 0.000 0.000 0 0 

Mozambique 0.001 0.000 0.000 0 0 

Myanmar 0.005 0.000 0.000 0 0 

Namibia 0.006 0.000 0.000 0 0 

Nauru 0.001 0.000 0.000 0 0 

Nepal 0.003 0.000 0.000 0 0 

Netherlands 1.873 1.873 1.867 79,836 79,836 

New Zealand 0.256 0.256 0.255 10,912 10,912 

Nicaragua 0.002 0.000 0.000 0 0 

Niger 0.001 0.000 0.000 0 0 

Nigeria 0.048 0.000 0.000 0 0 

Niue - 0.000 0.000 0 0 

Norway 0.782 0.782 0.779 33,333 33,333 

Oman 0.073 0.000 0.000 0 0 

Pakistan 0.059 0.000 0.000 0 0 

Palau 0.001 0.000 0.000 0 0 

Panama 0.023 0.000 0.000 0 0 

Papua New Guinea 0.002 0.000 0.000 0 0 

Paraguay 0.005 0.000 0.000 0 0 

Peru 0.078 0.000 0.000 0 0 

Philippines 0.078 0.000 0.000 0 0 

Poland 0.501 0.501 0.499 21,355 21,355 

Portugal 0.527 0.527 0.525 22,463 22,463 

Qatar 0.085 0.000 0.000 0 0 

Republic of Korea 2.173 2.173 2.166 92,624 92,624 

Republic of Moldova 0.001 0.000 0.000 0 0 

Romania 0.070 0.000 0.000 0 0 

Russian Federation 1.200 1.200 1.196 51,150 51,150 

Rwanda 0.001 0.000 0.000 0 0 

Saint Kitts and Nevis 0.001 0.000 0.000 0 0 

Saint Lucia 0.001 0.000 0.000 0 0 

Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 0.001 0.000 0.000 0 0 

Samoa 0.001 0.000 0.000 0 0 

Sao Tome and Principe 0.001 0.000 0.000 0 0 

Saudi Arabia 0.748 0.748 0.745 31,883 31,883 

Senegal 0.004 0.000 0.000 0 0 

Serbia 0.021 0.000 0.000 0 0 

Seychelles 0.002 0.000 0.000 0 0 
UNEP/OzL.Pro.19/7 

61

NAME OF PARTY 

UN scale of 

assessment for years 

2007-2009 

Adjusted 

UN scale to 

exclude 

noncontributors 

Adjusted 

UN scale 

with 22% 

maximum 

assessment 

rate 

considered 

2008 

CONTRIBUTIONS 

BY PARTIES 

INDICATIVE 2009 

CONTRIBUTIONS 

BY PARTIES 

Sierra Leone 0.001 0.000 0.000 0 0 

Singapore 0.347 0.347 0.346 14,791 14,791 

Slovakia 0.063 0.000 0.000 0 0 

Slovenia 0.096 0.000 0.000 0 0 

Solomon Islands 0.001 0.000 0.000 0 0 

Somalia 0.001 0.000 0.000 0 0 

South Africa 0.290 0.290 0.289 12,361 12,361 

Spain 2.968 2.968 2.958 126,511 126,511 

Sri Lanka 0.016 0.000 0.000 0 0 

Sudan 0.010 0.000 0.000 0 0 

Suriname 0.001 0.000 0.000 0 0 

Swaziland 0.002 0.000 0.000 0 0 

Sweden 1.071 1.071 1.067 45,651 45,651 

Switzerland 1.216 1.216 1.212 51,832 51,832 

Syrian Arab Republic 0.016 0.000 0.000 0 0 

Tajikistan 0.001 0.000 0.000 0 0 

Thailand 0.186 0.186 0.185 7,928 7,928 

The former Yugoslav Republic of 

Macedonia 

0.005 0.000 0.000 0 0 

Togo 0.001 0.000 0.000 0 0 

Tonga 0.001 0.000 0.000 0 0 

Trinidad and Tobago 0.027 0.000 0.000 0 0 

Tunisia 0.031 0.000 0.000 0 0 

Turkey 0.381 0.381 0.380 16,240 16,240 

Turkmenistan 0.006 0.000 0.000 0 0 

Tuvalu 0.001 0.000 0.000 0 0 

Uganda 0.003 0.000 0.000 0 0 

Ukraine 0.045 0.000 0.000 0 0 

United Arab Emirates 0.302 0.302 0.301 12,873 12,873 

United Kingdom of Great Britain 

and Northern Ireland 6.642 6.642 6.620 283,114 283,114 

United Republic of Tanzania 0.006 0.000 0.000 0 0 

United States of America 22.000 22.000 21.926 937,746 937,746 

Uruguay 0.027 0.000 0.000 0 0 

Uzbekistan 0.008 0.000 0.000 0 0 

Vanuatu 0.001 0.000 0.000 0 0 

Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of) 0.200 0.200 0.199 8,525 8,525 

Viet Nam 0.024 0.000 0.000 0 0 

Yemen 0.007 0.000 0.000 0 0 

Zambia 0.001 0.000 0.000 0 0 

Zimbabwe 0.008 0.000 0.000 0 0 

Total 102.473 100.339 100.000 4,276,933 4,276,933 
UNEP/OzL.Pro.19/7 

62

Annex III 

Adjustments agreed by the Nineteenth Meeting of the Parties relating to the 

controlled substances in group I of Annex C of the Montreal Protocol 

(hydrochlorofluorocarbons) 

The Nineteenth Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the 

Ozone Layer decides to adopt, in accordance with the procedure laid down in paragraph 9 of Article 2 of 

the Montreal Protocol, and on the basis of assessments made pursuant to Article 6 of the Protocol, 

adjustments and reductions of production and consumption of the controlled substances in Group I of 

Annex C to the Protocol, as follows:

Article 2F: Hydrochlorofluorocarbons

1. The current paragraph 8 of Article 2F of the Protocol shall become paragraph 2, and the 

current paragraph 2 shall become paragraph 3. 

2. The current paragraphs 3 to 6 shall be replaced by the following paragraphs, which shall 

be numbered paragraphs 4 to 6: 

“4. Each Party shall ensure that for the twelve-month period commencing on 1 

January 2010, and in each twelve-month period thereafter, its calculated level of consumption of 

the controlled substances in Group I of Annex C does not exceed, annually, twenty-five per cent 

of the sum referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article. Each Party producing one or more of these 

substances shall, for the same periods, ensure that its calculated level of production of the 

controlled substances in Group I of Annex C does not exceed, annually, twenty-five per cent of 

the calculated level referred to in paragraph 2 of this Article. However, in order to satisfy the 

basic domestic needs of the Parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5, its calculated level 

of production may exceed that limit by up to ten per cent of its calculated level of production of 

the controlled substances in Group I of Annex C as referred to in paragraph 2. 

5. Each Party shall ensure that for the twelve-month period commencing on 1 

January 2015, and in each twelve-month period thereafter, its calculated level of consumption of 

the controlled substances in Group I of Annex C does not exceed, annually, ten per cent of the 

sum referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article. Each Party producing one or more of these 

substances shall, for the same periods, ensure that its calculated level of production of the 

controlled substances in Group I of Annex C does not exceed, annually, ten per cent of the 

calculated level referred to in paragraph 2 of this Article. However, in order to satisfy the basic 

domestic needs of the Parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5, its calculated level of 

production may exceed that limit by up to ten per cent of its calculated level of production of the 

controlled substances in Group I of Annex C as referred to in paragraph 2. 

6. Each Party shall ensure that for the twelve-month period commencing on 1 

January 2020, and in each twelve-month period thereafter, its calculated level of consumption of 

the controlled substances in Group I of Annex C does not exceed zero. Each Party producing one 

or more of these substances shall, for the same periods, ensure that its calculated level of 

production of the controlled substances in Group I of Annex C does not exceed zero. However: 

(a) Each Party may exceed that limit on consumption by up to zero point five per 

cent of the sum referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article in any such twelve-month period ending 

before 1 January 2030, provided that such consumption shall be restricted to the servicing of 

refrigeration and air-conditioning equipment existing on 1 January 2020; 

(b) Each Party may exceed that limit on production by up to zero point five per cent 

of the average referred to in paragraph 2 of this Article in any such twelve-month period ending 

before 1 January 2030, provided that such production shall be restricted to the servicing of 

refrigeration and air-conditioning equipment existing on 1 January 2020.”
UNEP/OzL.Pro.19/7 

63

Article 5: Special situation of developing countries

3. The current sub-paragraphs (a) and (b) of paragraph 8 ter of Article 5 shall be replaced 

by the following sub-paragraphs, which shall become sub-paragraphs (a) to (e): 

“(a) Each Party operating under paragraph 1 of this Article shall ensure that for the 

twelve-month period commencing on 1 January 2013, and in each twelve-month period 

thereafter, its calculated level of consumption of the controlled substances in Group I of Annex 

C does not exceed, annually, the average of its calculated levels of consumption in 2009 and 

2010. Each Party operating under paragraph 1 of this Article shall ensure that for the 

twelve-month period commencing on 1 January 2013 and in each twelve-month period 

thereafter, its calculated level of production of the controlled substances in Group I of Annex C 

does not exceed, annually, the average of its calculated levels of production in 2009 and 2010; 

(b) Each Party operating under paragraph 1 of this Article shall ensure that for the 

twelve-month period commencing on 1 January 2015, and in each twelve-month period 

thereafter, its calculated level of consumption of the controlled substances in Group I of Annex 

C does not exceed, annually, ninety per cent of the average of its calculated levels of 

consumption in 2009 and 2010. Each such Party producing one or more of these substances 

shall, for the same periods, ensure that its calculated level of production of the controlled 

substances in Group I of Annex C does not exceed, annually, ninety per cent of the average of its 

calculated levels of production in 2009 and 2010; 

(c) Each Party operating under paragraph 1 of this Article shall ensure that for the 

twelve-month period commencing on 1 January 2020, and in each twelve-month period 

thereafter, its calculated level of consumption of the controlled substances in Group I of Annex 

C does not exceed, annually, sixty-five per cent of the average of its calculated levels of 

consumption in 2009 and 2010. Each such Party producing one or more of these substances 

shall, for the same periods, ensure that its calculated level of production of the controlled 

substances in Group I of Annex C does not exceed, annually, sixty-five per cent of the average 

of its calculated levels of production in 2009 and 2010; 

(d) Each Party operating under paragraph 1 of this Article shall ensure that for the 

twelve-month period commencing on 1 January 2025, and in each twelve-month period 

thereafter, its calculated level of consumption of the controlled substances in Group I of Annex 

C does not exceed, annually, thirty-two point five per cent of the average of its calculated levels 

of consumption in 2009 and 2010. Each such Party producing one or more of these substances 

shall, for the same periods, ensure that its calculated level of production of the controlled 

substances in Group I of Annex C does not exceed, annually, thirty-two point five per cent of the 

average of its calculated levels of production in 2009 and 2010; 

(e) Each Party operating under paragraph 1 of this Article shall ensure that for the 

twelve-month period commencing on 1 January 2030, and in each twelve-month period 

thereafter, its calculated level of consumption of the controlled substances in Group I of Annex 

C does not exceed zero. Each such Party producing one or more of these substances shall, for the 

same periods, ensure that its calculated level of production of the controlled substances in Group 

I of Annex C does not exceed zero. However: 

(i) Each such Party may exceed that limit on consumption in any such 

twelve-month period so long as the sum of its calculated levels of consumption over the ten-year 

period from 1 January 2030 to 1 January 2040, divided by ten, does not exceed two point five 

per cent of the average of its calculated levels of consumption in 2009 and 2010, and provided 

that such consumption shall be restricted to the servicing of refrigeration and air-conditioning 

equipment existing on 1 January 2030; 

(ii) Each such Party may exceed that limit on production in any such twelve-month 

period so long as the sum of its calculated levels of production over the ten-year period from 

1 January 2030 to 1 January 2040, divided by ten, does not exceed two point five per cent of the 

average of its calculated levels of production in 2009 and 2010, and provided that such 

production shall be restricted to the servicing of refrigeration and air-conditioning equipment 

existing on 1 January 2030.” 

4. The current sub-paragraphs (c) and (d) of paragraph 8 ter of Article 5 shall become 

sub-paragraphs (f) and (g). 
UNEP/OzL.Pro.19/7 

64

Annex IV 

Montreal Declaration 

The Parties to the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, 

Celebrating with pride, on the occasion of the Montreal Protocol’s twentieth anniversary, the 

successful conclusion of a landmark agreement on the accelerated phase-out of 

hydrochlorofluorocarbons thereby making great strides in the global effort to protect the ozone layer 

and at the same time providing opportunities for further beneficial impacts to the environment including 

for climate change, 

Acknowledging with honour the historic global cooperation achieved over the past twenty years 

under the Montreal Protocol to restore and protect the Earth’s ozone layer for this and future 

generations, and noting in particular: 

That the Montreal Protocol has made substantial and verified progress toward the 

recovery of the ozone layer and is recognized as one of the most successful multilateral 

environmental agreements, 

That the success of the Montreal Protocol reflects an unprecedented spirit of cooperation 

between developed and developing countries, 

That the Montreal Protocol operates on the concept of shared but differentiated 

responsibilities of the Parties with a commitment by all Parties to participate and be fully 

engaged, 

That the Montreal Protocol is underpinned by institutions providing scientific, 

economic, environmental and technical support informing policy making by Parties, as well as 

the Multilateral Fund for the Implementation of the Montreal Protocol, which has been 

instrumental in assisting Parties with compliance and associated capacity-building, 

That the Ozone Secretariat has fully supported all Parties in the success of the Montreal 

Protocol, 

That the Montreal Protocol has stimulated the development of technological innovations 

contributing significantly to the protection of the environment and human health, 

That actions taken to protect the ozone layer have resulted in significant beneficial 

impacts on global atmospheric issues, including climate change, 

That the Montreal Protocol, from its inception, has welcomed and benefited from broad 

participation across all parts of society, 

Recognizing that even with the achievements of the Montreal Protocol the ozone layer remains 

vulnerable and will require many decades to recover and that its long-term protection is dependent on 

continued vigilance, dedication and action by the Parties, 

Recognizing the importance of all Parties meeting their phase-out obligations and taking 

appropriate measures to prevent ozone-depleting substances from threatening the ozone layer, 

Recognizing the continuing role that the Montreal Protocol plays in benefiting the most 

vulnerable parts of the planet and their populations, 

1. Reaffirm their commitment to phase out the consumption and production of 

ozone-depleting substances consistent with their Montreal Protocol obligations; 

2. Recognize the need for continued vigilance to safeguard progress made to date on 

achieving the objectives of the Montreal Protocol and to address emerging issues; 

3. Strive for the earliest possible ratification of all amendments to the Protocol; 

4. Recognize the historic and ongoing importance of near universal participation in a treaty 

with demonstrable, measurable and ambitious yet pragmatic goals and the role played by the 

mechanisms established, in particular the Multilateral Fund, to provide technical, policy and financial 

assistance; 
UNEP/OzL.Pro.19/7 

65

5. Recognize the importance of assisting Parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 

of the Protocol, through various means including transfer of technology, information exchange and 

partnership for capacity-building, in fulfilling their obligations under the Protocol; 

6. Acknowledge the vital contribution of science to our understanding of the ozone layer 

and threats to it and that protection of the ozone layer will require a continued global commitment and a 

sustained level of scientific research, monitoring and vigilance; 

7. Recognize the extraordinary accomplishments and services provided to the Parties by 

the Montreal Protocol’s supporting institutions and the importance of their continued role; 

8. Recognize the importance of accelerating the recovery of the ozone layer in a way that 

also addresses other environmental issues, notably climate change; 

9. Recognize the opportunity for cooperation between the Montreal Protocol and other 

relevant international bodies and agreements to enhance human and environmental protection. 

________________